15.08.2013 Views

(Redacted) - Responses 105 to 130 - Law Commission

(Redacted) - Responses 105 to 130 - Law Commission

(Redacted) - Responses 105 to 130 - Law Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Consultation response 107 of <strong>130</strong><br />

10.16 We ask consultees:<br />

(1) whether the ability of landowners and occupiers <strong>to</strong> prevent Code Opera<strong>to</strong>rs from<br />

sharing their apparatus causes difficulties in practice;<br />

(2) whether Code Opera<strong>to</strong>rs should benefit from a general right <strong>to</strong> share their apparatus<br />

with another (so that a contractual term restricting that right would be void); and/or<br />

(3) whether any additional payment should be made by a Code Opera<strong>to</strong>r <strong>to</strong> a landowner<br />

and/or occupier when it shares its apparatus.<br />

9<br />

Consultation Paper, Part 3, paragraph 3.83.<br />

(1)We have seen no evidence that the ability <strong>to</strong> control sharing has caused difficulties <strong>to</strong> do so in<br />

practice. We reiterate the point made in response <strong>to</strong> paragraph 10.9, point 3 above that the roll<br />

out of wireless cell sites in the UK has been very effective and it is widely acknowledged that the<br />

UK has the most comprehensive level of wireless infrastructure in Europe.<br />

In our combined 20 years of experience in this sec<strong>to</strong>r, we are unaware of any examples of<br />

landowners wishing <strong>to</strong> prevent sharing for the sake of it or in return for a ransom payment.<br />

Landowners are very willing <strong>to</strong> facilitate sharing provided that the terms of existing written<br />

agreements are honoured and, where appropriate, increases in rent are paid in accordance with<br />

settled market comparables. The requirement <strong>to</strong> comply with freely negotiated agreements<br />

should not be classed as a “difficulty” experienced by Opera<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> share apparatus. We are<br />

aware that companies such as WIG, Shere and Arqiva that specialise in the provision of site<br />

infrastructure <strong>to</strong> wireless opera<strong>to</strong>rs (and therefore assist in the provision of wireless services <strong>to</strong><br />

the UK in a very real and measurable way) have concluded multi site agreements with H3G and<br />

Everything Everywhere Limited <strong>to</strong> allow sharing. They did not discourage sharing, but positively<br />

encouraged it <strong>to</strong> support their income streams. There is no evidence of a wireless cell site<br />

deployment issue, so there is no need <strong>to</strong> legislate on the issue.<br />

(2) and (3) There should not be a general right <strong>to</strong> share apparatus and there should be the ability<br />

<strong>to</strong> require additional payment when sharing occurs. Companies such as WIG, Shere and Arqiva<br />

invest capital <strong>to</strong> provide site infrastructure which assists in the provision of a wireless system<br />

within the UK. Their ability <strong>to</strong> obtain a return on their investment depends on their ability <strong>to</strong><br />

control access <strong>to</strong> their infrastructure by Opera<strong>to</strong>rs in return for additional consideration. If the<br />

ability <strong>to</strong> obtain that consideration was adversely affected, it would have a significantly detrimental<br />

effect on the number of sites being made available for wireless Opera<strong>to</strong>rs and therefore adversely<br />

prejudice the Government’s aim <strong>to</strong> improve broadband connectivity.<br />

There is also a separate issue relating <strong>to</strong> the right <strong>to</strong> share apparatus installed on land with no<br />

additional payment made <strong>to</strong> the landowner. WIG, Shere and Arqiva each own <strong>to</strong>wers themselves<br />

upon which Opera<strong>to</strong>rs erect apparatus. Under the existing Code, those <strong>to</strong>wers are classed as<br />

apparatus and, due <strong>to</strong> their degree of annexation (simply being bolted <strong>to</strong> the ground) they<br />

arguably would not form part of the land. Indeed, the multi million pound joint venture company<br />

currently being set up between Telefonica and Vodafone (called Corners<strong>to</strong>ne Technology<br />

Infrastructure Limited) is proceeding on the basis that just the <strong>to</strong>wers alone are apparatus<br />

protected by the Code, and do not form part of the land. We are informed by that company that<br />

they have been granted a licence by OFCOM which grants their <strong>to</strong>wers protection under the<br />

Code. To be clear, that company will not own the transmitting apparatus itself – that will be<br />

retained by Vodafone and Telefonica. Using the same model, there is no reason why WIG, Shere<br />

and Arqiva could not do the same. They could obtain Code protection for their own network of<br />

<strong>to</strong>wers and as they would not form part of the land, the Opera<strong>to</strong>rs would not obtain a right under<br />

3528814-2-Electronic Communications Code - Shoosmiths Response Form<br />

Page 1389 of 1868

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!