Mailing List Archive

Fiber in a building adds 8% to the value of that building. Half-penny pinching “mah powah” landlords are especially annoying in a cosmic sense - and just make me want to replace them.

The telecommunications act of 1934 permits telcos to enter a building with their equipment.

I’d upgrade the MPOE do a datacenter with 2N generators and UPS - then upsell them colo.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
lb@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 9:28 AM, jray06@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ?
> A few of the buildings that my firm represents have the local telco’s fiber distribution and/or repeater equipment located on the premises. My understanding is that when one of these links go down, (we’ve occasionally had to interrupt circuit power to do maintenance in a building for one reason or another), a local engineering tech always comes running to restore the link. The tech has led our maintenance staff to believe that these repeaters are an integral part of the local ring, which fits my understanding.
>
> When a network operator has equipment located at a third party premises, what is the norm for commercial contractual terms regarding the siting of that equipment? Any network equipment on site pre-dates my client’s ownership of the buildings, and they have no record of any agreements or easements governing who is responsible for power, maintenance, liability, etc.
>
> My client has no philosophical objection to having the equipment on site, but he’s asked why he has had to pay to power and cool this equipment for almost 20 years when it serves him no benefit (he is not utilizing that company’s services). I figure some of you may be able to give me an insight as to what is normal and reasonable. Feel free to contact me directly if this message is not suitable for this distribution list.
>
> Appreciate the insight,
>
>
> Jeff Ray
> O: (956) 542-3642
> C: (956) 592-2019
> JRay06@gmail.com
>
>
> This message has been sent as a part of a discussion between Jeff Ray and the intended recipient identified above. Some topics may be sensitive and subject to legal privilege, confidentiality, or other non-disclosure agreement. Should you receive this message by mistake, we would be most grateful if you informed us that the message has been sent to you. In that case, we also ask that you delete this message from your mailbox, and do not forward or speak of it (or its contents) to anyone else. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
>

It gives them the right to enter the building, but the building can charge “a reasonable fee” for things like power/space/cooling.

Shane Ronan

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:45 PM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <lb@6by7.net> wrote:
>
> ?Fiber in a building adds 8% to the value of that building. Half-penny pinching “mah powah” landlords are especially annoying in a cosmic sense - and just make me want to replace them.
>
> The telecommunications act of 1934 permits telcos to enter a building with their equipment.
>
> I’d upgrade the MPOE do a datacenter with 2N generators and UPS - then upsell them colo.
>
> Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
> CEO
> lb@6by7.net
> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”
>
> FCC License KJ6FJJ
>
> Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.
>
>>> On Sep 22, 2021, at 9:28 AM, jray06@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>> ?
>> A few of the buildings that my firm represents have the local telco’s fiber distribution and/or repeater equipment located on the premises. My understanding is that when one of these links go down, (we’ve occasionally had to interrupt circuit power to do maintenance in a building for one reason or another), a local engineering tech always comes running to restore the link. The tech has led our maintenance staff to believe that these repeaters are an integral part of the local ring, which fits my understanding.
>>
>> When a network operator has equipment located at a third party premises, what is the norm for commercial contractual terms regarding the siting of that equipment? Any network equipment on site pre-dates my client’s ownership of the buildings, and they have no record of any agreements or easements governing who is responsible for power, maintenance, liability, etc.
>>
>> My client has no philosophical objection to having the equipment on site, but he’s asked why he has had to pay to power and cool this equipment for almost 20 years when it serves him no benefit (he is not utilizing that company’s services). I figure some of you may be able to give me an insight as to what is normal and reasonable. Feel free to contact me directly if this message is not suitable for this distribution list.
>>
>> Appreciate the insight,
>>
>>
>> Jeff Ray
>> O: (956) 542-3642
>> C: (956) 592-2019
>> JRay06@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> This message has been sent as a part of a discussion between Jeff Ray and the intended recipient identified above. Some topics may be sensitive and subject to legal privilege, confidentiality, or other non-disclosure agreement. Should you receive this message by mistake, we would be most grateful if you informed us that the message has been sent to you. In that case, we also ask that you delete this message from your mailbox, and do not forward or speak of it (or its contents) to anyone else. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
>>

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM <jray06@gmail.com> wrote:
> A few of the buildings that my firm represents have the local telco’s fiber distribution and/or repeater equipment located on the premises. My understanding is that when one of these links go down, (we’ve occasionally had to interrupt circuit power to do maintenance in a building for one reason or another), a local engineering tech always comes running to restore the link. The tech has led our maintenance staff to believe that these repeaters are an integral part of the local ring, which fits my understanding.
>
> When a network operator has equipment located at a third party premises, what is the norm for commercial contractual terms regarding the siting of that equipment? Any network equipment on site pre-dates my client’s ownership of the buildings, and they have no record of any agreements or easements governing who is responsible for power, maintenance, liability, etc.
>
> My client has no philosophical objection to having the equipment on site, but he’s asked why he has had to pay to power and cool this equipment for almost 20 years when it serves him no benefit (he is not utilizing that company’s services). I figure some of you may be able to give me an insight as to what is normal and reasonable. Feel free to contact me directly if this message is not suitable for this distribution list.


The equipment is generally there at the invitation of someone who has
purchased services from the operator with the typically verbal
permission of the building owner. It will be removed more or less
promptly on demand, but.... you don't want to do that. When you or a
tenant want to buy their services, getting them to bring the equipment
in is difficult and generally not timely. And having previously
hassled them, it would certainly not come without cost.

The immediate availability of services from the vendor positively
impacts the utility of the whole building. This is a plus for you at
the relatively modest cost of providing some electricity.

The equipment should be battery backed with at least a day's worth of
power. If it isn't, tell them you're doing renovations and can't
guarantee uninterrupted power. Advise them to upgrade or replace the
battery string. What they do beyond that is up to them.

The equipment is likely part of the local ring but if they permanently
remove it, they'll simply splice the fiber removing that stop on the
ring. So it isn't a huge deal to remove it, but it'll be a big deal to
ever put it back. Even if you pay them.

The above primarily applies to the local telephone company equipment.
There are also non-phone company network operators who site things
which are intended to service the surrounding area rather than the
building itself. Those typically have a more formal agreement, either
a rent payment or comped services. The company will be able to produce
that agreement (or at least relate its terms) upon request.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin
bill@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

The building owner has no obligation to the provider.? If it provides no
value, call them and tell them to remove the equipment if you don't want
it in your building.

Aaron


On 9/22/2021 11:23 AM, jray06@gmail.com wrote:
>
> A few of the buildings that my firm represents have the local telco?s
> fiber distribution and/or repeater equipment located on the premises.
> My understanding is that when one of these links go down, (we?ve
> occasionally had to interrupt circuit power to do maintenance in a
> building for one reason or another), a local engineering tech always
> comes running to restore the link. The tech has led our maintenance
> staff to believe that these repeaters are an integral part of the
> local ring, which fits my understanding.
>
> When a network operator has equipment located at a third party
> premises, what is the norm for commercial contractual terms regarding
> the siting of that equipment? Any network equipment on site pre-dates
> my client?s ownership of the buildings, and they have no record of any
> agreements or easements governing who is responsible for power,
> maintenance, liability, etc.
>
> My client has no philosophical objection to having the equipment on
> site, but he?s asked why he has had to pay to power and cool this
> equipment for almost 20 years when it serves him no benefit (he is not
> utilizing that company?s services). I figure some of you may be able
> to give me an insight as to what is normal and reasonable. Feel free
> to contact me directly if this message is not suitable for this
> distribution list.
>
> Appreciate the insight,
>
> *Jeff Ray*
>
> O:? (956) 542-3642
>
> C:? (956) 592-2019
>
> JRay06@gmail.com
>
> This message has been sent as a part of a discussion between Jeff Ray
> and the intended recipient identified above. Some topics may be
> sensitive and subject to legal privilege, confidentiality, or other
> non-disclosure agreement. Should you receive this message by mistake,
> we would be most grateful if you informed us that the message has been
> sent to you. In that case, we also ask that you delete this message
> from your mailbox, and do not forward or speak of it (or its contents)
> to anyone else. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
>

--
================================================================
Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
================================================================

On 9/22/21 10:45 AM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
> Half-penny pinching “mah powah” landlords are especially annoying in a
> cosmic sense

I know someone who had a bit of a different experience.

Someone, purportedly the telco but I'm not sure who, had telco equipment
in a building and the batteries hadn't been serviced in the better part
of a decade and there was a strong smell of battery acid in the room.

I heard that building management put a hard line of something like 36
hours for the equipment owner to address the problem, or at least
respond with an acceptable time line, lest the building electrician
would remove the batteries as a health and safety concern.

The equipment owner materialized and removed the batteries within 72
hours. The bulk of the equipment was removed the following month.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

This one is always a bit tricky.

For example, if you have an apartment building with say 8 apartments, the provider can install a larger MDU in a centralized location and potentially utilized existing internal cabling in the building to get to each apartment that would like service. It's a fairly quick and easy install. Though someone (building owner usually) has to provide the power for the MDU.

In the same building, if you cannot install a large MDU somewhere, the provider needs to figure out how to get a fiber to each apartment that wants service. In most cases it's a pain. In others, it's not possible or prohibitively expensive. The customer doesn't want to pay that much for installation, because they only rent an apartment and could move out at any time. The building owner doesn't want to pay it either.

In most cases, the owner is willing to provide a little power to be able to say "apartments in my building all have fiber Internet". And potentially charge a little more in the rent.

Shawn


-----Original Message-----
From: "Grant Taylor via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:01pm
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Fiber Network Equipment Commercial Norms



On 9/22/21 10:45 AM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
> Half-penny pinching “mah powah” landlords are especially annoying in a
> cosmic sense

I know someone who had a bit of a different experience.

Someone, purportedly the telco but I'm not sure who, had telco equipment
in a building and the batteries hadn't been serviced in the better part
of a decade and there was a strong smell of battery acid in the room.

I heard that building management put a hard line of something like 36
hours for the equipment owner to address the problem, or at least
respond with an acceptable time line, lest the building electrician
would remove the batteries as a health and safety concern.

The equipment owner materialized and removed the batteries within 72
hours. The bulk of the equipment was removed the following month.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

If they're regularly sending people out to maintain the gear, and saying
it's part of a "ring" that means it's probably part of their
infrastructure and not just a local customer edge device for the building.
If you opt to bill them and they decide to pull out, they're still "on-net"
meaning at any point in the future if someone adds their services at the
building, they can re-install gear or just deliver it directly over the
fiber; they're not gone permanently.

I see this a pretty much a mathematical cost equation for the billing:

Have an electrician come out and perform a power audit on the circuit
you're using. It'll cost you $300-ish and you'll have a baseline number you
can use for billing.
The electrician will give you a wattage for the rack, and it's
non-intrusive so they don't have to shut everything off. It's up to you if
you want to notify the telco or not, but it would be courteous to do so.

Multiply that wattage by 0.001 (convert to KW) times 24 (hours per day)
then by 30.5 (days per month).
Now you have their monthly KWh usage, which is what your electric bill
uses. Divide out their proportion of the total KWh on your monthly electric
bill.
Then, multiply that figure by 1.5 to account for cooling costs being
roughly half of the rack's load (assuming a 1.5 PUE, which is high, but not
unreasonably so for billing purposes)
Next, take your standard price per square foot rate and multiply that by 6
per rack of equipment they have to account for their physical footprint in
the building. This is not necessarily needed depending on how generous
you're feeling, as footprint in an MDF doesn't particularly "cost" you
anything unless space there is tight.
Finally, average out the number of dispatches they do per month and what
that costs you to pay someone to escort them. Figure 2x the person's wage
to account for possible overtime and administrative overhead.

IMO this is an incredibly fair way to go about this. You're essentially
billing them power/cooling at rough cost and charging them what you'd
charge anyone else for presence in the building.
You're right, you shouldn't have to pay for their electricity, especially
if neither your client, nor any tenants are using them as a service
provider.
Take this opportunity to codify their use of the space in writing, citing
that they're guaranteed that space for X number of years with this
agreement. Make sure there's a provision where the power piece of the bill
can be adjusted if they add or remove equipment.

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:05 AM Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
wrote:

> On 9/22/21 10:45 AM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
> > Half-penny pinching “mah powah” landlords are especially annoying in a
> > cosmic sense
>
> I know someone who had a bit of a different experience.
>
> Someone, purportedly the telco but I'm not sure who, had telco equipment
> in a building and the batteries hadn't been serviced in the better part
> of a decade and there was a strong smell of battery acid in the room.
>
> I heard that building management put a hard line of something like 36
> hours for the equipment owner to address the problem, or at least
> respond with an acceptable time line, lest the building electrician
> would remove the batteries as a health and safety concern.
>
> The equipment owner materialized and removed the batteries within 72
> hours. The bulk of the equipment was removed the following month.
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
>
>

--
Matt Erculiani
ERCUL-ARIN

Everything is negotiable. The building owner/representative can negotiate
with the telco any terms they wish.


On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 9:30 AM <jray06@gmail.com> wrote:

> A few of the buildings that my firm represents have the local telco’s
> fiber distribution and/or repeater equipment located on the premises. My
> understanding is that when one of these links go down, (we’ve occasionally
> had to interrupt circuit power to do maintenance in a building for one
> reason or another), a local engineering tech always comes running to
> restore the link. The tech has led our maintenance staff to believe that
> these repeaters are an integral part of the local ring, which fits my
> understanding.
>
>
>
> When a network operator has equipment located at a third party premises,
> what is the norm for commercial contractual terms regarding the siting of
> that equipment? Any network equipment on site pre-dates my client’s
> ownership of the buildings, and they have no record of any agreements or
> easements governing who is responsible for power, maintenance, liability,
> etc.
>
>
>
> My client has no philosophical objection to having the equipment on site,
> but he’s asked why he has had to pay to power and cool this equipment for
> almost 20 years when it serves him no benefit (he is not utilizing that
> company’s services). I figure some of you may be able to give me an insight
> as to what is normal and reasonable. Feel free to contact me directly if
> this message is not suitable for this distribution list.
>
>
>
> Appreciate the insight,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jeff Ray*
>
> O: (956) 542-3642
>
> C: (956) 592-2019
>
> JRay06@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> This message has been sent as a part of a discussion between Jeff Ray and
> the intended recipient identified above. Some topics may be sensitive and
> subject to legal privilege, confidentiality, or other non-disclosure
> agreement. Should you receive this message by mistake, we would be most
> grateful if you informed us that the message has been sent to you. In that
> case, we also ask that you delete this message from your mailbox, and do
> not forward or speak of it (or its contents) to anyone else. Thank you for
> your cooperation and understanding.
>
>
>

Forgive the top post...

This issue /can/ be complicated, but I have some direct
experience with a lot of variations on this.

It sounds like this particular situation might involve
equipment that is part of a Metro ring. This is pretty nice because it
might mean there is redundancy to the building and that a high quality
service is available to the tennants. Years ago we started doing
installations like this, and their uniqueness in the market made them a
bit difficult to explain. Also, it is possible to currently have no
tennants in your building using the service, but the equipment there
might still be integral to the overall Metro ring. This is usually not
a problem since excellent Internet service is a great amenity to a
commercial rental property and these locations usually provide
facilities and power for other comm equipment. We also often have
emergency off-hours access.
The lack of an agreement might be a sticking point. We worked
with a couple of the largest commercial property management companies
in our area to craft an entrance agreement that included a provision
for the equipment being on-site even if it was not currently providing
service to an existing tennant. The equipment can still be removed,
but we require a few months notice to do it properly in order to avoid
service degradations. This has /so far/ not been an issue as the amenity
is valued.

In the case of other shared equipment such as for MDUs or,
voice, etc... (long list of possibilities) lack of a current tennant
using them usually means their uptime is less important, and agreements
for placement are rare in my experience (some facilities are required
for occupancy).

Shared outdoor ONTs for duplex or quadplex townhomes is an
interesting case as you need to think about whose power is lighting the
ONT. Providing fiber drops for every possible tennant could change the
ROI enough that we avoid it (YMMV). The solution (for us) is often to
use dual-feed UPS setups. What you are trying to avoid is one tennant
cutting service for others, or one tennant paying to power someone
else's service when they don't use it. In some cases access to
facility power (for lighting and/or irrigation) that is independent of
any tennant power can be negotiated.
The power issue also comes up a occasionally in multi-tennant
buildings, especially if they weren't designed to be multi-tennant when
built.

We also have some situations where shared equipment is passive,
which is nice, but not always feasible with fiber.

--TimH

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:23:25 -0500
<jray06@gmail.com> wrote:

> A few of the buildings that my firm represents have the local telco's fiber
> distribution and/or repeater equipment located on the premises. My
> understanding is that when one of these links go down, (we've occasionally
> had to interrupt circuit power to do maintenance in a building for one
> reason or another), a local engineering tech always comes running to restore
> the link. The tech has led our maintenance staff to believe that these
> repeaters are an integral part of the local ring, which fits my
> understanding.
>
>
>
> When a network operator has equipment located at a third party premises,
> what is the norm for commercial contractual terms regarding the siting of
> that equipment? Any network equipment on site pre-dates my client's
> ownership of the buildings, and they have no record of any agreements or
> easements governing who is responsible for power, maintenance, liability,
> etc.
>
>
>
> My client has no philosophical objection to having the equipment on site,
> but he's asked why he has had to pay to power and cool this equipment for
> almost 20 years when it serves him no benefit (he is not utilizing that
> company's services). I figure some of you may be able to give me an insight
> as to what is normal and reasonable. Feel free to contact me directly if
> this message is not suitable for this distribution list.
>
>
>
> Appreciate the insight,
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff Ray
>
> O: (956) 542-3642
>
> C: (956) 592-2019
>
> JRay06@gmail.com

Appreciate everyone’s comments here. Lots of good responses. I think the client isn’t really looking to squeeze the equipment owner here, more so just looking for a formal agreement that codifies responsibility, insurance, points of contact for notifications, etc… (the leaking battery example is a great example here).



Tim has a good point, based on what I know about the building, I believe it to be part of a metro ring or backbone. This isn’t an MDU, but rather an institutional building where they previously brought in 4” cables full of twisted pair back in the 70’s. That’s all been replaced by the fiber now.



Whatever it is, the owner comes running when the local maintenance apprentice unplugs it…. He tells me they show up within 30-45 minutes.



Thanks for everyone’s insight!



Thanks,



Jeff Ray

956-592-2019

JRay06@gmail.com <mailto:JRay06@gmail.com>

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:47:32 -0500
<jray06@gmail.com> wrote:

> Whatever it is, the owner comes running when the local maintenance
> apprentice unplugs it…. He tells me they show up within 30-45 minutes.

We've attempted to address this problem by having plastic tags
on the power cords that basically say "don't unplug me!". I call them
"no no tags". They were about $1.25 per to have them printed; they are
about 7 x 3 inches. I think our only issue has been an "IT Guy" who
thought unplugging everything in the room would be a good first step to
solving his unrelated network problems.

--TimH

Those, as well as cable and label tags with the NOC nunber, are worth their weight in gold to be honest.

Almost any telco should give you a Right of Entry agreement that codified things like insurance, etc. It’s “our gear” so of course we are responsible for it, but you should codify it in an agreement

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
lb@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 3:33 PM, Tim Howe <tim.h@bendtel.com> wrote:
>
> ?On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:47:32 -0500
> <jray06@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Whatever it is, the owner comes running when the local maintenance
>> apprentice unplugs it…. He tells me they show up within 30-45 minutes.
>
> We've attempted to address this problem by having plastic tags
> on the power cords that basically say "don't unplug me!". I call them
> "no no tags". They were about $1.25 per to have them printed; they are
> about 7 x 3 inches. I think our only issue has been an "IT Guy" who
> thought unplugging everything in the room would be a good first step to
> solving his unrelated network problems.
>
> --TimH

On 23/9/21 3:01 am, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
> On 9/22/21 10:45 AM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
>> Half-penny pinching “mah powah” landlords are especially annoying in a
>> cosmic sense
>
> I know someone who had a bit of a different experience.
>
> Someone, purportedly the telco but I'm not sure who, had telco equipment
> in a building and the batteries hadn't been serviced in the better part
> of a decade and there was a strong smell of battery acid in the room.
>
> I heard that building management put a hard line of something like 36
> hours for the equipment owner to address the problem, or at least
> respond with an acceptable time line, lest the building electrician
> would remove the batteries as a health and safety concern.
>
> The equipment owner materialized and removed the batteries within 72
> hours.  The bulk of the equipment was removed the following month.

Potential acid leaks are nothing to sneeze at. Maybe two years ago we
were doing an audit to see if we could find where all the analog phone
lines we were paying for in a building were. As part of this was some
waiting around in the MDF room while one of my coworkers dug through
patch logs. I noticed what looked near certain to be internal battery
acid leakage within one of the telco racks in the room, called the telco
on their infrastructure faults line (outsourced to a foreign country of
course, but still), and *within an hour* had a tech outside the building.

A friend of mine has also had success pointing out (to the same normally
recalcitrant telco) that the building was being demolished, and their
equipment was going whether they liked it or not, which solved a then
months-ongoing problem.

Yes that’s correct, however the definition of “reasonable” appears to have been decided to be “what they charge the other carriers, if anything”

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
lb@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 9:53 AM, sronan@ronan-online.com wrote:
>
> ?It gives them the right to enter the building, but the building can charge “a reasonable fee” for things like power/space/cooling.
>
> Shane Ronan
>
>>> On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:45 PM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <lb@6by7.net> wrote:
>>>
>> ?Fiber in a building adds 8% to the value of that building. Half-penny pinching “mah powah” landlords are especially annoying in a cosmic sense - and just make me want to replace them.
>>
>> The telecommunications act of 1934 permits telcos to enter a building with their equipment.
>>
>> I’d upgrade the MPOE do a datacenter with 2N generators and UPS - then upsell them colo.
>>
>> Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
>> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
>> CEO
>> lb@6by7.net
>> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”
>>
>> FCC License KJ6FJJ
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.
>>
>>>> On Sep 22, 2021, at 9:28 AM, jray06@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>> ?
>>> A few of the buildings that my firm represents have the local telco’s fiber distribution and/or repeater equipment located on the premises. My understanding is that when one of these links go down, (we’ve occasionally had to interrupt circuit power to do maintenance in a building for one reason or another), a local engineering tech always comes running to restore the link. The tech has led our maintenance staff to believe that these repeaters are an integral part of the local ring, which fits my understanding.
>>>
>>> When a network operator has equipment located at a third party premises, what is the norm for commercial contractual terms regarding the siting of that equipment? Any network equipment on site pre-dates my client’s ownership of the buildings, and they have no record of any agreements or easements governing who is responsible for power, maintenance, liability, etc.
>>>
>>> My client has no philosophical objection to having the equipment on site, but he’s asked why he has had to pay to power and cool this equipment for almost 20 years when it serves him no benefit (he is not utilizing that company’s services). I figure some of you may be able to give me an insight as to what is normal and reasonable. Feel free to contact me directly if this message is not suitable for this distribution list.
>>>
>>> Appreciate the insight,
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff Ray
>>> O: (956) 542-3642
>>> C: (956) 592-2019
>>> JRay06@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> This message has been sent as a part of a discussion between Jeff Ray and the intended recipient identified above. Some topics may be sensitive and subject to legal privilege, confidentiality, or other non-disclosure agreement. Should you receive this message by mistake, we would be most grateful if you informed us that the message has been sent to you. In that case, we also ask that you delete this message from your mailbox, and do not forward or speak of it (or its contents) to anyone else. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
>>>

If someone were to make us remove a redundant DWDM node, we’d charge them list price to ever consider putting it back*, plus a deposit, plus our costs for the removal in the first place. Bad move. Enjoy the $8million, it could cost more than that to undo this mistake.

*you’d actually never ever get it back in the form you’d want. We’ll never trust the site again and won’t place critical infrastructure there, we’d only build back what’s needed to serve the use.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
lb@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 9:58 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> ?On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM <jray06@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A few of the buildings that my firm represents have the local telco’s fiber distribution and/or repeater equipment located on the premises. My understanding is that when one of these links go down, (we’ve occasionally had to interrupt circuit power to do maintenance in a building for one reason or another), a local engineering tech always comes running to restore the link. The tech has led our maintenance staff to believe that these repeaters are an integral part of the local ring, which fits my understanding.
>>
>> When a network operator has equipment located at a third party premises, what is the norm for commercial contractual terms regarding the siting of that equipment? Any network equipment on site pre-dates my client’s ownership of the buildings, and they have no record of any agreements or easements governing who is responsible for power, maintenance, liability, etc.
>>
>> My client has no philosophical objection to having the equipment on site, but he’s asked why he has had to pay to power and cool this equipment for almost 20 years when it serves him no benefit (he is not utilizing that company’s services). I figure some of you may be able to give me an insight as to what is normal and reasonable. Feel free to contact me directly if this message is not suitable for this distribution list.
>
>
> The equipment is generally there at the invitation of someone who has
> purchased services from the operator with the typically verbal
> permission of the building owner. It will be removed more or less
> promptly on demand, but.... you don't want to do that. When you or a
> tenant want to buy their services, getting them to bring the equipment
> in is difficult and generally not timely. And having previously
> hassled them, it would certainly not come without cost.
>
> The immediate availability of services from the vendor positively
> impacts the utility of the whole building. This is a plus for you at
> the relatively modest cost of providing some electricity.
>
> The equipment should be battery backed with at least a day's worth of
> power. If it isn't, tell them you're doing renovations and can't
> guarantee uninterrupted power. Advise them to upgrade or replace the
> battery string. What they do beyond that is up to them.
>
> The equipment is likely part of the local ring but if they permanently
> remove it, they'll simply splice the fiber removing that stop on the
> ring. So it isn't a huge deal to remove it, but it'll be a big deal to
> ever put it back. Even if you pay them.
>
> The above primarily applies to the local telephone company equipment.
> There are also non-phone company network operators who site things
> which are intended to service the surrounding area rather than the
> building itself. Those typically have a more formal agreement, either
> a rent payment or comped services. The company will be able to produce
> that agreement (or at least relate its terms) upon request.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/

On 9/22/21 6:12 PM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
> If someone were to make us remove a redundant DWDM node, we’d charge them list price to ever consider putting it back*, plus a deposit, plus our costs for the removal in the first place. Bad move. Enjoy the $8million, it could cost more than that to undo this mistake.
>
> *you’d actually never ever get it back in the form you’d want. We’ll never trust the site again and won’t place critical infrastructure there, we’d only build back what’s needed to serve the use.



Buy the building then. Owners change and some are more friendly than
others. Why would someone ever place critical infrastructure at a site
without a solid agreement that prohibits removal, or at least making
them whole financially so they don't have to take it out on the next
person that comes along? I'd hate to be the poor customer that gets
treated as lesser class because a previous owner caused hurt feelings.

Honestly good call and we’re looking at raising funds to do exactly that - however some of these buildings have values near a billion dollars each and there is more money in commercial real estate than telecom.

In my experience these things tend to crop-up with ownership of the building being a lot newer than the telco’s presence. at $dayjob I’ve seen it personally - "MPOE access denied, you don’t have an agreement with the RMC” then we produce an agreement (with us) that pre-dates the RMC’s agreement. We can find the docs, but not every telco has every document from generations ago in some cases.

I’ve found in almost every business, there is a much greater efficiency presumed than realized. Since I was a child I’ve felt that automation could fix this.

—L.B.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
lb@6by7.net <mailto:lb@6by7.net>
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”
FCC License KJ6FJJ



> On Sep 22, 2021, at 8:49 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
>
> On 9/22/21 6:12 PM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
>> If someone were to make us remove a redundant DWDM node, we’d charge them list price to ever consider putting it back*, plus a deposit, plus our costs for the removal in the first place. Bad move. Enjoy the $8million, it could cost more than that to undo this mistake.
>> *you’d actually never ever get it back in the form you’d want. We’ll never trust the site again and won’t place critical infrastructure there, we’d only build back what’s needed to serve the use.
>
>
>
> Buy the building then. Owners change and some are more friendly than others. Why would someone ever place critical infrastructure at a site without a solid agreement that prohibits removal, or at least making them whole financially so they don't have to take it out on the next person that comes along? I'd hate to be the poor customer that gets treated as lesser class because a previous owner caused hurt feelings.