Oliver Radley-Gardner
WHOSE LINE IS IT ANYWAY?
- telecommunications operators
and their mast-sharing arrangements
by
Oliver Radley-Gardner
Falcon Chambers
Oliver Radley-Gardner is a barrister at Falcon Chambers, and covers all areas of
property and landlord and tenant law. His recent cases include Spencer v Taylor, about
notices and assured shorthold tenancies. He is also often instructed in cases with a
telecoms flavour, whether in relation to proceedings brought under the Electronic
Communications Code, or lease renewal proceedings. He was junior counsel in
Bridgewater Canal Co Ltd v GEO Networks, the most recent of the handful of reported
cases which engages with the Code in any detail. He is the co-author of the first edition
of a new textbook (produced with other colleagues in Chambers), Residential and
Commercial Service Charges, the co-author of the second edition of Adverse
Possession (with Stephen Jourdan QC), and a contributor to Fisher and Lightwood's
Law of Mortgages. He will not be retiring on the royalties. He is ranked by Legal 500
and Chamber and Partners.
FALCON CHAMBERS
Falcon Court
London EC4Y 1AA
Tel:
Fax:
Email:
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
November 2014
020 7353 2484
020 7353 1261
[email protected]
!1
Oliver Radley-Gardner
Introduction
1.
Anyone who has watched television, or, for that matter, been outside, will know
that the telecommunications market is in a constantly evolving state.
2.
1
Operators are getting into bed with one another. Everything Everywhere (“EE”,
the one with the ads featuring Kevin Bacon) is a joint enterprise of T-Mobile and
Orange. We are increasingly seeing the use of jointly owned infrastructure
companies in which operators vest leases and hardware.
3.
2
Sharing is driven by business considerations, but is also encouraged by the
regulatory and planning framework in which operators operate. We can expect to
see more of it, and novel forms of it.
4.
All of this sharing has implications for us, as property lawyers, whether we are
negotiating leases for telecoms clients with one eye to the future of their
networks, or are on the other side of the fence, acting for private landowners
anxious to ensure that their income streams remain reasonably certain and clear
into the future. With increasing frequency, we are also litigating against each
other about potential breaches of lease terms, or about the meaning of leases
(and the need to modernise them) on renewals.
5.
The question is whether or not our lease precedents are keeping up with the
evolving technology and commercial realities of the telecommunications sector,
and whether we need to update or supplement familiar drafting concepts to
capture new ways in which land can be exploited economically.
1
3
A list is to be found at the OFCOM website: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/policy/electroniccomm-code/register-persons-power
2
3E.g. http://mbnl.co.uk/about-us/
A similar issue arose in the context of virtual assignments, in the Clarence House Ltd v National
Westminster Bank Plc decision [2009] EWHC 77 (QB), [2009] EWCA Civ 1131.
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
!2
November 2014
Oliver Radley-Gardner
Sharing – Why?
6.
Sharing has been back on the political menu recently. The Prime Ministerial
country holiday has twice been curtailed due to a lack of a reliable rural mobile
4
telephone signal. This has prompted new Government policy. Operators should,
it is suggested, make their infrastructure available to one another in poorlyserviced areas to patch the holes in network coverage. Understandably, the
operators have been rather unenthusiastic in their own reception.
7.
5
While one of course sympathises with the PM’s smartphone, there are other
reasons why sharing is regarded as beneficial. For operators, sharing can make
business sense, as it reduces capital expenditure on kit (which can be quite
high), operational costs (rent and maintenance costs), and legal and transaction
costs (fewer new leases or lease renewals).
8.
6
A reduced requirement for sites may also be welcomed by operators given that,
as the general market becomes increasingly aware of the implications of having
an operator with Electronic Communications Code (“ECC”) protection on site,
fewer landowners may be willing to accommodate them, particularly those who
want to keep their sites flexible for redevelopment. Further, local residents can
be strongly opposed to such masts on aesthetic grounds or for health reasons,
whether well-founded or not.
7
4
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-cancelled-summer-holiday-because-hecouldnt-get-any-signal-on-his-phone-9554660.html
5
6http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/september/telecoms-operators-reject-network-sharing-plans/
Some indication of the levels of savings to be made by sharing is given in an article from 2010 on
predicated savings arising out of the 3/T-Mobile sharing arrangements. It is notable that the sharing
arrangement was thought to be likely to result in a reduction of sites requires by 5,000, with targeted
costs savings of £2 billion over ten years: http://www.economistinsights.com/sites/default/files/A
%20network%20shared.PDF
7
They were not well-founded in Petursson&Anor v Hutchison 3g UK Ltd. [2005] EWHC 920 (TCC):
12. The claimants' evidence is that a pattern of symptoms emerged quickly after 7 August 2003.
They experienced a sense of disorientation, difficulties in concentration and keeping the mind
focussed. They also complained of mounting nausea and dizziness throughout the day, peaking
in the afternoon when, they believed, the traffic from the antennas was at its heaviest. Mr
Petursson's evidence is that, from the time when the apparatus became operational, he suffered
dizziness, a heavy pressure on his head and nausea. Mrs Ingvarsdottir's evidence is that, until
August 2003, she had been in excellent health with the exception of orthopaedic problems. From
7 August 2003, she began to experience headaches so violent that she lost concentration, had
trouble with her eyesight and was sensitive to light. She became nauseous during the day; this
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
!3
November 2014
Oliver Radley-Gardner
9.
Sharing is not just desirable, but positively encouraged. For planning authorities,
sharing reduces the number of unsightly masts. From a regulatory point of view,
sharing is also regarded favourably.
8
Sharing – How?
10.
In order to understand sharing, one needs to understand a little bit about how
networks work. A very useful summary of the component elements of a Mobile
Communications Network is to be found in the decision in Arqiva Ltd &Ors v
Everything Everywhere Ltd &Ors [2011] EWHC 1411 (TCC) (hereafter “Arqiva”),
at paragraphs [31] – [34]. Those paragraphs appear as an appendix to this
paper.
11.
Sharing may take a number of forms. Broadly speaking, the literature divides
sharing arrangements into “passive” and “active” sharing, but that division is not
watertight. Passive sharing is in effect concurrent but separate use of sites or
masts by operators. Active sharing entails integration of the networks at a
deeper, technological level, and there are many ways in which this can be done.
became particularly bad during the afternoon. She experienced violent headaches, loss of
appetite, nausea, sleeplessness, lack of concentration, bloodshot eyes, brown spots in her right
eye (the side facing the apparatus whilst she sat at her office desk) and a prickling sensation on
her skull which turned into a smarting sensation inside her head. She suffered badly from
sleepless nights. Mrs Ingvarsdottir says that, now that she has left 57 London Road, her
symptoms have largely disappeared.
13. The claimants believe that their cocker spaniel dog, Floppy, also suffered ill effects from the
emissions. They say that he demonstrated changes in behaviour with loss of appetite, waking in
the night and howling, going into hibernation mode and avoidance of some rooms in the property.
14. The claimants' case is that the apparatus has adversely affected their well-being and that of
visitors to 57 London Road. The onset of their health problems coincided with the commissioning
of the base station on 7 August 2003. Their evidence is that the symptoms they both experienced
began on 7 August 2003. They did not know until later that that was the date on which emissions
had begun. The defendant's case is that, by 20 June 2003 at the latest, the claimants believed
(erroneously as it turned out) that the base station had been commissioned and that emissions
had thus begun. They began to complain of the symptoms which they attribute to the emissions
before the emissions in fact began.
15.
8
See generally, Law Commission, The Electronic Communications Code (Law Com No. 336), pages 45
– 51, available at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc336_electronic_communications_code.pdf .
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
November 2014
!4
Oliver Radley-Gardner
12.
The below discussion is premised on the scenario of a site vested in one
operator under a lease (“the lessee-operator”). The lessee-operator then lets a
9
second operator (“the occupier-operator”) make some economic use of its site
without the express written consent of the landowner. At what point does such
economic use become a problem under alienation covenants? That is, in
litigation and advisory terms, where the problems tend to arise.
10
Passive Sharing
13.
In 2007, the Mobile Operators Association published a paper in which only mast11
sharing or so called co-location
12
were identified as modes of sharing. Both of
these forms of sharing have one thing in common. As already stated, the actual
network of each operator remains entirely distinct and separate both physically
and technically. All that is shared is either the site or the structure on which the
operator has placed its equipment. There is no additional level of technological
integration. It is a marriage of convenience and operators can have a quickie
divorce.
14.
Passive sharing can of course give rise to a number of potentially difficult factual
problems. We all know that, depending on the facts, X can be said to be in
occupation of land simply by having his “kit” there.
13
Has occupation been shared
between the tenant and X in such circumstances, particularly where X is
pursuing its own commercial interests? What is the nature of X’s interest as
sharer, and where does it arise from? How much control does X in fact have?
Those are all factual issues that one needs to grapple with in practice but that
are not suitable for this talk.
9
10A
loaded term, I know, given what follows.
Evidently, the arguments will be different if there is a letting to two operators jointly from the outset
(which is not a scenario I have come across), or a letting to an infrastructure co jointly owned by two or
more
operators (which is a modern phenomenon resulting from the setting up of telecoms joint ventures).
11
12 Meaning the use of one physical compound to locate two or more operators’ masts.
13http://www.mobilemastinfo.com/images/stories/documents/fact_sheets/site_sharing_b.pdf
E.g. Bradford (Valuation Officer) v Vtesse Networks Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1339 (rateable occupation
by
fibreLine
optic
Northern Electric PLC v Addison (1999) 77 P.&C.R. 168.
Who’s
is itcable);
Anyway?
!5
November 2014
Oliver Radley-Gardner
15.
A related issue is the use of infrastructure companies. There are corporate
vehicles which “own” in some shape of form the equipment, or even the lease to
the site, and which then make those assets available to operators to use.There
are of course issues about such companies, which may not be ECC operators
themselves. This may raise a number of issues, for instance about user
covenants, assignment and any contractual ownership conditions under a
particular agreement. That is a topic in itself, and I will leave it there for now.
16.
What is worth discussing more in relation to passive sharing (though the issues
can also become relevant for active sharing) is whether or not an occupieroperator, who is on site at the invitation of a lessee-operator, but without any
direct agreement with the landowner, has thereby acquired rights under ECC,
and, if so, against whom.
17.
It seems from one reading of ECC is that the answer is as follows:
a. Under paragraph 2(1) ECC, “the agreement in writing of the occupier for
the time being shall be required for conferring on the operator a right for
statutory purposes […]” to do the things paragraph 2 permits.
b. Any person with a superior interest (such as the lessee-operator’s
reversioner) is not bound unless he has “agreed in writing to be bound by
the right” (paragraph 2(2) ECC).
c. It seems to me to be unlikely that an alienation covenant pre-dating a siteshare, and which does not prohibit the sharing of occupation or
possession will be treated as an agreement by the holder of a superior
interest to be bound by any ECC right subsequently asserted to by the
occupier-operator.
d. On the other hand, it seems to me that where a licence to share is given
by a landlord pursuant to a request made under a qualified alienation
covenant, that licence might amount to a paragraph 2 agreement
(depending on the terms in which it is expressed). It would probably be
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
November 2014
!6
Oliver Radley-Gardner
harder to argue that a licence to make alterations to implement sharing
amounts to a paragraph 2 agreement by the landlord.
e. As far as the relationship between the lessee-operator and the occupieroperator is concerned, the latter would have a potential ECC right which is
binding on the lessee-operator (depending on the formality of the
arrangements between them, and the content of the rights conferred).
f. It would follow from the above analysis that the occupier-operator has no
ECC rights that it can invoke against the landowner, and on expiry or
termination of the lessee-operator’s contractual and ECC rights, the site
can be cleared without further trouble by the landowner.
18.
There remains a question mark, however. That question mark hangs over
paragraph 21. This is the notice procedure that entitles an occupier to require
that an operator remove their apparatus from land. The question mark arises as
follows:
a. It is generally accepted that an “entitlement to require removal” arises
when there is no longer any right for the operator to be on-site (i.e. the
licence or lease has terminated), that is, where there is a common law
14
right to possession.
b. It may be that the “entitlement” arises in wider situations than that, but this
is yet to be tested.
15
c. It therefore follows from a. that an operator who was originally lawfully on
site (under a paragraph 2 right or paragraph 5 dispensation binding the
owner) but subsequently remains on site without any such right (it having
expired, or been otherwise brought to an end) must be served with a
notice under paragraph 21. Such an operator is then entitled to serve a
14
This is the narrowest meaning that one can give to paragraph 21. If that is what paragraph 21 means,
however, then one might ask why it does not simply say so, rather than, instead, using the concept of an
“entitlement to require” removal.
15
For my part, it seems to me that a right to seek an injunction in accordance Crestfort Ltd. &Ors v Tesco
Stores Ltd &Anor [2005] EWHC 805 (Ch) would also do. Whether the ability to give a break notice, or
serve a hostile section 25 notice, amounts to an entitlement to require removal is a separate matter,
though given the operation of paragraph 21, and the “1954 Act conundrum” issue, there is in my view
much to be said for it. As ever, ECC is difficult to construe on this point.
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
!7
November 2014
Oliver Radley-Gardner
counter notice, and is then deemed to be on site lawfully if a counter
notice is then served (paragraph 21(9)).
16
d. What of third party occupier-operators who never had a right against the
owner of the site? Or, for that matter, an operator who is on site as
trespasser ab initio? Here there is some scope for debate:
i. There is nothing in paragraph 21 that limits the need to jump
through the paragraph 21 hoops to operators whose occupation
derives or originally derived from a paragraph 2 right or paragraph
5 dispensation. That might be taken to suggest that occupieroperators or even trespasser-occupiers must also be given such a
notice.
ii.
However, if that is so, then no notice could arguably be given to
them under paragraph 21 until the lessee-operator’s common law
and ECC rights have been determined. That seems to be an
unwieldy and unattractive way for ECC to operate, creating many
layers of delay.
iii. Perhaps the better analysis is therefore that paragraph 21 must be
seen as part of the “general scheme” under ECC, and that
paragraph 21 is only applicable to operators with an original right
under paragraph 2 or a dispensation under paragraph 5 against the
landowner, with occupier-operators having no rights at all.
iv. If that is so, on expiry of the lessee-operator’s rights, the occupieroperators are mere trespassers if they hang on, without any ECC
rights. That would give a sensible meaning to the extended binding
effect of paragraph 2 agreements under paragraph 2(2), and would
mean that a landowner is not prejudiced by a multiplicity of
operators to whose individual presence he has not agreed.
16
For the general operation of these sections, I recommend Wayne Clark’s Blundell Lecture thon the topic,
but also the Chapter on ECC in his and Kirk Reynolds QC’s Renewal of Business Leases, 4 ed, Chapter
16. This is the most full textbook treatment of ECC in the market.
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
November 2014
!8
Oliver Radley-Gardner
v. However, matters may not end there, as such an occupier-operator
could still serve a notice under paragraph 5 ECC to compulsorily
acquire the rights he needs, albeit subject to what may be quite
serious compensation requirements if that right, once conferred,
precludes an intended development (see paragraph 7 ECC).
19.
It may well be that the above concerns in relation to passive sharing need to be
considered and addressed, at least where development is potentially in prospect,
in lease drafting. It may well be that restrictions need to be placed not merely on
occupation or possession, but also on whose equipment (however small) may
be placed on site, by imposing an obligation on ownership of the equipment of
the tenant, and for provision to be made to cover the eventuality that an operator
other than the tenant asserts ECC rights.
20.
17
Even then, however, such drafting is only treating part of the problem. It has to
be remembered that ECC protects apparatus, if used in connection with the
provision of an electronic communication network. There is no additional
“ownership” condition. Therefore, an operator might have a right to protection
even though it has no proprietary interest in a given mast at all. As this problem
also arises in connection with active sharing as well, I consider it there (and the
matters considered above remain a concern under that heading too), however it
may also be that restrictions should address not merely the ownership of
apparatus, but also the network that is entitled to use it.
Active Sharing
21.
What about the other kind of sharing, which is so-called “active” sharing? This
term is used to describe a multiplicity of arrangements, which have in common
the fact that two operators’ networks are fully integrated with one another and
only split from one another at some subsequent stage. That integration may be
17
Bearing in mind the provisions of paragraph 27 ECC, restricting contracting out.
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
November 2014
!9
Oliver Radley-Gardner
purely technological and require no concurrent physical use of mast sites, or it
may involve a degree of concurrent physical use (and may therefore straddle the
neat active/passive divide).
22.
I will consider three possibilities (technical experts who know about electronic
communications systems should look away now).
23.
One possibility is “RAN” sharing. This is the most comprehensive form of access
sharing and might involve the sharing of antennae, masts and so-called
“backhaul equipment”. The network equipment is fully integrated, though each
operator keeps its distinct, allocated spectrum, though the network splits into
distinct operator networks at the “core”. The idea behind this kind of sharing is,
therefore, that two operators are operating from the same mast sites (and also
sharing other equipment before splitting into their distinct networks at a later
stage) at once. Whilst RAN sharing can entail (I am told) the presence of more
than one operator’s kit on site,
18
in fact the physical use made by the sharer
operator of the site can be very limited indeed. In RAN sharing situations, the
sharer’s principal footprint is electromagnetic, and not physical. The sharing
manifests itself in the fact that the sharer’s own spectrum allocation can be
identified as coming from the mast as well as the tenant-operators’ spectrum.
24.
A slightly separate, but related, form of concurrent sharing arises from so-called
19
“Mobile Virtual Network Operators” (“MVNOs”). MVNOs are companies that do
not, in fact, have their own spectrum allocated to them. Instead, they absorb and
make use of surplus spectrum given to MNOs. This means that a mast leased by
an MNO could host not just that MNO, but also any number of MVNOs operating
their own businesses but using the MNO’s excess capacity.
20
The point here is
that there may be nothing at all, electronic or physical, to betray the presence of
an MVNO.
18
Particularly where sharing has not been happening from the beginning. The position might be different
where
the site has been designed with such a capability in mind from the outset.
19
http://www.mvnodynamics.com/mvno-companies/eu-mvno-companies/uk-mvno-companies/. MNOs on
the other hand are operators with an allocated spectrum.
20
http://www.mobile-virtual-network.com/p/mvno-explained.html
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
!10
November 2014
Oliver Radley-Gardner
25.
A third form of sharing is network roaming. Under this arrangement, one operator
permits another’s customers to use its network. If one were to go to a mast site
which is part of a roaming arrangement, two operators would not be detected.
Rather, the practical effect of roaming is that customers of operator A become
entitled to use the spectrum allocated to operator B. There is no physical change
to the mast site, and there are no technical modifications to the site at all. All that
happens is that customers of operator A have changes made to their handset,
meaning that their handsets become able to connect to operator B’s spectrum. In
other words, this kind of sharing involves a change to one’s phone, and not to a
mast.
26.
Once that is understood, one can see why Ramsey J in Arqiva found that
network roaming did not breach any covenant under the relevant agreements not
to share, as he decided at paragraph [195] of his judgment. The same reasoning
would, I think, apply to MVNO use.
27.
However, that paragraph of the judgment appears to further contemplate that
there might also be no relevant breach where there is “network consolidation”,
which, from the judgment, appears to be the use of a single set of equipment
shared between two or more MNOs for the provision of their networks.
28.
That seems to me to be a more arguable issue. At this point, we have to revisit
our landlord and tenant terminology.
Enter Landlord & Tenant
W hat W e A ll Kn o w, A nd W ha t W e A ll K no w W e Don ’t Kn o w
29.
A standard commercial lease will naturally restrict alienation rights. A well-drafted
lease will restrict (usually in relation to the whole or part, and with specified group
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
November 2014
!11
Oliver Radley-Gardner
company exemptions) assignments, subletting, parting with or sharing
possession, or parting with or sharing occupation.
30.
Although we use those phrases day in and day out, we are still unclear what
21
some of them exactly mean. What amounts to “possession” has puzzled
lawyers from Roman times onwards. The Courts have regularly refused to define
what “occupation” means.
22
Given that the concepts remain unclear, it is then not
a surprise that the border between occupation and possession, and between
parting with possession or occupation of part, and sharing possession or
23
occupation, is difficult to map with any precision. We are in the domain of the
24
“elephant” test, i.e. can’t describe it, but we know it when we see it.
31.
Those problems of interpretation are significant, as the Courts are clear that (i)
alienation covenants are to be interpreted restrictively and (ii) consequently, if
only some forms of alienation are prohibited, then others will be permitted. It
therefore becomes critical to understand whether a particular arrangement
amounts to a parting with or sharing arrangement, and whether what is being
done amounts to possession, or mere occupation, or something even less than
that.
32.
We do know what such provisions are supposed to do, however. One can of
course readily understand that a restriction on assignment is intended to prevent
a tenant from foisting an unwanted and unsuitable assignee onto the landlord.
Sub-letting restrictions are there to protect the landlord in the case of a failure of
the intermediate leasehold interest.
25
Restrictions on parting with possession or
occupation are designed to ensure that there is nota disconnect between the
tenant and the person beneficially occupying, so that the landlord is able to
21
It is perhaps quite revealing that a number of famous lawyers made their names trying to come up with
definition of the word “possession”.
Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892, at 932; Graysim Holdings Ltd v P&O Property Holdings Limited [1996]
A.C. 329; indicia were identified by the Court of Appeal in Wandsworth LBC v Singh (1991) 62 P.&C.R.
219.
23
See the discussion in Akici v J.R. Butlin [2006] 1 WLR 201.
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
!12
November 2014
a workable
22
24
Oliver
25Or atRadley-Gardner
least we think we know it. For property lawyers, this might as well be called the “house” test.
Ross, Commercial Leases, [H3].
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
November 2014
!13
Oliver Radley-Gardner
control and manage who is making use of the premises directly.
26
Restrictions on
dealing with part only of premises are designed to protect landlords from having
a multiplicity of parties on-site, and a fragmentation of the use and control of the
demised premises. This of course creates the risk that the various users of a site
may come to claim rights against the landlord, whether under statutory security
of tenure regimes or otherwise.
Applying That Back To Telecoms
33.
Can active sharing be accommodated within the already unclear vocabulary of
landlord and tenant? Arqiva appears to me to support the view that the traditional
alienation covenants will not be breached by the mere presence of a nonlessee’s merely electronic footprint. However, Arqiva was an expedited trial, and
this issue was one of a myriad of issues that was considered. How arguable is
the contrary position?
34.
In my opinion, it is arguable that occupation, at any rate, can be interpreted as
covering the beneficial use of a site by an operator. For RAN sharing, the
argument would run something like this:
a. The point of covenants regulating occupation is to ensure that a landlord
knows who is on site. A multiplicity of occupiers can give rise to all sorts of
problems, of security, or access and so on.
b. The mischief that such covenants are aimed at is present in relation to
mobile phone masts
i. A mast is an operator’s apparatus (and hence liable to ECC
27
protection) even if it is not owned by that operator. This leaves
open the possibility that a single, shared mast could in principle
26
27
Ross, [H4].
See the discussion in Wayne Clark, Blundell Lecture, paragraph 33.
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
November 2014
!14
Oliver Radley-Gardner
qualify for separate ECC protection in respect of a number of
28
operators.
ii. There is at least a question mark over the paragraph 21 rights of
occupier-operators.
iii. An occupier-operator who is counting on a site is more likely to
want to exercise paragraph 5 rights if that site becomes
jeopardised.
c. If there is ECC protection for an occupier-operator, so that it is in a
position to resist the removal of the apparatus even if that belongs to a
third party, that appears to me to create a level of potential control that is
sufficient to justify a finding that there is occupation.
29
d. Even if there is no such protection, it appears to me that one could argue
that the only sensible way to “occupy” a telecommunications mast, apart
from owning the apparatus, is by using it to host one’s network.
35.
Again, I must emphasise that the above is an argument, and much will turn on
the precise nature and extent of the sharing involved. What can be said with
some force is that our tried and tested lease covenants have in mind the
paradigmatic situation of a tenant in physical occupation of a site, and do not
clearly, and therefore adequately, cover the more modern phenomenon of a
merely virtual presence.
36.
It follows from that, that those advising landlords on new leases, or lease
renewals, will need to give consideration to the alienation provisions inserted,
and to consider whether the drafting requires modernisation to control use of a
site by a multiplicity of operators. It may be that, in relation to mast sites,
concepts such as “occupation” or “possession” are inappropriate, or, at least,
insufficient, and that the focus of such clauses should, instead, be upon the
realities of the economic exploitation of the site by the tenant MNO, sharer
MNOs and MVNOs.
28
29
An MVNO would of course only be protected if they are an “operator” within the meaning of ECC.
An argument that appears to me to apply equally to network roaming arrangements.
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
!15
November 2014
Oliver Radley-Gardner
37.
It also follows on from the above that consideration should also be given to
questions of value. If it transpires that mast sites are capable of use in a manner
not contemplated at the date of the lease, and if such use is valuable to the
lessee-operator, then, the other side of the coin is that such capability may need
to be reflected in value on review of rent or lease renewal.
OLIVER RADLEY-GARDNER
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
November 2014
!16
Oliver Radley-Gardner
APPENDIX:
EXTRACT FROM ARQIVA
The operation of a Mobile Communications Network
31.
The evidence given by Mr Davidson on behalf of Arqiva and by Mr Smith and Mr
Bennett on behalf of the Defendants shows that the Mobile Communications Network
has a number of features. The Network can be divided into two component networks,
the Radio Access Network (RAN) and the Core Network. The RAN consists of a Base
Transceiver Station ("BTS") for the 2G system and a Node B for the 3G system. Those
are located at the site of a mast with a connection to the mast antenna and controlled by
Base Station Controller ("BSC") for the 2G system and Radio Network Controller
("RNC") for the 3G system. Together the BTS and the BSC/RNC are described as the
Base Station Subsystem ("BSS").
32.
Within the Core Network there is a series of nodes, including the Home Location
Register ("HLR") and the Visitor Location Register. The HLR contains details of all
customers permitted to use the network and every SIM card on the network. It enables
the network to identify where a customer is and to send signals to that customer. There
is also a Gateway Mobile Switching Centre ("GMSC") and a Mobile Switching Centre
("MSC"). The GMSC forms the link between separate networks and permits calls to be
made by a customer on one network to a customer on another network. The MSC
performs the same "exchange" function within the network. The Signal Transfer Point
("STP") is used to route voice and data traffic between the MSCs and GMSCs within the
same network and between networks.
33.
When a call is made on a particular network, the antenna on a mast receives
electromagnetic energy in the form of radio waves on licensed frequencies known as
"spectrum". The signal passes through the BTS to the BSC and then through circuits
known as Backhaul to the Core Network. The Core Network then transfers the call or
data to the Destination Network where the call is connected to the ultimate user.
34.
Each mobile phone handset has a SIM card which contains customer subscriber data,
the customer's International Mobile Subscriber Identity ("IMSI" – a unique identifier of a
customer) and, amongst other data, roaming preferences. Each network broadcasts a
unique identifier code, the Public Land Mobile Network Code ("PLMN") which the
handset will search for to connect to the network. The first five digits of the IMSI
correspond to the PLMN code of the network.
Who’s Line is it Anyway?
November 2014
!17