International Research Center QUICK NAVIGATOR
Arizona Telecommunications & Information Council (ATIC)
Multitenant Building Telecommunications Access Study
PREVIOUS CONTENTS SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS NEXT :
The Multitenant Building Environment

Summary of Recommendations

Recommendations to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC):

  1. Undertake necessary staff review and study to propose and consider regulation to prohibit exclusive multitenant facility access agreements by building managers and owners with single or selected telecommunication providers, so as to preserve tenant choice. Such telecommunications regulation is strongly recommended by the Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council (ATIC).

  2. Undertake necessary staff review and study to propose and consider regulation to better define the Point-of-Demarcation (POD) and ownership of internal wiring to help avoid disputes and litigation among stakeholders, while accelerating the deployment of competitive services. Such clarifications and any other necessary regulation to make the market more open, more orderly, and less litigious are strongly recommended by the Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council (ATIC).

  3. Promote a competitive environment with licensing of additional Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) and encourage leased access to ILECs' Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs), without providing unnecessary advantages to particular delivery technologies or business models. As the ILECs' local lines remain the most practical or perhaps the only access for competitive carriers to multitenant customers, the ACC should reconsider its previous actions that set the unbundled loop rate too high ($22.65 per month) and the resale discount rate too low (18%) for leased access of an individual telephone circuit from US WEST. This crucial "last mile" ILEC connectivity must be more effectively shared and utilized. Arizona action on the recent FCC ruling requiring that the high-frequency portion of the ILEC's loop circuit be unbundled and leased separately on an incremental cost basis, should be accelerated with shared line access rates set significantly below $10. per month.

  4. The ACC should act to incorporate wireless telecommunications providers into the Arizona Universal Service Fund (USF) program and its subsidy mechanisms, especially so as to encourage wireless deployment in Arizona's underserved rural and tribal areas, helping extend telecom options to Arizona's more remote residents. The ACC should work with the FCC to support evolution of the national USF to redesign cost allocations, secure its long-term funding model, extend participation to wireless carriers, and institutionalizing E-rate subsidies for educational technology connectivity.

  5. Accelerate handling of substantive telecommunications issues, particularly in dispute resolution contexts such as resolving collocation problems. Streamline regulatory review and approval process flow to better enable and respond to market forces. Benchmark other PUCs' best practices and develop metrics and reporting mechanisms to track ACC status and progress on telecom issues.
Recommendations to the Arizona State Legislature:
  1. Undertake and enact legislation similar to that in place in several other states requiring fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory access for competitive telecommunication providers to business and residential occupants of multitenant buildings. Support as necessary with staff review and study. Such legislation is strongly recommended by the Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council (ATIC) as a necessary foundation to insure customer choice, competitive access options, and the speedy deployment of advanced broadband infrastructure.

  2. If the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) is unsuccessful in developing and implementing rules to prohibit exclusive multitenant facility access agreements by building managers and owners with single or selected telecommunication providers, the Legislature should enact laws that will preclude such anti-competitive practices and return choice to the tenant community. Such legislation should also define building owners who decline competitive access as a telecommunications provider themselves, thus subject to all appropriate rules, regulation, and oversight.

  3. The Legislature should work with the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) to enable Arizona to deal with the substantive issues of telecommunications regulation and oversight in a speedier and more effective manner. Arizona has proved too slow and at times ineffectual in evolving both its legislative and regulatory policy to meet the needs of the competitive telecommunications arena.
Recommendations to Telecommunications Service Providers:
  1. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) need to accept and integrate multiple telecommunication providers in the multitenant building environment, sharing the underground building access, equipment closets, and risers. Though they may collect reasonable compensation for the use of legacy facilities, ILECs must further deliver on the requirements and commitment to lease elements of their unbundled network to their competitors, aiding in their Telecom Act "271" competitive checklist acceptance and eventual authorization to provide long distance services.

  2. ILECs and CLECs should both promote state legislation to require fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory access for all telecommunication providers to business and residential occupants of multitenant buildings. They should also both support PUC regulation to better define the Point-of-Demarcation (POD) and ownership of internal wiring to help avoid uncertainty and potential litigation among stakeholders and accelerate deployment of advanced telecom services. As new multitenant buildings are constructed, competitive carriers may, in some cases, be the primary telecommunications provider. ILECs may find their subsequent competitive access aided by such legislation and regulation.
Recommendations to Building Managers and Owners:
  1. There is a rising tide of telecommunication competition and advanced services expectations from business and residential tenants. Design new and retrofit existing properties to accommodate substantial upgrades of telecommunications access and internal infrastructure, providing underground pathways to the street(s), rooftop support and wiring access for wireless antennas, sizeable wiring closets, and risers with ample capacity to vertically traverse the floors of the building.

  2. By actions and relationships that provide multitenant building environment with reasonable access to competitive providers, tenants will be attracted, especially desirable high-technology companies, and their retention will be higher. Abundant broadband telecommunications access and advanced internal wiring infrastructure will position multitenant properties as "Smart Buildings," with commensurately higher rental values, increased attractiveness, and yielding superior valuations.

  3. The march of technology will begin to overcome the need for physical access from underground wiring or even rooftop antennas, delivering high-bandwidth wireless connectivity from satellites and terrestrial transmitters through building walls, directly to antennas in wiring closets and at workstations and portable devices, beyond the control of the building owner. Accept reduced telecommunications oversight over time and make telecommunications access an asset while still acting to insure in-building telecommunications infrastructure capacity, integrity, reliability, stability, and security. Negotiate in good faith to receive fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory compensation for competitive telecommunications access and avoid further regulation and/or litigation.

  4. Building rooftops remain valuable commodities for wireless antenna placement and the wireless CLECs' Points-of-Presence (POPs) in urban cellular, point-to-point or point-to-multipoint metropolitan area networks (MANs). If building rooftop(s) are structurally capable and owners desire leasing arrangements for general geographic wireless distribution (versus access to building tenants), work with engineering and market consultants to characterize your capabilities and promote them to potential wireless providers. Negotiate smart leases including possible participation in incremental revenues the primary antenna owner may accrue from co-location leases to other wireless providers.
Recommendations to Business Tenants:
  1. Negotiate initial or renewal leases that allow for sufficient tenant choices and options in selecting and accessing competitive telecom services. All telecommunication service providers (TSPs) should be able to reach your primary business equipment closet(s) and distribution point(s) with no-cost or low-cost physical access from their telecom infrastructure in the street and/or on the roof. Work with the building manager/owner to insure that buildings have sufficient internal telecommunications infrastructure and capacity, including underground conduit to the street(s), rooftop support and wiring access for wireless antennas, sizeable wiring closets, and risers with ample capacity.

  2. Be a smart telecommunications consumer for your business enterprise, educating yourself as to various options and choices. Negotiate telecommunications service contracts that meet current performance requirements and are scaleable for future needs while extend for only a short term or that can be revisited for a "fresh look" as market conditions continue to evolve. Involve professional Information Technology (IT), system integration, and building industry personnel to design, install, and configure in-building communication networks optimized for your organizational effectiveness. Prime information resources and organizations to learn more about these technologies, markets, and issues are detailed in the Appendices below.
Recommendations to Residential Tenants:
  1. Be a smart residential telecommunications consumer educating yourself as to various options and choices. Incorporate personal telecommunications needs and expectations into the selection of your leased residential dwelling. If you need high-speed Internet access or desire to choose from the telecommunication offerings of multiple providers, insure these capabilities are already available or scheduled within the foreseeable future. Prime information resources and organizations to learn more about these technologies, markets, and issues are detailed in the Appendices below.
Recommendations to State and Local Government:
  1. Where municipalities, county and state government are themselves building owners who lease to multiple business tenants, they should adopt and follow the Federal model and guidelines for open and non-discriminatory access of telecommunication providers to their business tenants.

  2. Position your municipality as a "Smart Community" by encouraging telecommunications providers to deploy new infrastructure and capabilities to serve the needs of the City and its citizens, while acting in and protecting the public interest. Economic development goals and citizens' access to alternative advanced communication capabilities will be best served by cultivating an open, effective, and cooperative environment between telecommunications providers, developers, and City authorities.
Recommendations to the Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council (ATIC):
  1. ATIC should continue to play an outreach and educational policy role within the Arizona community, promoting favorable regional policies and conditions, leading to broad and unfettered deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure to enhance economic development and the quality of life. ATIC should actively encourage and facilitate high level meetings between the multitenant telecom stakeholders to address these issues, help to make progress, and broker win-win solutions.
Multitenant Building Telecommunications Access Study
PREVIOUS CONTENTS SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS NEXT :
The Multitenant Building Environment