Leading the way for future networks

With offices in New York, Washington D.C and Canada, Phillips Lytle has worked with communications infrastructure owners across North America, and has been involved in some of the critical transactions which are laying the foundations for future infrastructure. Drawing on his experience with the United States Federal Communications Commission’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Council, and specifically as the Chair of its Model Code for Municipalities Working Group, Doug shared with us his thoughts on how the US and European markets compare, and where infrastructure owners can pursue growth as the network landscape changes.

TowerXchange: Please introduce Phillips Lytle, your footprint and your work in communications infrastructure.

Phillips Lytle LLP is a premier US law firm that is recognized nationally for its legal excellence. With offices in New York State, Washington, D.C., and Canada, our attorneys serve a multinational client base.  Our Telecommunications Industry Team has extensive expertise with deployment of telecom infrastructure projects in the United States, as well as projects in Canada and Central and South America. Our attorneys have represented wireless network operators, neutral host DAS providers, tower companies, small cell providers, fiber providers and property owners in transactions and other matters touching all parts of the telecom infrastructure ecosystem, and in various settings: large venues, campuses, public rights of way, mass transit systems, commercial multi-tenant environments and residential multi-dwelling units.

TowerXchange: Tell us about your background, Doug, and your work in this space.

A major focus of my practice is telecommunications law. I lead our firm’s Telecommunications Practice Team. I have over 20 years of experience in telecommunications matters, representing leading telecommunications carriers, infrastructure providers and numerous other clients involved in the telecommunications industry. I assist with transactional and litigation matters involving deployment of telecom infrastructure, including supporting a major mobile network operator in development of its DAS and small cells programs. I am a member of the United States Federal Communications Commission’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Council, and the Chair of its Model Code for Municipalities Working Group.

TowerXchange: Despite the growth of towercos in the European market, independent towerco penetration is still much lower than in the US. Can you share a little of your experience in each market, and whether you feel the European market will ‘catch up’ to the US or follow its own route?

I do not have direct experience with the European towerco market. Nevertheless, my sense is the regulatory and market barriers, although not identical, are similar and thus the European market should be able to “catch up”, especially given the network demand for broadband infrastructure and the desire of the EU and member countries to promote broadband adoption and deployment.

TowerXchange: European towercos are increasingly talking about moving towards a ‘service agreement’ model, in light of changing MNO needs and IFRS 16 implications. What do towercos need to consider as they move away from MLAs towards MSAs?

They will need strong partnerships with MNOs that provide flexible MSA terms, including the ability to protect against unanticipated needs to adjust applicable statements of work.

TowerXchange: With one eye on 5G rollout, many European towercos are starting to move into small cells, fibre or data centres to position themselves for the future needs of their tenants. We generally assume the US is further ahead on this – what examples can you share with us about how US towercos are preparing for future infrastructure needs? Do you feel they’re leading the way?

Small cells are “big”!  Crown Castle’s US acquisition of Lightower and integration of Lightower with its other fibre assets is a good example of how US towercos are preparing for 5G and future telecom infrastructure needs. Another example is Digital Bridge’s move into wholesale data centres in 2017. I believe US towercos are leading the way.

TowerXchange: Future networks will involve new stakeholders and new dynamics between existing players in infrastructure as well. Can you share your thoughts on how this transition can be managed, and what future relationships between stakeholders might look like?

In the US, initial deployment of small cells is, in large part, being handled by MNOs without relying on towercos in the same way towercos were relied upon for macro site deployment.  This is a reflection of MNO interest in learning the most efficient ways to deploy small cells, as well as reducing reliance on towercos to provide passive infrastructure for this emerging technology. New stakeholders could include governmental entities - small cells will need to be deployed in the public rights of way in many areas and that could drive governmental entities to participate in deployment in a different way. In addition, new niche players may evolve to deploy in certain settings and to deploy components of future networks, such as in-building (passive and/or active) network operators.