Building Access Agreement

ConvergeOne also understands that real estate professionals and technology providers don`t always speak the same language, even though they work together to serve tenants. If you are a building owner, developer, broker, engineer or facility manager who needs a guide on communication technology, these reference tools can help: the risk is that if the services provided prove insufficient or if the owner is not satisfied with other reasons, the existence of a single, integrated infrastructure belonging to a single provider of multiple services, it can be more difficult. on a practical and legal level, so that the owner terminates the supplier`s access to the building for the benefit of a competitor. BoMA`s San Francisco Chapter has a form of agreement that can be adapted for these purposes. As advanced communication capabilities are increasingly seen as essential perks and not a desirable luxury, a building manager`s ability to offer this capability is becoming an increasingly important weapon in the fight to attract and retain quality tenants. This issue is especially important for FTTP installations. If the FTTP provider`s services are temporary, do tenants lose their phone, video or Internet services? You will do this if the supplier has removed the existing HFC or copper cables from the building as a result of the ftTP installation. In addition, the lack of traditional boarding cabling can make it more difficult and expensive for the homeowner to find an alternative supplier willing to invest in the building. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed CCIs to empty unbundled loops of ILECs and defined the local loop according to the position of the network interface (NID) at the end of the loop. However, ILECs have always been able to deny access to MDU/MTE cracking cables, as in many buildings ilec equipment did not contain a NID. In this situation, the ILECs were able to assert that the demarcation point was in the participant`s individual premises, which required clec to reserve longer lengths of in-building cables to reach all customers, regardless of the number of people who chose CLEC`s services. No no. However, some providers may require that their access agreement bind the future owners of the property for the specified period.

While this is not necessarily an inappropriate request (suppliers do not want to lose their access rights and ability to serve current customers simply because the building is sold), an owner may not want to meet this demand. Similarly, marketing rights should be linked to specifically defined services, instead of being vague or general. If the owner wants a telephony and Internet access service from an FTTP provider, there is no reason to grant that provider general marketing rights or to use vague terms such as “Internet service”. If the “Internet service” is designed to include a video service, the owner may not find a PCO ready to wire the building for video without an equivalent and exclusive right to market the BCO video service. . . .