Building Access Agreement Sample

Owners should avoid access agreements that establish permanent conditions or leave the concept of indefinite duration. An indeterminate agreement purports to remain in force “in the future” (or similar denominations), while an indeterminate agreement does not identify a specific clause or purports to remain in force as long as the provider provides services, is allowed to do business, etc. However, it is not clear whether any of these competition-enhancing regulatory systems apply to FTTP in buildings that are decades old. As part of these efforts, the FCC established the concept of a “demarcation point,” defined as the boundary between the deregulated inner wire, controlled by the building owner, and the ilec facilities regulated outside the NSS. While the demarcation point was clear in single-family homes, multi-tenant buildings were problematic, for example, where client space could be on the tenth floor, but ILEC wiring entered the building through the basement. To address these issues, the FCC has defined the minimum entry point (DPM) as either the closest practical point to where the wiring crosses a property line, or as the closest convenient point where the wiring enters a multi-unit building. However, the FCC did not require that several demarcation points for participants be within an MDU or AN MTE at DMPOE. On the contrary, the demarcation point for public housing should be established in accord with the “reasonable and non-discriminatory practices” of ILEC. In buildings built after August 13, 1990, ILEC was authorized, but not required to establish “a reasonable and non-discriminatory practice of locating the demarcation at D YEAR`s.” IlECs were able to exploit the ambiguities in the rules by refusing to determine exactly where their MTE/MDU facilities ended and where the owner`s reign began. Until the location of the demarcation point could be determined with certainty, the CLECs were not able to negotiate directly with the owners the use of the house wiring. Given the multiplicity of suppliers, which are increasingly seen as indispensable, it is all the more important that mDU owners structure their construction access agreements in a way that maximizes their long-term value, so that their buildings do not become monopolistic tenecks that benefit the established company and no one else.

Another category of public law includes a wide range of prohibitions or restrictions on MDU access agreements with telecommunications operators that, explicitly or implicitly, would create barriers to competitive access by other telecommunications operators to MDU residents. The reason is that it is not wise to invest in the wiring of a property only to sell against one or more other suppliers in a single building or complex.

About the Author