Yes. Demand for new cell sites (towers and rooftops) is still strong and rents have been increasing steadily over the past 10-15 years. Newer technologies (4G, LTE, 5G and beyond) are creating ‘holes’ in cellular coverage provided by any one site so the carriers are constantly managing these gaps by placing new sites in between existing sites.

Definitely. Generally, each change in cellular technology has increased the demand for new sites and especially more equipment at existing sites. It’s at existing telecommunications sites where landlords should be most vigilant in reviewing requests (or requests disguised as notices) to add/change equipment to ensure that the carriers are not unreasonably adding equipment beyond the scope of the existing lease agreement and the allowable equipment limits. Adding equipment beyond certain numbers should result in an increase in the rents received by the landlords.

Both parties have leverage in negotiations. Leverage is only valuable when used effectively. The more knowledgeable and experienced the person negotiating, the more likely that the reasons for the leverage will be brought to light and influence the end result. Leverage can be real or perceived for both parties. Many carrier reps are less experienced than you would think and their abilities to identify and use leverage to their advantage is limited in negotiations.

No, a cell tower or rooftop lease is effectively an agreement to occupy space and carry on operations from that space. Height of tower (or building) should not make any difference to the rent offered. Landlords maximize rent by the presence of multiple carriers on one tower or rooftop. It is important for landlords to ensure they are paid extra for additional carriers located on a tower as carriers will usually include language that allows them to add other carriers to it which they then reap license fees for themselves which would usually more than offset the rent they pay to the landlord.

Yes. In key locations, a rooftop cell site is usually preferred by the carrier for many reasons (cost, less red tape approvals, etc.) so it is normal to see multiple carriers co-existing on the same rooftop. Due to increasing technology requirements, carriers are installing more equipment than ever on towers and rooftops which reduces space for others to occupy (and landlords to rent as is the case on rooftops). As such, there can be scarcity (low supply but high demand) of space/locations for new telecommunications facilities. It is very important for landlords to manage footprint (especially on rooftops) to minimize leased areas to maximize leasing revenues.

No. This is simply a negotiating tactic employed to trigger your fear of losing the lease rents and take advantage of a landlord who might not know what is true and what isn’t. Carriers often use tactics in effort to reduce their costs and rents so their bottom line looks better for profitability.  In some very rare cases, carriers will remove cell sites for reasons of redundancy and cost but nowhere near as often as the carriers will suggest. Watch for fear mongering phrases and approaches as these usually are indications of predatory behavior which should indicate to you, as a landlord, to do your own homework and not simply trust what the carrier rep is telling you. Fair market values are going up over time and no landlords should be seeing rents decreasing.

Not usually. Telecommunications sites were, historically, leased by the same groups who were charged with building them: engineers and construction professionals. At that time, the sites were basic in structure and equipment, the documents contained general wording creating much grey area and market rates were negligible. In many cases, landowners were enticed by free cell phones and calling plans to sign on the dotted line. The rents were almost secondary to the benefits of the free cell phones at a time when very few people carried them and the cost to use one was very high. The industry was so new that locations were easy to find as the designers and those carrying the leasing had a lot of flexibility and usually leaned toward the easiest and cheapest deals they could manage. Some of those agreements are still in place today but, as normal practice, carriers do not give out free phones anymore.