Property owners need to lease space.

Having a rich diversity of telecom carriers in their buildings, with the most modern infrastructure, is key to leasing space. But landlords have also seen competitive telecoms come and go through the years, many leaving a mess in their wake. Telecom providers acquire, divest and go bankrupt frequently, leaving property managers with little industry insight as to what infrastructure is abandoned or not. There appears to be no rhyme, reason or consistency to the way different telecom carriers deliver service. Property managers that have calculated their cost structures carefully may therefore have forgotten, or not had enough information, to account for the cost of outside consultants to manage telecom distribution. Some RMFs promise to pass this cost onto the telecom carriers, without explaining that doing so may be contrary to industry best practices, CRTC requirements, and the need for diverse choices in the interest of tenants and unit holders.

End users of telecom services want the technical and financial benefits of choice, and want good service delivered quickly.

They rarely want to wade into the detailed politics on how their service gets to them. If there is a problem with their service, they expect to call the telecom provider whom they are paying, and for the provider to be able to fix it immediately. They already pay rent to a landlord: they do not expect to pay extra to the same landlord for having ordering telecom services any more than they would expect to pay extra to the landlord to receive their electricity or water.

<Telecom Carrier >