Скачать или смотреть Crown Castle vs. American Tower - Their approach to the land underneath their Cell Towers

The major tower companies take different approaches, particularly regarding the land under their towers. Based on my observations and discussions with industry professionals, I see key differences in their strategies.

Crown Castle often delays negotiations, especially when it has favorable lease terms. While understandable, managing 40,000 towers makes postponement challenging. After laying off internal staff who handled these negotiations, Crown Castle now relies on vendors, leading to frequent delays since vendors lack the same access to critical information. I think once Crown Castle sells their fiber and small cell business, you may see them go back to beefing up an internal team again.

American Tower, on the other hand, built an internal team specializing in sites with less than ten years remaining on their leases. Multi-carrier sites, which generate higher cash flow and are harder to negotiate, are handled in-house, while some lower-value, single-tenant towers are managed by vendors. When I worked there, we were told delaying deals would only increase costs down the line. For that reason, I think American Tower has done a good job spacing out the high-priced lease renewals.

I believe Crown Castle risks falling behind American Tower in securing key sites. To stay competitive, it may need to increase far more rents to keep up with sites nearing expiration than American Tower in the future. Without enough deals in the five-year window, the number of expiring sites could outpace secured renewals. It will be interesting to see how these companies continue to secure their ground and at what cost.

#crowncastle #americantower #groundprogram #celltowerlease #land #shorts