Gigacomm basestations on strata threaten solar installs

Gigacomm is a new entrant in the broadband rollout across residential strata buildings. However, their basestation model on the roof brings many issues including solar deprivation.

​Apparently the the Telecommunications Act (1997) includes provisions that allow mobile phone masts to be installed wherever they are needed. 

According to the Telecommunications Ombudsman, the only grounds for objecting to a LAAN are:

1. “Using the objector’s land to engage in the activity” (Section 4.30(a) of the Code).  In other words, I don’t think that the Carrier needs to use my land to install the facility. There may be a suitable alternative location on other ground that the Carrier could use instead.”
2. “The location of a facility on the objector’s land” (Section 4.30(b) of the Code). In other words, I don’t think that the Carrier needs to install the facility in the proposed location on the land. There may be a suitable alternative location on the ground that the Carrier could use instead.”
3. “The date when the carrier proposes to start the activity, engage in it or stop it” (Section 4.30(c) of the Code); “The proposed timing of the activities is exceptionally inconvenient (or the proposed duration is unnecessarily long), and I want to suggest timing and duration for the activities that is more reasonable or more suitable to me.
4. “The likely effect of the activity on the objector’s land” (Section 4.30(d) of the Code); In other words, the proposed activities will have an impact on the condition of my land (rather than the value or usefulness of my land), and I want the Carrier to do something about it.”
5. “The carrier’s proposals to minimise detriment and inconvenience, and to do as little damage as possible, to the objector’s land” (Section 4.30(e) of the Code).  In other words, I am concerned about a specific type of detriment, inconvenience or damage to the land that the proposed activities could cause, and I don’t think the Carrier is doing enough about it.”​

This means a telco such as Gigacomm can simply visit a strata building and then send a diagram such as the one below showing where they are going to install their base station. 

This is a base station which assists Gigacomm make money through their business model. It isn't solely for the benefit of providing fast broadband to just the residents of the strata building where the antenna is installed. For example, the proposed base station on 3 Freeman Rd needs line of sight to base stations proposed for 7 Freeman Rd and 640 Pacific Highway, in order to create a basestation network.​

But what if your strata building already had a plan to install solar panels?

If the base station removed the possibility of installing 2 additional solar panels and solar panels last for a period of 25 years, what would the economic loss to the Owners Corporation of losing this roofspace to a base station?

At Wattblock we asked one of our Energy Consultants, Sean Cowan, to come up with an estimate.

Assuming that the space taken up by the base station displaces 2 solar panels, each of these 2 solar panels are 570W panels and taking into account a seasonal common area electricity tariff with peak, shoulder and off peak rates (average 0.28c per kWh) and adding an inflation rate of 2%, the loss in the first year would be $433 rising to $697 p.a. in the 25th year. The accumulated losses as a result of having a base station installed, instead of 2 solar panels, over a period of 25 years would be $13,891.

Shouldn't the Owners Corporation be entitled to compensation from the base station provider?

Some strata buildings that elected to have mobile phone base stations (not broadband base stations) have deals such as:
- $15,000 rental per annum, with an in-built escalation of 2% each year
- Maximum term of 20 years
- Agreement to "make good" on uninstall
- Separate electricity metering, so that the extra power incurred by the base station doesn't negatively impact the buildings NABERS for Apartment Buildings rating

In this case Gigacomm offered $500 p.a. compensation for electricity, or sub-metering of its equipment, or an internet account for the building (house services) at no cost. No compensation for roofspace rental in perpetuity was offerred to the building.

Brent Clark
Contributor
​Strata Energy News

​Further resources:

https://inthecove.com.au/2023/09/16/telcos-have-the-right-to-install-high-speed-internet-on-your-apartment-building-whether-you-like-it-or-not/

https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/what-your-apartment-block-should-do-when-telcos-come-knocking-20220705-p5azbn

​https://www.smh.com.au/property/news/just-like-the-castle-the-apartment-owners-under-siege-in-their-own-buildings-20220712-p5b128.html