Debated in Parliament on 9 Jul 2013.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Communications and Information what is the justification for the change in policy, arising from the Code of Practice for Info-Communication Facilities in Buildings 2013, requiring Town Councils to henceforth provide use of common property, such as rooftops of HDB blocks, to telecommunication companies without charging for use or access.
Madam, there has been a growing dependence on mobile telephone services by businesses and consumers. With increasing expectations from end-users for better mobile coverage, IDA enhanced the quality of service standards imposed on mobile operators for both in-building and outdoor mobile coverage. Accordingly, IDA reviewed the Code of Practice for Info-Communication Facilities in Buildings. This was to ensure that building developments would be equipped with the minimum space and facilities necessary for mobile operators to deploy equipment required for better mobile coverage. The requirement to provide this minimum amount of mobile deployment space at no charge to the mobile operators was meant to facilitate the quick deployment of mobile equipment, so that end-users could benefit faster from the improved mobile coverage.
To balance the needs of all parties, building owners and developers have been accorded flexibility to determine the location of the mobile deployment space, whether on roof-tops or in car parks, for example. Furthermore, this space need not be set aside upfront, but only upon request of a mobile operator. Existing lease agreements for space purposed for the provision of mobile coverage within the developments will also be allowed to continue until their expiry. As such, developments that currently lease space to the mobile operators would only need to comply with the new mobile deployment space requirements after the expiry of these existing agreements.
Mdm Speaker, these changes are applied consistently to all buildings, including those in the private sector, as well as to Government-owned buildings. I would also like to point out that in the case of deployment of mobile equipment on HDB premises managed by Town Councils, the most direct and immediate beneficiaries of improved mobile coverage are the residents themselves.
These new requirements have also taken into account industry feedback via two rounds of public consultation. Both public consultations saw no objections from most respondents, who understood and acknowledged the need to
Page: 50
facilitate the better mobile coverage within building developments for the benefit of end-users.
Madam, supplementary questions for the Minister. We would like to facilitate IDA's rationale of improving coverage for mobile users, including our residents. Does the Minister agree that the coverage would probably be better from the rooftop as compared to a lower lying space?
Secondly, we have done some checking on the frequency of access requests by these mobile operators at our Town Council for the first six months of this year and it works out to about 74 requests a month. So, it is a significant number of requests and there is a certain cost incurred by the Town Council to provide access to the rooftop because it is supposed to be a secured space and so on. I think the Minister understands that. So, I wonder whether the Minister would agree that this change in the COPIF would pass some burden to the Town Council, taking it away from a profit-making entity like the telcos. Would he consider reviewing at least this aspect, where access is given, could there be some arrangement where we could have a reasonable charge or get reimbursed for the cost incurred?
In terms of the location, this is about in-building coverage. So, it does not have to be on the rooftop. It could be in the car parks or basement. But we leave it to the MTOs to decide where exactly is the best location, in consultation with the building owner. We do not have a preference. What COPIF does is to specify a minimum space in which the building owners would have to give to the MTOs. Anything beyond that, they have to agree on a commercial basis.
I do not quite understand why there are so many checks in Aljunied Town Council – 74 requests. I am quite curious which MTO, but we will check on that. But on the issue of access, as mentioned by the Member, clearly we understand why it is important for us to give access to the MTOs so that they can go in if there are rectification and maintenance work that needs to be done. But notwithstanding this, we have to consider the issue of access charge, given the feedback that we have received from the previous meeting the IDA had with the Town Councils. So, we are prepared to look at this again.
Page: 51
PAPERCUTS