New law lets phone firms 'steal' Spanish roof tops

[Myrtle Hogan-Lance]

Under the new law passed on April 29th, phone companies will be able to "forcibly" expropriate roof terraces and other private and public property to install telecommunications infrastructure.

Said expropriation would be to support the silly notion that everybody has a human right to high speed broadband. 

Whereas I get the right of eminent domain for things like roads or possibly trains, expropriating a family roof terrace is not just wrong.  It is proof that a state does not support the right to secure private property, one of the things that a successful nation relies on. 

This is just crazy.

[Guanche]

Agreed Myrtle, but is it any worse that 'compulsory purchase orders' in the UK? At least the Spanish get to keep their houses if not their roofs. I have a feeling that there are some hard struck community's that would give their right arms to get one of these on the roof.

[Myrtle Hogan-Lance]

But Pelinor I do not think they pay any compensation.  Might be wrong and would welcome some correction. 

And yes it is the equivalent of a compulsory purchase order.  Damn those of us who are naturalised and have different terminology!

[Guanche]

I'm assuming there would be some rent paid? I know the power company's have to rent the land the windmill power generators are situated. I would also assume that there would have to be some structural modifications made to any roof prior to installation and that may cause the house holder or comunity problems........... but I am guessing

[Janet]

I doubt the rent, P, because what is giving them the access to rooftop space is that the masts are being classified, at government level, as "essential infrastructure", which puts them technically and officially in the same category as hospitals and motorways. It's not a compulsory purchase order as such because owners don't lose ownership, but they have no right to stop the installation.

[Michael]

It would be such a pity if anything were to happen to said equipment when it was up there though wouldn't it? 

[Perikles]

I can't help wondering whether this is just a wind-up à la DM to be honest. I remember there being outrage some decades ago when in the UK a law was past which enabled the national grid to put electricity pylons wherever they wanted, including a huge one covering the whole of somebody's small garden. The national need for electricity at the time was deemed more important than the freedom of the individual, with some justification. Now that need of national interest has moved on to other priorities with the same argument. In practice, I very much doubt whether this would ever be implemented unless they really had to.

[Myrtle Hogan-Lance]

I can kind of understand in the case of electricity.  But high speed broadband in a country where huge numbers of people are unemployed?  Where do they get the money for the computers?  What are they going to do - join the forum?

Anyway putting a pylon in someone's garden is nothing but ineptitude.  Did they ever actually do it?

My problem with the proposed scheme is the way it would undermine secure property rights.  What if there was a problem at 3 am?  Would the technician bang on the owner's door so they could get the internet back up and running so the neighbours could surf for porn?  What if the owner had to be away from home for a few weeks - would they have to tell the company and hand over keys so that the company could have access in the case of a problem?  Or would the company simply have the right to bash down the front door to gain access?  What if things went missing from the owner's house? 

It opens a can of worms.

[Guanche]

I agree with P seems a bit of DM drama about it. I doubt very much that this would happen to a private home. It would mean that the company would have to have 24/7 access to the home which would mean a key to the front door! I think the Human rights brigade in the EU would have a merry song and dance about that, right to privacy? Plus it would effectively wipe the house off the market making a significant financial loss to the owner. Who's going to buy a house with a bloody great antenna thing on the roof with engineers walking through the property when ever they like. Even the Spanish courts might be forced into having some sympathy with the common home owner?

I suspect that this law is primarily for apartment and office blocks and the like where the building has the strength to support such an item with a separate access for the engineers and sufficient power feed for the equipment. Whilst I see it does seem to encompass any roof I think they would be hard pressed to take over someones private roof and home. But again I'm guessing, and it is Spain!

[Perikles]

Anyway putting a pylon in someone's garden is nothing but ineptitude.  Did they ever actually do it?

Yes, they did, sometimes. There were quite a few areas of sprawling suburbia which had square miles of housing with virtually no "free" space. Given that they all wanted electricity, and given that the grid had to be supported at fairly fixed distances by pylons, somewhere, somebody had to sacrifice their garden. It was that or the local kiddies' playground or the churchyard. There was evidence that they did everything possible to avoid doing it, but there were a few cases where they really had no choice.