Business Context Shapes Access Network Strategy

As often happens in any industry, service providers have different opinions about fixed wireless access versus fiber-to-premises versus hybrid fiber coax versus satellite platforms for access services. 

As always, different firms have different views on strategy because of their business circumstances. Perhaps in principle, all former telcos would say fiber-to-premises is the ideal long-term solution where the economics exist. But the economics are daunting in many cases, leading to a “yes, but” strategy that uses other platforms as the economics dictate. 

Verizon has a relatively small “in region” footprint of U.S. homes and businesses--perhaps no more than about 20 percent--and cannot afford to “fiberize” another 80 percent of U.S. homes. So fixed wireless, which piggybacks on the 5G network, makes sense. 

T-Mobile, with close to zero fixed network coverage of U.S. homes and businesses, benefits even more from 5G fixed wireless. 

AT&T, on the other hand, has the biggest footprint of U.S. homes and businesses, so out-of-region coverage magnitudes are correspondingly reduced. 

Comcast and Charter have “homes passed” totals close to AT&T’s footprint and already have HFC networks they believe will be marketplace competitive for quite some time, as multi-gigabit speeds are coming next on the HFC platform. 

Of a total of 140 million U.S.  homes, AT&T’s landline network passes 62 million. Comcast has (can actually sell service to) about 57 million homes passed.

The Charter Communications network passes about 50 million homes, the number of potential customer locations it can sell to.

Verizon homes passed might number 27 million. Lumen Technologies never reports its homes passed figures, but likely has 20-million or so consumer locations. 

Assuming no further significant consolidation, AT&T only “needs” to fiberize within its footprint to reach 44 percent of U.S. homes (and virtually all the homes regulators are likely to allow it to pass). 

Assuming Verizon has no appetite to significantly expand its fixed network footprint, that leaves about 81 percent of U.S. homes that could be passed by the 5G network, and would be impossible to significantly serve using FTTH. 

Comcast already has HFC offering gigabit speeds reaching about 41 percent of U.S. homes. Charter already passes about 29 percent of U.S. homes. Again, regulators are unlikely to allow either firm to get significantly bigger, in terms of homes passed. 

Lumen has a largely-rural territory that includes perhaps 14 percent of U.S. homes, but Lumen has no mobile network assets it can use to offer fixed wireless on a facilities basis. 

The point is that each firm’s view of strategy is shaped by its existing legacy assets. Cable operators, though not denying FTTH makes sense in the future for a growing percentage of customers, also believe HFC is a viable platform, without major reliance on FWA or FTTH to serve mass market customers. 

Verizon and T-Mobile have good reasons for using FWA that piggybacks on their nationwide 5G networks. 

AT&T believes FTTH is the best solution, but also has the largest in-region fixed network footprint of any major ISP, and therefore has the most to lose if copper access facilities are not upgraded to fiber access.

There is no universal answer for “which access platform” makes most sense. Each major ISP has key business model constraints and opportunities that shape the access network choices.

Comcast Expects 10-Gbps Downstream Upgrade to Cost "Less than $200 Per Passing"

Comcast says it can initially upgrade its network to eventually handle symmetrical 10-Gbps internet access (supporting 10 Gbps initially) for “less than $200 a home passed,” according to Elad Nafshi, Comcast EVP and chief network officer. 

It is a nuanced statement. 

That initial upgrade cost includes revamping networks from low-split to mid-split, including changes to active and passive network elements when necessary to support an upgrade to DOCSIS 4.0 10-Gbps downstream bandwidth. Upstream will increase to perhaps 1 Gbps. 

Significantly, Comcast’s initial deployment does not require full fiber distribution, but can accommodate as many as four amplifiers in cascade. 

That means the upgrade to 10-Gbps downstream service can be done without upgrading the whole network to fiber, which uses passive coaxial cable only for the last 100 feet or so of drop cable. 

Upgrading to symmetrical 10-Gbps service will require replacing all the radio frequency amplifiers. Typically, Comcast has built out fiber to an optical node, then delivered signals to home using a string (cascade) of up to four amplifiers running on coaxial cable. 

In the first stage of DOCSIS 4.0 deployment,  most of Comcast’s facilities can continue to operate with fiber distribution to a node, then retain as many as four RF  amplifiers for service to homes. There are huge cost implications for retaining that capability, since Comcast can continue to use the in-place amplifiers and coaxial cable. 

Future “Node + 0 amplifier” networks will transition to Full-Duplex (FDX) DOCSIS, to significantly increase the upstream bandwidth to multi-gigabit speeds, such as symmetrical 10-Gbps service. But that also will require deploying a full fiber network, using coaxial cable only for the drops. 

The first step will be a shift to a 5-MHz to 204-MHz upstream bandwidth and 1218 MHz downstream bandwidth, supporting a 1 Gbps upstream tier and multi-Gbps downstream. In the following illustration, blue frequencies are available for downstream traffic, while red frequencies are available for upstream traffic. 

As usual, the upgrades can be implemented incrementally, in stages, with incremental capital investment. . 

source: Comcast 

Then overlapping bidirectional spectrum from 108 to 204 MHz can be activated. that eventually increases up to the full 108-MHz  to 684-MHz FDX limit. In that implementation DOCSIS 3.0 can be supported up to the 1002 MHz limit and legacy DOCSIS 3.1 to the 1218-MHz limit.

The point is that Comcast still believes it can upgrade its bandwidth over time to symmetrical 10-Gbps service while remaining the low-cost provider compared to rival fiber-to-home networks.

Verizon Uses Owned Optical Fiber for 48% of its Mobile Site Backhaul

Verizon now says it connects 48 percent of its cell sites using owned optical fiber. That might not seem like such a big deal, but consider that Verizon’s fixed network only reaches about 20 percent of U.S. homes. 

That matters because ownership of a fixed network reaching homes and businesses provides cost advantages for deploying optical fiber backhaul to cell towers and sites. AT&T, in contrast, has fixed network assets passing about 44 percent of U.S. homes. That also provides advantages for cell site backhaul. 

Building fiber backhaul to towers outside the Verizon fixed network territory requires construction or long-term leases of capacity from other providers who can provide the access. It appears that a substantial percentage of Verizon backhaul uses built or owned facilities. 

For U.S. cable operators, who prefer to sell mobile service only to their own existing customer base, the same logic applies. Owning their own landline facilities reduces the cost of creating a cell network. 

Of a total of 140 million homes, AT&T’s landline network passes 62 million. Comcast has (can actually sell service to) about 57 million homes passed.

The Charter Communications network passes about 50 million homes, the number of potential customer locations it can sell to.

Verizon homes passed might number 27 million. Lumen Technologies never reports its homes passed figures, but likely has 20-million or so consumer locations.

Home Broadband Strategy is Heavily Dictated by the Business Model

AT&T is targeting about 30 million homes for new fiber-to-premises availability. Verizon is emphasizing fixed wireless. As always, strategy is based on firm strengths and weaknesses. AT&T has the largest footprint of homes; Verizon’s fixed network possibly reaches 20 percent of U.S. homes. 

Of a total of 140 million homes, AT&T’s landline network passes 62 million. Comcast has (can actually sell service to) about 57 million homes passed.

The Charter Communications network passes about 50 million homes, the number of potential customer locations it can sell to.

Verizon homes passed might number 27 million. Lumen Technologies never reports its homes passed figures, but likely has 20-million or so consumer locations. 

AT&T has more fixed network share to protect, compared to Verizon, while Verizon has bigger upside in taking home broadband share outside its footprint.

The same holds for T-Mobile, which historically had zero percent share of home broadband. 

“If all I had was a wireless network, if I did not have a scaled physical infrastructure fiber thriving and growing network, I might have no other choice than to leverage my wireless spectrum portfolio to go grow my business,” said Jeff McElfresh, AT&T COO.

The point is that business strategy around home broadband platforms is not based strictly on what is "best" long term. Strategy also must be based on how fast competitive home broadband access can be enabled; at what cost and how fast.

Cable operators have differing opinions about whether to upgrade directly to FTTH now, or conduct at least one major hybrid fiber coax upgrade before doing so. Sheer technology performance is but one consideration. The payback model is more important.

Cable Leads U.S. ISP Accounts, Telcos have Most to Gain

AT&T, Comcast and Charter Communications own networks covering the most U.S. residents (and presumably housing units). But it is difficult to directly correlate population covered with “homes passed” or even “locations served.” 

Most locations are served by at least two different terrestrial providers. Subscriber percentages hinge at least partly on marketing strengths (cable operators have at least 70 percent of the installed base). 

U.S. ISP Population Coverage and Subscribers
Firm	Population %	Subscriber %
AT&T	42	15
Comcast	36	29
Charter	34	27
Verizon	17	7
Lumen	9	2
Cox Comm.	7	5
Altice	5	4
sources: FCC, Leichtman Research

Still, the numbers suggest telcos have lower take rates than do cable operators, which corresponds to reality. Also, the telcos arguably have the greatest upside from network upgrades that would match or exceed cable performance metrics. With appropriate pricing, that should allow telcos to eventually close the take rate gap with cable companies, all other things being equal.

How Much Does Fixed Wireless Matter?

You can get a robust debate pretty quickly when asking “how important will 5G fixed wireless be?” in the consumer home broadband market. Will it matter? 

Probably. But it also matters more to some than to others, and will matter even if the net result is installed base market share shifts of just a few percentage points. So there is no actual contraction between cable operators saying “fixed wireless is not a threat” and a few firms arguing it will be highly significant as a driver of revenues. 

Keep in mind that the home broadband market generates $195 billion worth of annual revenue. Comcast and Charter Communications alone book $150 billion annually from internet access services that largely are generated by home broadband customers. 

T-Mobile has zero market share in that market. Taking just two percent means new revenues of perhaps $4 billion annually. That really matters, even if cable operators minimize the threat. 

“Addressable market” is a key phrase. Right now, Comcast has (can actually sell service to) about 57 million homes passed.

The Charter Communications network passes about 50 million homes, the number of potential customer locations it can sell to.

Verizon homes passed might number 18.6 to 20 million. To be generous, use the 20 million figure. 

AT&T’s fixed network represents perhaps 62 million U.S. homes passed. CenturyLink never reports its homes passed figures, but likely has 20-million or so consumer locations it can market services to. 

The point is that, up to this point, T-Mobile has had zero addressable home broadband market to chase. Verizon has had 20 million homes to market for that purpose. AT&T has been able to market to perhaps 62 million homes; Comcast 57 million homes and Charter about 50 million homes. 

So T-Mobile and Verizon have the most market share to gain by deploying fixed wireless. And the value will not necessarily be that fixed wireless allows those two providers to “take half the market.” The revenue upside from share shifts in low single digits will be meaningful. 

Some might counter that early fixed wireless will not match the top cabled network speeds. That is true. But it also is true that half of U.S. households buy broadband services running between 100 Mbps and 200 Mbps, with perhaps 20 percent of demand requiring lower speeds than that. 

So even if fixed wireless offers lower speeds than cable hybrid fiber coax or telco FTTH, it might arguably still address 70 percent of the U.S. market.

It is conceptually possible that untethered access could eventually displace a substantial portion of the fixed networks business, longer term. 

Up to this point, mobile networks have not been able to match fixed network speeds or costs per gigabit of usage. But that should change. 

Mobile network speeds will increase at high rates, with a rule of thumb being that speeds grow by an order of magnitude every 10 years. One might argue that is less capacity growth than typically happens with fixed networks. +

 

source: Voyager8 

But that might not be the relevant context. What will matter is how much speed, at what price points, mobile or fixed wireless solutions must offer before becoming a reasonable choice, compared to fixed access. 

Assume that in its last release, 5G offers a top speed of 20 Gbps. The last iteration of 6G should support 200 Gbps. The last upgrade of 7G should support 2 Tbps. The last version of 8G should run at a top speed of 20 Tbps.

At that point, the whole rationale of fixed network access will have been challenged, in many use cases, by mobility, as early as 6G. By about that point, average mobile speeds might be so high that most users can easily substitute mobile for fixed access.

To be sure, cost per GB also has to be roughly comparable. But, at some point, useful bandwidth at a reasonable enough price could allow wireless solutions to take lots of market share from cabled network providers. 

 

We never get away from debates about “which is the better choice?” in the connectivity or computing industries. Nor do we generally remember that “one size fits all” rarely is the case. Additionally, all choices are conditioned by “when, where, by whom and why” technology must be deployed. 

The global choice of internet protocol rather than asynchronous transfer mode as the foundation for all next-generation networking is among the exceptions. That really did result in an “all or nothing” outcome. 

But few other choices are so stark. Consider access network platforms. Decades ago there were serious--if brief--debates about whether “fiber or satellite” technologies were “better” for wide area networks. There was speculation about whether “Wi-Fi or mobile” was the better platform for phone connectivity.

There were debates about whether fiber to the home or hybrid fiber coax was “better” for consumer broadband access. 

Now there are arguments about whether local connections, unlicensed wide area low power networks or mobile networks are “better” for internet of things sensors. 

Such questions, while valid, always have to be qualified by the issue of “better for whom?” It might not make sense for a public network provider to consider HFC as a foundation access technology. It virtually always is a logical choice for a cable operator, for the moment.

 “At some point,” optical fiber is universally seen as the technology of choice for telcos and other “cabled media” providers. But wireless remains the key approach for satellite, wireless ISPs and mobile operators. 

What is “better” cannot be determined without knowing the “for whom” part of the business context; the “when?” part of the discussion or the “under what other circumstances?” detail. Fiber to the home might be the “ultimate” choice, but “when to deploy” or “where to deploy” also matter. 

U.S. cable operators in 2020 had at least 69 percent share of the installed base of accounts, according to Leichtman Research Group. Telcos likely had something less than 28 percent of the installed base, accounting for share held by independent internet service providers (wireless, fixed and satellite). 

source: FCC, Bloomberg 

Without government support, FTTH might never make business sense, in some locations. In other cases the business case is so marginal and risky that an alternative, such as fixed or mobile wireless, might well be the alternate choice. For a telco, a “fiber” upgrade might make sense when existing copper facilities must be retired in any case, and where need is not driven by revenue upside, merely facilities replacement. 

For a cable operator, an FTTH overlay could make near-term sense to support business customers, but not yet consumers. But fixed wireless might also make sense for cable operator “edge out” operations, and for the same financial reasons that telcos used wholesale as a way to enter geographically-adjacent markets. 

The questions are even broader when looking at total demand for broadband access. In terms of total connections, in the U.S. market 75 percent of all internet access connections use mobile networks. Just 16 percent use cable HFC, while perhaps 8.6 percent of connections use either fiber or copper telco connections, while everything else--including satellite and fixed wireless--represents less than one percent. 

source: FCC

The point is, how much faster do untethered services need to be--assuming roughly equivalent terms and conditions of usage and price--before a significant percentage of home broadband users consider an untethered solution a functional substitute for fixed network access?

Matching headline speeds might not matter, as most consumers do not buy those services. Untethered options simply have to be “fast enough, priced well enough” to contend for significant share of the home broadband market.

AT&T Somewhat Skeptical about Fixed Wireless, But it Might be a Choice for 70% of U.S. Buyers

AT&T does not believe that customers consuming between one and five terabytes of home broadband data will be best served by a mid-band fixed wireless home broadband product.

“Well, the large consumption that we are anticipating over the next five years will be hard to meet with a wireless-only solution,” said Scott McElfresh, AT&T Communications CEO. There will be places where fixed wireless does make sense, he added. 

“There will be portions of the footprint that will not be economical to serve with fiber,” said McElfresh. “And we would intend to put at the edge of our fiber network this wireless C-band asset, along with our other mid-band spectrum to serve some of the limited use cases that we think are available for a fixed wireless solution.”

“But that's not our primary focus for that band, and that's not our primary focus to serve that heavy demand with broadband,” he noted.

At least in part, the issue is upstream bandwidth, where the difference between downstream data and upstream data has traditionally shown a 10:1 ratio. But AT&T CEO John Stankey argues that the ratio is heading to “something more like 5:1.”

As significant a change as that might be for a fixed network, the challenge is harder for a spectrum-constrained platform such as mobility, which never has the bandwidth provided by a cabled network. 

As always, firm strategy hinges on supplier assessment of their own strengths and weaknesses. T-Mobile and Verizon have much more to gain from taking home broadband share than does AT&T, and fixed wireless is the fastest, most affordable way to do so. 

T-Mobile has had zero market share in home broadband, as it has no retail fixed network business. Verizon has a retail fixed network business, but covers a small percentage of U.S. homes. 

Both firms stand to gain millions of accounts--especially where they do not presently offer any service--using mobile or fixed wireless. 

Comcast has (can actually sell service to) about 57 million homes passed.

The Charter Communications network passes about 50 million homes, the number of potential customer locations it can sell to.

Verizon homes passed might number 18.6 to 20 million. To be generous, use the 20 million figure. 

AT&T’s fixed network represents perhaps 62 million U.S. homes passed. CenturyLink never reports its homes passed figures, but likely has 20-million or so consumer locations it can market services to. 

T-Mobile and Verizon have the most market share to gain by deploying fixed wireless.  

“We choose to serve our customers that demand high-speed bandwidth with fiber, and we will utilize our wireless networks to serve those other niche use cases in areas where fiber economics do not make sense,” said Jason Kilar, AT&T WarnerMedia CEO. 

“We think that mid-band spectrum has its role,” said Stankey. “It has its role in being a premium mobility product.” But mid-band spectrum has issues supporting indoor coverage, he argued. “And we think there's better ways to kind of deal with what's going on inside most of the walls of society,” namely fiber to the premises. 

All that can be reasonably argued. But McElfresh also said “our vision would be to have over half of our portfolio or 50 percent of our network covered by that fiber asset” by about 2025, building at about a three million to four million annual rate. 

Proponents of fixed wireless might make exactly the same point: half of U.S. households buy broadband services running between 100 Mbps and 200 Mbps, with perhaps 20 percent of demand requiring lower speeds than that. 

So even if fixed wireless offers lower speeds than cable hybrid fiber coax or telco FTTH, it might arguably still address 70 percent of the U.S. market.

Why Some Service Providers are More Positive on Fixed Wireless Than Others

Connectivity provider strategy choices virtually always are a combination of necessity and opportunity; constraints and advantages. Consider the view T=Mobile, Verizon and AT&T have about upside from 5G fixed wireless. T-Mobile is arguably the most bullish; Verizon is hopeful but AT&T is a skeptic. 

Sometimes choices are dictated by political choices. In any effort to win approval of its merger with Sprint, T-Mobile promised to supply fixed wireless home broadband service to 10 million homes by 2024. AT&T likewise uses fixed wireless (generally using its 4G platform) as part of a commitment to rural broadband--and receipt of government support funds--it made in 2015.

Neither of those moves is necessarily driven by a strict profit-and-loss or revenue growth motivation. For T-Mobile, the fixed wireless commitment was essentially a bargaining chip to win government merger approval; for AT&T a way to honor a commitment made to get rural broadband funding. 

In other cases, though, market positioning dictates relative financial opportunity and therefore different strategies. T-Mobile, for example, has zero share of the roughly $115 billion annual revenues fixed network broadband access market. 

AT&T has about 14.6 percent of the U.S. installed base of broadband customers. Verizon has less than seven percent of the installed base. 

Compare that to Comcast, which has nearly 29 percent of the installed base, and Charter, which has 27 percent of the installed base. 

AT&T in the third quarter of 2020 had about 11 percent share of the new customers, while Verizon got seven percent of the new accounts. 

In large part, those  fixed network broadband figures are based on relative opportunity, as well as customer preferences. 

Comcast has (can actually sell service to ) about 57 million homes passed.

The Charter Communications network passes about 50 million homes, the number of potential customer locations it can sell to.

Verizon homes passed might number 18.6 to 20 million. To be generous, use the 20 million figure. 

AT&T’s fixed network represents perhaps 62 million U.S. homes passed. CenturyLink never reports its homes passed figures, but likely has 20-million or so consumer locations it can market services to. 

T-Mobile has not historically been in the fixed network home broadband business and has passed zero homes. 

So what percentage of total homes does each provider pass? According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are about 137.9 million U.S. housing units.

Roughly 8.8 percent of units are not occupied, typically. Vacant year round units represented 8.8 percent of total housing units, while 2.6 percent were vacant for seasonal use. 

Add it all up and 88.6 percent of the housing units in the United States in the first quarter of 2020 were occupied and 11.4 percent were vacant, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Still, the addressable market therefore is about 138 million locations. Comcast passes perhaps 41 percent of U.S. homes; Charter passes perhaps 36 percent; AT&T passes possibly 45 percent of home locations while Verizon passes perhaps 14 percent, best case, and many of those locations are high-rise buildings where fixed wireless might not be the best access medium. 

So one way to look at 5G fixed wireless is the ability to take market share away from other providers. T-Mobile can win the most, in the sense that it can grow from zero share to some share. 

Charter and Comcast have market share that is outsized in comparison to their homes passed totals, getting roughly 70 percent of the potential market as customers. 

Verizon’s opportunity is dictated by geography. It has the smallest geographic footprint of any of the other tier-one suppliers. That means the use of its nationwide 5G network to supply home broadband gives it reach to most of the country it cannot presently serve. 

Aside from T-Mobile--which has zero fixed network share or network--Verizon has the greatest potential account upside from providing services outside its fixed network footprint. 

AT&T, on the other hand, already covers the greatest percentage of U.S. homes, and therefore has the most to lose from competitors, followed by Comcast and Charter. Verizon and AT&T earn relatively little from their fixed network customers and therefore are most interested in their mobile customer bases, which provide virtually all the incremental revenue growth for each firm. 

Still, the ability to use the 5G mobile network to attack the home broadband market is interesting to T-Mobile and Verizon for reasons related to geography. 

T-Mobile is solely a wireless provider, has no retail fixed network and therefore stands to gain by taking share in the former fixed network broadband business. Verizon has the most-limited geographic footprint of any of the other providers, and therefore has the most to gain from out-of-market share gains in the fixed wireless space. 

Comcast and Charter remain focused--even for mobility services--on customers in their own regions and areas of service. Operations out of existing markets continue to hold little--if any--appeal. 

Some cable companies who operate in rural areas have said they will use fixed wireless rather than hybrid fiber coax or fiber to the home as an access technology in lower-density areas they might be able to reach using wireless. 

The point is that tier-one service provider interest in 5G fixed wireless depends on their assessment of relative financial upside; in some cases regulatory postures; to a great extent existing and possible market share in home broadband and relative expectations about revenue contributions from fixed network services generally.