Showing posts sorted by date for query leichtman. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query leichtman. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, February 18, 2024

5G Does Lift ARPU, in Many Markets

As much as mobile service providers “worry” about 5G revenue upside, compared to 4G, that does not seem to be an issue for many larger service providers. 


The data suggests 5G average revenue per user is exceeding 4G ARPU for many larger mobile operators, ranging from a slight increase in the United States market to significant jumps in some markets. 


Operator

Country

5G ARPU (USD)

4G ARPU (USD)

Source

AT&T

USA

66.28

57.56

Statista, FierceWireless

Verizon

USA

66.40

57.72

Statista, FierceWireless

NTT Docomo

Japan

89.00

62.00

TeleGeography, Nikkei Asian Review

China Mobile

China

25.00

16.00

GSMA Intelligence, South China Morning Post

Orange

France

30.00

23.00

Analysys Mason, Les Echos

Deutsche Telekom

Germany

34.00

25.00

Analysys Mason, Reuters

Vodafone

UK

38.00

28.00

Analysys Mason, Mobile World Live

Telstra

Australia

44.00

38.00

Analysys Mason, The Australian

Telefónica

Spain

35.00

27.00

Analysys Mason, El País


Generally speaking, ARPU increases for 5G, over 4G, range from about 12 percent up to 25 percent. 


Operator

Country

5G ARPU (USD)

4G ARPU (USD)

5G vs. 4G Increase (%)

Source

AT&T

USA

53.18

47.50

12.0%

Leichtman Research Group Q3 2023 Report

Verizon

USA

56.00

48.00

16.7%

Fierce Wireless

NTT Docomo

Japan

62.00

50.00

24.0%

TeleGeography GlobalCom Database

Deutsche Telekom

Germany

35.00

28.00

25.0%

Deutsche Telekom Investor Relations

Orange

France

32.00

27.00

18.5%

Orange Investor Relations

Telefónica

Spain

34.00

29.00

17.2%

Telefónica Investor Relations

Vodafone

UK

38.00

32.00

18.8%

Vodafone Investor Relations

China Mobile

China

30.00

24.00

25.0%

China Mobile Investor Relations


Average revenue “per account” should be a higher figure, since some accounts include multiple users or lines. By some estimates, 5G account revenue. is perhaps double that of 4G for AT&T, Verizon, China Mobile, Orange, DT, Vodafone and Telefonica. 5G account revenue might be 40 percent higher for Telstra. 


Thursday, February 8, 2024

Is Fixed Wireless an "Inferior" Product or Not?

Cable TV suppliers of internet access continue to argue that fixed wireless is an “inferior” product whose market impact is temporary, while the hybrid fiber coax product offers performance advantages. 


Others might simply argue that fixed wireless is an attractive "value" oriented product that perhaps 20 percent of the present market is willing to buy--and does buy--services operating at 200 Mbps or less. In other words, there is significant demand for “inferior” products in the home broadband market. 


Over time, speeds will have to increase, in every category, including the “value” segment. But there is little reason to believe a significant portion of the market will stop preferring “value” connections, especially as speeds and prices continue to rise for all the other tiers of service. 


Source

Year

Percentage of Customers with Speeds of 200 Mbps or Lower

Openvault

2023

Up to 25%

FCC - Measuring Fixed Broadband - Twelfth Report

2023

15%

NTIA - 2020 Broadband Deployment Report

2020

43%

Leichtman Research Group - Q3 2023 Report

2023

32%

Pew Research Center - Broadband Adoption Report 2023

2023

28%


Fixed wireless access is “an inferior product with limited capacity and geographic coverage which is fluid, is often marketed by the phone companies at a perceived lower-priced to their existing customers, “ said Chris Winfrey, Charter Communications CEO. “ We continue to believe the impact from fixed wireless is temporary.”


Charter argues its hybrid fiber coax product is “faster and more reliable,” and can offer lower pricing when home broadband is purchased in a bundle with mobile or video services. 


Charter also believes the mobile operators will run out of sufficient capacity, eventually, and will have to limit the amount of capacity available to support fixed wireless. 


Of course, there also is competition on the high end. But Charter seems unconcerned about that. 


Overbuilders--generally using fiber-to-home platforms--”will not be able to take significant market share,” Charter also claims. “Overbuild impact tends to be limited to a few percentage points of Internet penetration during the first year of a new overbuild vintage coming online,” Winfrey argues. 


Others will question that assertion, particularly as the major telcos ramp up their fiber-to-home investments. Generally speaking, major telcos are able to get about 20 percent adoption initially, ramping up to about 40 percent share over several years.


Tuesday, February 6, 2024

Private Equity, Overbuilder and Telco FTTH Payback Models are Very Different

Firms backed by private equity have different business models than other long-term operators of connectivity assets. PE-backed firms aim to create value (typically double the asset value within seven years) and then sell the assets. 


That is a different model than used by connectivity service providers who operate for the long term, where fundamental issues of free cash flow, revenue growth and profit, as well as the ability to pay dividends, are the key constraints. 


And so it is with investors in fiber-to-home assets. 


Back in the heady days of 1996, when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law, business models for firms providing connectivity services changed in a big way. For legacy providers, maintaining market share became the key issue. For attackers, gaining share became the obvious key issue. 


Beyond that, the imperatives were different. Legacy providers, operating their businesses for the long haul, could not adopt the “fast growth rather than profits” models as used by many attackers. At a time of “easy money” and “we want you to grow fast” attitudes of key investors, that made sense for attackers.


And, as has been true for many software startups, long-terms operating profits were not the goal. Instead, fast growth in a “hot” area was the objective, since such firms had reasonable expectations they would simply be bought out at some point before they ever reached “terminal value.”


That, at least, is what one has to assume when looking at the costs of FTTH networks and costs to actually connect customers and earn a profit on those services.


The reported cost per-home-passed (CPHP) for underground FTTH deployments ranged from $1,600 to $2,600, according to a recent estimate by Cartesian researchers. The CPHP for aerial deployments was lower than those of underground, ranging from under $700 to $1,500 for respondents in suburban and urban environments, and $1,300 to $2,700 in more rural areas. 


source: Fiber Broadband Association 


Actually connecting a paying customer adds another $600 to $830 in drop costs. 

source: Fiber Broadband Association 


So the per-home cost of serving a paying customer includes an attributed cost of building the network; an assumption about take rates and then the cost of the drop and installation; plus operating and marketing costs. 


Take rates matter. At a 50-percent take rate, for example, the per-customer cost of the network can range from $2,600 to perhaps $5,200, with an additional $600 to $800 in drop costs, for a per-customer network cost ranging from a “best case” of perhaps $3,200 up to perhaps $6,000. 


But that is just the network platform. One would have to add in operating and marketing costs, plus any debt service and loan principal repayments. Operating and marketing costs might range from about $210 per year to $800 per year, per customer, according to some estimates. 


Cost Category

Low Estimate ($/year/subscriber)

High Estimate (/year/subscriber)

Sources

Network Infrastructure

$100

$500

FTTH Council: $200-$300,  Deloitte: $300-$500

Operations & Maintenance (O&M)

$25

$75

FTTH Council: $40-$60. Analysys Mason: $25-$35

Customer Acquisition (CAC)

$50

$150

BroadbandNow: $50-$100, Analysys Mason: $60-$150

Customer Care & Billing

$25

$50

Analysys Mason: $25-$35,  Leichtman Research Group: $30-$40

Marketing & Sales

$10

$30

Analysys Mason: $10-$20,  Leichtman Research Group: $15-$25

Total Operating Cost

$210

$805

Sum of individual ranges


And one might have to add interest charges and eventual debt principal repayment in addition to those charges. 


And there is a possible additional range of investments as well. Some firms must first acquire copper-based legacy telco assets first, before starting the FTTH upgrade, either to own and operate over the long term, or to sell the assets in five to seven years. 


Transaction

Date

Buyer

Seller

Asset Type

Homes Passed (M)

Price (USD Billion)

Cost per Passing (USD)

Source

Brightspeed - Lumen assets (20 states)

Oct 2022

Brightspeed

Lumen

Fiber

0.3

3.0

10,000

Reuters

Consolidated Communications - NewWave Communications

Aug 2022

Consolidated

NewWave

Fiber

0.18

0.65

3,611

Fierce Telecom

Windstream - MetroNet Holdings (FL)

Aug 2022

Windstream

MetroNet

Fiber

0.06

0.28

4,667

Fierce Telecom

Frontier Communications - Verizon (WA, OR)

Dec 2021

Frontier

Verizon

Mixed (Fiber & Copper)

0.14

1.05

7,500

Fierce Telecom

Allo Communications - Lincoln Telephone & Telegraph

Nov 2021

Allo

Lincoln

Mixed (Fiber & Copper)

0.11

0.21

1,909

TelecomTV

Ziply Fiber - US Cellular assets (WA, OR)

Oct 2021

Ziply

US Cellular

Fiber

0.12

0.51

4,250

Fierce Telecom

CNSL - Searchlight Investment

Jan 2020

Searchlight

CNSL

Mixed (Fiber & Copper)

0.71

0.425

600

CNBC

In many cases, the capital investment to acquire assets is equal to, or more than, the cost to add the FTTH upgrade. But that’s where the business case lies. If one assumes a copper asset can be purchased for $600 to $800 per passing, but then an upgraded FTTH asset can be sold for $5,000 to $10,000 per passing, that is the business case for making all the investments in FTTH. 


It might still be a difficult business case for a shorter-term owner, but “buying copper assets; upgrading to FTTH and then selling” can work. 


The payback for longer-term operators always has been equally challenging, if not more challenging, and has gotten arguably tougher as total account revenues including voice and video entertainment have dwindled, forcing the payback model to be based on home broadband alone. 


The main point is that FTTH payback models for private equity investors and service providers are quite distinct. What makes sense for a PE firm might not always make sense for a legacy fixed network service provider or an “overbuilder.” 


That is perhaps one reason why GFiber (owned by Alphabet) has not purchased copper telco fixed network assets before upgrading them. As with other “overbuilders,” GFiber has simply built its own greenfield FTTH networks from scratch.

Will Video Content Industry Survive AI?

Virtually nobody in business ever wants to say that an industry or firm transition from an older business model to a newer model is doomed t...