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.

How Wrong is FCC Broadband Data? Not that Much, Says Phoenix Center

Many critics rightly say the Federal Communications Commission’s methods for determining broadband coverage by terrestrial networks (25 Mbps minimum downstream) are wrong, and overstate the amount of access.

Virtually everyone might agree with the general statement. What has never been clear is the magnitude of the collection error. Is broadband availability wildly overstated, or just a little overstated? 

George Ford, chief economist at the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Policy Studies, has an answer: 3.3 percent overstatement. Put another way, some four million U.S. homes are assumed to have broadband that do not. Ford uses a 126 million figure for U.S. housing units. 

Using a national housing units base of 138.5 million, that is an overcount of less than three percent. Estimates of housing units are nuanced, as some units are not occupied, occupied for only parts of a year, and include rooms in other structures, boats and other unusual situations. 

One might argue that the overstatement is relatively minor. At a larger level, one might also argue that getting the last few percentage points of “solution” for any “problem” tends to be wildly more expensive or difficult than producing solutions for the middle 80 percent to 90 percent of cases. 

That might be as true for weight loss as it is for building or enumerating communications infrastructure. 

One might argue that most of the value of a data set related to individual behavior is captured in the first 50 percent of acquired data (much of the latter behavior is repetition of past behavior). The incremental value of the last few percentage points of data is low, relative to the earlier data. 

source: Scott Jarr

The Gaussian distribution (Bell curve or normal distribution) probably illustrates the concept as well. Most of the results of any construction project (homes connected, miles built) are likely to occur in the middle 90 percent of activities. That has the same general implications as the law of diminishing returns might suggest. 

Slow progress at first results in a rapid rate of change in the middle, until incremental value slows, stops or becomes negative. 

source: Idea to Value

That is true for fixed communication network costs as well. Connecting the last few percent of locations, typically the most isolated and rural places, is the most expensive. 

source: FCC

The concern about rural broadband coverage is well placed. Progress also tends to be slow, in part because we keep moving the goalposts (faster speeds over time mean the work never ends), and partly because supplying the last couple of percent of locations with fixed network access is wildly expensive to prohibitive, even with subsidies. 

Rural networks might cost three times more than urban networks. Rural networks might cost four to five times more than suburban networks. 

The general point is that there is a law of diminishing returns at work, as elsewhere in life. 

source: Personal Excellence

Better data collection is better than worse data collection. But the FCC’s data seems to have captured most of the value, if inaccurate at the margins. Improvement is possible, but not as much as many seem to believe.

Causation is Clear for Short-Term Rentals, Less Clear for Broadband

“Who benefits and who loses?” is a reasonable question for analyses of public policy and economic studies. As with all questions related to public policy and economics, though, correlation is easier to demonstrate than causation, simply because the number of variables is so great. 

In the connectivity business, the issue is most common in analyses of broadband impact on economic growth, household income or job growth. We assume broadband “causes” economic growth, but correlation is not causation.  

We assume quality broadband is associated with job growth, but cannot prove causation. We assume better mobile broadband also “causes” economic growth, so we might also believe 5G will similarly cause growth. We might be wrong. 

It also is plausible that areas with strong economic growth, above-average household income and wages, higher educational levels and wealth create demand for better broadband. In other words, demand for broadband is a result of strong economic growth, rather than its cause. 

Other cases arguably have stronger causation relationships. Consider the argument that use of short-term rental apps causes a reduced supply of housing and higher housing costs. It seems plausible for the simple reason that housing vacancies in any market tend to be fixed, and rental property managers can make choices about how to market their rentals: short term or long term. 

The issue is how much difference a robust short-term rental has. It also seems plausible that the biggest impact should be in “touristy” areas where there is high demand for short-term housing. Areas with modest tourist demand should also have modest demand for short-term housing. 

It also seems plausible that the greatest effect is in “touristy” areas that also are affluent. 

Airbnb leads to a reduced supply of housing as properties shift from serving local residents to serving Airbnb travelers, which hurts local residents by raising housing costs, according to Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute director of research. 

That assessment seems mirrored by some other studies. Short-term rentals using apps such as Airbnb contribute to housing shortages and rent increases, according to Felix Mindl and Dr. Oliver Arentz, researchers at University of Cologne in Germany. 

They attributed 14.2 percent of overall rent increases to short-term rentals or 320 euros ($385) per year for new tenants.

“While a large proportion of hosts can be considered home sharers, we find an increasing proportion of providers who have developed a professional business model from short-term rentals,” Mindl said in a statement. “Professional short-term rentals are available to tourists throughout the year, and thus compete directly with long-term tenants, for whom the rooms are then no longer available.”

Researchers also have found that in local neighborhoods with a lower share of owner-occupancy, Airbnb had a higher impact on rising housing prices and rents. In areas with a higher share of owner-occupancy, Airbnb had somewhat less of an impact on property prices and rents.

The study also found that the total supply of housing was not affected by the entry of an Airbnb property in a given neighborhood, and that Airbnb listings tend to increase the supply of short-term rental units, while contributing to a decrease of the supply of long-term rental units.

Aside from the presumed effect on housing, short-term rental apps also shift revenue between lodging suppliers. As with sports stadiums, which arguably mostly shift spending from one form of entertainment to another, short-term rental apps shift revenue from hotels to individual property owners.

“The most obvious benefit stemming from the creation and expansion of Airbnb accrues to property owners who have units to rent,” EPI noted.

There are other issues, though. The housing market is affected by forces other than Airbnb, such as gentrification and economic trends. A one-percent increase in Airbnb listings is causally associated with a 0.018 percent increase in rental rates and a 0.026% increase in house prices, other researchers argue. 

“In aggregate, the growth in home-sharing through Airbnb contributes to about one fifth of the average annual increase in U.S. rents and about one-seventh of the average annual increase in U.S. housing prices,” say researchers Kyle Barron, Edward Kung and Davide Proserpio. 

In contrast, annual zip code demographic changes and general city trends contribute about three fourths of the total rent growth and about three fourths of the total housing price growth.

“These results translate to an annual increase of $9 in monthly rent and $1,800 in house prices for the median zipcode in our data,” they say.

The biggest impact comes if a long-term rental unit is converted to a short-term rental unit on a full-time basis, as that subtracts one living unit from the long-term rental stock. On the other hand, an owner-occupied home that rents a room in that house does not do so.

U.S. Fixed Network Internet Access Market Reaching Saturation?

Is the U.S. consumer fixed internet access market near saturation? It is quite possible.

By at least one estimate, there are 95 million U.S. buyers of fixed network internet access.

In the fourth quarter of 2017 there were an estimated 136.9 million U.S. housing units. Vacancy rates are an issue, though. Some 16.7 million of those units were vacant.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, some seven percent of rental units were unoccupied, as were some 1.6 percent of owned residences. So assume the number of residences where fixed network consumer telecom services could be sold is about 120.2 million.

So that implies 79 percent of all U.S. households buy a fixed network internet access subscription. Assume another 1.6 million buy a satellite internet access service (about one percent of occupied U.S. residences. That implies 80 percent of occupied homes buy internet access.

But we also must add another six million subscribers served by all the smaller telcos, cable TV companies and independent internet service providers (assuming those smaller fixed network suppliers supply five percent of homes). That adds another five percent, bringing consumer household buying of internet access up to about 85 percent.

Also, some 10 percent of homes use mobile internet access exclusively, according to the Pew Research Center. So add another 12 million occupied U.S. homes to the total of buyers of internet access.

That brings buyers of internet access up to about 95 percent of U.S. occupied homes. The point is that we fast are approaching the point where at-home internet access is saturated. There simply are not that many more U.S. homes to convert, possibly six million or so (unless the percentage of occupied homes grows and millions of new households are formed, driving demand for new housing stock).

In fact, some might argue that as we move into the 5G era, there will be even more mobile substitution. That means it is possible we are very near to the peak of fixed network residential internet access penetration. With the exception of older demographics, home internet access adoption home internet access adoptionhas been flat since about 2010.

Leichtman Research Group reports the 14 largest U.S. cable and telephone providers of internet access  in the United States, representing about 95 percent of the customers--acquired about 2.1 million net additional high-speed Internet subscribers in 2017 (that figure also includes business users).

Broadband Providers	Subscribers at End of 4Q 2017	Net Adds in 2017
Cable Companies
Comcast	25,869,000	1,168,000
Charter	23,903,000	1,310,000
Altice	4,046,200	83,700
Mediacom	1,209,000	47,000
WOW (WideOpenWest)*	730,000	11,100
Cable ONE**	524,935	11,027
Other Major Private Company^	4,880,000	90,000
Total Top Cable	61,162,135	2,720,827
Phone Companies
AT&T	15,719,000	114,000
Verizon	6,959,000	(79,000)
CenturyLink	5,662,000	(283,000)
Frontier	3,938,000	(333,000)
Windstream	1,006,600	(44,500)
Cincinnati Bell	308,700	5,500
FairPoint^^	301,000	(5,624)
Total Top Telco	33,894,300	(625,624)
Total Top Broadband	95,056,435	2,095,203

The point is that market share shifts are likely to be the key battleground in the consumer fixed network access market, as it appears we are very near saturation, where nearly every customer that wants to buy the product already is a buyer.

How Much Longer Can Fixed Internet Access Continue to Grow?

U.S. net new internet access accounts grew by about 2.1 million accounts in 2017, according to Leichtman Research Group.

A separate analysis by Convergence Research Group suggests U.S. internet access accounts grew by about 2.33 million accounts in 2017, reaching 96.95 million total accounts. At the same time, subscription revenue grew seven percent in 2017 to $56.8 million.

Convergence Research Group expects 2.57 million internet access additions and six percent revenue growth to $60.5 billion in 2018.

The issue is how close we now are to peak internet access. By at least one estimate, there are 95 million U.S. buyers of fixed network internet access.

In the fourth quarter of 2017 there were an estimated 136.9 million U.S. housing units. Vacancy rates are an issue, though. Some 16.7 million of those units were vacant.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, some seven percent of rental units were unoccupied, as were some 1.6 percent of owned residences. So assume the number of residences where fixed network consumer telecom services could be sold is about 120.2 million.

So that implies 79 percent of all U.S. households buy a fixed network internet access subscription. Assume another 1.6 million buy a satellite internet access service (about one percent of occupied U.S. residences. That implies 80 percent of occupied homes buy internet access.

But we also must add another six million subscribers served by all the smaller telcos, cable TV companies and independent internet service providers (assuming those smaller fixed network suppliers supply five percent of homes). That adds another five percent, bringing consumer household buying of internet access up to about 85 percent.

Also, some 10 percent of homes use mobile internet access exclusively, according to the Pew Research Center. So add another 12 million occupied U.S. homes to the total of buyers of internet access.

That brings buyers of internet access up to about 95 percent of U.S. occupied homes. The point is that we fast are approaching the point where at-home internet access is saturated. There simply are not that many more U.S. homes to convert, possibly six million or so (unless the percentage of occupied homes grows and millions of new households are formed, driving demand for new housing stock).