Selling Wholesale 5G

Frontier announced the other day that it was interested in selling off much of the Verizon FiOS networks it had recently acquired in 2016. Apparently, the company is over-leveraged and needs the cash to make a healthier balance sheet. But regardless of the reason, that puts a sizable pile of last mile fiber networks onto the market.

I read a summary of a report by Cowan Equity Research that suggests that there is increasing value for fiber networks now based upon the potential for selling wholesale connections to 5G providers. As I think about this, though, I’m betting that a lot of fiber network owners will be extremely leery about allowing 5G providers onto their networks.

Without looking at the Frontier specifics, consider an existing last mile fiber network that already passes all, or nearly all of the homes and businesses in a community. Every fiber business plan I’ve ever created shows that any last mile fiber network requires a substantial customer penetration in order to be financially viable. The smaller the footprint of the network, the higher the needed customer penetration rate.

Consider how a 5G provider would gain access to an existing fiber network. They’d want to gain access for each 5G transmitter and would pay some fee per unit, or else a fee to lease the whole network. That fee would have to be low enough for the 5G provider to make a profit when selling broadband. I’m guessing that the Cowan group assumes this will provide an attractive second revenue stream for an existing fiber network.

That assumption ignores the fact that the 5G company will be competing directly against the fiber owner for retail broadband customers. It’s not hard for me to envision a scenario where the fiber network owner will lose margin by this transaction. They will be trading high margin retail customers for low-margin 5G wholesale connections.

I saw one market analyst that guessed that a Verizon 5G gigabit offering would capture 30% of the customers in a market. The only way for that to happen would be for the 5G provider to take a big chunk out of the customer base of both the incumbents in the market as well as the fiber owner.

There are markets where selling wholesale 5G might be a good business plan. For example, I’ve seen speculation that Google Fiber and other large overbuilders hope to achieve a 30% market share in large NFL-sized cities. I could foresee a scenario where Google Fiber might increase profits by offering both retail broadband and wholesale 5G connections.

But in smaller markets this could be a disaster. If the fiber network is in a smaller town of 50,000 people, the existing fiber network might need a 45% or 50% customer penetration to be profitable. It’s not hard imagining a 5G scenario that could drive the network owner out of business through loss of higher-margin retail customers. I can’t see why owners of fiber networks in smaller markets would allow a direct competitor onto their network. While the new source of 5G revenue sounds enticing, the losses from retail margins could more than offset any possible gains from the wholesale 5G revenues.

The Frontier example offers yet another possibility. Verizon is famous for cherry-picking with its fiber networks. They will build to one street and not to the one next door. They will build to one apartment or subdivision but not the one next door. Verizon seems to have stayed very disciplined and built only to those places where the cost of construction met their construction cost criterion. I could foresee somebody owning a cherry-picking network to leverage it to get to the homes that are not directly on the fiber routes. We still don’t yet understand the factors that will determine who can or cannot be served from a 5G network, but assuming that such a network will extend the effective reach of fiber this seems like a possible business plan.

But there are fiber networks owned by telcos, municipalities and fiber overbuilders that might look at the math and decide that having a 5G provider on their network is a bad financial idea. I have a difficult time thinking that cable companies will allow 5G competitors access to fiber that’s deep in residential neighborhoods. My gut tells me that while Wall Street foresees an opportunity, this is going to be a lot harder sell to fiber owners than they imagine.

FCC BDAC Removing Regulatory Barriers

One of the sub-committees created by the FCC’s as part of its Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) effort looked at Removing State and Local Regulatory Barriers to broadband deployment. Here is a preliminary draft of their report, which is probably close to the final report. As noted in other blogs on the BDAC, the FCC is not obligated to address any of the issues identified by the sub-committee.

It’s an interesting document in that the sub-committee has made a detailed list of all of the common transgressions imposed by states and localities that have slowed broadband or wireless deployments in the past. It serves as a great primer of the kind of issues that a new network deployment might face. But to be fair, that was the mandate given to this group.

I have zero problems with the list of deployment issues and it seems thorough and accurate. But I don’t think the proposed solution is realistic. They basically recommend that the FCC should preempt states and localities for anything to do with broadband or wireless deployment. That’s not a surprising recommendation since the group was asked to list regulatory hurdles that should be eliminated. But there are numerous reasons why having the FCC preempt all local control of rights-of-ways connectivity is a bad idea. One reason I hate the idea is that this is at the top of the wish list for every DC telecom lobbyist for the big ISPs – and they seem to be getting their way too much these days.

With that said, the complaints listed are valid and I’ve seen many of these issues arise during new network deployments. I’ve worked with a number of communities that have processes or ordinances that are a barrier to broadband, and I always advise them to fix such problems if they are hoping for more broadband deployment in their community. But if I’ve learned anything from working around the country it’s that communities differ significantly, and I don’t favor a one-size-fits-all solution from the FCC that would take everything to do with rights-of-way, permitting and other issues out of the hands of local government.

But this document creates a great cautionary tale for cities, counties and states. Almost every sized community talks about having better broadband or about having more broadband competition. Many cities have looked at their various processes and rules and streamlined or eliminated rules that would be a barrier for somebody building fiber. Any community that is hoping to attract fiber construction should be proactive and look at these issues now. It’s quite possible that prospective fiber builders have investigated cities and taken them off of their list of potential markets without even talking to the cities.

Some of the issues discussed by this document can be real killers of fiber deployment. Some good examples include:

  • Permitting processes that are onerous, require a lot of paperwork and which have issues that make them hard to use, such as only being effective for a few weeks after issuance.
  • Other city practices that slow down construction. This could be burdensome traffic control processes, slow inspection of finished work, slow marking of existing utilities. One of the big killers for larger cities is an unwillingness to hire enough temporary city staff to process the volumes of paperwork associated with a large fiber project.
  • One interesting issue pointed out is that cities often don’t charge all utilities consistently. They might try to charge more or extract concessions from a new fiber provider that they don’t expect of existing utilities.

The sub-committee also addressed wireless deployments. While many cities have policies for large cell tower deployments, most cities have not developed any processes for dealing with the myriad smaller cell sites and 5G transmitters that carriers are going to want to deploy over the next decade. I would hope that considering the issues listed in this draft report will prompt more cities to develop friendlier policies and not wait until they have requests for connections and rights-of-way. I’ve talked to many cities who have said that they wish they had thought harder about fiber deployment before a network was built – and the time is now to get ahead of the curve for wireless deployments.

This document also ignores one of the biggest issues in the industry. The big ISPs all want rules that make it easier for them to build fiber or deploy new wireless devices – but they don’t necessarily support rules that make it easier for new competitors to build against their existing networks. I’ve repeatedly observed some of the big carriers like AT&T or Verizon argue for different rules on the local level than what they supposedly support at the national level. It will be interesting to see where these companies stand if the FCC tries to implement some of the proposed solutions.

White Houses Identifies 5G as Key Infrastructure

The White House recently released the National Security Strategy paper that lists 5G as one of the key infrastructure goals for the country. The specific language from the paper is:

Federal, state, and local governments will work together with private industry to improve our airports, seaports and waterways, roads and railways, transit systems, and telecommunications. The United States will use our strategic advantage as a leading natural gas producer to transform transportation and manufacturing. We will improve America’s digital infrastructure by deploying a secure 5G Internet capability nationwide. These improvements will increase national competitiveness, benefit the environment, and improve our quality of life.

This is a policy paper and there is no way to tell if anything contained in the report will turn into an actual proposed government program, such as infrastructure grants. But it’s worth noting that this is very different from the language used during the early days of the administration that talked about expanding broadband coverage and that hinted at a $40 billion grant program to expand rural broadband infrastructure. The industry took that to mean some sort of expansion of the FCC’s CAF programs aimed at building fiber and other broadband infrastructure.

It seems that during this last year that the administration has been persuaded by the wireless companies to embrace 5G as the future of broadband. It’s probably not a coincidence that all of the wireless carriers met with the administration in recent months and that all of them refer to 5G as a strategic priority for the country.

In the long run 5G might become the preferred broadband solution, but it’s far too early to tell. We need to see 5G actually working in a number of different environments to understand the strengths, weaknesses and deployment cost of the technology. We already understand that 5G is going to require a significant investment in fiber and very little of the country is fiber-rich enough to support 5G infrastructure.

The priority for the wireless carriers is to make it easier to deploy small cell sites. They are currently supporting numerous state legislative efforts that preempt rights of communities and that force low-cost cell site connections with little or no paperwork or approval process by pole owners. While it takes some reading between the lines, one has to suppose that the administration will be supporting FCC efforts to make this the rule nationwide. However, the FCC is somewhat limited in the ability to force pole attachment rules on states and it will take new legislation from Congress to change the parts of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that gave states the rights to set their own pole attachment rules.

Listing 5G as an infrastructure priority also makes me think that there will be federal funding available to help fund 5G networks if Congress can get their act together enough to pass an infrastructure plan. For now, only the giant companies are considering 5G deployments, but with federal grant money perhaps smaller entities could consider building the fiber needed to bring 5G to smaller and more rural communities.

But all of this ignores the fact that 5G might never be a cost-effective solution for rural America. The physics of the millimeter wave spectrum used for 5G is going to require getting fiber close to customers, and in rural America that means spending nearly the same amount to build a rural 5G network as it would cost to build a rural FTTP network. Unless the government just hands out the money to build such networks it’s hard to think that any of the big ISPs will ever be interested in serving rural markets.

I’m trying to envision what a 5G infrastructure plan would fund. The most likely scenario in my mind would be grants given to the large ISPs to expand 5G to suburbia where the cost per subscriber to expand 5G is probably reasonable. Such an effort would be interesting in that it would bring a second major ISP to compete against the near-monopoly of the cable companies. But this does not feel like the sort of investment that ought to be made with federal dollars.

It’s hard though to see the feds funding the fiber needed to build a rural 5G network. And it’s hard to see the big ISPs wanting to support the operational costs to support such a rural network – AT&T and Verizon are both bailing as fast as they can today from serving rural America.

The language in the policy paper means nothing unless the federal government creates some sort of funded infrastructure plan and calling 5G a priority is just rhetoric without the funding to back it up. But one thing is clear from the language in this policy paper – the administration has bought into the rhetoric from the wireless providers.

Telecom Predictions for 2018

It’s that time of year to pause and look at what the next year might bring us. I see the following as the biggest telecom trends for 2018:

End of Net Neutrality Not a Big Deal. At least during 2018 we aren’t going to see the end of the Internet as predicted by many in the press and on social media. First, there are going to be a series of lawsuits challenging the FCC ruling, and ISPs are generally unwilling to do anything that might be changed by the courts. But I also think the big ISPs are unlikely to immediately do anything that will be unpopular with the general public. We might instead see subtle changes like more zero-rating that the public seems to favor. The big ISPs understand that this FCC ruling is immensely unpopular and they have to be worried about Congress or a new administration reversing a lot of the ruling. For now I think this means we won’t see any drastic changes in ISP behavior in the coming year. The big ISPs want the issue to quietly die away, and the best way for them to accomplish that is to not do anything unpopular right away.

Cable TV Declines Faster as a Product. We are seeing the perfect storm of events attacking the traditional cable market. First, programmers are raising programing rates to cable providers at historically high rates. It’s almost as if they want to get the last drop of profits out of the product before it wanes. This means another round of noticeably high cable rate increases – the primary reason that cord cutters cite for leaving traditional cable. We are also seeing a proliferation of alternate programming choices. The most popular cable networks are now available in lower-priced online alternatives. The growth in OTT alternatives has been significant in 2017 and in 2018 a lot more people are going to be lured into switching to one of the alternatives. The 3rd quarter of 2017 saw the cable providers lose a million customers and losses will accelerate in 2018.

Is 5G Hype or Real? In 2018 we are going to find out if the 5G hype is real. Verizon has been talking about rolling out a residential 5G broadband solution to 30 million homes, with a few specific markets identified in 2018. AT&T has been hyping the near-term roll-out of its AirGig 5G product. I think in 2018 we are going to get a look at how these technologies function in real neighborhoods and we’ll find out the real-life benefits and shortcomings of the technologies.

Networked WiFi Goes Mainstream. Poorly configured home WiFi networks are one of the major culprit for poor broadband experiences. Many homes have decent broadband connections but then lose all of the power by using a poorly placed single WiFi router. Many ISPs are now offering managed WiFi as a way to solve this problem. But there are also numerous inexpensive solutions available directly to consumers. Word of mouth about the benefits of networked WiFi are making this into the preferred home solution.

Voice Controls Become Practical. Until now voice control devices like the Amazon Echo have been novelties. But there are now practical applications with these devices that will make them go mainstream in 2018. Functions like simple web searches, home intercom systems, initiating phone calls or texts, controlling TVs and other devices along with the ability to play music everywhere is going to make most houses try the technology. This will be the year when a lot of people accept the idea of a voice interface to technology as an alternative to computers or smart phones.

Real Cellular Competition. The entrance of Comcast and Charter into the cellular markets is going to be significant. We also see T-Mobile increasing competitive pressure by bundling video with cell service. It’s clear that the cellular market in the US is fully saturated and that everybody has a cell phone. This all adds up to another round of price wars between cellular providers. It also means that the ‘unlimited’ plans introduced by the cellular companies in 2017 will quickly move from a novelty to the become the expected norm.

Explosion in Rural Communities Looking for a Broadband Solution. The digital divide between towns and rural areas is now obvious to everybody. Broadband has grown to become a necessity rather than a nice-to-have commodity. Rural citizens are demanding that their local governments help them find a broadband alternative. This movement is accelerated by the numerous success stories from proactive communities that have found a broadband solution. The most common market solution I see is public-private partnerships, but communities are finding other creative solutions. I also see numerous rural communities willing to talk about bringing public financing to help solve the problem. Expect numerous rural communities to start looking for solutions in 2018.

Are We at the End of Broadband Growth?

A recent report by the Leichtman Research Group looks at overall historic broadband penetration rates. In looking at the results I immediately asked the question if we have topped out with US broadband penetration rates.

The study shows that 82% of homes now have a home broadband connection. Another 2% of homes get an Internet connection from other source like dial-up or satellite, meaning that the overall number of households with some kind of home broadband connection is 84%.

But compare that to 2012. In that year 76% of homes had a home broadband connection while 7% got broadband in some other matter – a total market penetration in 2012 of 83%. This means that the composite growth of homes that have added broadband from 2012 until now is only 1% (84% compared to 83%)

During that time the big ISPs have all continued to show broadband growth. But these numbers show that the growth of broadband came from customers dropping dial-up or other slower forms of broadband.  But the big question that is raised is if the 84% overall Internet connectivity is close to a full penetration rate. If so this raises significant questions about the future of the ISP industry.

The report does suggest that there is possibly more room for industry growth – but only if we can find a way to solve the digital divide. The report shows that 91% of homes with household income above $50,000 have landline broadband compared to only 72% for homes making less than $50,000. That would suggest that the overall demand for broadband is probably closer to the 91% experienced by higher-income homes.

Numerous surveys have shown that low income homes without broadband have always cited high prices as the reason they don’t have broadband. It possible that the broadband penetration for lower-income homes might drop as the telcos begin the promised phase-out of DSL, which generally has been the low-cost broadband alternative in most markets. But these numbers also suggest that an ISP that can profitably offer a low-cost broadband alternative might have a sizable potential market.

Finally, the study looks at cellular broadband. It shows that the percentage of households that sometimes use cellular data to connect to the Internet has grown from 44% in 2012 to 75% today. 68% of households today use both cellular and landline Internet connections.

Other studies have shown that there is a small, but growing segment of the population that only uses cellular data. This tends to be younger people who value mobility over broadband speeds, or low-income households that can’t afford a landline alternative. To some extent the growth in the use of cellular broadband is probably at least partially responsible for holding down the overall growth of landline broadband connections. In economics terms there is some segment of customers that view cellular data as a reasonable substitute for landline broadband, and who are happy with only the cellular connection.

None of these numbers are a surprise to the big ISPs which track these statistics closely in each market. But the numbers are cause for alarm. Once the broadband market reaches full market penetration then there will be no overall growth in the industry in terms of adding net new broadband customers, at least beyond the rate of overall household growth.

The cable companies are still enjoying a boom related to their ability to convert customers from DSL. But the telcos have begun to fight back by building fiber-to-the-home. They are also planning to start deploying more fixed wireless connections using 5G. In at least some markets broadband is going to get a lot more competitive.

The overall broadband market is going to change and become more like any mature market when overall growth stops. This is pure economics. The market changes drastically if an ISP can only grow by taking customers away from other ISPs. We already know what that looks like by observing the marketing wars between the cellular carriers.

Verizon Announces Residential 5G Roll-out

Verizon recently announced that it will be rolling out residential 5G wireless in as many as five cities in 2018, with Sacramento being the first market. Matt Ellis, Verizon’s CFO says that the company is planning on targeting 30 million homes with the new technology. The company launched fixed wireless trials in eleven cities this year. The trials delivered broadband wirelessly to antennas mounted in windows. Ellis says that the trials using millimeter wave spectrum went better than expected. He says the technology can achieve gigabit speeds over distances as great as 2,000 feet. He also says the company has had some success in delivering broadband without a true line-of-sight.

The most visible analyst covering this market is Craig Moffett of Moffett-Nathanson. He calls Verizon’s announcement ‘rather squishy’ and notes that there are no discussions about broadband speeds, products to be offered or pricing. Verizon has said that they would not deliver traditional video over these connections, but would use over-the-top video. There have been no additional product descriptions beyond that.

This announcement raises a lot of other questions. First is the technology used. As I look around at the various wireless vendors I don’t see any equipment on the market that comes close to doing what Verizon claims. Most of the vendors are talking about having beta gear in perhaps 2019, and even then, vendors are not promising affordable delivery to single family homes. For Verizon to deliver what it’s announced obviously means that they have developed equipment themselves, or quietly partnered on a proprietary basis with one of the major vendors. But there is no other ISP talking about this kind of deployment next year and so the question is if Verizon really has that big of a lead over the rest of the industry.

The other big question is delivery distance. The quoted 2,000 feet distance is hard to buy with this spectrum and that is likely the distance that has been achieved in a test in perfect conditions. What everybody wants to understand is the realistic distance to be used in deployments in normal residential neighborhoods with the trees and many other impediments.

Perhaps the most perplexing question is how much this is going to cost and how Verizon is going to pay for it. The company recently told investors that it does not see capital expenditures increasing in the next few years and may even see a slight decline. That does not jive with what sounds like a major and costly customer expansion.

Verizon said they chose Sacramento because the City has shown a willingness to make light and utility poles available for the technology. But how many other cities are going to be this willing (assuming that Sacramento really will allow this)? It’s going to require a lot of pole attachments to cover 30 million homes.

But even in Sacramento one has to wonder where Verizon is going to get the fiber needed to support this kind of network? It seems unlikely that the three incumbent providers – Comcast, Frontier and Consolidated Communications – are going to supply fiber to assist Verizon to compete with them. Since Sacramento is not in the Verizon service footprint the company would have to go through the time-consuming process needed to build fiber on their own – a process that the whole industry is claiming is causing major delays in fiber deployment. One only has to look at the issues encountered recently by Google Fiber to see how badly incumbent providers can muck up the pole attachment process.

One possibility comes to mind, and perhaps Verizon is only going to deploy the technology in the neighborhoods where it already has fiber-fed cellular towers. That would be a cherry-picking strategy that is similar to the way that AT&T is deploying fiber-to-the-premise. AT&T seems to only be building where they already have a fiber network nearby that can make a build affordable. While Verizon has a lot of cell sites, it’s hard to envision that a cherry-picking strategy would gain access to 30 million homes. Cherry-picking like this would also make for difficult marketing since the network would be deployed in small non-contiguous pockets.

So perhaps what we will see in 2018 is a modest expansion of this year’s trials rather than a rapid expansion of Verizon’s wireless technology. But I’m only guessing, as is everybody else other than Verizon.

Cable Labs Analysis of 5G

Cable Labs and Arris just released an interesting paper that is the best independent look at the potential for 5G that I’ve seen. Titled ”Can a Fixed Wireless Last 100m Connection Really Compete with a Wired Connection and Will 5G Really Enable this Opportunity?”, the paper was written to inform cable companies about the potential for 5G as a direct competitor to cable network broadband. The paper was released at the recent SCTE-ISBE forum in Denver. The paper is heavily technical and is aimed at engineers who want to understand wireless performance.

As is typical with everything I’ve seen out of Cable Labs over the years the paper is not biased and takes a fair look at the issues. It’s basically an examination of how spectrum works in the real world. This is refreshing since the vast majority of materials available about 5G are sponsored by wireless vendors or the big wireless providers that have a vested interest in that market succeeding. I’ve found many of the claims about 5G to be over-exaggerated and optimistic in terms of the speeds that can be delivered and about when 5G will be commercially deployed.

The paper explores a number of different issues. It looks at wireless performance in a number of different frequency bands from 3.5 GHz through the millimeter save spectrum. It takes a fair look at interference issues, such as how foliage from different kinds of trees affects wireless performance. It considers line-of-sight versus near line-of-sight capabilities of radios.

The conclusions from the report are nearly the same ones I have been blogging about for a while:

  • Speeds on 5G can be significant, particularly with millimeter wave radios. The radios already in use today are capable of gigabit speeds.
  • The spectrums being used suffer significant interference issues. The spectrums will be hampered when being used in wooded areas or with the trees on many residential streets.
  • Coverage is also an issue since the effective delivery distance for much of the spectrum being used is relatively short. The means that transmitters need to be relatively close to customers.
  • Backhaul is a problem. Fast speeds require fiber connectivity to transmitters or else robust wireless backhaul – which suffers from the same coverage and interference issues as the connections to homes.

The paper also takes a look at the relative cost today of deploying 5G technology at today’s costs:

  • The CAPEX for a 3.5 GHz system used for wireless drops (800-meter coverage distance) costs $3,000 for the transmitter and $300 per home. These radios would be making home connections of perhaps 100 Mbps.
  • A millimeter wave transmitter costs about $22,500 with home receivers at about $650. This would only cover about a 200-meter distance.
  • In both cases the transmitter costs would be spread over the number of customers within the relatively short coverage area.
  • These numbers don’t include backhaul costs or the cost of somehow mounting the radios on poles in neighborhoods.
  • These numbers don’t add up to compelling case for 5G wireless as strong cable competitor, particularly considering the interference and other impediments.

The conclusion of the paper is that 5G will be most successful for now in niche applications. It is likely to be used most heavily in serving multi-tenant buildings in densely populated urban areas. It can be justified as a temporary solution for a broadband customer until a carrier can bring them fiber. And of course, we already know that point-to-multipoint wireless already has a big application in rural areas where there are no broadband alternatives – but that application is not 5G.

But for now, Cable Labs is telling its cable company owners that there doesn’t seem to be a viable business case for 5G as a solution for widespread deployment to residential homes in cities and suburbs where the cable companies operate.

5G Networks and Neighborhoods

With all of the talk about the coming 5G technology revolution I thought it might be worth taking a little time to talk about what a 5G network means for the aesthetics of neighborhoods. Just what might a street getting 5G see in new construction that is not there today?

I live in Asheville, NC and our town is hilly and has a lot of trees. Trees are a major fixture in lots of towns in America, and people plant shade trees along streets and in yards even in states where there are not many trees outside of towns.

5G is being touted as a fiber replacement, capable of delivering speeds up to a gigabit to homes and businesses. This kind of 5G (which is different than 5G cellular) is going to use the millimeter wave spectrum bands. There are a few characteristics of that spectrum that defines how a 5G network must be deployed. This spectrum has extremely short wavelengths, and that means two things. First, the signal isn’t going to travel very far before the signal dissipates and grows too weak to deliver fast data. Second, these short wavelengths don’t penetrate anything. They won’t go through leaves, walls, or even through a person walking past the transmitter – so these frequencies require a true unimpeded line-of-sight connection.

These requirements are going to be problematic on the typical residential street. Go outside your own house and see if there is a perfect line-of-sight from any one pole to your home as well as to three or four of your neighbors. The required unimpeded path means there can be no tree, shrub or other impediment between the transmitter on a pole and each home getting this service. This may not be an issue in places with few trees like Phoenix, but it sure doesn’t look very feasible on my street. On my street the only way to make this work would be by imposing a severe tree trimming regime – something that I know most people in Asheville would resist. I would never buy this service if it meant butchering my old ornamental crepe myrtle. And tree trimming must then be maintained into the future to keep new growth from blocking signal paths.

Even where this can work, this is going to mean putting up some kind of small dish on each customer location in a place that has line-of-sight to the pole transmitter. This dish can’t go just anywhere on a house in the way that satellite TV dishes can often be put in places that aren’t very noticeable. While these dishes will be small, they must go where the transmitter can always see them. That’s going to create all sorts of problems if this is not the place in the home where the existing wiring comes into the home. In my home the wiring comes into the basement in the back of the house while the best line-of-sight options are in the front – and that is going to mean some costly new wiring by an ISP, which might negate the cost advantage of the 5G.

The next consideration is back-haul – how to get the broadband signals into and out of the neighborhood. Ideally this would be done with fiber. But I can’t see somebody spending the money to string fiber in a town like Asheville, or in most residential neighborhoods just to support wireless. The high cost of stringing fiber is the primary impediment today for getting a newer network into cities.

One of the primary alternatives to stringing fiber is to feed neighborhood 5G nodes with point-to-point microwave radio shots. In a neighborhood like mine these won’t be any more practical that the 5G signal paths. The solution I see being used for this kind of back-haul is to erect tall poles of 100’ to 120’ to provide a signal path over the tops of trees. I don’t think many neighborhoods are going to want to see a network of tall poles built around them. And tall poles still suffer the same line-of-sight issues. They still have to somehow beam the signal down to the 5G transmitters – and that means a lot more tree trimming.

All of this sounds dreadful enough, but to top it off the network I’ve described would be needed for a single wireless provider. If more than one company wants to provide wireless broadband then the number of devices multiply accordingly. The whole promise of 5G is that it will allow for multiple new competitors, and that implies a town filled with multiple wireless devices on poles.

And with all of these physical deployment issues there is still the cost issue. I haven’t seen any numbers for the cost of the needed neighborhood transmitters that makes a compelling business case for 5G.

I’m the first one to say that I’ll never declare that something can’t work because over time engineers might find solutions for some of these issues. But where the technology sits today this technology is not going to work on the typical residential street that is full of shade trees and relatively short poles. And that means that much of the talk about gigabit 5G is hype – nobody is going to be building a 5G network in my neighborhood, for the same sorts of reasons they aren’t building fiber here.

Is 5G Really a Fiber Replacement?

I recently saw a short interview in FierceWireless with Balan Nair, CTO of Liberty Global. In case you haven’t heard of the company, they are the biggest cable company in the world with over 28 million customers.

One of the things he discussed was the practical widespread implementation of 5G gigabit technology. He voiced the same thing I have been thinking for the last year about the economics of deploying 5G. He was quoted as saying, “5G will be a ‘game-changer’ in its superior ability to transfer data, but the technology will not replace fixed-network broadband services anytime soon. The economics just aren’t there. You’re talking about buying hundreds of towers and all of that spectrum. And on the residential end, putting a device outside the window and wiring it back into the home. It’s a question of business model and if you plan on making any money. The economics benefit fixed.”

The big telcos are making a big deal out of 5G, mostly I think to appear cutting-edge to their investors. And I have no doubt that in certain places like dense urban downtowns that 5G might be the best way to speed up gigabit broadband deployment. But I look at what’s involved in deploying the technology anywhere else and I have a hard time seeing the economic case for using 5G to bring fast broadband to the masses.

5G will definitely make an impact in urban downtowns. You might assume that cities already have a great fiber infrastructure, but this often isn’t the case. Look at Verizon’s FiOS deployment strategy in the past – they deployed fiber where the construction was the most cost effective, and that meant suburban areas where they had existing pole lines or conduit. Verizon largely avoided much of the downtowns of eastern cities because the cost per mile of fiber construction was too expensive.

Now, 5G can be deployed from the top of high-rises to reach the many downtown buildings that never got fiber. New York City recently sued Verizon since the company reneged on its promise to build fiber everywhere and there are still 1 million living units in the city that never got fiber broadband. Verizon, or somebody else is going to be able to use 5G in the densely populated cities to bring faster broadband, and as Nair said, this might be a game changer.

But as soon as you get out of downtowns and high-rises the math no longer favors 5G. There are three components of a 5G network that are not going to be cheap in suburbia. First, 5G needs fiber. You might be able to use a little wireless backhaul in a 5G network, but a significant portion of the network must be fiber fed. And in most of the country that fiber is not in place. Deloitte recently estimated that the cost for just the fiber to bring 5G everywhere is $130 billion. There is nobody rushing to make that investment.

5G then needs somewhere to place the transmitters. This is more easily achieved in a downtown where there are many tall rooftops and existing towers. But the short delivery distances for millimeter wave frequencies mean that transmitters need to be relatively close the end-user. And in suburban areas that’s going to mean somehow building a lot of new towers or else placing smaller transmitters on existing poles. We know suburbia hates tall towers and it’s always a struggle to build new ones. And the issues associated with getting access to suburban poles are well documented. An ISP needs to affordably get onto poles and also get fiber to those poles – two expensive and time-consuming challenges.

And then there is the economics of the electronics. Because millimeter wave spectrum is easily disrupted by foliage or any impediments it means that there won’t be too many homes served from any one pole-mounted transmitter. But the 5G revenue stream still has to cover both ends of the radios as well as wiring into the home.

I build a lot of landline business plans and I can’t see this making any economic sense for widespread deployment. In many cases this 5G network might be more expensive and slower to deploy than an all-fiber network.

I instead envision companies using 5G technology to cherry pick. There will be plenty of places where there is existing fiber and poles that can be used to serve suburban apartment complexes or business districts. I can see strategic deployment in those areas and the technology used in the same way that Verizon deployed fiber – 5G will deployed only where it makes sense. But like with FiOS, there are going to be huge areas where there will be no 5G deployment, even in relatively dense suburbia. And the business case for rural America is even bleaker. 5G will find a market niche and will be one more technology tool for bringing faster broadband – where it makes economic sense.

The Louisville Pole Attachment Lawsuit

There has been a major legislative push lately to make it easier for wireless companies to get onto poles in order to deploy the small cell sites needed for 5G deployment. AT&T and Verizon have been leading the fight for easier access and there have been attempts at both the federal and state level to enact ‘one-touch’ rules. Proposed legislation not only sets a low price for compensating pole owners, but proposed legislation also removes the ability for pole owners or municipalities to slow down wireless deployments.

There is a lot of debate in the industry about the one-touch issue. As I have discussed in various blogs, issues with getting onto poles is still one of the major roadblocks to many fiber deployments. And from the examples cited by the cellular carriers they are seeing huge delays in deploying urban small cell sites.

Like any debate there are legitimate issues to be considered on both sides of the issues. Proponents of one-touch cite the extraordinary costs of wading through the paperwork-heavy pole attachment process as well as the dollar and cents costs of delaying construction projects.

But on the other side are pole owners and current networks hung on wires. Carriers are legitimately worried about safety issues for their technicians if large boxes the size of refrigerators are hung on poles without constraint. They legitimately worry about how such devices could cause problems during repairs from storm damage. And carriers are also worried about network outages if a new attacher is allowed and able to move their wires without their knowledge or permission.

A court decision a few weeks ago might be a first step into putting some clarity to the issue. In that suit AT&T had sued the City of Louisville in order to stop them from passing a one-touch make-ready ordinance. The ordinance was aimed at making it easier for Google Fiber and other competitive providers to get onto poles in the City. The City of Louisville owns most of the poles in the city and the City has been working with Google Fiber to deploy a fiber network to everybody in the City.

You have to let the irony of AT&T’s lawsuit sink in for a minute. This is a company that is spending millions right now lobbying for one-touch rules. AT&T not only wants to deploy small cell sites, but they are also in the process of building a huge amount of fiber to support those sites. And yet AT&T felt compelled to fight against the very kind of ordinance they are promoting because it would help one of their competitors.

It turns out that not all one-touch ordinances are the same. The ordinances that AT&T and Verizon are pushing are crafted very carefully to help them while still not making it quite so easy for their competitors. The Louisville ordinance made it easier for any new attacher to get onto poles, including AT&T.

The US District Court Judge of Kentucky completely rejected all of AT&T’s claims and tossed the lawsuit. The court basically said that all of AT&T’s claims in the suit were false. It’s ironic that many of the issues raised by the City in defense of the suit sound the same as the claims that AT&T makes elsewhere when lobbying for one-touch legislation.

I’ve always said that being in the regulatory department at AT&T has to be the hardest job in our industry. It’s a company that wears too many hats. AT&T owns a huge monopoly landline network and wants to protect itself from competitors. In some markets AT&T is a major pole owner. AT&T is also a huge wireless company that now wants access to poles. And AT&T is a huge builder of fiber, much of it now outside of its monopoly telco territory.

Any regulatory position the company takes to benefit one of these business lines is likely to not be in the best interest of other parts of the company. When looking at the big picture one has to think that AT&T will get far more benefit than harm from one-touch rules. Such rules will make it a lot easier to build more fiber and to deploy cell sites. And yet, a company with this many tentacles in the industry could not restrain itself from filing a lawsuit that probably was not in its own best long-term interest. The monopoly side of the company felt it could not sit back and let a competitor like Google Fiber build without the company taking steps to slow them down.