Tag Archives: AT&T

The Public Loves Fiber

The latest Customer Satisfaction Index is out from ACSI, which measures the public satisfaction of a wide range of U.S. industries and institutions. The survey this year continued to show that the public has a poor opinion of ISPs. As a group, ISPs had an average ACSI annual rating of 68. The only industry with a lower rating is gas stations at 65. Subscription TV had an average rating of 69, and the U.S. Post Office had a rating of 70.

But there is some interesting good news for some ISPs. Companies serving customers with fiber rated higher with the public than other ISPs, including cable companies using coaxial networks. Consider the following table that shows the 2023 ranking for fiber and non-fiber ISPs.

Fiber Non-Fiber
Altice 58
AT&T 80 72
Cable One 71
CenturyLink 78 62
Charter 64
Comcast 73 68
Cox 64
Frontier 74 61
Google Fiber 76
Mediacom 65
T-Mobile 73
Verizon 75
Windstream 70

For companies that offer both fiber and another technology, customers served by fiber liked an ISP more than non-fiber customers. CenturyLink has the biggest difference in satisfaction (78 for fiber and 62 for non-fiber). Frontier also has a dramatic difference (74 fiber and 61 non-fiber). The only cable company ranked for both technologies also has a sizeable difference, and Comcast has a ranking of 73 for its fiber network versus 68 for the coaxial network.

Customer satisfaction involves many other factors than just technology, but the differences for the companies that offer multiple technologies have to be mostly related to fiber. However, there are other factors in play. For example, it seems likely that CenturyLink and Frontier provide better customer service and faster repairs for fiber customers than for DSL customers.

Cable companies have to be noticing this giant difference as part of any consideration of how to upgrade their networks. The big cable companies are all at the beginning of the upgrades to improve upload speeds on coaxial networks, and they must be hoping that customers like them more after the upgrades. But there is a chance that the public has come to think of fiber as a superior technology and will not rank a coaxial system as highly even after speed increases. There is still a noticeable difference in latency and jitter between cable and fiber networks, and customers who see both in action believe fiber is better.

There is still a noticeable range of ISP rankings within each list. Non-fiber customers rate T-Mobile and AT&T the highest and rank Altice and Frontier DSL as the worst ISPs. It’s interesting to see Charter near the bottom of the rankings.

Fiber customers clearly rate AT&T as the best and Comcast Fiber as the lowest. Fiber technical performance should be consistent regardless of the ISP, so the difference in rankings between fiber providers has to be related to customer service and the other non-technical aspects of being an ISP.

Should We Trust the Companies that Created the Digital Divide?

For those of you who don’t know Bruce Kushnick, he’s been tracking the promises made and broken by Verizon since the 1990s and written extensively on the issue. His latest article is “NTIA: Require Every State Broadband Agency to Investigate Those Responsible for Creating the State’s Digital Divide.”

Bruce has been arguing eloquently for years that the big telcos like Verizon, AT&T, and CenturyLink caused the rural digital divide by extracting profits from the regulated telephone and broadband businesses in rural and low-income areas while neglecting maintenance and not using any of the profits to modernize the technology. According to Bruce, the only reason we need massive federal grant programs today is to make the investments that the big telcos refused to make for the last several decades.

He argues that the NTIA should require states to investigate how the digital divide was created in rural areas and center cities. He uses the two examples of New Jersey and Los Angeles to make his point. He’s been tracking the promises made by Verizon to the State of New Jersey for the last thirty years. Verizon repeatedly sought regulatory relief through deregulation along with rate increases that were supposed to fund modernizing the network in the State – upgrades that were never done. When Verizon finally upgraded to fiber, it did so only in neighborhoods with the lowest costs, avoiding rural areas and most low-income neighborhoods.

I’ve been tracking this issue during my career as well. Consider West Virginia. I remember when Verizon was looking for a buyer of the telco network there as far back as the early 1990s. When big companies are trying to sell a property, they do what valuation folks call ‘dressing up the pig”. This means cutting expenses to make the property look more profitable. The cuts are usually deep, and drop maintenance below the level needed to keep up with routine repairs and maintenance.

Verizon didn’t end up selling the West Virginia network until the sale to Frontier in 2010. By then, the networks had been neglected for more than fifteen years. Frontier made only minimal upgrades to the properties they purchased – but it’s hard for an outsider to know if this was due to an intention to continue to milk cash flow out of the acquired network like Verizon had done or due to a lack of the capital and impact of the heavy debt used to buy the property. In any case, the West Virginia network continued to degrade under Frontier’s ownership.

For years, Bruce has made the point that there has not been any financial or regulatory cost to the big telcos for their bad behavior. They’ve repeatedly broken promises made to states. They’ve routinely milked profits out of networks while ignoring customers as the properties deteriorate.

In fact, we’ve seen the opposite of penalties. For example, the big telcos were rewarded with over $10 billion of CAF-II subsidies to support dying and neglected rural DSL networks. That money was supposed to be used to increase rural data speeds to 10/1 Mbps at a time when that speed was already obsolete. We’ve seen far too many places where even that basic upgrade was not made.

Bruce’s conclusion is that it would be ludicrous to give grant funding now to the companies that caused the digital divide in the first place. That would be using public money to upgrade the networks for these companies when profits should have been used over the decades to do so. He makes a solid argument that giving money to these same companies will not solve the digital divide since there is no reason to think the big telcos won’t turn around and do it all over again.

GM Wants to Curate Your Car Experience

General Motors recently announced that it is going to stop supporting Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in some of its vehicles. These are smartphone mirroring apps that let a driver use their cellphone to connect to music, get driving directions, listen to eBooks, etc. GM announced that it plans to block the smartphone connection capability and will instead run a Google infotainment suite that includes Google Maps, Google Assistant, Spotify, and other apps that will be built into the dashboard display.

The company is not alone, and other companies like Mercedes and VW don’t like smartphone mirroring. GM says that it is doing this to take back control over customers and the in-car experience. I had to pause at that statement because I can’t think of a time when carmakers had that kind of control.

An article in Light Reading quoted an analyst saying that this means that the bandwidth used by the average car would grow from a few hundred megabytes per month to 4-8 gigabytes per month. That seems like a gigantic increase in bandwidth to me to take over the functions that were already going through a cellphone. Does this mean that the average driver really uses 4-8 gigabytes per month on the cellphone while driving? That can’t be true, and there is more at play here.

This raises a lot of questions for me. Does this finally mean that AT&T will reach its dream of requiring car owners to subscribe to a cellular subscription? That’s something the company has been angling for since the first conversations about smart cars and 5G. It seems likely that the cost of this service will be embedded in the cost of the car for the first year, but will all car owners be required to subscribe to this service when the paid year lapses? You might not have a choice if you can’t use your cell phone. Perhaps the car makers will pay this for a longer period if gaining control of the customer experience can generate additional monetary benefits higher than the cost of the cellular subscription.

Car companies have been trying to force subscriptions on car owners for years with the OnStar service. But most people drop that service at the end of the free period after buying a new car. I may be wrong, but I can’t see most car owners willing to buy a new monthly data subscription. There is no doubt that a 4–8 gigabyte cellular subscription is not going to come cheap.

Carmakers wouldn’t be considering this unless it will make them money. I can think of several ways this could financially benefit them. They might get a share of any revenues paid to AT&T for a subscription. I have to imagine Google will pay them for getting access to a car’s data – having a car connected to a cellular plan will let car makers gather detailed analytics on how the car is being driven, and I imagine that creates a revenue opportunity for selling driver data to insurance companies and others. A car is not going to use 8 gigabytes of data monthly by connecting only to GPS and listening to music. That much data has to mean transferring a lot of base analytics about the car and the driver. I can’t imagine paying for a subscription that would let GM and Google spy on me.

This also raises questions about tying my car to a cellular carrier. The new FCC maps for the big cellular companies are a joke. There are huge areas of the country that have little or no cellular coverage. I live in Appalachia, and I don’t have to drive far to find areas with no cell coverage. One town we visit is Boone, NC, and over half of the drive between here and there has zero cell coverage. How will car companies deal with irate customers that require a service that doesn’t function where they live? My wife listens to an eBook from her phone on that drive – I know how upset she would be if that no longer works because she can’t connect her cellphone to the car speakers.

I’m not sure why carmakers think folks want or will accept this. I might be the exception, but I would never buy a car that forced this on me unless I had the option to disable it. I don’t want to be curated and monitored by my carmaker. Their relationship with me ends the day I pay for the car. My wife avidly dislikes Android and wouldn’t buy a car that forced her to connect to Google and Android instead of her preferred IOs. If GM or any other company mandates this, we’d take them off our list of cars to consider.

The Increasing Cost of Building fiber

Diana GoovaErts recently cited Pascal Desroches, the CFO of AT&T, as saying that the cost of building fiber has increased. He said that increased costs are getting close to hitting the company’s goal of not spending more than $900 – $1,000 per new fiber passing.

Any time I see an ISP talking about fiber costs, my first question is what is included in the costs. Does AT&T’s number cover only the fiber on the street? Does it also include a fiber drop, customer electronics including Wii, and installation labor? AT&T operates a PON fiber network – does the cost include field splitters, cabinets and other such costs? We don’t have any context to judge AT&T’s number and that makes it impossible to compare to costs claimed by other ISPs.

To put the AT&T numbers into perspective, I work with ISPs that are building aerial fiber in county seats that hope to hold all-in costs to $2,000 per passing when building to everybody, but often go higher. That number includes all of the costs I listed above. But it also differs from AT&T because the higher number includes the cost of building to everybody in a community. We know that AT&T only builds to small pockets of customers, and it probably rarely builds to any parts of a city that are challenging or expensive.

The other big difference is that AT&T is mostly overlashing fiber onto its existing copper. That is a construction method that is not available to other overbuilders who have to pay for make-ready on poles. The only times when costs are low for other ISPs is when the poles are in great shape, with minimal make-ready work needed. AT&T’s low target number highlight two things – its advantage from being able to overlash, and a willingness to skip neighborhoods with higher costs.

AT&T’s low target price also highlights that AT&T is shooting for a higher margin goal than most overbuilders. There is a big difference in the short-term return between an ISP paying $1,000 and one paying $2,000 per passing. AT&T is clearly under pressure to make fiber profitable as quickly as possible. Interestingly, when looking out at a ten-year horizon, there is very little difference in the cash flow generated for the low or higher cost build. Most ISPs that overbuild fiber recognize that the business has relatively low-returns for the short run but eventually cranks a lot of cash flow.

The $1,000 top target of cost also tells us a lot about AT&T’s market plan. To stay under that number means being very careful about where the company builds. This explains why AT&T is building to small pockets of customers in its markets and not building to everybody. The low target cost number also tells us that there is very little buried fiber in AT&T’s plans.

To some degree, AT&T is following the model established fifteen years ago by Verizon FiOS. Local communities were incensed when the Verizon built some streets but not the ones a block away, or when Verizon built fiber in one subdivision but not the one immediately next door. I don’t recall Verizon in those days ever mentioning a target price for construction, but it was clear that it had a cost metric that was driving where the company decided to build.

Desorches also said that AT&T is only forging ahead because the company is seeing higher than expected customer penetration rates on fiber. That fact must be creating a chill in cable company board rooms. It explains why cable companies are moving as quickly as possible to boost broadband speeds through upgrades. Cable companies are hoping that matching the speeds on fiber will fend off fiber overbuilders. That’s going to be an interesting marketing challenge because it seems to me that a lot of the public now believes that fiber is superior to other broadband technologies.

Desroches said that AT&T is still holding to its goal to pass 30 million homes by the end of 2025. The company closed 2022 with 24 million passings and will need to pass 2 million new homes per year to meet that target.

It seems likely to me that inflation isn’t the only reason that AT&T’s costs are rising. I would guess that the company has already constructed to the locations with the lowest cost per passing and that the remaining 6 million passings  likely have higher costs than the places already built.

It’s going to be interesting to see what AT&T does when it hits 30 million passings. The company could do what Verizon did with FiOS and sit on the fiber portfolio and generate a lot of cash. It’s anybody’s guess if the company will roll any of those profits back into building more fiber.

AT&T announced recently that it is interested in pursuing some of the $42.5 billion BEAD grant funding to build in rural markets. I don’t foresee the company finding any grant opportunities where its cost for matching funds will be under its $1,000 target per passing. But I think all the big telcos are considering that a higher out-of-pocket cost for grant areas will be offset by the benefits of creating a virtual monopoly in those places.

Should DSL Cost Less Than Fiber?

As I was going through my pile of unread articles, I found an article from the Associated Press that asked how big ISPs can get away with charging the same prices in urban areas for both slow and fast broadband. The article was about Shirley Neville, in New Orleans, who found that she was paying the same price for 1 Mbps DSL from AT&T as other city residents are paying for a fiber connection.

It’s a great question, and I was surprised that I hadn’t thought to write about it before. I investigate broadband prices around the country, and it’s not unusual to find the price for fiber broadband in a city set close to the price charged for DSL.

It would be easy to justify charging the same price for both technologies if AT&T was in the process of converting everybody in New Orleans to fiber. In fact, if that was the reason, I’d be impressed that AT&T wasn’t charging more for the technology upgrade. But this is not the situation. It’s clear that the AT&T fiber business plan is to build fiber to small pockets of cities, but not everywhere. The chances are high that Shirley Neville’s neighborhood and many others will not be getting fiber soon from AT&T, if ever. For every neighborhood that gets fiber, there will be many that will never see AT&T fiber.

Another possibility is that AT&T’s low price for a fiber connection is an introductory price to lure people to switch from Cox, the cable company. Perhaps when the introductory price expires the fiber price will be higher than DSL. This still doesn’t feel like a great answer to Shirley’s question since AT&T is willing to give a fiber customer a big break.

The most likely answer to the question is the ugliest. AT&T doesn’t feel like it needs to reduce the price of DSL in the city because DSL customers are a captive audience. Cox has some of the highest broadband prices in the country, and that gives cover for AT&T to charge whatever it wants for DSL as long as the price is lower than Cox.

Another reason that AT&T can charge the same for DSL and fiber is that there isn’t anybody to tell the company that it shouldn’t do so. The FCC eliminated broadband regulation and the Louisiana Public Service Commission doesn’t assert any authority over broadband prices. Folks like Shirley Neville don’t have anybody looking out for them, and the big ISPs can overcharge customers with impunity.

As the article points out, Shirley’s question is germane today because of the FCC’s investigation of digital discrimination. The article cites an investigation by The Markup, which analyzed over 800,000 broadband offerings from AT&T, Verizon, Earthlink, and CenturyLink in 38 cities across America and found that the four ISPs regularly offer broadband speeds at 200 Mbps or faster at the same price as broadband with speeds under 25 Mbps.

The Markup analysis shows that the neighborhoods with the worse speed options have lower median household incomes in 90% of the cities studied. Where The Markup could gather the data, it also looks like the big ISPs offered the worst deals to the least-white neighborhoods.

USTelecom responded to the issue by stating that the high cost of maintaining old copper networks justifies high prices for DSL. The article cites Marie Johnson of USTelecom writing that “Fiber can be hundreds of times faster than legacy broadband—but that doesn’t mean that legacy networks cost hundreds of times less. Operating and maintaining legacy technologies can be more expensive, especially as legacy network components are discontinued by equipment manufacturers”.

That’s exactly the response I would expect to defend monopoly pricing. Nobody expects the price of DSL to be hundreds of times less than fiber – but DSL should cost less. The big telcos have argued for decades that it costs too much to maintain copper networks. But they never finish that statement by telling us how much money they have collected over the years from a customer like Shirley Neville – possibly hundreds of times more than the cost of her share of the network.

A Last Gasp at Regulating Copper

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission recently ordered a series of public hearings to investigate the quality of service on the CenturyLink copper networks. The hearings were prompted by a complaint filed by the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The complaint listed the failures of CenturyLink to meet state service standards due to the deterioration of the copper network. CWA also noted that CenturyLink is planning to eliminate half of the remaining technicians who work on copper.

Similar inquiries by other state regulators have been instituted in the last few years against CenturyLink and Frontier. I feel sorry for any customers left on deteriorating copper networks, but proceedings like this one feel like the last gasp of regulators trying to score points by beating up on the telcos that still operate copper networks.

Not that CenturyLink doesn’t deserve a lot of criticism. Its copper networks are in dreadful condition and are in the process of dying. The poor condition of the networks is due in large part to the decades-long lack of maintenance and repairs. We know this is the case because copper networks of a similar age are still operating much better in Europe. The big telcos like CenturyLink, Frontier, Verizon, and AT&T stopped caring about copper networks back in the 1990s, and the networks have been in a steady decline since then.

But U.S. copper networks are truly near the end of life. It’s impossible to neglect maintenance for over twenty years and somehow suddenly make the networks perform better. It’s hard to fathom the intentions of having regional hearings on the topic for any purpose other than letting people vent their frustration with CenturyLink. It’s hard to imagine anything changing as a result of these hearings that will improve service. There might be new fines levied on CenturyLink, but that’s less costly for the company than trying to make the copper work.

Some big telcos are working to convert copper networks to fiber. Frontier and Windstream are building a lot of fiber – and I assume they are overlashing the new fiber wires on the old copper. AT&T and Verizon are selectively expanding fiber in neighborhoods where the cost of construction meets some internally set cost test – but these two companies are quietly moving most copper customers onto cellular connections.

CenturyLink has been up and down on the decision to overbuild residential fiber. It currently looks like the company is only building ‘strategic’ fiber, which I interpret to mean business districts and large apartment complexes. It seems unlikely that CenturyLink will overbuild much more of its residential copper in Minnesota or elsewhere with fiber.

I would bet that if CenturyLink could wave a magic wand and be rid of copper, it would do so. It’s harder each year to maintain copper networks, and a move to eliminate half of the remaining copper technicians shows that the company is finally throwing in the towel. But giving up on copper still means walking away from a lot of revenue.

There are still plenty of customers who want to keep using the copper networks. Say what you want about the inadequacies of DSL, but in most urban markets where my firm does surveys, we still find 10% to 20% of households are still using DSL. These are households for whom the price is more important than broadband speed.

CenturyLink and the other big telcos have recaptured the cost of the copper networks many times over and decided many years ago not to reinvest profits back into new and upgraded networks. We’re now reduced to watching the last death throes of copper networks, and it’s not pretty.

AT&T Disses FWA Wireless

In recent Telecompetitor article, AT&T Chief Financial Officer Pascal Desroches was quoted as saying that fixed wireless is “not a great product and the customer ultimately is going to reject it.” By fixed wireless, Desroches was referring to the FWA product being offered by competitors Verizon and T-Mobile. The product takes advantage of excess capacity on cell towers to sell home broadband using the same spectrum used to serve cell phones. For now, the market is embracing the FWA product. In 2022, T-Mobile sold around 2 million connections on the product, while Verizon sold almost 1.2 million.

The new product has some clear advantages in two different markets. In rural areas that don’t have any good broadband connection, the FWA product is likely to be faster than what is available from competitors. I’ve talked to rural customers using the product who say speeds are between 50 and 100 Mbps, although I talked to one customer living near a tower who is getting 200 Mbps. In many of the counties I’ve worked in, these speeds are heads and tails above the existing DSL, cellular hot spots, or more traditional fixed wireless.

In more urban and suburban areas, the attraction is price. These markets have much faster broadband available from cable companies and sometimes by fiber providers. But the faster ISPs charge a lot more than the $60 price of FWA. I think this product makes a great replacement for DSL – it costs about the same but is significantly faster. But T-Mobile and Verizon are not providing any details on who is buying the FWA product. How much of the sales are rural versus urban?

There are noted downsides to the FWA product. The primary one I’ve heard from customers is that it’s not consistent and that speeds vary a lot. This is pretty understandable considering the complex nature of cellular networks, and anybody who watches the bars on their cellphones knows that speeds bounce up and down during the day.

FWA coverage is also limited by the location of cell sites since the FWA broadband doesn’t go far. In most rural counties, only a small portion of the geography is within two miles or so of a cell tower. Hopefully, the cellular carriers will be smart enough not to sell service to folks who are at the outer fringe of a coverage area.

I’m sure that Desroches is talking about the long-term legs of the FWA product. I think he is referencing the ever-increasing demand for broadband. OpenVault recently reported that the average U.S. household is now using 587 gigabytes of data each month, up from 270 gigabytes just four years ago. You don’t have to trend that growth very far into the future when it becomes reasonable to ask if cellular networks can meet that kind of demand. Cellular carriers are using excess capacity today to sell FWA. At what point in the future does the FWA demand exceed the cell phone demand at cell sites?

FWA is never going to more than an interesting footnote for cellular companies. Even if they sell to ten million FWA customers, that’s barely noticeable compared to the hundreds of millions of cell phone customers. I can’t picture any scenario where a cellular company will endanger its cellular business by trying to meet the demands of FWA. They’ll selectively cancel FWA service at overloaded cell sites before doing that.

Interestingly, AT&T will be offering some FWA service. Desroches characterizes AT&T view of FWA as a temporary product and will treat it accordingly.

I doubt that Desroches set out to be negative about his competitors. I have to imagine that AT&T is constantly being asked why it isn’t emulating the rapid deployment of FWA, and I would guess he was responding to one of these queries. But it is interesting to see his response because it sounds like an honest assessment of the FWA business case. It’s a new broadband product that fills some interesting market niches today. But it’s reasonable to ask if it be relevant a decade from now. I would tend to agree with Desroches that FWA will have a relatively short shelf life compared with faster broadband technologies.

Is Fiber Growth Slowing?

In a recent article in LightReading, Mike Dano cites data from industry analyst Cowan that shows that some of the largest fiber builders in the country have already trimmed back their construction plans for 2023.

AT&T has the largest retrenchment and is trimming 2023 plans from 3.5 to 4 million passings back to 2 to 2.5 million. The company says that it is not changing its long-term goal to reach 30 million passings with fiber, but a cutback of this size means it won’t likely reach that target in 2025.

Lumen’s new CEO Kate Johnson said the company is taking a pause while it rethinks its path forward. In doing so, the company trimmed 2023 fiber expansion plans from 1.75 million passings to something under 1 million.

Cowen says other big ISPs will also trim plans a bit. Frontier is probably trimming 2023 plans from 1.6 million to 1.4 million passings. Altice is cutting expectations back from 1.6 million to 1.5 million. Consolidated is reducing 400,000 planned new passings to 350,000.

There are other fiber builders that don’t seem to be cutting plans. Brightspeed, Metronet, and others still seem to be on track for their 2023 plans.

But cutbacks of the size of the AT&T and Lumen plans raise some questions about the trajectory of fiber overbuilding. If construction plans announced two years ago had held steady, there was a massive push to build fiber networks to compete with cable companies. Do these cuts mean that fiber competition won’t materialize as planned?

There have been big external changes affecting the entire industry. Fiber material costs are up, as evidenced by the recent price hike announced by Corning. Prices of fiber components are up across the board for everything from conduit, handholes, drop wires, etc. A bigger cost impact is the cost of labor, with technicians labor rates rising across the industry.

Fiber construction is also not immune from interest rate increases. I already have some clients thinking of shelving fiber expansion projects until interest rates come back to earth.

All of this adds up to a lower return for fiber builders. I was always a bit mystified by the frenetic planned pace of fiber expansion craze in cities since the returns have never been spectacular. I’ve always assumed the push to build fiber has been more of a land grab as big ISPs see other fiber builders encroach on areas they want as markets. I think much of the fiber construction craze has been about either building now or getting locked out of markets in the future.

Any level of cutbacks is good news for cable companies, since the above cutbacks mean several million fewer fiber passings to compete with by the end of 2023. Any relaxing of the competitive pressure gives cable companies more time to upgrade upload speeds over the next three years. I have to wonder if the cable company’s plans to increase upload speeds play into any of the decisions to cut back on fiber expansion. It would be really interesting to sit inside the Board rooms as the big ISPs debate these strategies. The broadband environment is getting more complex by the day.

Hidden Unserved Locations

There is a mountain of complaints to be made about the new FCC maps. In some parts of the country there are a lot of missing rural locations, including entire subdivisions. Various ISPs have continued to exaggerate both coverage areas and broadband speeds. But even with all of the flaws there is a lot of interesting information in the new maps.

I live in Asheville, North Carolina. In the previous version of the FCC mapping the whole city and a lot of the surrounding areas were shown as having broadband available from Charter. There is also parts of the city that have fiber provided from AT&T. As you might imagine, the old maps didn’t tell the real story. The FCC mapping protocol showed an entire Census block covered by a given ISP that has even one customer in the Census block. It’s mostly this mapping rule that showed everybody here able to buy broadband from Charter.

The new maps are far more granular. If you search the map throughout the city you can find homes, businesses, and whole streets where Charter doesn’t claim to offer broadband. The AT&T coverage on the new maps shows how AT&T typically builds small fiber networks that cover only a few blocks in a given area.

Close analysis of the map shows what folks in the broadband world have always known, but were unable to prove, that the big cable companies and telcos don’t cover everybody. It is these unserved folks in the middle of cities that I call the hidden unserved locations. Such locations cannot buy the same broadband as nearby neighbors.

These little pockets came about for a variety of reasons. Some are costly to serve and the cable company decided not to reach them when the initial network was built. The cable company might not have been unable to obtain the needed rights-of-way for some reason. A house might be sitting inside of a park or other land that makes it complicated to pursue an easement. ISPs also don’t always automatically build to reach newly constructed homes, which can be a real shock to the new tenants.

In many of these cases where the cost to connect a drop is high, and an ISP often refuses to connect the location unless the customer pays for the cost of the connection. Everybody in the industry has heard the horror stories where an ISP quotes a cost of thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollars to make a connection, even inside of a city. Many homes and businesses in this situation cannot afford the big connection fee.

It’s not always the ISPs fault that the broadband isn’t available. It’s not unusual for the owners of privately-owned road not to give permission to an ISP or others to dig up the streets. There are apartment buildings where the owner decided not to allow a given ISP into the building. There are homes where the owner doesn’t want a connection and refuses to provide an easement.

In looking around Asheville I found a surprising number of such locations. I found individual homes or pockets of homes that are not claimed as served by Charter. But the real surprises came when looking at the outer portions of the city. There are parts of neighborhoods that have been bypassed for some reason, even though homes further outside of the city have service. It also looks like neighborhoods with large lots and long driveways have been selectively bypassed.

This version of the FCC maps likely still has a lot of reporting errors. Some of the homes shown as not being served might have a connection available, while some homes shown as having broadband might not be able to get it. Over time it’s hopeful that a lot of these local issues will be resolved as people use the FCC map challenge to fix the maps. But I think a lot of these situations are real. It’s not worth the effort yet with this first iteration of the maps to dig too deeply. But cities are going to be able at some point to make an inventory of locations that don’t have good broadband. At that point cities will be able to work to close the gap of the hidden unserved locations.

AT&T in the News

AT&T has not been in the headlines a lot this year, but recently I’ve seen the company’s name everywhere.

In the recently released financial results for the third quarter, AT&T noted that it now has more fiber broadband customers than non-fiber customers. At the end of the quarter, AT&T had 6.93 million fiber customers compared to 6.86 million remaining non-fiber customers. Non-fiber customers are predominantly U-Verse customers served by two pairs of telephone copper. The company still also has 340,000 DSL customers served by a single copper pair. There are also some rural fixed-wireless customers.

In the third quarter, AT&T added 338,000 fiber customers. The company lost 367,000 non-fiber customers in the second quarter – although counting them as lost is probably a misnomer since many were likely upgraded to fiber.

Upgrading to fiber is good for the company’s bottom line. For the quarter, the average revenue per user (ARPU) was $62.62 for fiber customers compared to only $54.60 for non-fiber customers. AT&T has also been saying for years that the cost of maintenance for copper is a lot higher, so the company is likely shedding costs as it sheds customers served on copper.

We also got a peek at market AT&T’s penetration. AT&T says it passes 18.5 million potential customers with fiber, meaning the company has achieved an overall 37% market penetration on fiber. In the third quarter, the company added fiber to pass 500,000 new locations.

I saw another interesting news blurb about AT&T. Bloomberg reported that AT&T is looking for an equity partner to invest in a major expansion of fiber. That would be a big departure from the past since AT&T has always funded its own capital expenditures and networks.

But it’s not hard to see from the third quarter results why AT&T might be seeking additional funding. In the third quarter, the company generated $9.87 billion of cash. It invested $4.71 billion in new infrastructure and paid $3.75 billion in dividends – leaving only $1.41 billion in free cash.

I would conjecture that AT&T wants to invest more heavily in fiber immediately since it’s clear that there is a mad rush nationwide to build fiber in cities. Fiber overbuilders hope that if they are the first to a market with fiber that it might dissuade other fiber overbuilders – so we are currently seeing a fiber land grab. In the long run, sharing fiber profits with an investor will decrease future AT&T earnings. The calculus that the company is betting on is that the market share gained by building first to markets outweighs the cost of sharing profits.

AT&T is currently debt-heavy. AT&T hasn’t had a recent track record of making good investment decisions. It’s been reported that AT&T lost as much as $50 billion from its purchase of DirecTV. In almost the same time frame, the company lost as much as $42 billion from its purchase and sale of WarnerMedia. The company might not be able to easily borrow the money, particularly at current interest rates.

The final news is that AT&T was fined $23 million to resolve a federal investigation that the company had “unlawfully influenced” the former Illinois Speaker of the House, Michael J. Madigan. AT&T admits that it paid Madigan, through an ally, to promote legislation that would eliminate carrier of last resort in the state – meaning that the company is obligated to serve people who ask for a telephone line. That obligation also comes with legacy regulatory requirements that AT&T wanted to ditch.

What always dismays me, but never surprises me, is that nobody at a big company like AT&T got in trouble for breaking the law – in this case, bribing a government official. The size of the fine might be appropriate for the magnitude of the crime, but I’ve always thought that the folk at big companies would be more likely to hesitate to be unethical if they saw others going to jail for breaking the law. The only real consequence for AT&T, in this case, is that they got caught, and the fine will just be viewed as the cost of doing business.