Tag Archives: Verizon

Unintended Consequences

The industry news is always full of big events like mergers, bankruptcies, new regulations, or regulations killed. I’ve written many blogs about these kinds of issues, but I have rarely written about the unintended consequences of big industry changes. Today’s blog looks at two examples of unintended consequences.

The first is the decision  by EchoStar to abandon the facility-based cellular business. There were several factors that led to the company’s decision to abandon the business line, but the company says the primary reason was pressure from the FCC to use the spectrum it owned or return it to the FCC for auction. The FCC was also pressuring the company to build faster and to get more customers.

One of the unintended consequences of the FCC nudging EchoStar out of the cellular business is that the company decided in 2025 that its best option for maximizing value was to sell the spectrum it planned to use for cell towers. The company sold spectrum to Starlink that will support the company’s entry into the satellite cellular business. EchoStar also sold spectrum to AT&T, which was put to immediate use to boost bandwidth at 23,000 cell sites nationwide. Both of these consequences are positive for the industry and will benefit many millions of customers.

Another consequence of EchoStar abandoning cell towers is that the company walked away from a huge number of long-term leases for space on cell towers. A group of ten tower company executives met with the FCC recently and asked for help to recover the abandoned payments from EchoStar. The company says it had no choice but to walk away from the leases since it is no longer using towers, and they say this fits the “force majeure” clause in its contracts with tower owners that excuse payments in the case of an unforeseeable event. It’s going to be interesting to see if the FCC does anything, or even if they have any authority to intervene in a business contractual dispute. This same thing happens all of the time on a smaller scale when carriers and ISPs walk away from leases they no longer need, and the only real difference in the case is the magnitude of the issue. My bet is that the FCC will do nothing since this is now a commercial contract dispute, and it will probably tell tower owners to take their claims to court.

Another big piece of news is Verizon’s purchase of Frontier Communications. The purchase process started sixteen months before the deal finally closed, and much has changed in the industry since then. When the transaction was first announced, CEO Hans Vestberg touted the sale as moving Verizon forward in pursuing convergence. That’s the new industry phrase that replaces the old triple-play strategy and now refers to bundling broadband and cellphones.

Companies generally pursue mergers in an attempt to boost stock prices, and it will be interesting to see if that happens for Verizon. There are already industry analysts panning the merger, saying that it doesn’t really move the needle for Verizon. Pre-transaction, Verizon’s fiber covers 9.2% of the country, and Frontier brings another 4.3% coverage. This pales against the cable companies that lead in the convergence battle, with the biggest cable companies collectively passing 90% of households in the country.

There are also other consequences when companies merge. Verizon will claim it’s gaining efficiencies from the merger, but the real consequence is that a lot of folks at Frontier will lose jobs that would have been safe without the merger. Many of the vendors and suppliers that supported Frontier will suddenly find they have lost a giant customer. It’s likely that eventually the prices of the products at the two companies will be brought into synch, and since Verizon’s fiber prices are higher than Frontier’s, it probably means eventual price increases for Frontier customers.

A Three Nines World?

FierceNetwork recently published a thought-provoking article by Steve Saunders that asks, “is four nines the new five nines?”  That’s a question that only network engineers will understand, but it is a shorthand way to talk about the reliability of our networks.

The phrase five nines refers to having a goal for a network to be in service 99.999% of the time. That’s an incredible level of uptime, and a five nines network is expected to not be out of service more than five minutes in a year. A four nines network would have the goal of not being out of service more than 53 minutes per year, and three nines would lower the goal to 526 minutes, or just under nine hours per year.

I have a lot of clients who have signed contracts with large data customers to meet four or five nines of reliability. The only way to make that guarantee is to have a lot of redundancy. That would mean physically redundant fiber routes to protect against fiber cuts. It would mean self-healing electronics that quickly adapt to fiber outages or the loss of a key set of electronics. It means having software that can quickly be reset as needed.

In the last few years, we’ve seen network outages of major proportions. The latest outage by Verizon knocked a lot of customers out for half a day. There have been multiple regional and national outages due to problems in the Amazon AWS data centers. The breadth and magnitude of these regional outages is making it hard for any ISP to guarantee that networks will be reliable due to problems cause upstream by larger industry players.

As Saunders points out, the culprit of most of the big outages is software. The software that controls the Internet has grown increasingly complex. Sanders says the communications networks have grown as complex as the systems that operate a nuclear submarine.

The article points to the complexity associated with the recent big Verizon outage. The problem was something that affected the standalone 5G core network. Verizon’s core network includes electronics and software from five vendors  – Case Systems, Ericsson, Nokia, Oracle, and Red Hat / OpenShift. – along with Verizon’s own software.

Saunders says the issue is structural. While Verizon network engineers are elite, they are expected to operate networks that have grown to a level of complexity that is beyond the ability of technicians to fully understand everything. I’m sure Verizon still has an internal goal of five nines, but the company can no longer realistically understand the complexity of its network and the interplay of the many diverse components.

The problems and the outages are likely to grow worse as we continue to convert to software-defined networks, and as big companies consolidate network operations and eliminate technicians as a cost savings. We are also increasingly using AI to write complex software, which is reducing our ability to fully understand and debug problems during a crisis.

Saunders points to another issue, which is the erosion of the separation between LAN and WAN. For decades, businesses have been secure behind firewalls since they ran different software inside the company than what was used to communicate outside the company. But that distinction has become blurred as a lot of software now reaches across that barrier.

The article’s conclusion is that we are probably going to have to learn to live with big outages. The day of expecting to be connected to super-safe networks is gone. The Verizon outage shows that we might already be living in a three nines world, something that makes every network engineer cringe.

Supreme Court Examines FCC’s Ability to Fine

The Supreme Court has accepted a case that will determine the FCC’s ability to levy fines against the companies it regulates. The lower court cases that brought the issue to the Supreme Court come from fines that the FCC levied against AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon after the companies sold customer location data. The FCC said that the carriers did not properly vet the companies that bought customer data, and that many of those companies widely resold the data.

The Fifth Circuit Court sided with AT&T and said that the FCC’s process was unconstitutional. The Second Circuit Court sided with the FCC when reviewing the Verizon fine. The DC Circuit also sided with the FCC when reviewing the fine against T-Mobile.  As often happens when lower courts issue conflicting rulings, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the findings of the lower courts.

The Circuit Court cases invoked a Supreme Court ruling in 2024 in the case of SEC v Jaresky. In that case, the defendant was accused of committing fraud and misrepresenting himself to investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission fined Mr. Jaresky $300,000 and ordered him to disgorge the unlawful profits he made of $685,000. Mr. Jaresky appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the SEC didn’t have the regulatory authority to directly fine him, and that the SEC had violated his right to a jury trial.

The Supreme Court surprisingly sided with Jaresky and ordered that he should have been given the option for a jury trial rather than a trial by an SEC administrative judge. It was obvious after the Jaresky ruling that companies that were fined by other regulatory agencies would make the same claim if they were denied the right of a jury trial. In this case, the three cellular companies made the argument that the FCC fines were unconstitutional and got contradictory rulings from different lower courts. It’s fairly obvious that the carriers went to different courts hoping for conflicting rulings.

This is a major case for the FCC, since a ruling against it eliminates its ability to fine regulated companies for violating FCC rules. The ability to levy fines has always been one of the agency’s most effective enforcement tools and is one of the few remedies that is less drastic than yanking an FCC license to operate. The FCC has been using fines a lot recently in its attempt to cut down on robocalls and texts. The FCC will become a fairly toothless regulatory agency without the ability to levy fines. Carriers, both large and small, will be less afraid to violate FCC rules if they don’t fear that their violation would warrant a referral to the Justice Department.

This is a really interesting tactic by the cellular carriers. If these particular cases had been referred to a jury instead of an administrative judge, it’s not hard to imagine the fines being a lot larger. It’s not hard to imagine a jury that doesn’t like the idea of a giant corporation selling data that shows everywhere they travel with their cellphone.

This also opens up the possibility of State regulators tackling these kinds of issues and issuing fines if the FCC finds itself unable to do so. I have to think that selling customer data violates the law in multiple states.

If the Jaresky case is the precedent, then it’s hard to think the Court won’t side with the carriers and rule against the FCC. This Supreme Court seems to be very much against what they view as regulatory overstepping of authority, and the Jaresky case is only one of their rulings that are weakening federal regulatory agencies.

Falling FWA Speeds

Ookla recently published a report looking at broadband speeds being delivered with FWA cellular broadband offered by AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

The report includes the chart shown below that tracks the median download speeds of each carrier, by quarter, since the third quarter of 2023.

There are some interesting stories in the chart:

  • At the end of the third quarter of 2023, the median download speed was nearly the same for all three carriers, between 140 and 150 Mbps.
  • Since then, T-Mobile speeds have increased significantly, peaking at 221.7 Mbps at the end of the first quarter of 2025. T-Mobile’s median speeds are now twice the speeds of AT&T.
  • The Ookla blog talks about the fact that speed for all three carriers dropped from the second quarter of this year to the end of the third quarter. AT&T dropped from 114.3 Mbps to 104.6 Mbps. T-Mobile dropped from 221.7 Mbps to 209.1 Mbps. Verizon has the largest drop from 167.3 Mbps to 137.8 Mbps.

Ookla asks the question of why speeds dropped during those two quarters. They expect that some of the drop is due to foliage that slows down cellular signals from late fall until autumn. Foliage is clearly an issue in many parts of the country.

Ookla also asks the question if the networks are experiencing problems due to oversubscription. The three carriers have seen extraordinary growth. At the end of the third quarter of 2023 there were just under 7 million FWA customers. By the end of the third quarter of this year, the companies had just under 14.5 million customers, having added over 7.5 million FWA customers in two years.

It’s clear that FWA customers put a lot of stress on a cellular network. Assuming that FWA customers are the same as other broadband customers, the average U.S. broadband customer used over 640 gigabytes of broadband per month at the end of the third quarter, compared to 17 gigabytes for the average cellphone customer. From a bandwidth perspective, an FWA customer uses 38 times more cell site resources than a cellular customer.

The questions that Ookla is asking are not easily answered because FWA is not a homogeneous broadband product. Customers must be located near a tower to get the fastest speeds, and speeds drop off as the distance between customers and a tower increases. Consider AT&T, which has been using FWA as a replacement for DSL. This likely means AT&T is offering FWA to customers at a greater distance from towers than the other two carriers, in order to provide that copper alternative. That alone could contribute to AT&T’s lower median speeds.

The FWA market isn’t going to remain static. AT&T recently upgraded 23,000 cell sites with the 3.45 MHz spectrum the company acquired from EchoStar. That should cause a big upward spike in AT&T FWA speeds this quarter.

The Ookla report is fascinating. It will be interesting to watch the FWA speeds over time to better understand seasonality, foliage, and the impact of rapid customer growth.

‘Tis the Season (For Layoffs)

It’s going to be a rough holiday season for a lot of industry and tech workers, as communications and tech companies have announced layoffs. According to the hiring experts at Challenger, Gray, & Christmas, the layoffs announced in October were the largest in years. Employers have announced over 1 million job cuts through ten months of this year, already 44% higher than the job cuts for all of 2024.

Technology has the largest number of job cuts for the year, already at over 141,000. There are a number of different reasons for job cuts this year. In October, cost-cutting was the top reason for job cuts (50,437). AI was cited as the reason for 41,039 layoffs. Market and economic conditions were cited as the reason for 21,104 job cuts. The closing of stores and plants accounted for 16,739 cuts, and restructuring was the reason given for 7,588 job cuts.

Here are some of the cuts in the industry as reported by FierceNetworks:

AT&T didn’t announce any formal layoffs but it has still seen staff reduce by over 5,000 positions this year to reach 135,700. Many of the cuts are likely due to the new company policy of mandating that people return to the office five days per week.

Charter reduced staffing by 6,600 in 2024 to reach 94,500. The company recently announced it will be cutting 1,200 more jobs, plus it closed call centers in Ohio and Massachusetts.

Comcast seems poised to reduce staffing but hasn’t announced specific numbers. Rumors are that the company is getting ready to streamline operations.

T-Mobile originally said it was going to lay off the entire staff of 4,100 that came through the acquisition of UScellular. The company ultimately kept “more than half” of these employees.

Verizon actually increased staffing in 2025 and added 800 people this year. The company has been slashing staffing for many years. However, the company told investors when announcing third quarter earnings that it to intends reduce its costs. The Wall Street Journal reported, as I was publishing this blog, that the company plans to cut 15,000 people.  That’s before any impact from the upcoming acquisition of Frontier.

There are a lot of layoffs coming in other parts of the tech industry. Amazon laid off 14,000 people in October and says it will be cutting as many as 30,000 additional corporate jobs. Microsoft eliminated 9,000 positions recently, bringing it to 15,000 for the year. UPS has had the largest cuts with 48,000 jobs eliminated in 2025.

Monopsony in the Wireless Labor Market

NATE, the Communications Contractors Association, recently sponsored a report by the Brattle Group titled Market Failure in the Wireless Communications Infrastructure Service Industry. The report describes how the three national mobile networks (AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon) dominate the labor market for wireless contractors in a way that is undermining the development and retention of the workforce for this critical infrastructure.

The Brattle report calls the situation a monopsony. That is an economic term for a market where a buyer, or a small universe of buyers, has significant market power over vendors who serve the industry. Brattle believes the term applies since the three big cellular carriers collectively control 97% of the cellular market. The contractor market that sells labor to the carriers is comprised of numerous small companies.

The Brattle report describes how the three carriers collectively harm the contractor industry. The three carriers dictate the prices they are willing to pay for service. Contractors complain that the prices offered don’t account for local issues like labor rates, terrain, and weather. 80% of the contractors that responded to a Brattle survey say that prices offered by the carriers don’t cover their costs. The rates don’t cover costs like warehousing of materials, third-party compliance, or training costs for technicians.

The report also shows some interesting graphs that show that the carriers are slow to pay, further adding to the cost of working with them. They have charts that contrast the carriers and show that Verizon pays 75% of invoices within 30 days, while T-Mobile only pays 17%, and AT&T pays 15%. AT&T doesn’t pay more than 45% of its invoices for more than 60 days. Slow payments put a lot of pressure on contractors that must meet payrolls.

The behavior of the carriers is having a big impact on the contractor industry. 54% have downsized during the past three years. A lot of contractors have exited the market and are looking for work outside the cellular market. Attrition of knowledgeable technicians is killing institutional knowledge. The contractors fear that they won’t be able to respond to emergencies or support any effort in a few years to deploy 6G networks.

The Brattle report does not accuse the three big carriers of collusion but says that the desire of each to drive down operating costs is having the same impact as if they were colluding. The report warns that the industry is seeing a noticeable decline in institutional capacity. It takes time and on-the-job experience to train tower climbers – this is not a position that can be quickly ramped up. They warn that loss of experienced tower climbers is not only a concern for the industry but is a national security concern.

The report makes an interesting comparison to another monopsony industry, the companies that build airplanes. The airline industry has learned that it is most efficient if it pays enough to keep experienced workers, because that significantly reduces the time needed to build a new airplane.

The report believes that corrective action is needed. Brattle doesn’t know the best way to fix the problem, which could be done through policy, regulation, or the carriers deciding to change their practices.

This situation is a big contrast to the fiber construction industry because there are hundreds of companies building fiber, which creates significant competition to find a contractor for a project. However, there is a danger after the big spending on grants is completed that the number of companies building new fiber networks will shrink to be similar to the wireless industry.

A Converged Carrier Market?

T-Mobile made financial news recently when a KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst downgraded the long-term outlook for T-Mobile stock and said the company is “underweight”. Press coverage quoted the analyst saying, “We think [T-Mobile] is fiber deficient in a converged/bundled world”.

We’ve been headed towards the industry that is dominated by a handful of converged telecom providers, and the comments from this analyst show that day is probably here. The analyst’s comments come from comparing T-Mobile with the other giant converged companies that offer broadband and wireless, specifically AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter/Cox.

It’s curious why the analyst dinged T-Mobile because the company is profitable and successful. In the latest financial report for the second quarter of 2025, the company reported $17.4 billion in customer revenues, up 6% year-over-year. Net income was $3.2 billion, the highest-ever for the company and up 10% year-over-year. Net cash from operations was $7 billion, up 27% year-over-year. Adjusted free cash flow was $4.6 billion, up 4% year-over-year.

T-Mobile was criticized because the analyst believes that the most successful big companies will be those that lock up customers with a bundle of broadband and wireless. That seems to mean that the companies with the most gigabit passings will be the ultimate winners in the market. T-Mobile is expected to have about 15 million fiber passings by 2030. That pales behind the 50 million passings expected by Verizon by 2020 or the 60 million planned by AT&T by 2023. Charter passes 57 million homes today and will be adding 7 million homes when it closes on the merger with Cox. Comcast says it will have 62.5 million passings by 2023. T-Mobile will clearly have the smallest fiber footprint.

How are the other big four converged companies doing with bundling? Comcast had 8.5 million cellular customers at the end of 2Q 2025 compared to 31.4 million broadband households. Charter had 10.9 million cellular customers compared to 29.9 million broadband households. AT&T reported for 2Q 2025 that 40% of its fiber customers are buying cellular. I can’t find where Verizon highlights the percentage of homes that buy cellular and broadband.

So this year, the stock market doesn’t seem to be valuing the converged carriers evenly. As I wrote this blog, T-Mobile stock was up 19% for the year. Comcast stock is down 11% for the year and Charter is down 22%. Verizon stock is up 6% and AT&T is up 20%. There is a story behind all of the stock price changes, and it mostly involves changes in customers and earnings, not in the percentage of convergence.

One thing is clear. These five companies dominate the telecommunications space. The five companies have most of the cellular customers in the country, and T-Mobile will be adding customers from the USCellular purchase. The five companies had over 98 million broadband customers at the end of the second quarter of 2025, and Charter will be adding 6-7 million more customers if the merger with Cox is approved. The five companies account for almost all of the national net growth of broadband customers.

The KeyBank analyst was looking at the long-term trajectory of T-Mobile compared to the other giant companies. The analysis statement seems to assume that FWA growth will eventually top out and decline in competition with the other big carriers. But for now, in the second quarter, T-Mobile had the biggest growth in both cellular and broadband customers. It’s obvious that T-Mobile has something today that customers value. My crystal ball is not clear enough to be able to predict that T-Mobile is going to stop growing any time soon, and it seems too early to predict that T-Mobile won’t be in the same category as the other four converged companies.

The Human Touch

Recently, Verizon Consumer CEO Sowmyanarayan Sampath wrote to customers saying that Verizon customer service has “taken a different path” and the company is raising the bar on the customer service experience. This sounds a lot like communications with customers I’ve seen over the years from all of the big ISPs – I can think of dozens of company messages telling customers that a big ISP cares about customer service.

What’s different about Mr. Sampath’s email is that he also included an email address where customers can contact him directly if they are having a problem that is not getting resolved. I have to assume this will use a different email address from the one he uses for normal emails, because it seems likely that his inbox will quickly fill with customer complaints.

This reminded me of an experience I had back in the early 1980s when I worked at Southwestern Bell. The company had an executive telephone hotline that was supposedly a direct line to the President for customers who knew the special number. Calls to this number were recorded and landed on the desk of somebody who happened to sit close to me. I would often overhear some of the complaints that came to the executive line, and they were the normal things you would expect – overbilling, botched installations, etc. Employees around the company responded quickly to every referral from the executive hotline.

I have to think that Mr. Sampath is doing something similar and has recreated the executive hotline using an email address. If Verizon customer service is indeed getting better, I assume anybody who makes a valid claim to that email will get some attention from elsewhere in Verizon. If that doesn’t happen, this will quickly be chalked up as another big company public relations ploy rather than an actual aid for frustrated customers.

I have to wonder how well this idea will work with such a gigantic company with coast-to-coast customers. I know at Southwestern Bell that no employee wanted to get the internal message from the executive suite that they had messed up. Will that work for a much bigger company?

People who run smaller ISPs, or other small businesses that deal with the public, will laugh at this article, because fielding customer issues is a daily part of every executive’s work day. It’s something that nobody loves doing, but it comes with operating a business. Every ISP hopes that employees can satisfy every customer so that the top guys never hear about problems. But the folks at Southwestern Bell many years ago figured out that there had to be a way for customers who aren’t satisfied with the routine solution to have an outlet to be heard.

This story has me thinking about how important the human touch is with customers – having a real person to talk to who can solve a problem. That question was prompted for me when I noticed that Verizon is touting that it has incorporated AI into the customer service process. I have to wonder if AI will be used to tackle problems sent to Mr Sampath’s email.

While big companies can pretend otherwise, we have not yet reached the time when an AI can provide the same quality response as a real person. My gut tells me that it will be a huge mistake for the big ISPs and carriers to take the human touch out of customer interactions. If so, that’s good news for the smaller companies that compete with big ISPs. I foresee that small ISP advertising will emphasize that customers can always talk to a real person.

 

What’s Going on With Boost Mobile?

Boost Mobile added 90,000 net new cellular customers in the first quarter of 2025, increasing customers to 7.1 million. That’s a big turnaround from recent quarters with customer losses. Reaching net additions might mean the company is finally turning the corner to become successful.

Boost Mobile was acquired by Dish Networks as a result of the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint. One of the FCC requirements was that Sprint would be replaced in the market with a new nationwide carrier, and the FCC took steps to enable Dish to be the new nationwide carrier.

When Dish acquired Boost Mobile for $1.4 billion in 2021, the company had over 9 million customers, but customers slowly leaked away since then. During those years, Dish has been deploying a new 5G SA (standalone) network and now claims to be able to cover 80% of the people in the country from it’s own cell sites. Boost is deploying with open RAN technology, meaning the company isn’t locked into the specific hardware and software from the big cellular vendors.

Boost met its first buildout requirements and was able to reach 70% of the U.S. population by June 2023. However, Boost asked for and received a delay for deploying four spectrum blocks (AWS-4, lower 700 MHz E, 600 MHz, and AWS H) until December 14, 2026 instead of June 14, 2025.

Boost Mobile still has a way to go to activate traffic on its newly built network. Most of its customers are still roaming on AT&T and T-Mobile. In the 4Q 2024 earnings call for parent Echostar, executives from Boost Mobile admitted that only 1 million customers were riding the Boost network.

A recent article from Ookla documents that the Boost Mobile networks are getting faster but are still not up on average to the speeds of T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T. However, speeds are improving, and Boost says it will have the fastest network in some major markets this year. Near the end of last year, Boost was named as the fastest cellular provider in New York City. I have to wonder how much of that speed is due to having a largely empty network?

Boost Mobile has a long way to go to be relevant. At the end of the first quarter of this year, Verizon claimed 146 million customers, T-Mobile 131 million, and AT&T 118 million. Boost is also behind the two big cable companies, with Charter having 10.4 million cellular customers and Comcast 8.2 million.

It’s interesting how customers have not moved to Boost Mobile. The company is offering competitive prices. One would have to think that its networks are relatively empty and nearly pristine. Dish made a public relations blunder when it opened cell sites a few years ago before the open RAN technology was working well. If Boost is now on solid technical footing, there is opportunity for growth. There has been a lot of press and speculation over the last year that T-Mobile and Verizon might be overstressing their networks due to the proliferation of FWA home cellular broadband.

To add to the drama. Echostar, the parent of Boost announced last week that it is electing to miss a $326 million interest payment on its 2029 maturity debt. If the company doesn’t make the payment by the end of June it will be forced into chapter 11 bankruptcy. Echostar may be playing chicken with the FCC and is blaming the default on the FCC not resolving some of the open spectrum issues for the company

One thing is for sure. Assuming it survives, Boost Mobile has a long way to go to be a serious nationwide carrier. The company may never reach the size of Sprint which it is supposedly replacing. It will be interesting to watch if the company can reach solvency and justify the big investment made in the new nationwide network.

Increasing Broadband Price Competition

Competition has been creeping into broadband pricing for the last several years as cable companies have been using low introductory rates to try to win new customers and offering similarly low price to try to keep them. Anybody who competes against the big cable companies will tell you that cable companies have been competing for years by offering two-year promotional prices to keep customers.

However, competition might have gone into a new gear recently when Comcast began offering low rates with a five-year price guarantee. The 5-year guaranteed rates were introduced soon after Verizon offered a 3-year price guarantee for FWA wireless home broadband.

In a Comcast blog dated April 15, Comcast announced a 5-year guaranteed rate plan for new customers for 400 Mbps broadband for $55 per month. The product comes with the company’s WiFi Gateway and no contract is required. The plan also includes a free Comcast cell phone plan with a 30 GB data cap for one year. This is a substantial discount. The list price for 400 Mbps is $86, and the normal charge for the WiFi Gateway is $15. The cell phone normally costs $30 per month. The 5-year rate is available through June 23, but Comcast has already told some news outlets that the special rate offer will probably be extended.

On the announcement date, several news outlets like PC Magazine listed the 5-year deal packages as 400 Mbps ($55), 600 Mbps ($70), 1.1 Gbps ($85), and 2.1 Gbps ($105). The outlets also reported that these rates only come with an auto debit to a bank account. Comcast will charge $8 more to bill to a credit card and $10 more for a paper bill.

The low prices were likely also prompted by the recent announcement that Comcast lost 199,000 broadband customers in the first quarter. In this same quarter, the FWA products from AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon gained 913,000 customers.

Comcast’s competition isn’t sitting still. Verizon recently announced a 3-year lock for FWA broadband prices at $35 per month for customers who accept autopay and who also buy a Verizon cell plan. Verizon includes up to a $250 Amazon gift card. Not to be outdone, T-Mobile now offers a $35 price for FWA broadband with a 5-year guarantee for customers who have a T-Mobile cellular plan. The Verizon and T-Mobile plans seem to be more focused on reducing cellular churn than gaining new broadband customers.

Comcast is clearly trying to stop the loss of customers. I have to wonder about the overall impact of such widely advertised special rates. How will these low play with the millions of customers who are paying a lot more, including the many paying $15 per month for a WiFi gateway?

Will this lead to Comcast finally lowering its list prices? The company has raised rates annually for over a decade. Can the company maintain high rates in noncompetitive markets while widely advertising severely discounted prices elsewhere?

I’ve been saying for years that broadband will cost $100 per month. When considering the WiFi gateway, Comcast’s list prices were already there. Comcast isn’t even the most expensive cable company, and a handful of cable companies like Cox, Breezeline, and Mediacom have even higher list prices.

This announcement by Comcast, and the constant advertisements from the FWA providers, could prove to be a watershed moment for prices in the industry. Just imagine the glee that USTelecom will have next year if they can announce that prices for broadband are actually decreasing.