Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Despite sky-high expectations, wireless capex shows signs of sluggishness

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,372
    Device(s)
    iPhone Xs 256 GB Gold, Nexus 6P 64 GB Silver
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility, Can and String, Smoke Signals, Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0

    Despite sky-high expectations, wireless capex shows signs of sluggishness

    https://www.fiercewireless.com/wirel...s-sluggishness

    On Verizon:

    The analysts cited Verizon specifically, which last month said it now expects to spend a total of between $16.8 billion and $17 billion on its network during the course of 2018—a range that is down notably from the $17 billion to $17.8 billion the operator gave at the beginning of the year.
    On AT&T:

    “We continue to expect our capital spending in the $22 billion range this year. But we don't expect as much vendor financing in the fourth quarter as before. So now we expect to be in the $24 billion range in gross capital investment for the year,” AT&T Chief Financial Officer John Stephens said last month, according to a Seeking Alpha transcript of his remarks. AT&T at the beginning of the year had forecasted up to $25 billion in capex.
    On Sprint:

    Sprint said its cash capital expenditures, excluding leased devices, will be between $5 billion and $5.5 billion for 2018, which is at the lower end of the carrier’s previous expectation of $5 billion to $6 billion.
    And finally, on T-Mobile:

    T-Mobile, so far, is the only nationwide wireless carrier that might come in on the high end of its own capex guidance; the carrier said last month it expects to get close to the high point of the $4.9 billion to $5.3 billion capex range it set at the beginning of the year.

    B2+B66+B30+B5 (20 MHz + 10 MHz + 10 MHz + 5 MHz)
    Minneapolis, MN

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    96
    Device(s)
    Pixel 2 XL
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    As far as Verizon goes I believe this is a non-issue. The reduction in spending was reported on Oct 23. The key statement to me was from Verizon CFO Matt Ellis, "We are getting everything done that we wanted to get done, we're just doing it more efficiently than we originally expected to."

    https://www.fiercewireless.com/wirel...ending-network

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,595
    Feedback Score
    0
    It's pretty amazing how much and how fast T-Mo is catching up while spending 1/4 to 1/3 of what the Big-2 spend.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    597
    Feedback Score
    0
    "Only" $16.8 billion. As if that's nothing. Still 3X higher than T-Mobile that gets all kind of praise.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,372
    Device(s)
    iPhone Xs 256 GB Gold, Nexus 6P 64 GB Silver
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility, Can and String, Smoke Signals, Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    It's pretty amazing how much and how fast T-Mo is catching up while spending 1/4 to 1/3 of what the Big-2 spend.
    A few things.

    1. Makes you wonder why they place third in every national reliability test.

    2. Makes you realize most if not all of their rural macro builds have been with AT&T or Verizon which had to go through all of the work of getting them installed and fiber-fed.

    3. They don't need to spend that much money to maintain their average data TPUT on Ookla, which they care about the most. They are much smaller than AT&T and Verizon yet are only 1-2 Mbps ahead if that's your metric.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,595
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    A few things.

    1. Makes you wonder why they place third in every national reliability test.

    2. Makes you realize most if not all of their rural macro builds have been with AT&T or Verizon which had to go through all of the work of getting them installed and fiber-fed.

    3. They don't need to spend that much money to maintain their average data TPUT on Ookla, which they care about the most. They are much smaller than AT&T and Verizon yet are only 1-2 Mbps ahead if that's your metric.
    Hey, I am no T-Mo fanboy by any stretch of imagination. T-Mo is completely useless where I live, work and travel. But, take a look at their market statistics. They are kicking butt spending a pittance of the Big-2.

    Reliability tests? I don't believe any of them. I have service with all of the Big-4 carriers. I know what works where I live, work and travel and it is not Sprint or T-Mo. Sprint advertised a couple of years ago that they were within 1% of Verizon's reliability. That was a cherry-picked statistic that did not take into account actually having signal where one lives, works and travels and they were rightly ridiculed for that ad.

    I don't care a rat's hindquarters about T-Mo's advertising fluff about the best and fastest LTE network. What counts for me is having usable voice, text and data where I need it. Verizon and AT&T have it. T-Mo and Sprint don't.

    I can't fault T-Mo for glomming onto sites that AT&T and Verizon have gotten permitted. That is just good business practice.

    JL reminds me of a carnival barker. As such, I don't believe anything he says without verifying it.. All the same, he has turned around T-Mo from teetering on the brink of collapsing to a marginally credible network while only being able to spend a fraction of the Big-2. As an armchair market analyst, I have to admire that.

    Someday, T-Mo may have adequate service where I live, work and travel at a price I want to pay.

    It's all about adequate service where I live, work and travel for me. As of now, I have phone service with Verizon and AT&T on a MVNO for fifty cents a month, and an unlimited AT&T hotspot for $20 a month. I got some spectacular deals that are no longer available. When they run out I will see what T-Mo has to offer. As of now, T-Mo's prices are not much lower than Verizon and AT&T for a garbage network around me.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,040
    Device(s)
    s6 note 4 and 5s
    Carrier(s)
    T Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    Hey, I am no T-Mo fanboy by any stretch of imagination. T-Mo is completely useless where I live, work and travel. But, take a look at their market statistics. They are kicking butt spending a pittance of the Big-2.

    Reliability tests? I don't believe any of them. I have service with all of the Big-4 carriers. I know what works where I live, work and travel and it is not Sprint or T-Mo. Sprint advertised a couple of years ago that they were within 1% of Verizon's reliability. That was a cherry-picked statistic that did not take into account actually having signal where one lives, works and travels and they were rightly ridiculed for that ad.

    I don't care a rat's hindquarters about T-Mo's advertising fluff about the best and fastest LTE network. What counts for me is having usable voice, text and data where I need it. Verizon and AT&T have it. T-Mo and Sprint don't.

    I can't fault T-Mo for glomming onto sites that AT&T and Verizon have gotten permitted. That is just good business practice.

    JL reminds me of a carnival barker. As such, I don't believe anything he says without verifying it.. All the same, he has turned around T-Mo from teetering on the brink of collapsing to a marginally credible network while only being able to spend a fraction of the Big-2. As an armchair market analyst, I have to admire that.

    Someday, T-Mo may have adequate service where I live, work and travel at a price I want to pay.

    It's all about adequate service where I live, work and travel for me. As of now, I have phone service with Verizon and AT&T on a MVNO for fifty cents a month, and an unlimited AT&T hotspot for $20 a month. I got some spectacular deals that are no longer available. When they run out I will see what T-Mo has to offer. As of now, T-Mo's prices are not much lower than Verizon and AT&T for a garbage network around me.
    and where I live TMobile only has 51 megahertz of Deployable Spectrum. Actually that's all the spectrum they have for my area. They're so capacity starved that their so-called data deprioritization cut me off pretty much completely from being able to even check a simple email. I'm so annoyed with them I'm jumping to Cricket. they really need to densify here and that's going to require a lot of money. Which they don't have.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    597
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dandn1321 View Post
    and where I live TMobile only has 51 megahertz of Deployable Spectrum.
    My area has 20X20 band 4; 15X15 band 4; 5X5 band 12; 15X15 band 71. Yet all T-Mobile has chosen to deploy is band 2 and some of that I used for UTMS so not the entire 20X20. Meanwhile Verizon has 10X10 band 13 20x20 band 4 and at least15X15 band 2. Gee T-Mobile I wonder why people here stick with Verizon? T-Mobile even paid millions to move 2 TV stations early and promised band 71 in Q3 in my county to moved it to Q3-Q4. Why Q3 is over and Q4 is halfway over and very little band 71 has been deployed anywhere in my part of the state let alone in my county. So tired of T-Mobile grandiose promises they don't come close to fulfilling that even when they do deploy band 71 I'm not going to bother. What's even more stupid is towns around me have band 2 deployed but not band 4 huh? Just deploy both in all areas you idiots you have the licenses.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,543
    Carrier(s)
    TMobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Att's capex is up there. Don't they have 20 of aws3, 20 of wcs, and then 20 of band 14 they plan to deploy?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,040
    Device(s)
    s6 note 4 and 5s
    Carrier(s)
    T Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    Att's capex is up there. Don't they have 20 of aws3, 20 of wcs, and then 20 of band 14 they plan to deploy?
    AT&T has plenty of money to deploy their Spectrum.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    597
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by themanhimself View Post
    Att's capex is up there. Don't they have 20 of aws3, 20 of wcs, and then 20 of band 14 they plan to deploy?
    WCS is 15X15 and they are using it for fixed wireless

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,372
    Device(s)
    iPhone Xs 256 GB Gold, Nexus 6P 64 GB Silver
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility, Can and String, Smoke Signals, Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    WCS (Band 30) is 10x10 in practice and is primarily used for LTE.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    597
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    WCS (Band 30) is 10x10 in practice and is primarily used for LTE.
    We have at&t has fixed wireless in our area and they use WCS. That's factual.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    904
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    We have at&t has fixed wireless in our area and they use WCS. That's factual.
    That doesn't invalidate the statement from above you:
    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    WCS (Band 30) is 10x10 in practice and is primarily used for LTE.
    He said primarily, not exclusively.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-24-2018, 03:55 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-19-2014, 08:17 PM
  3. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-09-2002, 08:24 AM
  4. Three Ontarians show signs of West Nile
    By SuperCM in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-30-2002, 04:14 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-20-2002, 06:27 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks