Liberty Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Liberty - oh ;D No worries. Text is inherently an ambiguous medium when it comes to irony ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 very interesting thread on VZ's current 5G deployment: Moffett did fantastic research on Verizon's fixed wireless. Using public records from Sacramento, they identified the location of VZ's small cells. Then using VZ's website, they manually input 45K (!) addresses to check to see if service was available or currently subscribed. First, the most important point about overbuilding in general: "One of the touchstones of telecommunications is that overbuilding wired networks almost never works" [...] The most important takeaway is why eligibility is so low, and it has to do with distance from the small cells. Eligibility rapidly declines as you move away from the small cells. By 400 feet, less than 50% of addresses were eligible, and by 700 feet almost no addresses were. Verizon has talked about distances as great as 1900 feet. But so far, in one real world environment, that is not happening. The implication for coverage, and therefore costs, are important. Were these results indicative, VZ would need over 1M small cells to cover 30% of the US. [...] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 very interesting thread on VZ's current 5G deployment: Moffett did fantastic research on Verizon's fixed wireless. Using public records from Sacramento, they identified the location of VZ's small cells. Then using VZ's website, they manually input 45K (!) addresses to check to see if service was available or currently subscribed. First, the most important point about overbuilding in general: "One of the touchstones of telecommunications is that overbuilding wired networks almost never works" [...] The most important takeaway is why eligibility is so low, and it has to do with distance from the small cells. Eligibility rapidly declines as you move away from the small cells. By 400 feet, less than 50% of addresses were eligible, and by 700 feet almost no addresses were. Verizon has talked about distances as great as 1900 feet. But so far, in one real world environment, that is not happening. The implication for coverage, and therefore costs, are important. Were these results indicative, VZ would need over 1M small cells to cover 30% of the US. [...] Nice, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 very interesting thread on VZ's current 5G deployment: Moffett did fantastic research on Verizon's fixed wireless. Using public records from Sacramento, they identified the location of VZ's small cells. Then using VZ's website, they manually input 45K (!) addresses to check to see if service was available or currently subscribed. First, the most important point about overbuilding in general: "One of the touchstones of telecommunications is that overbuilding wired networks almost never works" [...] The most important takeaway is why eligibility is so low, and it has to do with distance from the small cells. Eligibility rapidly declines as you move away from the small cells. By 400 feet, less than 50% of addresses were eligible, and by 700 feet almost no addresses were. Verizon has talked about distances as great as 1900 feet. But so far, in one real world environment, that is not happening. The implication for coverage, and therefore costs, are important. Were these results indicative, VZ would need over 1M small cells to cover 30% of the US. [...] Holy shit....it's about time we get some real world truth on this subject. Have had trouble sleeping lately, not tonight, I owe you one Liberty!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 Holy shit....it's about time we get some real world truth on this subject. Have had trouble sleeping lately, not tonight, I owe you one Liberty!! NP, but if you're having trouble sleeping because of your CHTR position, maybe you own too much! btw, I think they'll probably keep tweaking and improving the cells and will probably get better distances over time... But on the other hand, chances are that they cherry picked the best sites to begin the roll out, so as they go down the list, real-world performance might get even worse in certain cases, not better. Just speculation on my part, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 Holy shit....it's about time we get some real world truth on this subject. Have had trouble sleeping lately, not tonight, I owe you one Liberty!! NP, but if you're having trouble sleeping because of your CHTR position, maybe you own too much! btw, I think they'll probably keep tweaking and improving the cells and will probably get better distances over time... But on the other hand, chances are that they cherry picked the best sites to begin the roll out, so as they go down the list, real-world performance might get even worse in certain cases, not better. Just speculation on my part, though. Charter isnt what keeps me up at night even tho I probably do own too much. Definitely agree that performance with small cells will get better over time but that's the point.....this potential threat is gonna take a long time. And even as it gets better, it doesnt look like an overbuild will ever be economical which means a higher price for cable properties if and when wireless starts talking about cable acquisitions again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 Moffett report is on their website but you need a password. Looks like a large part of it is on lightreading website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Will this have a material impact on Charter? What could Charter have done to prevent users from infringing? https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/tech/8504148/music-companies-charter-communications-spectrum-copyright-lawsuit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkie518 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Will this have a material impact on Charter? What could Charter have done to prevent users from infringing? https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/tech/8504148/music-companies-charter-communications-spectrum-copyright-lawsuit looks like Cox got a slap on the wrist? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/cox-must-pay-8m-in-fees-on-top-of-25m-jury-verdict-for-violating-dmca/ reads more like ambulance chasing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpioncapital Posted April 4, 2019 Share Posted April 4, 2019 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/04/verizon-5g-goes-live-hits-760mbps-in-a-speed-test/?amp=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gokou3 Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 Testing Verizon's new 5G speeds exposed three major issues with the next-gen network https://www.cnet.com/news/testing-verizons-new-5g-speeds-exposed-three-major-issues-with-the-next-gen-network/?ftag=CAD1acfa04&bhid=25696611636565663155454520276459 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameronfen Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 Testing Verizon's new 5G speeds exposed three major issues with the next-gen network https://www.cnet.com/news/testing-verizons-new-5g-speeds-exposed-three-major-issues-with-the-next-gen-network/?ftag=CAD1acfa04&bhid=25696611636565663155454520276459 This is neither good or bad but an interesting side note. The tester in the article noted it was raining, but either didnt know or didnt say that this has been a known problem affecting mmWave spectrum, at least according to the initial tests. You would have hoped VZ figured out how to deal with that before rolling it out, but perhaps they did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 Seems pretty stupid to launch with an unproven service. Rutledge / Malone will probable have a BBQ to celebrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 https://www.pcmag.com/news/367659/heres-the-real-truth-about-verizons-5g-network Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwy000 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 It may not be imminent but it is inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogermunibond Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 It may not be imminent but it is inevitable. At which time CHTR and CMCSA which have 1000s of miles of fiber in metro areas, build out small cell sites. Is there a regulatory monopoly on small cell sites? Is there a limit on useable bandwidth (not really since C-band and other Ghz bandwidth is being mooted for 5G)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glorysk87 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 It may not be imminent but it is inevitable. Verizon pushed their timeline back to 5-8 years. CMCSA/CHTR should be 1gig symmetrical this year. And should be 10gig down through most of their footprint before that 5-8 year timeframe is up. And even then, the economics of 5G FWB broadband are not great. To me, the threat to cable seems de minimis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiveSigma Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 "Verizon pushed their timeline back to 5-8 years." glorysk8, do you have a source for that figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwy000 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 It may not be imminent but it is inevitable. Verizon pushed their timeline back to 5-8 years. CMCSA/CHTR should be 1gig symmetrical this year. And should be 10gig down through most of their footprint before that 5-8 year timeframe is up. And even then, the economics of 5G FWB broadband are not great. To me, the threat to cable seems de minimis. I am very long CMCSA/CHTR so would hope that to be true. My point was more that regardless of economics or competitive dynamics, all of the wireless companies are pushing ahead hard (for them this isn't strictly about in home broadband - this is the infrastructure for next gen wireless network everywhere). And focusing it on the higher density cities first. Verizon's capex including 5G roll out is going to be lower in 2019 than it was in 2018 or 2017. It will take a while. It will be expensive. But they will get it right. I still think that, like everywhere else in the world, cable (home broadband) and wireless need to merge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glorysk87 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 "Verizon pushed their timeline back to 5-8 years." glorysk8, do you have a source for that figure? Their February Investor Day. Quote: "if I modeled it out based on what we're doing with our TF technology and current generation of 5G, I would say I could get to 30 million homes in five to eight years." That's revised from their initial guidance of getting to 30mm homes in "the next few years" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gokou3 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Sprint, T-Mobile Shares Fall Sharply on Report DOJ Is Resisting Merger Approval https://www.thestreet.com/investing/sprint-tmobile-fall-doj-resisting-merger-approval-14929295?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO&yptr=yahoo Anyone has an opinion on whether it is positive or negative for CHTR if the S-TMUS merger is called off? My thinking: Negative (of a rejected S-TMUS merger): - Reduces the likelihood that VZ will make a bid for CHTR - VZ / AT&T maintain their dominance in wireless, with weak competitions in standalone S and TMUS Positive - Increases the likelihood that Softbank / Masa bid for or partner up with CHTR instead - Increases the chance of success for CHTR's MVNO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Sprint, T-Mobile Shares Fall Sharply on Report DOJ Is Resisting Merger Approval https://www.thestreet.com/investing/sprint-tmobile-fall-doj-resisting-merger-approval-14929295?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO&yptr=yahoo Anyone has an opinion on whether it is positive or negative for CHTR if the S-TMUS merger is called off? My thinking: Negative (of a rejected S-TMUS merger): - Reduces the likelihood that VZ will make a bid for CHTR - VZ / AT&T maintain their dominance in wireless, with weak competitions in standalone S and TMUS Positive - Increases the likelihood that Softbank / Masa bid for or partner up with CHTR instead - Increases the chance of success for CHTR's MVNO Heads CHTR & T win, tails VZ & S lose. Riddled with bias on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spos Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Cogeco in its presentations has a breakdown of the competition in its footprint in terms of technology (% DSL, % FTTH). Has anyone seen anything similar for Charter and Comcast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiveSigma Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Cowen put out a report recently that had some of this data (see attached image). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spos Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 FiveSigma, thank you very much! I've been searching for this online without luck so it's much appreciated. Cogeco, if you're interested, has 84% DSL, 13% FTTH and 3 FTTN for its US business (excluding Florida). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now