VZ - Verizon Communications

[Longtermlens]

I think it's starting to look like an good bargain in large cap space. Resilient, cash generative, predictable, cheap. If wireless broadband@HOME takes off the narrative could change. I like some of these liquid, resilient things in the portfolio that will do fine on their own and can be sources of liquidity in times of crisis, if illiquid small caps get killed. Not sure if it's better than plain Berkshire, but it is less volatile, so in times of stress it could be a good member of a portfolio.

 

+1

 

I like this about VZ also. Recently made it a decent sized position.

 

Curious if Buffett may be referring to something like his VZ position in the following quote from most recent letter? Would say no due to size but who knows...  “think of their Berkshire shares as a possible source of funds when they see another investment that excites them. We have no quarrel with that attitude, which is similar to the way we look at SOME of the equities we own at Berkshire.”

[dwy000]

Moving discussion here from the Charter thread....

 

apologies for mixing apples and oranges.  the 100mn coverage number refers to 5G and was from here: 

https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-announces-c-band-auction-results

 

The home broadband product:  they expect coverage for home broadband to reach 15 million Households (not population, households, so multiply by average household (3?) to get population coverage).  That is targeted to 30 million households by end of 2023.

 

Yes, at first the product will suck and the portion of people who can get full 1G speeds will be a small fraction of the whole.  This will improve.  Importantly, millions of people who previously had no alternative to cable broadband except DSL, will get a new option.  And given over $80bn was spent on the C-band auction despite saturation in the mobile market, make no mistake that the cell phone companies are targeting home and business broadband.  It will be slow, awkward and ugly at times but they will gradually get there.

[Jurgis]

It will be slow, awkward and ugly at times but they will gradually get there.

 

In another 10 years?  ::)

[vince]

Can someone on this board come up with a simple model of what Verizons earning power will be in 5 years time?  Mgmt is guiding to 4% revenue growth in 2024 and beyond and this is with all their 5 growth vectors moving in the right direction.  An analyst questioned the CFO about the possibility of Ebitda growing faster than revenues and it sounded like the CFO said.... we already have best in class Ebitda margins so we are expecting Ebitda to grow in line with revenues.  So it doesnt sound like they have much leverage between revenue and Ebitda and I can't imagine them gaining much from interest, taxes, or capex.  Mind you, 4% plus earnings growth annually will result in fantastic returns (relative to interest rates and the S&P from these levels) with a constant multiple which is giving us an 8-9% fcf yield.  Add them together, and assuming they dont burn retained earnings and you have a nice double digit return.  If/when we get some modest multiple expansion, this turns into 15%ish compounded.  Just want to see if anyone can point out something that I may be missing or under/overestimating within this simple model of VZ returns.

[LearningMachine]

Can someone on this board come up with a simple model of what Verizons earning power will be in 5 years time?  Mgmt is guiding to 4% revenue growth in 2024 and beyond and this is with all their 5 growth vectors moving in the right direction.  An analyst questioned the CFO about the possibility of Ebitda growing faster than revenues and it sounded like the CFO said.... we already have best in class Ebitda margins so we are expecting Ebitda to grow in line with revenues.  So it doesnt sound like they have much leverage between revenue and Ebitda and I can't imagine them gaining much from interest, taxes, or capex.  Mind you, 4% plus earnings growth annually will result in fantastic returns (relative to interest rates and the S&P from these levels) with a constant multiple which is giving us an 8-9% fcf yield.  Add them together, and assuming they dont burn retained earnings and you have a nice double digit return.  If/when we get some modest multiple expansion, this turns into 15%ish compounded.  Just want to see if anyone can point out something that I may be missing or under/overestimating within this simple model of VZ returns.

 

Their 2020 Free Cashflow was $23.6 Billion, Cash flow from operations was $41.8 Billion, and capital expenditures were 18.2 Billion.  These had increased from 2019 figures of $17.8, 35.7, and 17.9 respectively.  Net debt was $93.6 Billion at end of 2020.  Given their Debt to EBITDA was 2.0, their EBITDA was $47Billion. https://www.verizon.com/about/investors/quarterly-reports/4q-2020-earnings-conference-call-webcast

 

Their current Market Cap is $230B. Their EV was $324B.  EV/EBITDA = 324/47 = 6.89.  It goes a little higher if you add in new debt from spectrum purchase.

EBITDA yield = 47/324 = 14.5%

Cash flow from operations yield = 41.8/230 = 18.2%

Free cash flow yield = = 23.6/230 = 10.3%

 

Their capital expenditure includes expenditure on laying down their own fiber, which widens the moat, and will likely pay off well long term.  So, the capital expenditures shouldn't be ignored entirely as sustained capital expenditures - in other words, cash flow from operations might be better to look at than free cash flow.

 

So, even if they were not growing, not a bad valuation.

 

Add in conservative 4% growth, that is icing on the cake.

 

 

[kab60]

10 FCF yield plus 4 pct growth ~ 14 pct return. But FCF isn't really free if they want to delever over the next couple of years. You could say paying down debt accrues to equity holders, but then you should probably consider the spectrum purchase as (debt funded) capex that needs to be spread over X years. A lot of the return will come down to revenue growth but also capital intensity. How often do they have to spend on spectrum to get 1-2xGDP growth, and how expensive is that? I would probably want to get an idea of that and come up with an idea of a normalized capex number as a % of revenue. It looks very interesting, but you'd hope capital intensity came down so they could do like Charter and spend all their FCF on buybacks.

 

Anyone wondered whether Buffett had a chat with Cook before buying Verizon? I wouldn't think the old man necessarily knows much about network quality, 5G and Verizons positioning. It's a pretty big bet, so you would think he'd gottten an interesting insight.

[LearningMachine]

10 FCF yield plus 4 pct growth ~ 14 pct return. But FCF isn't really free if they want to delever over the next couple of years. You could say paying down debt accrues to equity holders, but then you should probably consider the spectrum purchase as (debt funded) capex that needs to be spread over X years. A lot of the return will come down to revenue growth but also capital intensity. How often do they have to spend on spectrum to get 1-2xGDP growth, and how expensive is that? I would probably want to get an idea of that and come up with an idea of a normalized capex number as a % of revenue. It looks very interesting, but you'd hope capital intensity came down so they could do like Charter and spend all their FCF on buybacks.

 

Anyone wondered whether Buffett had a chat with Cook before buying Verizon? I wouldn't think the old man necessarily knows much about network quality, 5G and Verizons positioning. It's a pretty big bet, so you would think he'd gottten an interesting insight.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Buffett formed his view about Verizon from Cook.  He probably learned that Verizon has the highest quality bar for Apple to pass before Verizon will let them be on their network.  He probably also learned that Apple Music has to be included in the Verizon bundle, not the other way around. 

 

Buffett also calls out in his recent letter how debt paydown serves the shareholders.  I think we should definitely include the debt paydown as a benefit to the shareholders and not ignore the cashflow spent on that. 

 

High-inflation scenario: This might be another reason why Buffett bought it.  If we hit higher inflation, they will be able to stay ahead with their price-insensitive customer-base.  Buffett has a sweet corner for loyal, price-insensitive customer base like Apple's, American Express's, and now Verizon's. We probably all remember Buffett's article on How Inflation Swindles the Equity Investor.  As Buffett called out in his article, amazing companies are those that can increase earnings in line with inflation without increasing costs.  By the time Buffett wrote his article, he said those companies were already selling at a premium.  Verizon will be able to do that because spectrum is not equipment that needs to be replaced with higher costs.

 

 

Regarding spectrum purchases, there is limited amount of spectrum available, and it gets scarcer with each auction.  Yes, there are more auctions coming up that we have to watch out for, but among T-Mobile, Verizon & AT&T, Verizon will probably still have the lowest Debt/EBITDA ratio and highest rating even for those auctions.

 

I think if Buffett owned Verizon fully, he would just buy out all the spectrum auctions and consolidate spectrum ownership in one entity over time because you get the ulitmate pricing power that way. 

 

 

[kab60]

10 FCF yield plus 4 pct growth ~ 14 pct return. But FCF isn't really free if they want to delever over the next couple of years. You could say paying down debt accrues to equity holders, but then you should probably consider the spectrum purchase as (debt funded) capex that needs to be spread over X years. A lot of the return will come down to revenue growth but also capital intensity. How often do they have to spend on spectrum to get 1-2xGDP growth, and how expensive is that? I would probably want to get an idea of that and come up with an idea of a normalized capex number as a % of revenue. It looks very interesting, but you'd hope capital intensity came down so they could do like Charter and spend all their FCF on buybacks.

 

Anyone wondered whether Buffett had a chat with Cook before buying Verizon? I wouldn't think the old man necessarily knows much about network quality, 5G and Verizons positioning. It's a pretty big bet, so you would think he'd gottten an interesting insight.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Buffett formed his view about Verizon from Cook.  He probably learned that Verizon has the highest quality bar for Apple to pass before Verizon will let them be on their network.  He probably also learned that Apple Music has to be included in the Verizon bundle, not the other way around. 

 

Buffett also calls out in his recent letter how debt paydown serves the shareholders.  I think we should definitely include the debt paydown as a benefit to the shareholders and not ignore the cashflow spent on that. 

 

High-inflation scenario: This might be another reason why Buffett bought it.  If we hit higher inflation, they will be able to stay ahead with their price-insensitive customer-base.  Buffett has a sweet corner for loyal, price-insensitive customer base like Apple's, American Express's, and now Verizon's. We probably all remember Buffett's article on How Inflation Swindles the Equity Investor.  As Buffett called out in his article, amazing companies are those that can increase earnings in line with inflation without increasing costs.  By the time Buffett wrote his article, he said those companies were already selling at a premium.  Verizon will be able to do that because spectrum is not equipment that needs to be replaced with higher costs.

 

 

Regarding spectrum purchases, there is limited amount of spectrum available, and it gets scarcer with each auction.  Yes, there are more auctions coming up that we have to watch out for, but among T-Mobile, Verizon & AT&T, Verizon will probably still have the lowest Debt/EBITDA ratio and highest rating even for those auctions.

 

I think if Buffett owned Verizon fully, he would just buy out all the spectrum auctions and consolidate spectrum ownership in one entity over time because you get the ulitmate pricing power that way.

No of course we should not ignore it, but if it's a recurring element we need to consider it on top of their regular capex, since it is money that can not be returned to shareholders but needs to be spent to keep the business running (and hopefully) growing. Just looking at their cash from ops less capex probably understates the capital intensity of the business and maybe by a large margin.

 

Why do you think their customers are less price sensitive, and is that sustainable? It seems like a commodity, and in other markets people often just go for the cheapest provider if service is okay. I'm often surprised how great a telco is in the US (for the operators) compared to elsewhere. I suppose it comes down to few rational players.

[Spekulatius]

The occasional spectrum purchase needs to be accounted for. It wasn’t the first spectrum purchase and it isn’t the last. Those are really Capex expenses. I also wonder how much the regular Capex expenses are going to go up, especially if they end up going after fixed broadband.

 

Also T-Mobile is going for market share in their Wireless business. They have huge mid band spectrum holdings through their merger with Sprint that they can work with. that’s why they didn’t have to bid on the spectrum auction:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-22/5g-network-t-mobile-tmus-leads-verizon-vz-at-t-t-to-start-2021

[kab60]

I wonder if the big insight is that competition will be more muted going forward with just three players. When I compare prices, they seem pretty consistent. I thought this one datapoint was pretty interesting, but I just googled it, so not sure if it's correct: https://www.in2013dollars.com/Wireless-telephone-services/price-inflation

 

No idea on the technical advantages nor spectrum, but Verizons capex is almost 2x of T-Mobile (Sprint acquisition only closed 1st of April, so it's probably somewhat understated), which does suggest they might have an advantage on the network side (or they're just not very efficient. Either way I don't think it makes sense for anyone of them to undercut prices aggressively.

 

T-Mobile is also a bit more expensive than Verizon on an EV/Ebitda basis, but that's before spectrum costs, so probably about even. While they might've taken share in recent years, analysts only seem to project 2 pct. growth after 2021.

 

Appreciate the insights.

[Spekulatius]

T-Mobile is definitely cheaper followed by ATT and Verizon being the most expansive. FWIW, the way to save is going MVNO which is what I am doing - I pay $17/month for 7GB on ATT network, but few people do this because they need to pay for the phone out of pocket.

 

I will probably try TMobile again for a family planI had them for a while on  prepaid but then moved and my new job was deep in a concrete building, so I had no reception (T-Mobile didn’t have lower frequency spectrum ). I had no problem when I switched to ATT. Now after the Sprint merger and significant network improvements, it might be a different game.

 

My wife is on Verizon prepaid (more expensive than ATT MVNO) because she wanted a 5G Network access but so far, 5G performance (where she gets it in a city close by where she works sometimes) has been nothing to rave about.

 

Anyways, details aside, I can see that betting on VZ is attractive, if you look for something like an equity bond, which is likely how  Buffett looks at this. It might become part of his regulated package including his Railroad, BH Energy. He wrote in depth how much he hates bonds, which is probably the detail in his letter that really matter so shuffling some of his cash into something that pays a higher dividend than bond with some growth is way more attractive.

[LearningMachine]

Those are really Capex expenses.

if it's a recurring element we need to consider it on top of their regular capex, since it is money that can not be returned to shareholders but needs to be spent to keep the business running (and hopefully) growing.

 

I agree these are capex expenses.  However, they won't be recurring forever.

 

Here is a chart I posted in the Charter thread that shows how scarce spectrum is: https://specmap.sequence-omega.net/.

 

To consider an analogy in the visible spectrum (400-790 THz), imagine if three companies in the U.S. owned the usage of almost all color frequencies.  You had to pay them for using a licensed color frequency.  No more red or blue or black or white color usage available unless you paid them for each usage. As more color frequencies get bought, the scarcer the remaining color frequencies will get, and after all have been bought off, there is no more available to be auctioned unless a company agreed to let one of its color frequencies be auctioned for a price.

 

We are just playing this game outside the visible spectrum, but it is still limited frequencies available in the spectrum not visible to human eye but visible to our sensors.  So, it won't be recurring forever, and it gets more valuable after each auction.

 

Now, imagine you have the balance sheet to bid at auctions and if you had the possibility to buy all the color frequencies in one entity.  Buffett would have jumped on that opportunity given his newspaper business experience where one newspaper in town was way way way more valuable than one of two newspapers in town.

 

 

[LearningMachine]

I wonder if the big insight is that competition will be more muted going forward with just three players.

 

Indeed, if you listen to each entity, they are all collaboratively signaling to each other that they are going after ARPA/ARPU growth, revenue increase from services, etc., which translates to "wink, wink, let's all raise prices together".

 

Once inflation starts showing up, I don't think they will stay back.  It might be even possible that they start soaking up extra wages before other industries in the form of new "premium services" as each entity is signaling to each other.

[LearningMachine]

Why do you think their customers are less price sensitive, and is that sustainable? It seems like a commodity, and in other markets people often just go for the cheapest provider if service is okay. I'm often surprised how great a telco is in the US (for the operators) compared to elsewhere. I suppose it comes down to few rational players.

 

Verizon's customer-base is the highest quality, most loyal and the least price sensitive as the customers have been choosing Verizon not because of the price but despite the higher price.

 

Imagine walking into a stadium with your family and finding out everyone who has Verizon device is having a great experience on the Stadium app that shows angles, etc., and lets you engage.  How much would some be willing to pay for that? Other carriers can't replicate because Verizon owns the biggest chunk of the ultra-high-speed mmWave spectrum that can handle highest number of connections.

 

Imagine you need a phone that has a good signal everywhere you go, including stadiums, airports, rural areas, etc.  Imagine it is your lifeline and you don't want to risk not having it to be able to call 911 if needed, or miss an important call.

 

Verizon has the highest quality bar for its vendors.  They say NO to them until they pass higher quality bar.  One example of a test would be out of a million simultaneous incoming and outgoing calls, how many get dropped at different levels of coverage.

 

Verizon has higher capital expenditure than others because they monitor capacity usage and stay ahead on it before customers even notice, unlike other carriers.  They are also spending money on laying down their own fiber for their base stations.

 

Some are willing to pay a premium for all this despite the price, and become loyal.

 

Remember Verizon said NO to Apple first, and Verizon's loyal customers stuck with it despite not having iphone.  Apple had to cave in and come back to Verizon.  Now, biggest percentage of Apple's devices are sold to Verizon users in the U.S.  Verizon has higher iphone penetration than any of the other carriers.

[KJP]

Regarding more rational competition among only three players, what about Dish?  I realize there's a giant leap (or perhaps an ultramarathon) between (a) owning some spectrum and talking about wireless and (b) having a functioning nationwide 5G wireless network.  But what would be the competitive effect of a new entrant that must get to scale to survive?

[LearningMachine]

Regarding more rational competition among only three players, what about Dish?  I realize there's a giant leap (or perhaps an ultramarathon) between (a) owning some spectrum and talking about wireless and (b) having an functioning nationwide wireless network.  But what would be the competitive effect of a new entrant that must get to scale to survive?

 

The issue is you need multiple bands to provide a reliable, high-speed experience to customers.  Inside the buildings, you need low-band.  In the stadiums, airports & close to window in downtown-highrises, you need mmwave high-band.  In between those two extremes, you need different ranges of midband.

 

If you are missing any of those bands, customers will notice you don't work everywhere. 

[KJP]

Regarding more rational competition among only three players, what about Dish?  I realize there's a giant leap (or perhaps an ultramarathon) between (a) owning some spectrum and talking about wireless and (b) having an functioning nationwide wireless network.  But what would be the competitive effect of a new entrant that must get to scale to survive?

 

The issue is you need multiple bands to provide a reliable, high-speed experience to customers.  Inside the buildings, you need low-band.  In the stadiums, airports & close to window in downtown-highrises, you need mmwave high-band.  In between those two extremes, you need different ranges of midband.

 

If you are missing any of those, customers will notice you don't work everywhere.

 

So what is Ergen's endgame?  A merger into a bigger connectivity company that could use his spectrum?   

[LearningMachine]

Regarding more rational competition among only three players, what about Dish?  I realize there's a giant leap (or perhaps an ultramarathon) between (a) owning some spectrum and talking about wireless and (b) having an functioning nationwide wireless network.  But what would be the competitive effect of a new entrant that must get to scale to survive?

 

The issue is you need multiple bands to provide a reliable, high-speed experience to customers.  Inside the buildings, you need low-band.  In the stadiums, airports & close to window in downtown-highrises, you need mmwave high-band.  In between those two extremes, you need different ranges of midband.

 

If you are missing any of those, customers will notice you don't work everywhere.

 

So what is Ergen's endgame?  A merger into a bigger connectivity company that could use his spectrum? 

 

Indeed, that would be the best use of their spectrum.  That said, looking more now, looks like they have been acquiring a range of bands.  So, maybe they are indeed looking to launch a fourth carrier.

 

However, it will be so expensive to roll out coverage, especially for smaller cells for higher frequency bands for higher speed.  Only Verizon has the cash-flow currently to be able to spend $18+ Billion on capital expenditures like that.  DISH's EBITDA is around $3B currently - so, don't know how they will get the money to do expensive rollouts like Verizon.

 

In the end, maybe there are low-end customers they could go after that want cheapest coverage for the lowest price, and they are ok with spotty coverage and not having high-speed coverage in stadiums, downtowns & airports, etc., and then use the money from that to expand coverage slowly over years.  Lot of ifs there that they will have to cross if they go in that direction, and market might have moved on by then.  Maybe he is thinking he can play around to see where it goes, and in the end, spectrum is getting more valuable, and he could just sell it to the highest bidder if all else fails.

[KJP]

Regarding more rational competition among only three players, what about Dish?  I realize there's a giant leap (or perhaps an ultramarathon) between (a) owning some spectrum and talking about wireless and (b) having an functioning nationwide wireless network.  But what would be the competitive effect of a new entrant that must get to scale to survive?

 

The issue is you need multiple bands to provide a reliable, high-speed experience to customers.  Inside the buildings, you need low-band.  In the stadiums, airports & close to window in downtown-highrises, you need mmwave high-band.  In between those two extremes, you need different ranges of midband.

 

If you are missing any of those, customers will notice you don't work everywhere.

 

So what is Ergen's endgame?  A merger into a bigger connectivity company that could use his spectrum? 

 

Indeed, that would be the best use of their spectrum.  That said, looking more now, looks like they have been acquiring a range of bands.  So, maybe they are indeed looking to launch a fourth carrier.

 

However, it will be so expensive to roll out coverage, especially for smaller cells for higher frequency bands for higher speed.  Only Verizon has the cash-flow currently to be able to spend $18+ Billion on capital expenditures like that.  DISH's EBITDA is around $3B currently - so, don't know how they will get the money to do expensive rollouts like Verizon.

 

In the end, maybe there are low-end customers they could go after that want cheapest coverage for the lowest price, and they are ok with spotty coverage and not having high-speed coverage in stadiums, downtowns & airports, etc., and then use the money from that to expand coverage slowly over years.  Lot of ifs there that they will have to cross if they go in that direction, and market might have moved on by then.  Maybe he is thinking he can play around to see where it goes, and in the end, spectrum is getting more valuable, and he could just sell it to the highest bidder if all else fails.

 

I'm getting out of my depth on the technical/engineering aspects of wireless networks, but my understanding is that Dish is building an O-RAN network along the lines of what Rakuten (new fourth challenger to the three incumbents) is doing in Japan.  I have seen claims that this type of network will be significantly cheaper to build/operate than others, but I lack the experience and expertise to evaluate the accuracy of those claims.

 

Regardless, I agree any type of new nationwide wireless network would require gigantic capital expenditures.  But it seems almost anything can get funded these days, including concepts much flimsier than a wireless network.  I suspect the initial strategy will be high quality service in select markets, and then a big step down in service quality/speed as you roam off-network.  In exchange, you pay significantly less per month than Verizon, along with some creative, usage-based pricing schemes a la the cable MVNOs.  It's unclear to me how many people that will appeal to.  It's the type of offering that 5 or 10 years ago you could have seen bundled with cable co internet, but each of the big 3 cable cos already have MVNOs with a big 3 wireless carrier, so it's not obvious who Dish's partners would be.  And my suggested strategy probably doesn't overlap well with Dish's existing subscriber base.

 

EDIT:  Rather than play armchair strategist, as I was doing above, I decided to actually go look at what Ergen is saying.  I've quoted below his statements from Dish's earnings call last month.  Of course, Ergen's a good salesman and it could all be puffing.  But he's certainly talking about building a fourth national wireless carrier.  And even if it's ultimately a disaster for him and his shareholders, he could cause problems for everyone else along the way -- a competitor pouring capital into your business usually isn't a good thing.  To the extent 5G is a viable competitor to wired broadband, this would obviously apply to wired broadband companies as well.

 

Ergen

 

" And 2020 was over a decade-long transition of accumulating spectrum and getting critical mass with spectrum to go and compete in the wireless world. And we finalized our long-term executive team, which took years to do. We were able to enter the retail market in wireless in an unexpected way with the acquisition of Boost, and a 7-year MVNO term with T-Mobile who's quietly or not-so-quietly building probably the finest network in the United States. The -- we purchased 14 megahertz of low-band spectrum in 800. We purchased approximately 20 megahertz of CBRS spectrum nationwide, the only nationwide provider, and over -- around 600 megahertz of millimeter wave, all last year. We solidified key vendor relationships who -- and have a number of companies that are helping us on our quest to build the world's best network. And we have over $4 billion of cash in our balance sheet. So that all leads to the fact that as we enter 2021, we have everything that we need to build this one-of-a-kind 5G network. And now it's -- now, for us, it's execution.

 

So once you get through the transition stage, you have to focus on -- it's all about execution. And there are certainly significant risks for us as we go execute. We have to deploy our network. And then we've got to put it all together to work -- to make it work. And there certainly will be substantial risk. There's certainly going to be lots of problems, but we have the team and the focus to overcome that. And our company, it has always been a company that can execute. So I have a high degree of confidence that we're going to execute in 2021. That means that we're going to build our first major cities by the end of the third quarter and more to come. We're going to round out our team. The really, really great engineers, the wireless engine, where they want to come work for this company, because we're building something special. And we're going to continue with rounding out our vendor partners and making sure that we have -- we still have cloud. We still have transport. We still have orchestration, just to name a few. So we'll continue to do that.

 

And at the end of the day, we're going to have this really, really special 5G cloud native, OpenRAN virtualized network that really doesn't exist in the world today. So it's not our first rodeo. It's very similar to building the digital video when the world was analog. Wireless networks really haven't been upgraded from an architecture point of view in the last 30 years. And we're confident that with our focus will actually help the United States, actually start leading again in wireless and hopefully continue to bring -- most of our partners are American companies with American ingenuity. And there's no reason that America can't lead as an example, nobody has better cloud companies than the United States. Nobody had a better -- when you virtualize the network, you know what you write, you do it with software, not hardware. Nobody has better software than the United States. And this is a company that has 2 main operating systems in the world today, and Apple's iOS and Google's Android in the handset side. So there's no reason that this country can't lead, and there's no reason that DISH isn't going to be a part of that and probably will be up front in some of those things.

 

The reason the transition is important, is in 1995, we went to the little dish business, we had 2 other competitors. We had a cable company and we had DIRECTV. Today, we probably have over 20 competitors in that very same business. In fact, we compete with our very own suppliers. So that market is very competitive. You've obviously seen the trends in our industry in the last 4 or 5 years. We expect that those trends will probably continue.

 

The world is becoming an a la carte world with vendors going directly to their customers.

 

But in the wireless world, we're 1 of 4 competitors. So there's 3 $200 billion companies that are out there and we're entering their business with a better network to go compete. And it's not just about competition for consumers or handsets. It's about what a 5G network can do, which includes a lot more than just consumers."

 

 

[Spekulatius]

^ Besides clever marketing, it seems to me that T-Mobile was very clever picking up spectrum relatively cheap for quite some time and picking up mid to high band rich Sprint in a way was a huge master stroke in Spectrum acquisition besides gaining scale. In a way Verizon was getting spectrum poor and had to strike out,  it to get ahead but simply to stay in the game:

https://www.lightreading.com/5g/verizon-keeps-snapping-up-spectrum-and-small-carriers/d/d-id/763058

 

These spectrum acquisitions are quite an interesting chess game. T-Mobile was a significant disadvantage for a long time (lacking low band spectrum) but over time, they maneuvered themselves in a position where they are actually leading. 

[LearningMachine]

^ Besides clever marketing, it seems to me that T-Mobile was very clever picking up spectrum relatively cheap for quite some time and picking up mid to high band rich Sprint in a way was a huge master stroke in Spectrum acquisition besides gaining scale. In a way Verizon was getting spectrum poor and had to strike out,  it to get ahead but simply to stay in the game:

https://www.lightreading.com/5g/verizon-keeps-snapping-up-spectrum-and-small-carriers/d/d-id/763058

 

These spectrum acquisitions are quite an interesting chess game. T-Mobile was a significant disadvantage for a long time (lacking low band spectrum) but over time, they maneuvered themselves in a position where they are actually leading.

 

It is interesting they don't show you in their chart who has the biggest chunk of mmwave high-band spectrum?  It is needed for ultra-high speed.  It is also needed for taking on a lot of simultaneous connections, especially around stadiums, airports & downtown high-rises .  Want to guess, who has the biggest chunk?  Verizon :-). 

 

Also, on mid-band, Verizon has now almost caught up as well after the auction.  Yes, Verizon didn't really have a choice, but to take it because they want to maintain their brand for highest speed & most reliable 5G that works everywhere, even in stadiums, airports, buildings, rural areas, etc.

 

Once we open up the stadiums & high-rises, I think it will continue to be clear that Verizon is still leading on ultra-high-speed.

[LearningMachine]

Regarding more rational competition among only three players, what about Dish?  I realize there's a giant leap (or perhaps an ultramarathon) between (a) owning some spectrum and talking about wireless and (b) having an functioning nationwide wireless network.  But what would be the competitive effect of a new entrant that must get to scale to survive?

 

The issue is you need multiple bands to provide a reliable, high-speed experience to customers.  Inside the buildings, you need low-band.  In the stadiums, airports & close to window in downtown-highrises, you need mmwave high-band.  In between those two extremes, you need different ranges of midband.

 

If you are missing any of those, customers will notice you don't work everywhere.

 

So what is Ergen's endgame?  A merger into a bigger connectivity company that could use his spectrum? 

 

Indeed, that would be the best use of their spectrum.  That said, looking more now, looks like they have been acquiring a range of bands.  So, maybe they are indeed looking to launch a fourth carrier.

 

However, it will be so expensive to roll out coverage, especially for smaller cells for higher frequency bands for higher speed.  Only Verizon has the cash-flow currently to be able to spend $18+ Billion on capital expenditures like that.  DISH's EBITDA is around $3B currently - so, don't know how they will get the money to do expensive rollouts like Verizon.

 

In the end, maybe there are low-end customers they could go after that want cheapest coverage for the lowest price, and they are ok with spotty coverage and not having high-speed coverage in stadiums, downtowns & airports, etc., and then use the money from that to expand coverage slowly over years.  Lot of ifs there that they will have to cross if they go in that direction, and market might have moved on by then.  Maybe he is thinking he can play around to see where it goes, and in the end, spectrum is getting more valuable, and he could just sell it to the highest bidder if all else fails.

 

I'm getting out of my depth on the technical/engineering aspects of wireless networks, but my understanding is that Dish is building an O-RAN network along the lines of what Rakuten (new fourth challenger to the three incumbents) is doing in Japan.  I have seen claims that this type of network will be significantly cheaper to build/operate than others, but I lack the experience and expertise to evaluate the accuracy of those claims.

 

Regardless, I agree any type of new nationwide wireless network would require gigantic capital expenditures.  But it seems almost anything can get funded these days, including concepts much flimsier than a wireless network.  I suspect the initial strategy will be high quality service in select markets, and then a big step down in service quality/speed as you roam off-network.  In exchange, you pay significantly less per month than Verizon, along with some creative, usage-based pricing schemes a la the cable MVNOs.  It's unclear to me how many people that will appeal to.  It's the type of offering that 5 or 10 years ago you could have seen bundled with cable co internet, but each of the big 3 cable cos already have MVNOs with a big 3 wireless carrier, so it's not obvious who Dish's partners would be.  And my suggested strategy probably doesn't overlap well with Dish's existing subscriber base.

 

EDIT:  Rather than play armchair strategist, as I was doing above, I decided to actually go look at what Ergen is saying.  I've quoted below his statements from Dish's earnings call last month.  Of course, Ergen's a good salesman and it could all be puffing.  But he's certainly talking about building a fourth national wireless carrier.  And even if it's ultimately a disaster for him and his shareholders, he could cause problems for everyone else along the way -- a competitor pouring capital into your business usually isn't a good thing.  To the extent 5G is a viable competitor to wired broadband, this would obviously apply to wired broadband companies as well.

 

Ergen

 

" And 2020 was over a decade-long transition of accumulating spectrum and getting critical mass with spectrum to go and compete in the wireless world. And we finalized our long-term executive team, which took years to do. We were able to enter the retail market in wireless in an unexpected way with the acquisition of Boost, and a 7-year MVNO term with T-Mobile who's quietly or not-so-quietly building probably the finest network in the United States. The -- we purchased 14 megahertz of low-band spectrum in 800. We purchased approximately 20 megahertz of CBRS spectrum nationwide, the only nationwide provider, and over -- around 600 megahertz of millimeter wave, all last year. We solidified key vendor relationships who -- and have a number of companies that are helping us on our quest to build the world's best network. And we have over $4 billion of cash in our balance sheet. So that all leads to the fact that as we enter 2021, we have everything that we need to build this one-of-a-kind 5G network. And now it's -- now, for us, it's execution.

 

So once you get through the transition stage, you have to focus on -- it's all about execution. And there are certainly significant risks for us as we go execute. We have to deploy our network. And then we've got to put it all together to work -- to make it work. And there certainly will be substantial risk. There's certainly going to be lots of problems, but we have the team and the focus to overcome that. And our company, it has always been a company that can execute. So I have a high degree of confidence that we're going to execute in 2021. That means that we're going to build our first major cities by the end of the third quarter and more to come. We're going to round out our team. The really, really great engineers, the wireless engine, where they want to come work for this company, because we're building something special. And we're going to continue with rounding out our vendor partners and making sure that we have -- we still have cloud. We still have transport. We still have orchestration, just to name a few. So we'll continue to do that.

 

And at the end of the day, we're going to have this really, really special 5G cloud native, OpenRAN virtualized network that really doesn't exist in the world today. So it's not our first rodeo. It's very similar to building the digital video when the world was analog. Wireless networks really haven't been upgraded from an architecture point of view in the last 30 years. And we're confident that with our focus will actually help the United States, actually start leading again in wireless and hopefully continue to bring -- most of our partners are American companies with American ingenuity. And there's no reason that America can't lead as an example, nobody has better cloud companies than the United States. Nobody had a better -- when you virtualize the network, you know what you write, you do it with software, not hardware. Nobody has better software than the United States. And this is a company that has 2 main operating systems in the world today, and Apple's iOS and Google's Android in the handset side. So there's no reason that this country can't lead, and there's no reason that DISH isn't going to be a part of that and probably will be up front in some of those things.

 

The reason the transition is important, is in 1995, we went to the little dish business, we had 2 other competitors. We had a cable company and we had DIRECTV. Today, we probably have over 20 competitors in that very same business. In fact, we compete with our very own suppliers. So that market is very competitive. You've obviously seen the trends in our industry in the last 4 or 5 years. We expect that those trends will probably continue.

 

The world is becoming an a la carte world with vendors going directly to their customers.

 

But in the wireless world, we're 1 of 4 competitors. So there's 3 $200 billion companies that are out there and we're entering their business with a better network to go compete. And it's not just about competition for consumers or handsets. It's about what a 5G network can do, which includes a lot more than just consumers."

 

 

 

Thanks KJP for looking more into it and sharing.

 

I think $4B of cash on balance sheet is not a lot to build a high quality network when Verizon is spending $18B per year already and now $10B more over next 3 years.  We've seen Sprint and ClearWire try before with limited capital budgets and fail before.

 

Not sure how they are going to spend that money.  If they spend on low-band they could get wider coverage at low speeds for the low-end consumers similar to T-Mobile.  If they spend on high-band they could build very small area coverage, but I don't think high-end consumers will fall for it easily. Maybe Dish will balance the spend on different bands, and try to cover the rest with MVNO deals, e.g. with T-Mobile & Verizon.  Verizon might even sell them network as a service as they do with Charter, Comcast, etc. because they are not worried as they know they can raise the price on them anytime for access to areas they have biggest chunk of, e.g. high-band high-density areas.  Also, Verizon prioritizes access for their own customers, and gives MVNO partners only what's left over.  So, premium Verizon customers will always have the best experience.  However, selling network access to Dish will probably need more headscratching because Dish actually has multiple bands to compete with them in the future to some extent if they support Dish now.

 

Overall, mobile subscription costs are still only a small nominal cost from high-end consumers perspective.  So, many probably don't care that much to get the lowest cost with loss of coverage.  So, I think Dish might end up taking some of the low-end customers.  That also aligns well with the Republic Wireless and Boost brands they own.

[KJP]

Regarding more rational competition among only three players, what about Dish?  I realize there's a giant leap (or perhaps an ultramarathon) between (a) owning some spectrum and talking about wireless and (b) having an functioning nationwide wireless network.  But what would be the competitive effect of a new entrant that must get to scale to survive?

 

The issue is you need multiple bands to provide a reliable, high-speed experience to customers.  Inside the buildings, you need low-band.  In the stadiums, airports & close to window in downtown-highrises, you need mmwave high-band.  In between those two extremes, you need different ranges of midband.

 

If you are missing any of those, customers will notice you don't work everywhere.

 

So what is Ergen's endgame?  A merger into a bigger connectivity company that could use his spectrum? 

 

Indeed, that would be the best use of their spectrum.  That said, looking more now, looks like they have been acquiring a range of bands.  So, maybe they are indeed looking to launch a fourth carrier.

 

However, it will be so expensive to roll out coverage, especially for smaller cells for higher frequency bands for higher speed.  Only Verizon has the cash-flow currently to be able to spend $18+ Billion on capital expenditures like that.  DISH's EBITDA is around $3B currently - so, don't know how they will get the money to do expensive rollouts like Verizon.

 

In the end, maybe there are low-end customers they could go after that want cheapest coverage for the lowest price, and they are ok with spotty coverage and not having high-speed coverage in stadiums, downtowns & airports, etc., and then use the money from that to expand coverage slowly over years.  Lot of ifs there that they will have to cross if they go in that direction, and market might have moved on by then.  Maybe he is thinking he can play around to see where it goes, and in the end, spectrum is getting more valuable, and he could just sell it to the highest bidder if all else fails.

 

I'm getting out of my depth on the technical/engineering aspects of wireless networks, but my understanding is that Dish is building an O-RAN network along the lines of what Rakuten (new fourth challenger to the three incumbents) is doing in Japan.  I have seen claims that this type of network will be significantly cheaper to build/operate than others, but I lack the experience and expertise to evaluate the accuracy of those claims.

 

Regardless, I agree any type of new nationwide wireless network would require gigantic capital expenditures.  But it seems almost anything can get funded these days, including concepts much flimsier than a wireless network.  I suspect the initial strategy will be high quality service in select markets, and then a big step down in service quality/speed as you roam off-network.  In exchange, you pay significantly less per month than Verizon, along with some creative, usage-based pricing schemes a la the cable MVNOs.  It's unclear to me how many people that will appeal to.  It's the type of offering that 5 or 10 years ago you could have seen bundled with cable co internet, but each of the big 3 cable cos already have MVNOs with a big 3 wireless carrier, so it's not obvious who Dish's partners would be.  And my suggested strategy probably doesn't overlap well with Dish's existing subscriber base.

 

EDIT:  Rather than play armchair strategist, as I was doing above, I decided to actually go look at what Ergen is saying.  I've quoted below his statements from Dish's earnings call last month.  Of course, Ergen's a good salesman and it could all be puffing.  But he's certainly talking about building a fourth national wireless carrier.  And even if it's ultimately a disaster for him and his shareholders, he could cause problems for everyone else along the way -- a competitor pouring capital into your business usually isn't a good thing.  To the extent 5G is a viable competitor to wired broadband, this would obviously apply to wired broadband companies as well.

 

Ergen

 

" And 2020 was over a decade-long transition of accumulating spectrum and getting critical mass with spectrum to go and compete in the wireless world. And we finalized our long-term executive team, which took years to do. We were able to enter the retail market in wireless in an unexpected way with the acquisition of Boost, and a 7-year MVNO term with T-Mobile who's quietly or not-so-quietly building probably the finest network in the United States. The -- we purchased 14 megahertz of low-band spectrum in 800. We purchased approximately 20 megahertz of CBRS spectrum nationwide, the only nationwide provider, and over -- around 600 megahertz of millimeter wave, all last year. We solidified key vendor relationships who -- and have a number of companies that are helping us on our quest to build the world's best network. And we have over $4 billion of cash in our balance sheet. So that all leads to the fact that as we enter 2021, we have everything that we need to build this one-of-a-kind 5G network. And now it's -- now, for us, it's execution.

 

So once you get through the transition stage, you have to focus on -- it's all about execution. And there are certainly significant risks for us as we go execute. We have to deploy our network. And then we've got to put it all together to work -- to make it work. And there certainly will be substantial risk. There's certainly going to be lots of problems, but we have the team and the focus to overcome that. And our company, it has always been a company that can execute. So I have a high degree of confidence that we're going to execute in 2021. That means that we're going to build our first major cities by the end of the third quarter and more to come. We're going to round out our team. The really, really great engineers, the wireless engine, where they want to come work for this company, because we're building something special. And we're going to continue with rounding out our vendor partners and making sure that we have -- we still have cloud. We still have transport. We still have orchestration, just to name a few. So we'll continue to do that.

 

And at the end of the day, we're going to have this really, really special 5G cloud native, OpenRAN virtualized network that really doesn't exist in the world today. So it's not our first rodeo. It's very similar to building the digital video when the world was analog. Wireless networks really haven't been upgraded from an architecture point of view in the last 30 years. And we're confident that with our focus will actually help the United States, actually start leading again in wireless and hopefully continue to bring -- most of our partners are American companies with American ingenuity. And there's no reason that America can't lead as an example, nobody has better cloud companies than the United States. Nobody had a better -- when you virtualize the network, you know what you write, you do it with software, not hardware. Nobody has better software than the United States. And this is a company that has 2 main operating systems in the world today, and Apple's iOS and Google's Android in the handset side. So there's no reason that this country can't lead, and there's no reason that DISH isn't going to be a part of that and probably will be up front in some of those things.

 

The reason the transition is important, is in 1995, we went to the little dish business, we had 2 other competitors. We had a cable company and we had DIRECTV. Today, we probably have over 20 competitors in that very same business. In fact, we compete with our very own suppliers. So that market is very competitive. You've obviously seen the trends in our industry in the last 4 or 5 years. We expect that those trends will probably continue.

 

The world is becoming an a la carte world with vendors going directly to their customers.

 

But in the wireless world, we're 1 of 4 competitors. So there's 3 $200 billion companies that are out there and we're entering their business with a better network to go compete. And it's not just about competition for consumers or handsets. It's about what a 5G network can do, which includes a lot more than just consumers."

 

 

 

Thanks KJP for looking more into it and sharing.

 

I think $4B of cash on balance sheet is not a lot to build a high quality network when Verizon is spending $18B per year already and now $10B more over next 3 years.  We've seen Sprint and ClearWire try before with limited capital budgets and fail before.

 

Not sure how they are going to spend that money.  If they spend on low-band they could get wider coverage at low speeds for the low-end consumers similar to T-Mobile.  If they spend on high-band they could build very small area coverage, but I don't think high-end consumers will fall for it easily. Maybe Dish will balance the spend on different bands, and try to cover the rest with MVNO deals, e.g. with T-Mobile & Verizon.  Verizon might even sell them network as a service as they do with Charter, Comcast, etc. because they are not worried as they know they can raise the price on them anytime for access to areas they have biggest chunk of, e.g. high-band high-density areas.  Also, Verizon prioritizes access for their own customers, and gives MVNO partners only what's left over.  So, premium Verizon customers will always have the best experience.  However, selling network access to Dish will probably need more headscratching because Dish actually has multiple bands to compete with them in the future to some extent if they support Dish now.

 

Overall, mobile subscription costs are still only a small nominal cost from high-end consumers perspective.  So, many probably don't care that much to get the lowest cost with loss of coverage.  So, I think Dish might end up taking some of the low-end customers.  That also aligns well with the Republic Wireless and Boost brands they own.

 

It appears that Dish has a 7-year MVNO with T-Mobile.  So one strategy (referred to on their last conference call) is to build out their own 5G first in areas where they currently have the most usage, which would give them the most immediate COGS reduction via lower usage of the MVNO. 

 

Interestingly, T-Mobile is already squeezing Dish by shutting down its legacy CDMA network earlier than expected, potentially as early as January 2022.  As a result, Dish must get new phones to many of its existing customers quickly, but given the time constraints those phones may not be compatible with the 5G network Dish is building, which would require them to provide another batch of phones to access that network.  Sounds like a real mess.

[vince]

Regarding more rational competition among only three players, what about Dish?  I realize there's a giant leap (or perhaps an ultramarathon) between (a) owning some spectrum and talking about wireless and (b) having an functioning nationwide wireless network.  But what would be the competitive effect of a new entrant that must get to scale to survive?

 

The issue is you need multiple bands to provide a reliable, high-speed experience to customers.  Inside the buildings, you need low-band.  In the stadiums, airports & close to window in downtown-highrises, you need mmwave high-band.  In between those two extremes, you need different ranges of midband.

 

If you are missing any of those, customers will notice you don't work everywhere.

 

So what is Ergen's endgame?  A merger into a bigger connectivity company that could use his spectrum? 

 

Indeed, that would be the best use of their spectrum.  That said, looking more now, looks like they have been acquiring a range of bands.  So, maybe they are indeed looking to launch a fourth carrier.

 

However, it will be so expensive to roll out coverage, especially for smaller cells for higher frequency bands for higher speed.  Only Verizon has the cash-flow currently to be able to spend $18+ Billion on capital expenditures like that.  DISH's EBITDA is around $3B currently - so, don't know how they will get the money to do expensive rollouts like Verizon.

 

In the end, maybe there are low-end customers they could go after that want cheapest coverage for the lowest price, and they are ok with spotty coverage and not having high-speed coverage in stadiums, downtowns & airports, etc., and then use the money from that to expand coverage slowly over years.  Lot of ifs there that they will have to cross if they go in that direction, and market might have moved on by then.  Maybe he is thinking he can play around to see where it goes, and in the end, spectrum is getting more valuable, and he could just sell it to the highest bidder if all else fails.

 

I'm getting out of my depth on the technical/engineering aspects of wireless networks, but my understanding is that Dish is building an O-RAN network along the lines of what Rakuten (new fourth challenger to the three incumbents) is doing in Japan.  I have seen claims that this type of network will be significantly cheaper to build/operate than others, but I lack the experience and expertise to evaluate the accuracy of those claims.

 

Regardless, I agree any type of new nationwide wireless network would require gigantic capital expenditures.  But it seems almost anything can get funded these days, including concepts much flimsier than a wireless network.  I suspect the initial strategy will be high quality service in select markets, and then a big step down in service quality/speed as you roam off-network.  In exchange, you pay significantly less per month than Verizon, along with some creative, usage-based pricing schemes a la the cable MVNOs.  It's unclear to me how many people that will appeal to.  It's the type of offering that 5 or 10 years ago you could have seen bundled with cable co internet, but each of the big 3 cable cos already have MVNOs with a big 3 wireless carrier, so it's not obvious who Dish's partners would be.  And my suggested strategy probably doesn't overlap well with Dish's existing subscriber base.

 

EDIT:  Rather than play armchair strategist, as I was doing above, I decided to actually go look at what Ergen is saying.  I've quoted below his statements from Dish's earnings call last month.  Of course, Ergen's a good salesman and it could all be puffing.  But he's certainly talking about building a fourth national wireless carrier.  And even if it's ultimately a disaster for him and his shareholders, he could cause problems for everyone else along the way -- a competitor pouring capital into your business usually isn't a good thing.  To the extent 5G is a viable competitor to wired broadband, this would obviously apply to wired broadband companies as well.

 

Ergen

 

" And 2020 was over a decade-long transition of accumulating spectrum and getting critical mass with spectrum to go and compete in the wireless world. And we finalized our long-term executive team, which took years to do. We were able to enter the retail market in wireless in an unexpected way with the acquisition of Boost, and a 7-year MVNO term with T-Mobile who's quietly or not-so-quietly building probably the finest network in the United States. The -- we purchased 14 megahertz of low-band spectrum in 800. We purchased approximately 20 megahertz of CBRS spectrum nationwide, the only nationwide provider, and over -- around 600 megahertz of millimeter wave, all last year. We solidified key vendor relationships who -- and have a number of companies that are helping us on our quest to build the world's best network. And we have over $4 billion of cash in our balance sheet. So that all leads to the fact that as we enter 2021, we have everything that we need to build this one-of-a-kind 5G network. And now it's -- now, for us, it's execution.

 

So once you get through the transition stage, you have to focus on -- it's all about execution. And there are certainly significant risks for us as we go execute. We have to deploy our network. And then we've got to put it all together to work -- to make it work. And there certainly will be substantial risk. There's certainly going to be lots of problems, but we have the team and the focus to overcome that. And our company, it has always been a company that can execute. So I have a high degree of confidence that we're going to execute in 2021. That means that we're going to build our first major cities by the end of the third quarter and more to come. We're going to round out our team. The really, really great engineers, the wireless engine, where they want to come work for this company, because we're building something special. And we're going to continue with rounding out our vendor partners and making sure that we have -- we still have cloud. We still have transport. We still have orchestration, just to name a few. So we'll continue to do that.

 

And at the end of the day, we're going to have this really, really special 5G cloud native, OpenRAN virtualized network that really doesn't exist in the world today. So it's not our first rodeo. It's very similar to building the digital video when the world was analog. Wireless networks really haven't been upgraded from an architecture point of view in the last 30 years. And we're confident that with our focus will actually help the United States, actually start leading again in wireless and hopefully continue to bring -- most of our partners are American companies with American ingenuity. And there's no reason that America can't lead as an example, nobody has better cloud companies than the United States. Nobody had a better -- when you virtualize the network, you know what you write, you do it with software, not hardware. Nobody has better software than the United States. And this is a company that has 2 main operating systems in the world today, and Apple's iOS and Google's Android in the handset side. So there's no reason that this country can't lead, and there's no reason that DISH isn't going to be a part of that and probably will be up front in some of those things.

 

The reason the transition is important, is in 1995, we went to the little dish business, we had 2 other competitors. We had a cable company and we had DIRECTV. Today, we probably have over 20 competitors in that very same business. In fact, we compete with our very own suppliers. So that market is very competitive. You've obviously seen the trends in our industry in the last 4 or 5 years. We expect that those trends will probably continue.

 

The world is becoming an a la carte world with vendors going directly to their customers.

 

But in the wireless world, we're 1 of 4 competitors. So there's 3 $200 billion companies that are out there and we're entering their business with a better network to go compete. And it's not just about competition for consumers or handsets. It's about what a 5G network can do, which includes a lot more than just consumers."

 

 

 

Ergen owns almost all of Dish's shares and always does what he wants no matter what others say.  He is the type to spend billions, and potentially lose billions trying to prove others wrong as partial motivation.  Malone has publicly disagreed with many of Ergen's business decisions over the years yet Ergen was (and is still up there) one of the richest people in the world.  He scares me

[KJP]

Interesting discussion of the relative spectrum holdings of Verizon and T-Mobile:  https://www.lightreading.com/5g/verizons-c-band-vs-t-mobiles-25ghz-which-is-better-for-5g/d/d-id/768085?_mc=RSS_LR_EDT