5G

Posted on by Roger Entner

The U.S. wireless industry has officially entered a new era, catalyzed by a landmark transaction that confirms the final collapse of EchoStar’s long-held ambition to become a fourth facilities-based carrier. EchoStar has entered into a definitive agreement to sell its complete portfolio of prized AWS-4 and H-block spectrum licenses to SpaceX for approximately $17 billion. The deal, consisting of up to $8.5 billion in cash and an equivalent amount in SpaceX stock, also includes a provision for SpaceX to fund approximately $2 billion of EchoStar’s debt interest payments through late 2027 and establishes a long-term commercial agreement for SpaceX to provide its next-generation Starlink Direct-to-Cell (D2C) service to EchoStar’s Boost Mobile subscribers.

This agreement is not merely a corporate restructuring; it is the definitive end of a regulatory dream and the formal beginning of a new, more complex competitive paradigm. The transaction solidifies the U.S. terrestrial wireless market as a stable, three-player market while simultaneously igniting a new, asymmetric competitive front in satellite-to-cellular connectivity. SpaceX, now armed with dedicated, purpose-built spectrum for Mobile Satellite Service (MSS), and its primary terrestrial partner, T-Mobile, possess a significant first-mover advantage in the race for ubiquitous coverage. This move elevates the D2C value proposition from a niche, emergency-only feature into a core, marketable network attribute.

The cascading effects of this deal will reshape the strategies of every major player for years to come. For EchoStar, it marks the final pivot from a would-be network operator to a “hybrid MVNO” and a significant shareholder in SpaceX, a stunning financial victory for its chairman, Charlie Ergen, born from the ashes of operational failure. For Verizon and AT&T, it provides urgency to accelerate their own D2C counter-strategy with partner AST SpaceMobile. Finally, the transaction presents a novel challenge for regulators. The review will be forced to look beyond traditional concerns of terrestrial spectrum consolidation and grapple with the profound implications of SpaceX’s vertical integration, examining its dominance in the satellite launch market and its new, powerful position in the downstream market for satellite connectivity services. The two-front war has begun.

I. The Deal That Ends an Era: Deconstructing the EchoStar-SpaceX Agreement

The definitive agreement between EchoStar and SpaceX represents one of the most significant strategic transactions in the recent history of the U.S. telecommunications sector. Its architecture reflects the unique financial positions and strategic imperatives of both companies, transferring a uniquely valuable set of spectrum assets that will power a new generation of satellite services and formalizing a commercial alliance that provides a lifeline to a struggling wireless brand.

Financial Architecture and Valuation Analysis

The transaction is structured to provide EchoStar with immediate financial relief and long-term upside, while allowing SpaceX to acquire a critical strategic asset without depleting its capital reserves needed for its ambitious launch and satellite manufacturing programs. The core terms of the agreement are as follows :

  • Total Consideration: The deal is valued at approximately $17 billion.
  • Cash Component: SpaceX will provide up to $8.5 billion in cash.
  • Stock Component: SpaceX will provide up to $8.5 billion in its own stock, with the valuation fixed as of the date the definitive agreement was signed.
  • Debt Servicing: In a crucial provision that addresses EchoStar’s immediate liquidity crisis, SpaceX has agreed to fund an aggregate of approximately $2 billion in cash interest payments due on EchoStar’s substantial debt through November 2027.

This 50/50 cash-and-stock structure is a work of strategic financial engineering. A pure cash deal of this magnitude would place immense strain on SpaceX, a company with massive and continuous capital expenditures for its Starship development and Starlink constellation deployment. Conversely, a pure stock deal would have been unacceptable to EchoStar’s creditors, who require cash to service the company’s more than $26.4 billion in total debt. The balanced split provides an elegant solution. SpaceX preserves vital capital for its core operations, while EchoStar secures sufficient immediate liquidity to manage its most pressing debt obligations and stabilize its financial footing.

Furthermore, by accepting a significant equity stake in one of the world’s most valuable private companies, EchoStar Chairman Charlie Ergen has transformed what could have been a simple liquidation of assets into a long-term investment. This move aligns the financial interests of both parties in the success of the D2C venture that this very spectrum will empower. It gives EchoStar and its shareholders continued participation and upside potential in the high-growth satellite connectivity ecosystem, effectively hedging the sale of its own ambitions against the success of its acquirer.

Asset Deep Dive: The Strategic Value of AWS-4 and H-Block Spectrum

The intense pursuit of these specific licenses by SpaceX was driven by the unique and irreplaceable nature of the AWS-4 band. While the H-block licenses are a valuable addition, the AWS-4 spectrum—encompassing the 2000-2020 MHz uplink and 2180-2200 MHz downlink bands—is widely considered the “golden band” for D2C services.

Its value stems from its history and technical characteristics. Unlike repurposed terrestrial spectrum, such as the sliver of T-Mobile’s PCS G-block currently used for the beta T-Satellite service, the AWS-4 band was originally allocated for Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). The propagation physics of both bands are ideal for the challenges of space-to-ground communication, making it far more efficient for connecting satellites to standard smartphones. More importantly, its existing regulatory framework as an MSS band provides a more direct and less contentious path for satellite use, sidestepping many of the complex technical and legal challenges associated with using terrestrial-designated bands from space under the FCC’s new Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) framework.

By acquiring the entire portfolio of these licenses, SpaceX secures exclusive, nationwide rights to this optimal spectrum. This acquisition is transformative, enabling SpaceX to develop and deploy a next-generation Starlink D2C constellation capable of moving beyond the limitations of the current text-only service. With dedicated, purpose-built spectrum, SpaceX can now credibly pursue its roadmap of offering reliable voice, streaming-grade data, and robust IoT capabilities directly to unmodified smartphones, a quantum leap in service capability.

The Commercial Alliance: Defining the Future of Boost Mobile and Starlink D2C

A core component of the definitive agreement is the establishment of a long-term commercial alliance. This partnership will enable EchoStar’s Boost Mobile subscribers to access SpaceX’s next-generation Starlink D2C service, with the connection being managed through Boost’s own cloud-native 5G core network. While seemingly a straightforward value-add for customers, this commercial agreement serves multiple, layered strategic purposes for both companies and for the deal’s regulatory prospects.

For EchoStar, the alliance provides a desperately needed lifeline and a unique point of differentiation for its struggling Boost Mobile brand. Facing relentless subscriber losses and the decommissioning of its own physical network, Boost can now market a truly innovative feature—ubiquitous satellite connectivity—to stanch churn and potentially attract new customers in the hyper-competitive prepaid market. It allows EchoStar to maintain a narrative of being a technology-forward competitor even as it fully transitions to a “hybrid MVNO” model, reliant on the networks of its rivals. It still does not solve Boost Mobile’s remarkable inability to sell its services successfully.

Most critically, this commercial component is a masterful piece of regulatory strategy. The preservation of Boost Mobile as a distinct competitive entity, now enhanced with a unique satellite offering, provides essential political cover for the transaction. It allows the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to approve a deal that otherwise permanently cements a three-player terrestrial market. Regulators can plausibly argue that they have preserved a “fourth wireless competitor,” even if that competitor no longer owns a radio access network. This framework directly mirrors the “hybrid MNO” model established in EchoStar’s prior spectrum sale to AT&T, creating a consistent and defensible regulatory precedent that will ease the path to approval.

II. EchoStar’s Final Chapter: From Contender to Catalyst

The sale of EchoStar’s most valuable spectrum assets was not a strategic choice but an inevitability, the culmination of years of financial strain, commercial missteps, and overwhelming regulatory pressure. The company’s journey from a government-mandated fourth carrier to a motivated spectrum broker is a stark cautionary tale about the brutal economics of the modern wireless industry. Yet, for its chairman, it represents the profitable conclusion to a decades-long speculative bet.

Anatomy of a Forced Sale: Financial Distress, Network Failure, and Regulatory Pressure

The fire sale of EchoStar’s spectrum was precipitated by a combination of three fatal blows that left the company with no viable path forward other than liquidation.

First, the company’s financial position had become untenable. Saddled with a total debt load exceeding $26.4 billion, EchoStar reported a net loss of $306 million in the second quarter of 2025 alone. The financial distress grew so acute that the company began missing multi-million dollar interest payments, a clear signal of a looming liquidity crisis. The post-pandemic rise in interest rates had closed the window for the cheap financing necessary to fund a nationwide network buildout, leaving the company hemorrhaging cash from its wireless division and presiding over a legacy pay-TV business in secular decline. The inclusion of a $2 billion interest payment provision by SpaceX in the final deal underscores the severity of this financial pressure.

Second, EchoStar’s flagship strategic initiative, a technologically advanced, greenfield 5G Open RAN network, was a commercial catastrophe. Despite earning technical praise for its rapid deployment, the network failed to attract a critical mass of subscribers, becoming a “ghost town” that generated no meaningful revenue or positive cash flow. This failure proved that simply building a network is not synonymous with building a successful wireless business. The surrender was signaled definitively when the company laid off 90% of its wireless engineering organization following its initial spectrum sale to AT&T, an irreversible move away from any serious network ambitions.

Finally, the FCC, under Chairman Brendan Carr, delivered the coup de grâce. Prompted by public questions from Elon Musk about why EchoStar was allowed to hold valuable spectrum without fully utilizing it, the commission launched a high-profile campaign against the company’s “spectrum squatting”. This regulatory pressure, amplified by relentless lobbying from SpaceX, initiated formal inquiries into EchoStar’s buildout compliance and effectively froze the company’s ability to raise capital. Cornered financially and regulatorily, Chairman Charlie Ergen was forced to abandon his decades-long strategy of hoarding spectrum, leaving a sale as his only remaining option. Both the AT&T and SpaceX deals are explicitly framed by EchoStar as necessary steps to resolve these pending FCC inquiries.

The Definitive Pivot: Termination of the MDA Space Contract

If any doubt remained about EchoStar’s complete and total surrender of its network infrastructure ambitions, it was erased by a single, decisive action that occurred concurrently with the SpaceX deal announcement. On September 8, 2025, EchoStar issued a termination for convenience notice to MDA Space for a major satellite constellation contract that had been announced just five weeks prior, on August 1, 2025.

This sequence of events reveals the stark, binary choice the company faced. The initial MDA Space contract was a bold statement of intent, committing EchoStar to a multi-billion dollar project to build its own Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellation for D2D services, positioning itself as a direct competitor to Starlink. It was the “build” path. The subsequent termination, explicitly cited as the result of a “sudden change to EchoStar’s business strategy and plan in the wake of spectrum allocation discussions with the Federal Communications Commission,” was the definitive pivot to the “sell” path. This was not a gradual strategic evolution but an abrupt reversal. The deal with SpaceX made building its own constellation both unnecessary and impossible. The termination of the MDA contract is the final, irrefutable evidence that EchoStar has permanently exited the network infrastructure business, both on the ground and in space.

The Financial Epilogue for Ergen: A Masterclass in Spectrum Arbitrage

Despite the spectacular operational failure of the fourth-carrier project, the great spectrum reshuffle represents an immense financial victory for Charlie Ergen. Over several decades, he masterfully acquired a vast portfolio of spectrum licenses, often at prices far below today’s market value. The recent sales are the culmination of this long-term arbitrage strategy.

The August 2025 sale of 600 MHz and 3.45 GHz spectrum to AT&T netted approximately $23 billion, a price tag roughly $9 billion higher than what EchoStar originally paid for those licenses. Combined with the approximately $17 billion transaction with SpaceX, the total proceeds from the spectrum liquidation will be around $40 billion. This sum is more than sufficient to retire EchoStar’s entire $26.4 billion debt load, with a substantial multi-billion dollar profit remaining for Ergen and the company’s shareholders. While his dream of being a wireless network king is dead, the poker player has walked away from the table with the jackpot.

III. Starlink’s Quantum Leap: Forging a New Satellite-Terrestrial Paradigm

The acquisition of EchoStar’s AWS-4 and H-block spectrum is a watershed moment for SpaceX. It catapults the company’s Starlink division from a promising but niche player in the D2C space into a position of formidable power, armed with the ideal assets to realize its global ambitions. This deal fundamentally alters the D2C value chain, supercharges its alliance with T-Mobile, and introduces complex new questions of vertical integration for antitrust regulators.

From Partner to Kingmaker: The Power of Dedicated MSS Spectrum

Until now, Starlink’s D2C service, offered in partnership with T-Mobile, has been a groundbreaking but technically constrained offering. It has operated by leasing a small slice of T-Mobile’s terrestrial PCS spectrum, a band not optimized for the physics of space-to-ground communication. This has limited the service to basic text messaging, with a roadmap for voice and data still in development.

The acquisition of dedicated, nationwide MSS spectrum changes everything. As previously noted, the AWS-4 band is purpose-built for satellite communications, offering superior performance and a clearer regulatory path. Owning this “golden band” allows SpaceX to transition from a D2C partner, reliant on a carrier’s terrestrial assets, to a D2C kingmaker that controls its own destiny. With exclusive rights to this spectrum, SpaceX can now engineer a fully optimized, next-generation satellite constellation designed to deliver on the full promise of D2C: reliable voice, high-quality data streaming, and ubiquitous IoT connectivity directly to standard smartphones. This elevates the D2C value proposition from a novelty or emergency feature into a core, marketable network attribute, fundamentally changing the competitive landscape.

The T-Mobile Alliance Supercharged: Forging a “Ubiquity Moat”

The most immediate beneficiary of SpaceX’s empowerment is its primary U.S. partner, T-Mobile. The combination of T-Mobile’s extensive terrestrial 5G network and Starlink’s enhanced D2C capabilities creates a hybrid network with a profound competitive advantage. T-Mobile will soon be able to market a service that offers virtually seamless connectivity, eliminating terrestrial dead zones for core voice and data services across the vast majority of the U.S. landmass.

This capability directly addresses a primary consumer pain point and a top purchase driver: the ability to make calls and use data anywhere. This “ubiquity” feature becomes a formidable competitive moat. It creates a stickier service that could significantly reduce customer churn, particularly among high-value subscribers in rural areas, outdoor enthusiasts, and enterprise clients in sectors like logistics, agriculture, and transportation. It provides a compelling reason for customers of rival carriers to switch to T-Mobile and a powerful reason for existing customers to stay. While the service will have inherent limitations, satellite signals struggle to penetrate buildings, confining the primary use case to outdoor environments, its value in eliminating outdoor dead zones gives T-Mobile an asymmetric advantage that rivals, with their still-nascent D2C partnerships, cannot immediately match.

Antitrust Headwinds: Scrutinizing the Vertical Integration of a New Power Broker

While the transfer of spectrum licenses from a non-competitor (EchoStar) to a new entrant (SpaceX) may not trigger traditional horizontal antitrust concerns, the deal’s approval is not guaranteed. It is highly unlikely that the FCC or DOJ will put significant conditions on this deal even though it raises a more complex and potentially more problematic issue: vertical integration and the market power of SpaceX.

The structure of this transaction creates a classic vertical integration scenario that will force antitrust authorities to consider novel questions in the telecommunications space. SpaceX is already the dominant player in the upstream market for satellite launch services, controlling a vast majority of the global commercial launch market. Many of its direct competitors in the satellite communications industry, including companies building rival D2C constellations, are dependent on SpaceX’s rockets to get their satellites into orbit. This reliance has already raised concerns about SpaceX potentially favoring its own Starlink constellation.

By acquiring scarce, premium MSS spectrum, SpaceX is now poised to become the dominant player in the downstream market for D2C services in the U.S. This combination of upstream and downstream market power will compel antitrust enforcers to examine whether SpaceX could leverage its launch monopoly to harm competition in the D2C market. This could manifest in several ways consistent with a classic “raising rivals’ costs” antitrust theory, such as using discriminatory pricing for launches, prioritizing its own satellites over those of competitors, or demanding exclusionary contract terms that limit a customer’s ability to use other launch providers. This shifts the regulatory focus from the FCC’s public interest standard on spectrum utilization to the DOJ’s stricter antitrust framework concerning market power, competitive foreclosure, and the potential for a dominant firm in one market to stifle competition in an adjacent one.

IV. The Terrestrial Counteroffensive: AT&T and Verizon’s Race for Parity

While the SpaceX-EchoStar deal reshapes the satellite-cellular frontier, the battle on the terrestrial front continues unabated. For Verizon, the imperative to secure additional mid-band spectrum is now more acute than ever, though its path is complicated by legal disputes. In response to the formidable T-Mobile/Starlink alliance, Verizon and AT&T have been forced into an unprecedented defensive partnership, betting their D2C future on a single satellite provider, AST SpaceMobile.

The Strategic Imperative for AWS-3 and the Shadow of a Lawsuit

Verizon’s network has long been defined by its quality and reliability, but it faces a relative deficit in critical mid-band spectrum compared to T-Mobile’s vast 2.5 GHz holdings. AT&T’s recent $23 billion acquisition of EchoStar’s 3.45 GHz and 600 MHz spectrum threatened to widen this gap, potentially leaving Verizon in third place in the 5G capacity race.

However, this straightforward strategic move is complicated by a significant legal entanglement. EchoStar is currently suing the FCC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to block the rules governing the upcoming re-auction of these very AWS-3 licenses. The lawsuit stems from a decade-old issue where Dish Network (now EchoStar) defaulted on winning bids from the original 2015 auction. EchoStar is now potentially liable for any shortfall if the re-auction fails to generate at least $3.3 billion. EchoStar argues that the FCC’s updated, more restrictive auction rules for small businesses will suppress bidding, making a shortfall more likely and unfairly exposing the company to billions in penalties.

This litigation creates a strategic dilemma that directly impacts the competitive balance. The lawsuit introduces significant uncertainty around the timing and final cost of the AWS-3 spectrum, which Congress has mandated must be auctioned by June 2026. Any delay in the auction directly harms Verizon’s ability to close its mid-band capacity gap with AT&T, which has already secured and can begin deploying its new spectrum. Every month the AWS-3 spectrum remains in legal limbo is a month that Verizon’s network risks falling further behind in critical urban markets, eroding the very foundation of its premium brand and value proposition.

The AST SpaceMobile Gambit: A Unified Front Against a Common Threat

Faced with the powerful and vertically integrated T-Mobile/Starlink alliance, Verizon and AT&T have been driven to adopt an unprecedented counter-strategy: a joint, non-exclusive reliance on satellite partner AST SpaceMobile. Both carriers have signed commercial agreements with AST SpaceMobile and are providing it with access to their licensed terrestrial spectrum—primarily in the 850 MHz band—to power its D2C service.

This move represents a fundamental shift in the competitive dynamics of the U.S. wireless market. AT&T and Verizon are historically fierce, zero-sum competitors that have rarely, if ever, collaborated on a core strategic technology platform. Their decision to both partner with AST SpaceMobile, rather than each seeking an exclusive satellite partner, is a clear signal of the profound disruptive threat they perceive from Starlink. This “co-opetition” is a defensive alliance born of necessity. By pooling their spectrum resources and committing their vast subscriber bases to a single satellite platform, they can help AST SpaceMobile achieve the scale, funding, and regulatory momentum necessary to build a viable competing constellation more quickly. This strategy effectively transforms the D2C battle from a three-way free-for-all into a two-sided war between distinct technology ecosystems: the T-Mobile/Starlink bloc versus the AT&T/Verizon/AST SpaceMobile bloc.

Comparative Analysis: Starlink D2C vs. AST SpaceMobile

The two emerging satellite-cellular ecosystems are built on fundamentally different strategic and technical models.

  • The Starlink Model: This is a deeply vertically integrated approach. SpaceX controls the rocket manufacturing, the launch services, the satellite constellation, and now, the dedicated MSS spectrum. This provides significant advantages in terms of cost control, deployment speed, and the ability to optimize the entire system—from satellite to spectrum to handset—for maximum performance. Its primary challenge is the immense capital required to build and maintain this integrated system.
  • The AST SpaceMobile Model: This is a partnership-based approach. AST SpaceMobile relies on its carrier partners (AT&T and Verizon in the U.S.) for access to terrestrial spectrum and their subscriber bases. Its key technological differentiator is its satellite design, which features exceptionally large phased-array antennas. These massive antennas are designed to be powerful enough to connect directly with standard, unmodified smartphones using conventional terrestrial spectrum bands from hundreds of miles in orbit. This model is more capital-efficient for the satellite operator but introduces complexities in coordinating with multiple carrier partners and managing potential interference with terrestrial networks.

The race is now on to see which model can achieve scale and deliver a compelling service to consumers first. Starlink has the advantage of an existing LEO constellation and now, superior spectrum. AST SpaceMobile has the backing of two of the world’s largest carriers and a novel satellite architecture. The outcome of this technological and strategic competition will define the future of ubiquitous connectivity. Alternatively, AT&T and/or Verizon could abandon their AST SpaceMobile partnership and throw in their lot with Starlink. This might be a technically superior solution, but puts them at the mercy of Elon Musk.

V. Navigating the Regulatory Gauntlet

The final approval of the EchoStar-SpaceX spectrum transfer is not a foregone conclusion and must navigate a complex regulatory environment. However, the deal has been skillfully structured to address the primary concerns of the FCC, while the most likely challenge will come from state-level actors seeking consumer protection concessions.

The FCC’s End Game: Why Approval Is the Path of Least Resistance

The FCC is highly likely to approve the spectrum license transfer with minimal friction. The entire transaction is framed as the solution to the very problem that prompted the agency’s investigation in the first place: EchoStar’s perceived “spectrum squatting”. For years, and with increasing public pressure from figures like Chairman Carr, the FCC’s primary objective has been to see EchoStar’s underutilized spectrum put to more intensive use for the benefit of American consumers.

This deal achieves that objective in the most direct way possible. It transfers the licenses from EchoStar, a company that proved unable to deploy them effectively, to SpaceX, a well-capitalized and highly motivated entity that has publicly committed to building a next-generation satellite network on these exact frequencies. For the FCC, approving the deal is the path of least resistance; it allows the commission to declare victory in its campaign against spectrum warehousing. The preservation of Boost Mobile as a “hybrid MNO” with access to this new D2C service provides the necessary political and regulatory justification to bless the transaction.

DOJ and State AGs: The Inevitable Price of Consolidation

While the FCC’s path seems clear, the view from antitrust enforcers is more complex. The Department of Justice is unlikely to block the transaction outright. The “failing firm” doctrine, which was a key rationale in the approval of the T-Mobile/UScellular merger, applies directly to the collapse of EchoStar’s wireless ambitions. With EchoStar having effectively exited the market as a facilities-based competitor, the DOJ lacks a strong basis to argue that this specific spectrum transfer further harms terrestrial competition. The more salient antitrust questions, as noted, relate to vertical integration, which may result in behavioral remedies or oversight rather than a full blockade.

The most probable challenge will emerge from a multi-state coalition of Attorneys General, particularly from Democratic-led states. This is the same playbook used during the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, where state AGs filed suit to block the deal on consumer protection grounds, arguing it would reduce competition and raise prices. A similar legal challenge is almost inevitable. The AGs will argue that allowing the last major independent block of mid-band spectrum to be absorbed into an ecosystem controlled by one of the top three carriers’ partners permanently cements a three-player oligopoly to the detriment of consumers.

However, the most likely outcome of such a challenge is not a complete blockade but a negotiated settlement. Precedent suggests that the carriers will be forced to the negotiating table to offer tangible consumer concessions in exchange for the AGs dropping their lawsuit. These concessions could include multi-year price locks for low-income plans, specific buildout commitments for the D2C service in underserved rural areas within their states, and robust protections for independent Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) to ensure a competitive wholesale market. The deal will proceed, but not without a price.

VI. Conclusion: Winners, Losers, and the Future Trajectory of U.S. Connectivity

The great spectrum reshuffle, culminating in the EchoStar-SpaceX transaction, has irrevocably altered the competitive landscape of the U.S. telecommunications and satellite industries. It has created clear winners and losers, solidified a new market structure, and set the strategic trajectories for every major player for the remainder of the decade.

Scoring the Reshuffle:

The definitive terms of the recent deals allow for a clear assessment of the strategic outcomes for all involved parties.

  • Biggest Winners: The clearest victors are Charlie Ergen and SpaceX. Ergen successfully monetized decades of spectrum speculation for a massive profit, deftly navigating operational failure to achieve a stunning financial success. SpaceX acquires the “golden band” of MSS spectrum, the single most critical and previously unobtainable asset needed to realize its global D2C ambitions and establish a commanding technological lead.
  • Primary Beneficiary: T-Mobile emerges as the primary strategic beneficiary among the mobile network operators. Its exclusive partnership with a newly empowered Starlink provides it with a powerful and asymmetric “ubiquity moat”—a unique value proposition of near-total coverage that will be a potent tool for customer acquisition and retention in the years to come.
  • Forced to React: Verizon and AT&T are now firmly on the defensive in the new D2C battle. While their terrestrial network positions are solidified—particularly AT&T’s after its own spectrum purchase from EchoStar—they have been forced into a reactive alliance with AST SpaceMobile to counter the first-mover advantage of the T-Mobile/Starlink bloc. Their success now depends heavily on the execution of a third-party partner in a race where they are starting from behind or they might join the Starlink camp under the premise of “If you can’t beat them, join them.”
  • Biggest Losers: The most significant casualty is the concept of a fourth facilities-based U.S. wireless carrier. The collapse of EchoStar’s effort, despite government mandates and access to spectrum, proves that the economic and competitive barriers to entry are now insurmountably high. EchoStar, the company, also fits this category. While financially solvent, its grand ambitions are dead. It survives as a shell of its former aspirations, relegated to the role of a hybrid MVNO presiding over a satellite TV business in terminal decline.

The Evolving Battlefield: Key Milestones and Strategic Outlook for 2026-2028

The U.S. wireless market now revolves around three titans engaged in a two-front war. The coming years will be defined by their execution on both the terrestrial and satellite fronts. The key milestones that will determine the future trajectory of the industry include:

  • The timeline and outcome of the regulatory review for the SpaceX/EchoStar transaction, including any potential concessions demanded by State Attorneys General.
  • The resolution of EchoStar’s lawsuit against the FCC and the subsequent timing and results of the AWS-3 spectrum re-auction, which will be critical for Verizon’s 5G capacity strategy.
  • The initial commercial launch and real-world performance of Starlink’s enhanced D2C service operating on the AWS-4 spectrum, which will be the first major test of the technology at scale.
  • The successful launch and operational performance of AST SpaceMobile’s first block of commercial BlueBird satellites, which will determine the viability of the AT&T/Verizon counter-strategy.
  • The marketing, pricing, and consumer adoption rates of the competing D2C offerings, which will ultimately reveal whether ubiquitous connectivity is a niche feature or a mass-market demand driver that can reshape carrier loyalty.

The era of four-player competition is definitively over. The war for the future of American connectivity—a war fought simultaneously on the ground and from orbit—has just begun.

Posted on by Roger Entner

5G fixed wireless access (FWA) is transforming how Americans are accessing the internet. In less than three years, 7.9 million customers signed up with FWA as their preferred internet solution. Recon Analytics interviewed more than 40,000 home internet customers in the first 12 weeks of the year and the results are clear: FWA customers are happier with their service than with service through any other technology. The only thing standing in the way of greater success is more capacity, which is why mobile operators are clamoring for more licensed full-power spectrum.

Chart 1:

FWA is the clear winner across the board

The ranking in Chart 1 makes sense, but is surprising at the same time. The mobile network operators built a very robust offering. FWA is not the fastest service, but under the current usage parameters it satisfies its customers not only on the traditional product side such as easy and convenient installation, a superior router experience, delivering an easy-to-understand bill, and online self-help customer service that people actually like, but also on the service side, ranging from the internet usage categories, to support over the phone and, most importantly, value for money.

It is important to keep in mind that there is a double bias going on with FWA customers. First, the vast majority of FWA customers have the same provider for their mobile service. Customers who are unhappy with their mobile service do not select the same provider and network for their home internet service. Second, there is a survivorship bias. Customers who sign up with FWA typically do this while they are still using a previous service with which they are unhappy. It is very easy and convenient to install and, if necessary, to return the FWA router and cancel the service, so prospective customers give it a try and take advantage of the cancellation poicy if it doesn’t work. We have a hard time finding  customers who try the service and are unhappy with it, but have not returned it yet.

Customer service and connectivity

Chart 1 also reiterates what we have known for a long time: cable companies have poor customer service and need to improve. Telecom providers who are phasing out DSL networks and focusing on fiber provide substantially better customer service. What might surprise people is the strong performance of satellite service. This is mostly driven by Starlink, which is getting successively better over time, as a provider of last resort for many of its customers.

Recon Analytics also asks its home internet respondents every week what kind of issues they experienced with their internet connection. Chart 2 is ordered top to bottom with how often respondents experienced an outage. The most common issue, which was internet connection going down, is at the bottom. Furthermore, it is also ordered from left to right by how often they experienced their internet connection going down.

Chart 2:

As we can see in Chart 2, most of the issues are in one of two groups: internet connection going down or slowing down, and router issues forcing people to reset their router or having devices disconnect from the network.

Cable providers had the most issues in all four categories. Up to 43% of respondents reported that their internet connection has been interrupted, while fiber and FWA customers reported the least problems in this category. The newer, better routers provided by fiber and FWA providers also caused fewer problems compared to the routers from cable companies and DSL providers. One fiber and DSL provider told me that once they went away from sourcing the cheapest router to providing an excellent router, it was a game changer for them. The change reduced customer service calls and churn and improved customer satisfaction, more than offsetting the cost of the better router.

How to create more and better home internet choices

As of right now, the Congress and the FCC have created meaningful competition through up to three new providers with up to four brands in the markets where mobile network operators have been able to launch their service. It is incredible that even though we have seen network speeds for some providers decrease from 200 and more Mbps to low 100s Mbps, cNPS scores have not declined. MNOs still have enough capacity to provide their customers with sufficient bandwidth for what customers describe as a superior experience. Verizon and T-Mobile said that they have enough capacity for 5 and 7 million customers respectively with their initial FWA build. They are two thirds to that goal and will probably reach it by the end of 2024. After that, it will become more difficult and expensive to find the necessary capacity to compete with cable and DSL providers as vigorously as they do today. FWA is the fastest growing segment of the home internet market, while cable subscriptions are decreasing.

The government has three options, but the choice is pretty clear: It can spend $80 billion on various fiber incentive programs (BEAD, RDOF, etc) to bring another provider to markets where there is no provider offering more than 100 Mbps speed. It can take $80 billion from the wireless carriers for more spectrum (C-Band Auction for 240 MHz yielded $81 billion) and get three new broadband competitors in the form of FWA providers. Or, it can do both and create more and better home internet choices for Americans with a net zero cost.

Posted on by Editorial Recon Analytics

By Daryl Schoolar

During the last week of September, GSMA, along with its partner CTIA, held their annual North America conference in Las Vegas. Given the regional focus of the conference, the news and activity coming from it pales in comparison to the Barcelona version. However, that does not mean MWC Las Vegas is without value. We had several meetings that alone made the event worth attending. Plus, some companies still use the conference as a platform for announcements, while the exhibit floor provides guidance on the state of mobile communications in North America.

Of the major U.S. mobile network service providers only T-Mobile and AT&T had a show floor presence this year, but that did not mean other mobile providers didn’t make their presence know. Some of the operator highlights and messages from MWC Las Vegas 2023 are as follows:

AT&T: The company’s booth was dedicated to enterprise solutions, with connected vehicles occupying significant space. This is fitting given that Hardmon Williams, SVP, Connected Solutions for AT&T, used his keynote session to announce the company is now the connectivity provider for electric car manufacturer Rivian. Hardmon also discussed the frequent software updates of electric cars, which in turn increases the importance of network connectivity to support those updates.

MobileX: The competitive outlook for the U.S. prepaid market should intensify with the announcement by MobileX that it will launch a prepaid service exclusively through a retail partnership with Walmart. The driving force behind MobileX is Peter Adderton who has a track record of launching successful prepaid brands with Boost in the U.S. and Australia. Walmart’s interest in working with MobileX appears to be a competitive move against its online rival Amazon and its recently announced sales partnership with Dish’s Boost offering.

NTT DoCoMo: On the first day of the show the Japanese mobile operator announced it will be deploying an Open vRAN solution using NVIDIA GPU for hardware acceleration. NVIDIA will be supporting both the X86 and the ARM architecture. This is significant, as it not only gives NVIDIA a major Open RAN win, but will help overall create more Open RAN deployment options.

T-Mobile: The established U.S. mobile operator T-Mobile captured the most attention at the show with its announcement of a SIM based SASE offering using network slicing. This marks the first commercial service offering using 5G network slicing in the U.S. T-Mobile’s slicing will go commercial later this year. This is an important step in 5G evolution, helping to prove commercial viability of slicing. To help grow slicing, T-Mobile CTO John Saw announced that the company has made network slicing available nationwide to application developers. T-Mobile also took full advantage of the exhibit floor to show multiple wireless enterprise solutions and to host public sessions inside its booth. It was one of the liveliest spots on the floor.

Verizon: Verizon did not make any specific service announcements at MWC Las Vegas, but it did release a statement at the start of the conference highlighting its progress in transforming its network and the subsequent benefits. Those highlights included fiber network investments, mid-band and mmWave spectrum coverage, 5G fixed wireless access, and cloud-native network transformation. Verizon Business CEO Kyle Malady used his time on stage at MWC to push back against FCC’s plan to reintroduce Net Neutrality, as a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. b

Of the three largest RAN suppliers in the region, only Nokia was on the floor. However, that doesn’t mean the conference lacked an infrastructure presence. Some of our vendor observations from the conference are as follows:

AWS: The company had a substantial presence on the show floor. Booth space was primarily dedicated to meetings and educational conversations regarding AWS’ telecom service provider and enterprise solutions. Digital transformation, and the role AWS can play in helping mobile operators with their transformation remains a strategic interest. Supporting that strategy, Sameer Vuyyuru, head of WW business development for communication service providers, gave a keynote presentation about how mobile operators are using GenAI to improve operations and customer experience.

Dell Technologies: From Dell’s hospitality suite overlooking the show floor the company promoted itself as the best option for operators looking for an IT hardware partner for building cloud-native networks. This includes servers to support Open RAN. Dell also participated in a private network demonstration with Airspan, Dish Networks, and Druid.

Nokia: As a sign of the shifting nature of network infrastructure, hardware specialist Nokia used its time at MWC Las Vegas to talk about software. Its message at the conference was “Network as Code” and participated in the open developer gateway conference held at the show. Nokia was also found at the GSMA booth demoing virtual reality to help drive interest in the mobile API opportunities.

Pivotal Commware: Pivotal Commware continues to focus on how to improve 5G mmWave economics through coverage extension and network planning and management tools. The company continues to make progress in this area indicating an increase in its U.S. deployments and that it is seeing its commercial opportunities expanding beyond the U.S.

Qualcomm: The company showed together with Quectel a 5G cellular module for laptops that can aggregate cellular and Wi-Fi signals. This is a nifty capability that focuses on the best performing link. In addition, Qualcomm continued its tradition of educating analysts about new market developments and technological innovations.

Beyond the specific vendors listed above, a significant percentage of vendor booth space remains dedicated to IoT, FWA, private networks, and indoor coverage solutions.

Realistically the U.S. version of MWC will never rival the Barcelona one. The U.S. version is mainly for North American operators and vendors while the one in Spain is global. That focus reduces participation. Vendors can bypass the show and still meet with customers and prospects. However, this does not mean the show should be written off. It remains a good source for one-on-one interactions and as a mid-year gauge of industry growth since Barcelona.

Posted on by Roger Entner

Recon Analytics recently conducted the largest survey run to date to assess whether consumers eligible for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) are actually enrolling and if so, what they are using their ACP funds for.  

We conducted nationwide consumer surveys among ACP-eligible Americans from April 28 – May 5, and August 18 – 27, 2023. We asked 29,141 ACP eligible Americans if they use ACP, and if so for what. 

We were not at all surprised with our survey findings, but some policymakers might be.

Recall that ACP is a program that provides “eligible” Americans $30 per household for internet connectivity.  Who is eligible?  Figure 1 sets forth the categories of citizens eligible for ACP.  These “categories” of low income individuals are from existing federal government subsidy programs.

Figure 1

Of the almost 53 million ACP-eligible households, more than 20 million have signed up. The states with the highest number of consumers receiving ACP subsidies are “red” states Louisiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and North Carolina.  

The program is currently set to expire in early 2024 absent additional funding by Congress.The big question inside the Beltway is whether funding the ACP is a good use of taxpayer dollars.  The ReconAnalytics survey indicates that if Congress is interested in seeing itself reelected, extending the ACP funding might be a good idea.

The Data Says ACP is Working to Close the Digital Divide … Among Republican Voters

When we compare ACP enrollment across red states and blue states (defined by the party who won the last senatorial election in the state) , we observe that the percentage of households which would lose access to the internet is higher in red states than in blue.  39% of ACP enrollees live in Red States and  34% live in blue states.  Members of Congress ignore this reality at their peril.

But what about the enrollees, what are they using their ACP subsidy for?  Consider that the largest proportion of households at risk of losing ACP are ones with school-age children.  No surprise then that our survey reveals that these same households use their ACP subsidy for school work online.

In aggregate, about 55% of respondents who told us they would be unable to access the internet without ACP were white, 16% Hispanic, 12% black, 9% Asian, 6% Native American or Pacific Islanders and 2% were of another race.

Figure 2 – ACP Enrollees by Race, Ethnicity, Age and Income Distribution

Full Time Period     
Income$0-10k$10-25k$25-50k$50-75kTotal
Not able to access the internet w/o ACP36.2%39.2%34.8%28.4%36.2%
Race & Ethnicity Distribution     
White47.9%59.2%57.5%48.9%54.5%
Hispanic18.8%14.1%17.5%15.3%16.3%
Black15.8%10.6%11.0%13.4%12.3%
Asian9.2%7.4%6.7%15.3%9.1%
Native American & Pacific Islander5.4%6.9%4.4%5.3%5.5%
Other2.9%1.9%3.0%1.9%2.4%
Age Distribution     
18-2931.0%15.9%20.5%22.5%21.5%
30-4426.4%21.2%33.6%45.0%31.0%
45-6034.3%40.5%32.9%25.6%33.9%
>608.3%22.5%13.0%6.9%13.6%

In Figure 3, we are looking at the activities that ACP households in general and in Figure 5, ACP households that would lose internet access but for ACP, are engaged in.

We show the data for both survey waves to highlight the consistency of the results over time. The two most used applications for their ACP connections are personal communications and banking, payments, investments and personal finance. In other words, ACP subscribers are using their subsidy to allow them to connect to the Internet and engage in the digital economy, whether it’s paying their bills or buying school supplies for their children.  Almost a quarter of ACP recipients use their internet connection for purchases, more than one in five (22%) need their internet connection for work, one in five (19%) for online education, and one in 8 (12%) to access government programs.

Figure 3: Behavior pattern of ACP-eligible Americans regardless of ACP participation

Figure 5 shows the impact of losing ACP. It also shows what applications really matter to people who critically depend on ACP for their broadband connection.  Banking and financial transactions, education and access to government programs are priorities for these citizens.

Almost half of ACP recipients would lose internet access altogether if ACP were to go away. 

This potential outcome presents a Catch-22: the government has pushed many programs online as a cheaper way to deliver services to low-income Americans.  Due to ACP,  22% of the targeted beneficiaries of this policy are receiving those services.  If ACP goes unfunded, 22% of the the very Americans Congress says it wants to help out of poverty will be stranded.

Seems like ACP is working but perhaps will be so effective, Congress will kill it, but at their peril.

Posted on by Roger Entner

Qualcomm is the quintessential American tech company steeped it engineering excellence. Its genesis was the development of a new wireless standard called CDMA. Initially, it was written off as a failure, often ridiculed by its larger global rivals. It created a niche by getting American mobile providers like Verizon, Sprint and South Korean mobile providers like SK Telecom to adopt its technology. Qualcomm found redemption as the mobile providers often had the best networks in their respective countries, better than the globally dominant GSM standard. It found salvation when a variant of its CDMA standard was adopted as the global 3G standard called Wideband CDMA or to those who still harbored old animosities UMTS. It then became the global leader in 4G by holding most of the patents on the OFDM technology that underlies LTE.

By the late 2010s, Qualcomm that engineered itself through superior technology to unprecedented success was faced with five major problems that no engineering solution could easily fix.

  1. Despite being the premier mobile technology company growth had slowed down as upstarts like MediaTek was gaining market share, first in the entry level, highly price sensitive segment but was closing the performance gap between the solutions of the two companies. Qualcomm still dominated the flagship segment, but MediaTek dominated the entry level.
  2. Broadcom launched a hostile takeover to buy Qualcomm as investors were frustrated with low stock returns. Broadcom was only thwarted through the intervention of the US government.
  3. Qualcomm’s largest customer Apple with the support of the Department of Justice was using the courts as a price negotiation tool.
  4. The Android smartphone market was increasingly concentrating with Samsung and Chinese providers driving other manufacturers out of the market. Former mobile phone giants like LG and HTC exited the market.
  5. The relationship between the United States and China was becoming increasingly hostile. The US government instituted unprecedented sanctions against Huawei and imposed trade restrictions on semi-conductors.

Qualcomm CEOs are engineers at heart, Irwin Jacobs, the legendary founder; his son Paul, and Steve Mollenkopf. While Cristiano Amon is also an engineer has cut his chops as President of Qualcomm by spearheading the diversification of Qualcomm into more business segments and therefore to enable Qualcomm to participate in more growth sectors.

Under Cristiano Amon the company is continuing to focus on mobile and IoT but is expanding into computing and automotive. By doing so Qualcomm has expanded its addressable market from $15 billion to over $700 billion. The impact has been almost immediate. Qualcomm has now a $30 billion design win pipeline until 2030.

How did he do this? Qualcomm purchased several companies to strengthen its position in the respective sectors. It bought Cellwize and Augmented Pixels to improve its positioning in mobile, Clair AIR to strengthen its capabilities in the AR/VR area. But most importantly, Qualcomm bought Nuvia, a company focusing on ARM-based computing solutions and Arriver, a company with particular strength in advanced driver assistance software and hardware. And just a last week, Qualcomm acquired Autotalks, a fabless chipmaker making silicon and systems-on-chip for automotive safety.

The Nuvia acquisition is laying the ground work to strengthen Qualcomm’s core base of computing, just like the acquisition of P.A. Semi in 2008 did for Apple. P.A. Semi focused on low power processors and brought to Apple the expertise to build first the A-series chips that have powered iPhones since 2010 and now the M-series chips that were launched in 2020. If Apple’s success is any indication then ARM-based processors are going to be the processors of the foreseeable future. The power envelope of compute power, electric power consumption and heat generation are not on the side of x86 processors, but ARM-based processors. It could also help Qualcomm to close the mobile processor speed gap between itself and Apple A-series processors and increase the gap between Qualcomm and MediaTek processors. Faster, more powerful processors will also help in Qualcomm’s greatest growth market: automobiles.

Where Qualcomm is most likely to replicate the strong position it has in mobility is in electric vehicles. Qualcomm has created a comprehensive solution for automobile manufacturers called Snapdragon Digital Chassis. It combines safety and connectivity with entertainment, customization and upgradability. It takes the basic lessons of a smartphone and takes it to the automobile. The parallels and similarities as the car becomes essentially a mobile server are striking. Qualcomm is coming into this market at the right time when other’s have laid a foundation for the demand, but Qualcomm has the more comprehensive and elegant solution. Qualcomm has also the opportunity to provide a solution that rivals that of Apple. Apple’s Carplay service is viewed by many car manufacturers as a bear-hug take-over of a large part of the user interface between the drivers and passengers of the car most of the navigation and entertainment interface. Automobile manufacturers are especially sensitive due to the long-rumored Apple project to build their own electric car and Google’s Waymo autonomous car company. The car manufacturers know Apple and Google do not come in peace and do mean harm to them. Car manufacturers have to own the user interface between the vehicle and the customer, but know their solution has to be on-par if not better than that of Apple and Google. Working with Qualcomm gives them a chance to do that and so much more. In addition, while there exists significant brand loyalty for traditional car buyers with more than 50% of owners of one car brand to own a car from the same car brand, this loyalty does not exist when it comes to the switch to an electric vehicle. This levels the playing field and is an incredible threat to incumbents and opportunity for new market entrants. Tesla is the embodiment of this new generation of automobile manufacturers. While Tesla had to pioneer a lot of the systems themselves, the next generation electric vehicles can rely on integrated solutions from a company like Qualcomm. Car manufacturers like General Motors, Cadillac, Stellantis, and Mercedes-Benz as well as BMW, Hyundai, Nio and Volvo are in varying degrees of partnership with Qualcomm. Such an array of car manufacturers and a solution that offers breadth and depth gives Qualcomm critical mass to win the automotive market. Who would have thought three years ago?

Posted on by Roger Entner

AST Spacemobile (AST) and AT&T just completed the first call between a regular smartphones using just the electronics and antennas that are common for decades in mobile devices using a satellite as the cell site. AST has talked about its technology for years, laid out its plans to investors and received only the scantest of interests. Unlike Apple’s technology that uses special chips in Apple’s new iPhone 14 smartphones to send text messages through a satellite connection the AST solution works with any phone. While T-Mobile and SpaceX’s announcement last year of bringing satellite connectivity to any phone was a vision statement, AT&T and AST’s call was the proof of concept. We know now that it works not only on paper but also in the field.

The first part of the feasibility study was the reverse of the actual proof of concept. AST put a cell phone on a satellite and built a base station on the ground. With this ingenious way, AST could exactly dimension the size of the antennas, the strength of the signal amplifiers, processing power requirements and the power consumption that the satellite would have in order to work in space and make the connections to smartphones from there. It is much easier to tinker with and faster to interate the hardware when it is on the ground than hundreds of miles in space.

The hard work begins now. Until now, the FCC has been a lot less accommodating to AST than the other innovative satellite providers. The FCC needs to allow AST to use regular terrestrial frequencies that have been exclusive to mobile service also for satellite service. Historically, the FCC has been very accommodating to satellite providers like Lightsquared to use their satellite frequencies for terrestrial communications, but this resulted in basically no usage for several reasons. The satellite to mobile spectrum conversion players forgot for the longest time to include their spectrum in mobile standards. If you are not in the standard, nobody will build devices that have your band in them. The next hurdle is to get devices that include a band that nobody is yet using for mobile communications as it costs money to include a new frequency band. This problem does not exist with the AST solution as all devices that have a cellular connection can connect to the satellite. What is needed from the FCC to move from a proof of concept to mass adopted reality is the permission to use regular cellular frequencies with satellites and the permission for AST to launch enough satellites. Then AST has to raise more money to build and launch the satellites.

Where AST and AT&T differentiate themselves is the data throughput they promise: Speeds of up to 50 Mbit/s and the ability for streaming video. While this is certainly handy when fighting wild fires in a remote part of a state or recovering victims from a plane crash in a remote part of the state, it becomes down right indispensable for people documenting on a live stream when they have climbed a mountain and then call first responders because they are too tired to climb back down.

While initially mentioned that the smartphone to satellite connections would be used just for FirstNet, it is almost inconceivable to stay restricted to first responders. The ability to eliminate outdoor dead spots and to provide full geographic coverage is huge. Based on our Recon Analytics Mobile Pulse data the ability to “make a calls anywhere” is the third most important purchase decision factor based on 161,976 respondents. From May 2022 to end of March 2023, 10.9% of respondents ranked it their most important decision factor choosing a mobile provider, 10.5% chose it number 2 and 10.9% as their third most important factor.

AT&T has a very promising solution on its hand. Bring ubiquitous outdoor coverage to first responders everywhere in the United States, something that has not been done before. But not only with text messaging with a long time delay like Apple does now and got a lot of accolades for, but with streaming video. This is a real game changer for first responders. It is also a game changer for consumers in areas with low signal strength or coverage holes outdoors. With AST’s technology they are gone. Consumers will still have to content with issues when being indoors as they do not have direct line of sight to the satellite and the buildings they are in are potentially interfering with the signal.

Now that we know this is possible, how quickly will regulators pull out all the stop signs that are preventing the real world application for it? How quickly can these satellite get into space and who will be the first to deliver ubiquitous outdoor coverage to first responders and consumers with what real world speeds?

Posted on by Roger Entner

The converged communications industry is undergoing significant change. It has been well reported that fixed wireless access has captured most of the broadband industry’s growth, followed by fiber, with cable not adding customers, while DSL gets rapidly replaced. Recon Analytics’ research also shows that a substantial number of fixed wireless access subscribers did not have dedicated home internet access before; hence, it is not a zero-sum game.

Adjustments are common in the wireless industry. An operator buys another operator, customers switch from prepaid to postpaid or vice-versa, new rules on what it takes to continue to be a customer get implemented – essentially, a cleanup of the subscriber base. These changes are typically in the low hundreds of thousands, important but not earthshattering. With the shutdown of 3G networks, we are entering another period where these changes are significant. No matter what we call these disconnections and whether they are included in the churn statistics or not, they still represent a reduction of subscribers in the industry. These adjustments to what is and is not a subscriber and where that gets counted provide valuable insights into the health of the wireless industry.

In the chart below, we are looking at the overall phone universe and see that the two segments have more overlap than what many people want to acknowledge. The orthodox, adjustment-free view shows us solid growth over the last two years and creates the perception that industry growth exceeds population growth followed by exasperated questions of “Where are they all coming from?”

When we look at the impact of the adjustments, a different view emerges. For example, in Q2 2020 there were two significant adjustments: a clean-up of the Keep America Connected disconnects by AT&T and, more importantly, a large adjustment by T-Mobile as part of the Sprint merger. Sprint had created a bit of a mess ahead of the merger and counted people as customers who might really live up to that moniker. It counted some connected devices as phones, didn’t disconnect people even though they were significantly in arrears, and counted prepaid Boost customers who financed a device as postpaid. As a result, 1.9 million subscribers disappeared from the books. The total subscriber numbers actually show a reduction of 900k subscribers despite an “official” 1.3 million subscriber gain. We saw a similar trend due to the 3G network shutdown at AT&T and T-Mobile. What looked like strong subscriber gain quarters were actually flat quarters due to the disconnects of 1.9 million and 2 million 3G subscribers. We will see further adjustments when Verizon shuts down its 3G later in the year.

The interesting implication of the adjustments and their use to net out the official numbers is that the three mobile network operators did not add subscribers in the first half of 2022. The entire growth of the wireless sector comes from the cable industry in the form of Charter and Comcast.

In 2011, Verizon was in a pickle as it could project when it would run out of spectrum and needed to maintain its strategy of being the network leader in the United States. The deal was straightforward: get spectrum from the cable companies in exchange for an MVNO agreement and hope that the cable companies will be as successful as they were in their previous attempts with Sprint, which is not at all. This premise held up until 2017, when Comcast started offering service, followed shortly thereafter by Charter. The two cable operators went to market by positing that they could offer the best network experience for combined mobile and home internet for roughly the price of a premium wireless subscription. Customers liked the premise, and cable providers have consistently been between a quarter and a third of industry postpaid net adds, taking a healthy bite of the wireless industry growth. Examining Comcast’s and Charter’s total market flow share performance, which includes prepaid and postpaid, it becomes clear that Verizon is coming out ahead. For example, during July 2022, based on our Recon Analytics Data services, only 27% Comcast’s and Charter’s customers have come from Verizon. Tracking Verizon’s revenue components for many years, we estimate that Verizon gets an average of $13.13 from its MVNOs per customer, which include providers like US Mobile, Red Pocket Mobile, Lively, Affinity Cellular to mention only a few. A comparison between Verizon’s $18.35 EBITDA contribution and its $13.13 MVNO revenue per customer, which is almost pure profit, shows that Verizon is coming out significantly ahead. For every Verizon customer that moves to Comcast and Charter, three join the Verizon network from other providers, both postpaid and prepaid. The 661,000 Comcast and Charter net adds in Q2 2022 contributed an incremental $41.4 million in overall annualized revenue. If Verizon would disclose more numbers and be more transparent, it could easily dispel the erroneous notion that its wholesale business is a negative for the overall business when it is clearly not. While Verizon’s branded subscriber base which it reports quarterly is under pressure, its unreported network share is performing substantially better. More people are using the Verizon network today than ever before, and its wholesale partners are an underappreciated part of the story.

The headwinds that Verizon is facing are coming from its two main rivals T-Mobile and AT&T. T-Mobile continues to perform well with a “have your cake and eat it too” positioning by marketing a superior network at a lower price value proposition. Considering that it trails AT&T in postpaid phone net adds, we can only conclude that the message could be resonating better. AT&T is leading the industry with a straight-forward consistent promotion strategy for new and existing customers. The lack of fading-in and fading-out promotions that the two other operators are offering is paying off for AT&T. The new AT&T leadership has transformed the company from being the source of everyone else’s growth to being the fastest growing postpaid phone provider in the United States.

To take the fight back to the cable providers and utilize fallow spectrum, T-Mobile and Verizon have launched fixed wireless internet access to compete against traditional home internet providers. With 2.1 million fixed wireless customers between them, they have captured the buzz of the telecom market. With easy to set up wireless routers, straight forward pricing, and speeds around 100 to 300 Mbps, FWA providers are on top of Recon Analytics’ net promoter score list in every one of the 14 metrics we are tracking. What we see in our FWA flow share analysis is that FWA is currently a threat to every other technology, as it captures many disgruntled home internet subscribers who are looking for a different, attractively priced option. The questions are: How long can this last? and From where geographically do these customers come?

The main constraining factor is the availability of fallow spectrum and the usage profile of home internet users. It is not uncommon that home internet users use 500 to 800 GB per month compared to approximately 15 GB for a mobile user, while paying around less than $50 per month for their subscription. In urban and suburban areas, due to the much higher population density and approximately the same amount of spectrum, the maximum amount of fixed wireless customers before they impact wireless user experience is much more limited than in rural areas. In rural markets, fixed wireless access performance is much more driven by cell site density rather than the availability of spectrum. At the same time, rural America has the problem of being by definition rural, which means not a lot of people live there.

Fixed Wireless Subscriber by Urbanicity

Source: Recon Analytics Data, April to August 2022

Both Verizon and T-Mobile have been a lot more successful in urban and suburban markets than in rural markets, which is both an opportunity and limiting factor at the same time. The much-touted transformation of rural connectivity is still a lot more talk than reality. T-Mobile’s new Home Internet Lite plan demonstrates the strain on the network from unlimited plans. It introduces usage-capped price plans in the name of being customer friendly and allowing to be available everywhere. The positioning will be that not everyone needs unlimited data and with a fixed amount of data rather than unlimited data these customers and it allows T-Mobile to charge a higher price per GB in constraint areas. At the same time, it makes T-Mobile closer to the cable companies it derided in the past that have usage caps. It also proves AT&T’s argument that fixed wireless is not a fiber replacement in many places.

The competitive intensity is greater than ever before and the battle ground is larger than before. The battle for market share in this new converged communications provider world has just begun, with the tides of the battle swinging back and forth.

Posted on by Roger Entner

In case you are just tuning in, Verizon has been going through a rough time for about two years now. In fall 2021, it replaced Ronan Dunne as CEO of Verizon’s Consumer Group (VCG) as it struggled before filling the position with Manon Brouillette. It would be difficult to say that things have improved.

We live in peculiar times. For a long time, financial analysts wanted to convince us that when a mobile network operator (MNO) has a larger size than its competitors, the size advantage gives them a substantial edge in the market. Now, other financial analysts want to convince us that Verizon, because it is the largest provider in the market, is destined to lose customers for the foreseeable future. I disagree with both positions but would point to having a good plan, the ability to rapidly adapt to new circumstances, and superior execution to being the only sustainable competitive advantage in the market. 

Verizon has traditionally differentiated itself as the premium provider in the market based on superior network performance. Taking network leadership to heart, Verizon charged ahead in 2G, 3G and 4G and created the fastest and largest network for at least the first three to four years of what is generally a seven-year technology era. The shock and awe of the early, rapid build created a nimbus of permanent network superiority even though, at least in urban markets, by year five, we had network parity. In contrast, in rural markets the network superiority persisted.

For the last decade, Verizon has internally fretted about what it should do if and when this trick would no longer work and its network superiority nimbus would be diminished, or even worse, large swaths of customers would perceive network parity or, even worse, someone else to have the better network.

Several poor decisions and outcomes around spectrum auctions weakened the strong network foundation. Verizon seems to have then tried to replace the internal differentiation of being the provider of the undisputedly best network with having the best streaming bundle and differentiating around that.

Replacing an internally generated differentiation with an externally acquired differentiation, especially when it is so easily replicable, is a dangerous gamble. To make this decision even more puzzling, Verizon engaged in the content-differentiation strategy at the same time when AT&T exited the content bundling with wireless.

AT&T and T-Mobile having seen the 2G, 3G and 4G outcomes decided they didn’t want to live through the same experience with 5G and put a lot more emphasis on network performance. While in Recon Analytics Data weekly net promoter score data, Verizon still leads in the network performance categories, the gap has undoubtedly diminished. Metered speed tests show Verizon being behind, but how much does it matter? In our purchase decision factor ranking, speed is a solid second out of nine metrics.

Especially T-Mobile, powered by Sprint’s spectrum and a greater network focus with various firsts has given Verizon’s network team a run for its money. AT&T has been more judicious in spectrum expenditures and build-out pace betting that speed test results alone don’t win customers and aligning its build-out more with customer and technical capabilities and usage. The slower build-out has not hurt AT&T’s success in the marketplace because it was able to execute on other purchase factors that existing and prospective customers find important.

Verizon’s recent promotion

On May 22, 2022, Verizon launched an online promotion where single-line customers would get $15 off, two-line customers $12.50 per line off, and three-line customers got $5 per line off. Since Verizon did not issue a press release around it, it was largely unreported.

We took it as an opportunity to test Verizon’s value proposition of all plans – 5G Start, 5G Play More, 5G Do More, and 5G Get More – against what the customers of the other providers, ranging from T-Mobile and AT&T to Google Fi and Mint Mobile, were willing to pay for the different plans for a different number of lines. This gave our clients one week later a read if they should worry, to what degree, and about what part of Verizon’s promotion they should be worried about.

Below is how just T-Mobile customers were viewing Verizon’s single-line plans and for what price they would switch to the plan. While this is no sophisticated conjoint pricing analysis, it nevertheless gives some interesting insights. It also does not consider larger long-term pricing strategies that a company like Verizon would have to consider when making pricing decisions. The yellow shading represents the take rate at a given price point, while the magenta line represents the revenue that would be realized.

With the promotion, Verizon charged for a single line $55 for 5G Start, $65 for 5G Play More, or 5G Do More, and $75 for 5G Get More. As a reference point, Verizon just launched Welcome Unlimited for $65 for a single line for a skinnier offer than 5G Start.

T-Mobile customers’ highest revenue price point was $40 with a 64% take rate for 5G Start vis-à-vis Verizon’s $55 promotion. 5G Play More and 5G Do More were valued at $50 with 55% and 64% take rates respectively while Verizon was charging $65. Verizon 5G Get More plan discounted to $75 during the promotion was also valued at $50 with a 73% take rate.

Analyzing the data as in the above example vis-à-vis T-Mobile, it became apparent that in the one-line segment, the Verizon promotion would not save Verizon’s quarter. The numbers for the other providers for single-line customers were roughly similar to those of T-Mobile customers.

Interestingly, despite being the least generous, the three-line offer was the most competitive for several of Verizon’s offers. This brings us back to Verizon’s new Welcome Unlimited plan. It looks like a significant uphill battle to convince single-line customers to spend $65 per month when only two months ago, at least T-Mobile customers thought it was only $40 worth.

As I mentioned before, customers of different mobile service providers and for different line counts value Verizon’s plans differently, but in the one- and two-line part of the market a similar picture emerged.

Verizon isn’t suffering from a large size that dooms its progress; it suffers from a value positioning, value perception, and long-term pricing strategy issue.

Posted on by Roger Entner

Americans overwhelmingly support that broadband should be available to every American and that the funding base to achieve that should be broadened to every company that makes money through the internet.

More than 78% of respondents agreed that broadband internet should be available to every American showing broad support from large parts of the population. When looking a bit closer at the answers given by respondents who say they have broadband versus the people who said they didn’t have broadband, the support of those respondents who do not have what they consider broadband (26%) for everyone having access to broadband drops to 64%. This indicates that there is not only an availability and affordability gap but also an educational gap. Many people who don’t have broadband internet access either do not want it or do not understand why they should have it. These findings, which are mirrored in other studies, indicate that any broadband infrastructure program should include an educational component to increase the number of broadband subscribers. Otherwise, broadband penetration will never reach its full potential.

As we found in previous surveys on the topic, around 54% of respondents use the internet for work purposes from home. This is equal to the number of employees that are classified as white-collar employees by the U.S. Department of Labor. This number highlights the importance of broadband for the functioning of American businesses and enterprises during the continuing pandemic. It is likely that the added agility and flexibility to work from home will continue to be utilized after the country has emerged from the pandemic restrictions. We also found similar opinions around what Americans consider broadband. The median American considers 50/5 MBits as broadband whereas the most answered response was Gigabit speed with 29% of respondents.

The high percentage of Americans who think broadband should be available to everyone is probably based on the intensive usage and the need of many Americans to use it from home to work. Using the weighted average of the responses, Americans spend around six hours every day on the internet.

How many hours do you spend on the internet with a mobile device or computer?Use the internet from home for workDoes not use the internet from home for workCombined Response
Less than an hour4.8%18.0%10.9%
Two to four hours18.1%36.0%26.4%
Four to six hours15.2%26.3%20.4%
Six to eight hours25.2%8.8%17.6%
Eight to twelve hours25.7%4.8%16.0%
More than twelve hours11.0%6.0%8.7%

When looking at those who also use the internet from to work from home, unsurprisingly the usage pattern is significantly heavier as their usage pattern includes both business and leisure activities.

While only 37% of respondents knew that the Lifeline Program provides low-income Americans with basic phone and internet service, they were open to new funding sources to close the digital divide. More than 71% of Americans are in favor that companies with business models that rely solely on the internet to exist and who also generate revenue from those businesses, like Google and Facebook, also contributing to provide access to Americans who currently do not have access to the internet. Such a move would dramatically expand the funding sources for a broadband access plan and include companies that have exerted the most valuable and profits from the internet.

What is really interesting, the survey also found support to extend net neutrality rules to websites and ecommerce companies. We framed questions around the net neutrality principles of no blocking, no throttling speeds, and no paid prioritization by asking Americans if websites like Google, Facebook or Amazon should be allowed to restrict access to legal sites, give preference to their own products and services over others and change the search results based on how much money they receive from others.

More than 72% of Americans are against companies like Facebook or Google restricting access to legal sites for any reason. This is exactly the behavior that Facebook showed when it made it impossible to link from Facebook to news sites in Australia (and for a short time to itself) to avoid having to compensate news sites linked to. In essence, it was a commercial and legislative conflict where Facebook wanted to use its customer base as a bargaining chip in its negotiations. This is the essence of the “No Blocking” rule in net neutrality.

More than 55% of Americans believe companies like Amazon, Google, or Facebook should not be allowed to give preference to their own products and services over that of others, a self-dealing practice that has cost Google more than $10 billion in fines by the European Union. Search engines like Amazon, Google, and Facebook, all of which provide you with what you are looking for, are increasingly the prism through which we see the world. They have incredible power over our perception of what it is we are actually looking for. By pushing competing products into the obscurity of lower-ranked results, they, in essence, throttle the success of other products that are better but do not fit the commercial objective of the search engine provider.

In terms of pay-to-play result manipulation, more than 80% of Americans say they are against search engines altering results based on how much websites and advertisers pay for preferential positioning. It is common that the first view search results for a given term are occupied by responses that are marked by the easily missed word “Ad” in front of the link. This effectively operates as paid prioritization, something the ISPs are not allowed to do under California’s net neutrality law, nor under earlier versions of net neutrality that the Democrats might be considering reinstating.

The results of our survey showcase two key points: Americans are open to reigning in tech giants, who solely rely on the internet to generate revenue, and curbing their ongoing uncompetitive behavior, and having these companies contribute part of said revenues to subsidize access to broadband for low-income Americans. While the Biden Administration focuses on proposing ideas that have been tried and tested, perhaps it should take a step back and listen to consumers, who are those who the administration ought to serve and prioritize.

While we all agree that the United States needs more broadband and net neutrality, most Americans do not support the Biden administration’s plan. The majority of Americans want internet companies to pay their share to build the broadband network that these companies are profiting from. They also want to be protected from the demonstrated behavior of internet-based companies that violate the net neutrality rules that these companies want to impose on other companies but not themselves. Net neutrality rules need to protect consumers and not one set of companies that want to prevent other companies to effectively compete with them. Any net neutrality rules that do not apply to internet service providers and internet companies like search engines, social media companies, and e-commerce providers is just cleverly disguised corporate welfare with the government picking winners and losers.

Between March 16 and March 26, 2021, Recon Analytics conducted a demographically representative survey of 1,000 Americans using the internet and cell phones, asking them about their opinions and attitudes around universal access, funding mechanisms, conduct, and usage.

Do you believe that access to broadband internet should be available to every American?

Yes 78.2%                                                                                                            No 21.8%

Did you know that the government requires a small portion of your phone bill to be used to fund phone service for low-income Americans aka lifeline service?

No 62.9%                                                                                                             Yes 37.1%

Do you think companies like Google and Facebook that make money through the internet should contribute to the provide access for Americans who do not have the internet?

Yes 71.4%                                                                                                            No 28.6%

Should companies like Google or Facebook be allowed to restrict access to legal sites for any reason?

No 72.7%                                                                                                             Yes 27.3%

Should companies like Amazon, Google, or Facebook be allowed to give preference to their own products and services?

No 55.8%                                                                                                             Yes 44.2%

Should search engines be allowed to alter search results based on how much money they receive from websites or advertisers?

No 80.6%                                                                                                             Yes 19.4%

How would you define broadband internet access?

3/1 9.3%                                                                                                              10/1 9%

25/3 14.8%                                                                                                          50/5 17.3%

100/10 20.9%                                                                                                      Gigabit 28.8%

Do you currently have broadband internet access?

Yes 74.2%                                                                                                            No 25.8%

Does your job require internet access at home?

Yes 53.4%                                                                                                            No 46.6%

How much time per day do you spend on the internet (via your mobile device or on your computer?)

Less than an hour 10.9%                                                                                    2-4 hours 26.4%

4-6 hours 20.4%                                                                                                  6-8 hours 17.6%

8-12 hours 16.0%                                                                                                More than 12 hours 8.7%

Posted on by Roger Entner

Japan’s Rakuten is the first global mobile network operators (MNO) to fully virtualize their networks, with millions of active customers on commercial service. Rakuten has taken their expertise of being a fully virtualized operator to create the Rakuten Communications Platform (RCP), which packages its vendor portfolio and deployment expertise and markets it to other operators who also want to run their network in the cloud. Interestingly, the vendor product portfolio that is being sold is more extensive than what Rakuten has chosen to deploy. Based on news reports, Rakuten has already signed up 15 customers on RCP. The first publicly announced RCP trial partner is Ligado. A would-be US operator, Ligado owns spectrum in the United States that was previously used for satellite use. Up until recently Ligado has been involved in a fight with the Department of Defense over potential interference with GPS and NTIA, but the FCC sided with Ligado and allowed them to use their spectrum for commercial use.

Based on our research, the RCP universe consists of the following players:

AreaCompany
4G CoreCisco
Converged 4G/5G CoreNEC
ServersQuanta
Service orchestrationInnoeye (acquired by Rakuten)
IMS/RCSMavenir
Open RAN softwareAltiostar
4G Sub-6 GHz RadiosNokia
5G Sub-6 GHz RadiosNEC
4G/5G Sub-6 GHz mmWave Radios and SoftwareAirspan

Qualcomm and Intel are also mentioned as RCP participants but apparently are mostly involved as silicon providers for their particular area of expertise.

Rakuten continues to use Innoeye and Altiostar, which it has purchased outright in Innoeye’s case or has an equity investment like Altiostar, for orchestration and Open RAN software, respectively. Mavenir continues to supply the IMS/RCS software and Quanta provides the servers.

RCP made several adjustments in its vendor portfolio when it added 5G support to the network. Rakuten switched from Cisco as a 4G packet core provider to NEC, which will work with Rakuten on building a converged 4G/5G core. NEC also replaced Nokia for the sub-6 GHz radios as Nokia only provides 4G radios for Rakuten. This change was surprising as the NEC 5G radios are actively cooled, whereas state-of-the-art radios are passively cooled. Rakuten did not switch mmWave radio providers which, Airspan continues to provide for 4G and 5G.

One of the powerful features of RCP is that an MNO can mix and match from any vendor in the RCP portfolio. If an MNO  prefers Nokia or Airspan as their radio vendor, they can use Nokia’s mmWave product for 5G or use Airspan for both mmWave and sub-6 GHz Airspan’s Open RAN software or use Altiostar’s software.

RCP fits into an interesting sweet spot in the market. Most large MNOs, especially in the United States, will chart their own path towards Open RAN based on how it fits into the current network. Changing or introducing vendors for such a significant network transition is like changing an airplane’s engines in midflight. Small operators, especially if they have already chosen Huawei equipment, are locked in. These operators typically have lean engineering and operations staff that are not trained or sized for such a significant network transition. This makes small operators dependent on large network providers as prime project managers and for vendor financing. Huawei’s growth to become the largest global provider of 5G equipment to MNOs has been based on both significant deployment and customer service capability to the point where almost every Huawei-powered network is a custom network with generous vendor financing packages. A side effect of the customization of each network is that it makes it difficult for other vendors to get a part of the network equipment. Medium-size MNOs and greenfield operators, especially if they are not dependent on vendor financing and the small rural MNOs in the United States who have to replace the Huawei equipment in their network and are collectively paid $1.9 billion to do so are a prime target for RCP. Rakuten’s offering lets MNOs jump to state-of-the-art software-defined networks with Open RAN. Software-defined networks are more flexible and cheaper to operate and due to the standardization of hardware, they are less expensive to buy.

Especially the rural operators who are replacing their equipment should invest in the technology of the future, SDN, and Open RAN, regardless of whether they choose RCP or a custom route, rather than invest in the past’s integrated hardware and software. For rural MNOs  who have to run their network with a lean team, SDN’s automation allows the network operation teams to be more efficient and effective. Before RCP, the path to SDN and Open RAN was quite daunting as, for example, Dish’s Charlie Ergen remarked during the Q4 2020 earnings call. RCP solves the complexity problem by allowing rural MNOs to use a working suite of products from another network operator. As a further bonus, several MNOs could combine their network operations and share a common core and operations team for additional cost benefits. Switching to SDN and Open RAN would also work with President Biden’s Buy American initiative. Several leaders in the field are American companies such as Airspan, Altiostar, Cisco, and Mavenir. For all too long, we have complained that there are no American telecom network equipment providers. Now the telecom industry has an opportunity to diversify its vendor base.