Report: Wireless Still Not a Serious Fixed-line Competitor AT&T and Verizon have made no secret of their interest in using fifth-generation wireless as a fixed-line broadband replacement as the two companies hang up on DSL customers they don't want to upgrade. But a new report by research firm Strategy Analytics argues that for the moment, wireless broadband simply isn't seriously challenging fixed-line options, especially from cable.

"The reality is, fixed broadband is continuing to grow in the US, and not being replaced by mobile broadband as some have reported," said Jason Blackwell, Director of the Service Provider Strategies service (SPS) at Strategy Analytics. As we've noted, cable is absolutely dominating phone companies in terms of fixed line broadband, cable adding 99% of the net broadband additions seen in the first quarter. That's thanks in part to AT&T and Verizon's unwillingness to upgrade DSL customers, and intentional effort to drive some of these users away with price hikes despite last-generation speeds. "During 2015, Comcast accounted for 44% of new subscribers and the companies forming the New Charter made up another 47% of new subscribers," Blackwell notes. "The Telco operators haven't been able to shake off the losses of DSL subscribers, but we expect to see increased fiber deployments in the coming quarters, which should help AT&T and Verizon return to growth." The problem with that analysis is that outside of Boston, Verizon's fiber expansions are all but frozen. And while AT&T is certainly making a lot of marketing noise about its "Gigapower" U-Verse gigabit fiber expansions, we've noted these deployments are significantly more sound than fury, focused primarily (with a few exceptions like North Carolina) on housing developments and college campuses. And while that expansion will still reach millions, the majority of AT&T customers will remain on last-gen speeds for the better part of this decade. Granted 5G wireless could ultimately let AT&T and Verizon compete more directly with cable broadband, but with the standard still not finalized, serious deployment won't be likely until 2020 or later. And given AT&T and Verizon's tendency toward premium pricing and usage restrictions on wireless, it's not all that likely that these services will be seen as a real alternative to cable either (especially as gigabit speeds are deployed via DOCSIS 3.1). The reality is that even should 5G technology be a great alternative to fixed service, the cable and wireless industries will likely work to avoid competing seriously on price, much as we've seen throughout the DSL/cable duopoly era. The reality is that even should 5G technology be a great alternative to fixed service, the cable and wireless industries will likely work to avoid competing seriously on price, much as we've seen throughout the DSL/cable duopoly era.







News Jump California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 86 comments



Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA 36 recommendations Zenit Premium Member In other news Rain is wet, sun is hot, Lowell and Randall have delusional dreams.



More news at 11.



We all know that fixed service will live on; the question is how much will VZ&T be able to do whatever they want? Every other developed nation has gone the wired route, no major economy does wireless as a primary connection unless its super rural. VZ and AT&T have comical definitions of rural.

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11

Boston, MA Motorola MG7550

3 edits 24 recommendations TIGERON Member We are screwed



People including www.stopthecap.com author Phil Dampier look at me all the time and wonder why I fully am behind Frontier and CenturyLink acquiring all the copper wireline assets from AT&T and Verizon. I completely understand that many of these copper facilities have not seen any upgrades, have been badly neglected by the two telecom giants and cannot even support any generation of DSL.



But this is far more than just connecting to the internet. We have copper that connect critical systems and infrastructure. We are talking about POS systems, alarm systems, banking systems, traffic management systems, etc many of these copper-based networks are hidden in buildings in huge swaths of the country coast to coast-and Verizon and AT&T want to simply shut it all off???? Thats insane. We CANNOT allow them to get away with this.



»



I never thought Id hear myself say this, but Im glad I lived in a Verizon-still controlled area where the only other fixed wireline competitors are Comcast and Cox. The good thing about the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island is that their PUCs are tough. Seeing what happened in Connecticut with the AT&T/Frontier debacle and the Verizon/Fairpoint deal that led to Fairpoint imploding in the northern New England states, they will not let Verizon sell off their last mile wireline to Frontier, at least not until Verizon repairs or replaces the neglected copper facilities and key point areas with fiber or g.fast equipment, hence the $300 million Boston FIoS deal. However, after that work is completed, all that will be taken over by the smaller telecoms.



California is a very expensive state and including silicon valley. You would think an area that is densely populated in technology would have a very powerful say in how communications should be done, yet google who has so much money they dont know what to do with it would be ferociously expanding their fiber everywhere in California, especially being so close to San Francisco. Or AT&T would be taking full advantage of the wealth out here and laying middle mile fiber upgrading service from last mile DSL, or Comcast would be laying down fiber replacing the old coaxial systems.



Not a chance.



Google is typical of the mindset of a short term gain wall street investor. They start with a project and see if it takes off. If it doesnt bring results quickly, screw it. They abandon it. They refuse to give these wealthy areas a choice unless they get easy concessions, tax breaks in their already high profits, and what I find even more of a joke is those people who actually have google fiber service have to sign away their privacy rights so google can make even more money in more ads.



Comcast charges high prices for lackluster service in many areas they serve. And since the company has a huge monopoly in many communities in California, their incentive to improve is minimal at best.



Then you have AT&T, the finest example of pure unrestrained corporate greed I have ever seen providing utter shit service and ripping people off all while giving the world the collective middle finger. Not only does AT&T bribe this state legislature on a regular basis, because of Californias enormous geographical size, the latest sneaky bill that the company has tried to pass under the publics nose which essentially would have shut down all the last mile copper POTS then AT&T would have forced expensive, capped and unreliable wireless as a replacement. Not only would this have screwed very rural areas of the state, suburbs like the one I currently reside in would also be subject to this, including cities such as San Francisco which i live 7.1 miles from downtown. And with usage caps on sub-par already expensive DSL, what a rip off.



At least when I had Verizon, while their DSL was slow, it was overall reliable and they did not have usage based billing at all and network performance on average was ok for streaming services. It wasnt perfect by any means.



All in all, internet service is going to get worse before it gets any better. We are screwed. I find it hilarious that Verizon thinks that wireless will be the cheapest-and highly profitable way to make the company enormous profits. Isnt that what all cellular providers were saying when 3G, 4G came along years ago? Turns out that was a bust. AT&T and Verizon refuse to accept that wireless is NOT and will NEVER be a substitute for wireline. They are kidding themselves to think that connecting the cellular towers to fiber will somehow be the solution for the unwanted-and still very valuable-last mile copper networks they are desperately trying to rid themselves of.People including www.stopthecap.com author Phil Dampier look at me all the time and wonder why I fully am behind Frontier and CenturyLink acquiring all the copper wireline assets from AT&T and Verizon. I completely understand that many of these copper facilities have not seen any upgrades, have been badly neglected by the two telecom giants and cannot even support any generation of DSL.But this is far more than just connecting to the internet. We have copper that connect critical systems and infrastructure. We are talking about POS systems, alarm systems, banking systems, traffic management systems, etc many of these copper-based networks are hidden in buildings in huge swaths of the country coast to coast-and Verizon and AT&T want to simply shut it all off???? Thats insane. We CANNOT allow them to get away with this. www.tellusventure.com/bl ··· re-perks ...I never thought Id hear myself say this, but Im glad I lived in a Verizon-still controlled area where the only other fixed wireline competitors are Comcast and Cox. The good thing about the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island is that their PUCs are tough. Seeing what happened in Connecticut with the AT&T/Frontier debacle and the Verizon/Fairpoint deal that led to Fairpoint imploding in the northern New England states, they will not let Verizon sell off their last mile wireline to Frontier, at least not until Verizon repairs or replaces the neglected copper facilities and key point areas with fiber or g.fast equipment, hence the $300 million Boston FIoS deal. However, after that work is completed, all that will be taken over by the smaller telecoms.California is a very expensive state and including silicon valley. You would think an area that is densely populated in technology would have a very powerful say in how communications should be done, yet google who has so much money they dont know what to do with it would be ferociously expanding their fiber everywhere in California, especially being so close to San Francisco. Or AT&T would be taking full advantage of the wealth out here and laying middle mile fiber upgrading service from last mile DSL, or Comcast would be laying down fiber replacing the old coaxial systems.Not a chance.Google is typical of the mindset of a short term gain wall street investor. They start with a project and see if it takes off. If it doesnt bring results quickly, screw it. They abandon it. They refuse to give these wealthy areas a choice unless they get easy concessions, tax breaks in their already high profits, and what I find even more of a joke is those people who actually have google fiber service have to sign away their privacy rights so google can make even more money in more ads.Comcast charges high prices for lackluster service in many areas they serve. And since the company has a huge monopoly in many communities in California, their incentive to improve is minimal at best.Then you have AT&T, the finest example of pure unrestrained corporate greed I have ever seen providing utter shit service and ripping people off all while giving the world the collective middle finger. Not only does AT&T bribe this state legislature on a regular basis, because of Californias enormous geographical size, the latest sneaky bill that the company has tried to pass under the publics nose which essentially would have shut down all the last mile copper POTS then AT&T would have forced expensive, capped and unreliable wireless as a replacement. Not only would this have screwed very rural areas of the state, suburbs like the one I currently reside in would also be subject to this, including cities such as San Francisco which i live 7.1 miles from downtown. And with usage caps on sub-par already expensive DSL, what a rip off.At least when I had Verizon, while their DSL was slow, it was overall reliable and they did not have usage based billing at all and network performance on average was ok for streaming services. It wasnt perfect by any means.All in all, internet service is going to get worse before it gets any better. We are screwed. existenz

join:2014-02-12 7 recommendations existenz Member Depends on caps Fixed wireless won't have the capacity or low latency of wired but for many it will come down to reasonable caps, of which wireless likely to be lower even with 5G.

KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2

Zoom 5341J

5 recommendations KrK Premium Member Patently obvious that wireless is not a solution to a hardwired connection.. ... even if wireless Internet was available as an unlimited, uncapped service for a realistic amount a month, (it isn't) it still makes a poor substitute for a fixed line or "hard line" connection. Just dealing with the physics alone should tell you one is vastly more efficient then the other.

batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ 4 recommendations batterup Premium Member Outside of Boston, Verizon's fiber expantion is frozen. Boston capitulated and gave VZ a Google type deal. Google set the bar. Who will be next? bcltoys

join:2008-07-21 1 edit 2 recommendations bcltoys Member The real problem If the big four would just put up as many tower's/antennas for the spectrum they have now the need for 5g would not be as important.It's all about densification. 1gig wireless is not needed. Martijn0

join:2015-06-26

Parrottsville, TN 2 recommendations Martijn0 Member 5g still needs a cable... With 5g's expected reach of 0.6 mile/1000 meters it still needs to be off loaded to a cable.



So if people don't have fiber within 0.6 miles reach, this technology will be useless.



I really think most current DSL areas will only see 600mhz fixed LTE, there is no market pressure for VZ or T to do any better they have 100% of that market anyways.