Verizon, the country’s leading provider of millimeter wave 5G wireless broadband, is promising to expand service nationwide, but admits it will only service urban areas where the economics of small cell/fiber network infrastructure makes economic sense.

At the Mobile World Congress conference in Barcelona, Spain, Verizon’s vice president of technology planning told PC that when it launches its mobile 5G network later this spring, home wireless internet service will come along for the ride.

“It is one network, based on 5G, supporting multiple use cases,” Verizon’s Adam Koeppe said. “Enterprise, small/medium business, consumer, mobility, fixed. When the 5G network is built, you have a fixed and mobile play that’s basically native to the deployment you’re doing.”

That means Verizon’s millimeter wave 5G network is designed to be shared by everyone and everything, including businesses, residential customers, cell phone users on the go, Internet of Things applications like smart meters and intelligent traffic systems, and more. But that network will not be everywhere Verizon or Verizon Wireless currently provides service.

“Our deployments of millimeter wave are focused on urban centers. It’s where the people are, where the consumption is,” Koeppe said.

Verizon faces significant costs building out its 5G wireless network in areas where it does not already offer FiOS fiber to the home service. Verizon’s 5G network is dependent on a fiber optic-fed network of small cells placed on top of utility and light poles at least every few city blocks. That means Verizon is most likely to get a reasonable return on its investment placing its 5G network in urban downtown areas and high wireless traffic suburban zones, such as around event venues, large shopping centers and entertainment districts. The company has chosen to deploy 5G in some residential areas, but only within large city limits. So far, it has generally steered clear of residential suburbs in favor of older gentrified city neighborhoods with plenty of closely-spaced multi-dwelling apartments, condos, and homes, as well as in urban centers with converted lofts or apartments.

Koeppe

Rural areas are definitely off Verizon’s list because the millimeter waves Verizon prefers to use do not travel very far, making it very expensive to deploy the technology to serve a relatively small number of customers.

Other carriers are not committing to large scale 5G deployments either.

At a debate held earlier today at Georgetown Law’s Institute for Technology Law & Policy, former FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn, now a paid lobbyist for T-Mobile, warned that unless T-Mobile was allowed to merge with Sprint, its deployment of 5G will only happen in “very limited areas.”

Sprint has plans to introduce its own flavor of 5G, which won’t use millimeter wave frequencies, by June in nine U.S. cities. T-Mobile has talked about deploying 5G on existing large cell towers, which means one tower will serve many more customers than Verizon’s small cells. But with more customers sharing that bandwidth, the effective speed customers will see is likely to be only incrementally better than T-Mobile’s existing 4G LTE network. AT&T is initially moving in the same direction as T-Mobile, meaning many customers will be sharing the same bandwidth. That may explain why AT&T’s current 5G hotspot service plan also comes with a 15 GB data cap.

Verizon says its millimeter wave network will, by geography and design, limit the number of people sharing each small cell, making data caps unnecessary for its 5G fixed wireless home broadband replacement, which delivers download speeds of around 300 Mbps on average.

“We engineer the network to give the customer what they need when they need it, and the results speak for themselves,” Koeppe said.

Verizon is already selling its 5G service in limited areas for $50 a month to Verizon Wireless customers, $70 a month for non-customers. There are no data caps or speed throttles.

Based on the plans of all four major U.S. carriers, consumers should only expect scattered rollouts of 5G this year, and only in certain neighborhoods at first. It will take several years to build out the different iterations of 5G technology, with millimeter wave taking the longest to expand because of infrastructure and potential permitting issues.

Comcast is giving some of its customers a way to get back unlimited data for their home broadband connection without having to spend an extra $50 for an unlimited data add-on.

The cable operator is offering customers in parts of its Central Division its xFi Advanced Gateway — a combination cable modem and router — that comes bundled with unlimited data, xFi Advanced Security, and a Home Wi-Fi Assessment for an extra $15 a month. That amounts to $4 a month more than the cost of renting Comcast’s traditional xFi Gateway buys and also buys you a return ticket to unlimited internet service.

Comcast has also offered some new customers unlimited service in time-limited promotions, but this seems to be permanent, assuming Comcast offers it in your area.

The xFi Advanced Gateway with unlimited data appears to have quietly launched last fall, but so far it has not expanded to Comcast service areas outside of its Central U.S. division, which includes (Heartland) Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and Arkansas, (Big South) Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, plus the state of Florida and the greater Chicago area. Comcast says it has 17 states in its Central Division, but we could not find a definitive list that includes the three other states not listed here.

Interested customers will have to contact Comcast to determine if their area qualifies for this offer.

If you are a Comcast customer already paying an extra $50 a month for unlimited data, this could save you a considerable amount of money, assuming you live in a qualified area and don’t mind using their gateway.

In the last three months of 2018, Frontier Communications reported it said goodbye to 67,000 broadband customers, lost $643 million in revenue year-over-year, and had to write down the value of its assets and business by $241 million, as the company struggles with a deteriorating copper wire network in many states where it operates.

But Wall Street was pleased the company’s latest quarterly results were not worse, and helped lift Frontier’s stock from $2.42 to $2.96 this afternoon, still down considerably from the $125 a share price the company commanded just four years ago.

Frontier’s fourth quarter 2018 financial results arrived the same week Windstream, another independent telephone company, declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. Life is rough for the nation’s legacy telephone companies, especially those that have continued to depend on copper wire infrastructure that, in some cases, was attached to poles during the Johnson or Nixon Administrations.

Frontier Communications CEO Dan McCarthy is the telephone company’s version of Sears’ former CEO Edward Lampert. Perpetually optimistic, McCarthy has been embarked on a long-term ‘transformation’ strategy at Frontier, to wring additional profit out of the business that provides service to customers in 29 states. Much of that effort has been focused on cost-cutting measures, including layoffs of 1,560 workers last year, a sale of wireless towers, and various plans to make business operations more efficient, delivering mixed results.

McCarthy

Frontier’s efforts to improve customer service have been hampered by the quality and pricing of its services, which can bring complaints from customers, many who eventually depart. Frontier’s overall health continues to decline, financially gaining mostly through rate increases and new hidden fees and surcharges. In fact, much of Frontier’s latest revenue improvements come almost entirely from charging customers more for the same service.

McCarthy calls it ‘cost recovery’ and ‘steady-state pricing.’

“One of the things that we’ve been focused on really for the better part of two years is …. taking advantage of pricing opportunities [and] recovering content costs — really dealing with customers moving from promotional pricing to steady-state pricing, and then offering different opportunities for customers both from a speed and package perspective,” McCarthy said Tuesday. “The quarter really was about us targeting customers very selectively and really trying to improve customer lifetime value.”

By “selectively,” McCarthy means being willing to let promotion-seeking customers go and being less amenable to customers trying to negotiate for a lower bill. The result, so far, is 103,000 service disconnects over the past three months and 379,000 fewer customers over the past year. A good number of those customers were subscribed to Frontier FiOS fiber to the home service, but still left for a cable company or competing fiber provider, often because Frontier kept raising their bill.

The merger of AT&T and Time Warner (Entertainment) is safe.

A federal appeals court in Washington handed the U.S. Department of Justice its worst defeat in 40 years as federal regulators fought to oppose a huge “vertical” merger among two unrelated companies.

In a one page, two-sentence ruling, a three judge panel affirmed the lower District of Columbia Circuit Court decision that approved the $80 billion merger without conditions. In the lower court, Judge Richard Leon ruled there was no evidence AT&T would use the merger to unfairly restrict competition, a decision that was scorned by Justice Department lawyers and consumer groups, both claiming the merger would allow AT&T to raise prices and restrict or impede competitors’ access to AT&T-owned networks.

In this short one-page ruling, a three judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals sustained a lower court’s decision to allow the merger of AT&T and Time Warner, Inc. without any deal conditions.

The Justice Department and its legal team seemed to repeatedly irritate Judge Leon in the lower court during arguments in 2018, making it an increasingly uphill battle for the anti-merger side to win.

Judge Leon

Unsealed transcripts of confidential bench conferences with the attorneys arguing the case, made public in August 2018, showed Department of Justice lawyers repeatedly losing rulings:

• Judge Leon complained that the Justice Department used younger lawyers to question top company executives, leading to this remarkable concession by DoJ Attorney Craig Conrath: “I want to tell you that we’ve listened very carefully and appreciate your comments, and over the course of this week and really the rest of the trial, you’ll be seeing more very gray hair, your honor.”
• Leon grew bored with testimony from Cox Communications that suggested Cox would be forced to pay more for access to Turner Networks. Leon told the Cox executive to leave the stand and demanded to know “why is this witness here?”
• Leon limited what Justice lawyers could question AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson about regarding AT&T’s submissions to the FCC.
• Justice Department lawyer Eric Walsh received especially harsh treatment by Judge Leon after the Justice lawyer tried to question a Turner executive about remarks made in an on-air interview with CNBC in 2016. Leon told Walsh he already ruled that question out of order and warned, “don’t pull that kind of crap again in this courtroom.”

During the trial, AT&T managed to slip in the fact one of its lawyers was making a generous contribution towards the unveiling of an official portrait of Judge Leon, while oddly suggesting the contribution was totally anonymous.

“One of our lawyers on our team was asked to make an anonymous contribution to a fund for the unveiling of your portrait,” AT&T lawyer Daniel Petrocelli told the judge. “He would like to do so and I cleared it with Mr. Conrath, but it’s totally anonymous.”

Leon responded he had no problem with that, claiming “I don’t even know who gives anything.”

AT&T also attempted to argue that the Justice Department case against the merger was prompted by public objections to the merger by President Trump, who promised to block the deal if he won the presidency. That clearly will not happen any longer, and it is unlikely the Justice Department will make any further efforts to block the deal.

AT&T received initial approval of its merger back in June and almost immediately proceeded integrating the two companies as if the Justice Department appeal did not exist. The Justice Department can still attempt to appeal today’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, something AT&T hopes the DoJ will not attempt.

“While we respect the important role that the U.S. Department of Justice plays in the merger review process, we trust that today’s unanimous decision from the D.C. Circuit will end this litigation,” AT&T said in a statement.

Windstream Holdings, Inc. filed bankruptcy this afternoon, citing its inability to cover $5.8 billion in outstanding debt.

The independent phone company, which provides legacy landline and broadband service to around 1.4 million customers in 18 states, filed voluntary to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, citing a judge’s decision almost two weeks ago that the company defaulted on its obligations.

“Following a comprehensive review of our options, including an appeal, the Board of Directors and management team determined that filing for voluntary Chapter 11 protection is a necessary step to address the financial impact of Judge Furman’s decision and the impact it would have on consumers and businesses across the states in which we operate,” said Tony Thomas, president and chief executive officer of Windstream. “Taking this proactive step will ensure that Windstream has access to the capital and resources we need to continue building on Windstream’s strong operational momentum while we engage in constructive discussions with our creditors regarding the terms of a consensual plan of reorganization.”

Windstream received a commitment from Citigroup Global Markets Inc. for $1 billion in debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing. Assuming a bankruptcy judge approves of the arrangement, Windstream claims this stop-gap financing will allow it to run its current business as usual.

Windstream provides residential service in 18 states including: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

The company claims it was forced into bankruptcy after a judge found Windstream’s attempt in 2015 to shift its valuable fiber optic network assets off its own books into a sheltered real estate investment trust (REIT) named Uniti Group violated the rights of bondholders which hold some of Windstream’s debt. Those debts are backed, in part, by the valuable fiber optic assets Windstream had  spun them off to a new entity. In fact, Uniti’s fiber optic assets are essential to Windstream’s viability. The phone company has the exclusive right to use Uniti’s fiber assets and two-thirds of Uniti’s revenue comes from Windstream, making the two companies inseparable.

Windstream’s bankruptcy is a concern to investors of both companies because it will allow Windstream to renegotiate the terms of its contract with its fiber partner. Windstream customers are equally concerned because the phone company needs Uniti’s network to manage its broadband service.

The judge’s decision on Feb. 15 to declare the arrangement inappropriate was reportedly a shock to the investor community, which has made money buying repackaged corporate debt in the form of bonds for years. Corporations have issued bonds to retire older debt, while giving investors a piece of the action. Since investors are making money, they typically do not complain too loudly about the persistence of corporate debt, frequently repackaged in new bonds. As a result, companies can hold onto more cash used to pay shareholder dividends and executive compensation instead of permanently retiring debt.

Aurelius, a hedge fund, is making some of its money scrutinizing these arrangements looking for contract violations such as the Uniti spinoff. When it finds one, it takes a stake in the company and then threatens to sue as a harmed investor. Based on the judge’s decision, Aurelius won a judgment that will effectively empty the pockets of many of the bondholders and investors that could lose a lot of their investments because of the bankruptcy. If the hedge fund is going to actively seek other questionable arrangements or violations of bondholders’ rights at other companies, it could cause an earthquake in an investment community that has quietly conspired with companies to generate transactions that enrich investors while allowing companies to carry more debt.

Customers could end up covering some of the costs of today’s bankruptcy filing if Windstream files a plan with the Bankruptcy Court promising to raise prices to help it demonstrate ongoing viability.

Windstream’s Thomas complained the phone company is little more than a victim of a predatory hedge fund out to enrich itself at the expense of others.

“The company believes that Aurelius engaged in predatory market manipulation to advance its own financial position through credit default swaps at the expense of many thousands of shareholders, lenders, employees, customers, vendors and business partners,” Thomas said. “Windstream stands by its decision to defend itself and try to block Aurelius’ tactics in court. The time is well-past for regulators to carefully examine the ramifications of an unregulated credit default swap marketplace.”