SITA Research Reveals the Real Big Game in Houston was in Small Cells

Small cell scoreboard.

A new competitive dynamic emerges in the fight for densification dominance

Tickers: ZAYO, CCI

(Disclosure- author holds positions in ZAYO)

The deployment of small cells started in earnest in 2015. Two years later, all of the Big 4 wireless carriers have adopted a small cell strategy to handle the 50+% YOY growth in mobile data usage. Along with acquiring or deploying fiber, the deployment of small cells sits at the heart of a hyperconnected 5G future.

As small cells have grown in prominence, analysts have argued about their impact on traditional tower company business models. Recently, Crown Castle (CCI) indicated small cells account for over 12% of total revenue and small cell deployment will only climb in the future—a trend we highlighted in our note Ten Predictions for 2017. Understanding how companies like CCI and Zayo deploy small cells, at what economics, and how the economics compare to historical returns on capital in the tower business is increasingly important.

Last week, we put out an article on how wireless service providers connect with their subscribers at the Superbowl. In doing research for this article, we looked at towers and small cell infrastructure using our proprietary tower and small cell database to examine deployments in and around NRG Stadium in Houston, TX. The wireless carriers have been actively densifying their networks in Houston to prepare for the onslaught of increased wireless data usage, and our data shows ZAYO and CCI competing for the city’s small cell future. While this note focuses on ZAYO and CCI in Houston, there are other players with a presence in this bellwether market. For the sake of simplicity, we’ve chosen to focus on what we see as the top two competitors going forward.

There are three key takeaways that emerged from our research:

1. At the end of the first quarter of small cell deployment, ZAYO is ahead of CCI in Houston.

Zayo is significantly ahead of Crown Castle in the deployment of small cells in Houston, where CCI’s headquarters is located and where CCI just closed on the acquisition of Fibernet earlier this month). CCI stated on their earnings call on 1/26/2017 that “FiberNet substantially strengthens our footprint in Miami and Houston, both markets where we are seeing significant small cell demand.” But despite CCI’s claims about their efforts in Houston, our checks indicate that Zayo small cell nodes (both proposed and completed) exceed CCI nodes by a factor of approximately 10x, giving ZAYO a significant advantage in the market. We have plotted these deployments in the map below, with ZAYO in green and CCI in yellow, and ZAYO’s advantage is clear. Map showing the proposed and deployed small cells for Crown Castle and Zayo in Houston

Our research is specific to Houston and is not a commentary on the ZAYO vs. CCI competitive dynamic across the entire US. We see accelerated development of small cells in Houston because it is a top three city in terms of population and because of the publicity surrounding the Big Game.  However, from a zoning and permitting perspective, Houston is “infrastructure friendly” relative to other cities.  In other words, Houston is an ideal location for robust small cell deployment, so we will continue to watch developments in the marketplace as a bellwether for other major cities. 

2. The Small Cell Game is fundamentally more competitive than the Macrocell game, and First-Mover-Advantage is critical.

Small cells are more competitive than traditional towerco business models, and so the first-mover advantage is more important. Because small cells are deployed primarily in the right of way, and with fewer zoning restrictions and limited NIMBYism to constrain competitive deployments, the first company to win the land grab has an advantage attracting carriers as customers. In some areas, we are hearing that there are six to seven applicants applying for right of way access rights simultaneously in the same locations.

Already having fiber in the ground is beneficial because it enables the lead infrastructure company to solicit potential wireless service providers first. If a second infrastructure company enters the market and builds out the same right-of-way, then a duopoly is created wherein neither gets all four customers onto nodes along the same fiber routes. The best case duopoly IRR scenario is three carriers on the lead and just one on the follower; however, our research suggests that so far Sprint is focused on deploying its own nodes; so markets tend toward two customers on the lead and one on the follower. In their 4th Q earnings call, CCI indicated that “we are building small cell systems with initial yields of 6% to 7% that increased to low-double digits with the second tenant and higher yields with the third and fourth tenants.” This statement presupposes a local monopoly for the leader, not a lower-yielding duopoly. And let's not talk about what happens when there are more than two fiber providers in the same Right of Way.

Our proprietary data allows us to quantify the monopoly vs duopoly state of Houston and therefore to narrow in on CCI’s return on investment as small cells are added to FPL Fibernet’s assets.  If rumored carrier consolidation between Sprint and T-Mobile occurs, the first-mover advantage grows as fewer carriers mean that the second infrastructure deployed in any given city has a fundamentally lower potential return profile. Though the reverse is also true; entry by a cable company into the wireless space could expand the number of potential customers, enabling higher second-mover returns. Net net, with no guarantee of a local monopoly, the second infrastructure deployed is simply compressing the wireless value chain in the favor of carriers. 

3. Even though CCI is down in the first quarter, they can still turn it around.

We are not suggesting that Fibernet was a bad acquisition, nor that ZAYO has the Houston market in the bag. When Crown announced the Fibernet acquisition, the expectation was that CCI would be able to use the valuable metro-fiber plant to encourage small cell deployment on or near that fiber. CCI has indicated they are seeing strong interest for small cells in Houston but hasn’t yet provided any clarity on what constitutes “strong” and whether what they are seeing is in-line with their expectations.

We believe that both companies have valuable assets in Houston, especially to the extent that their infrastructure does not overlap—a factor which our proprietary datasets allow us to quantify. However, it is still too early to determine the degree to which CCI will succeed with Fibernet’s Houston assets. The small cell game is still too early to call. 

We will continue to closely monitor the situation in Houston and we will be expanding our research to additional top 25 markets in the coming months.

 

About Steel in the Air: We have long focused on a data-driven analysis of tower data and on lease rate data for wireless infrastructure. We were the first nationwide cell tower lease consultant and we are the largest, having assisted over 3,500 clients over the last 13 years. We count small to mid-size tower owners, public entities, not for profits, big box stores, shopping center REITs, federal entities, and individual landowners among our clients. We have unique visibility to what is happening on the ground as it pertains to wireless infrastructure deployment. We track everything- every lease, every tower, every cell site, every cell tower lease buyout offer, and every sale of a tower portfolio that comes across our virtual desk. We provide custom research for investment banks on the public tower companies and the small cell providers and developers. If you are interested in discussing this or any article or topic, we can be retained for in-depth discussion and analysis. Contact us for more details.

A Tale of Two Small Cell Providers – Part Two

Last year in April, we wrote about how Crown Castle and Mobilitie respectively approached the City of Orlando regarding small cells.    In that post, we described how each company approached the application process and why the City approved the Crown Castle small cells while it determined that the Mobilitie applications were incomplete.

We recently came across some data from Montgomery County, MD.   If you have followed wireless siting news, there have been a number of stories about Montgomery County and the opposition for small cells from NIMFYs.

Interestingly, the data shows a similar story happening in Montgomery County as that which happened in the City of Orlando.  Of the 171 small cell or DAS installations submitted by Crown Castle, 81 have been approved or recommended for approval.   90 are under review currently.   Of these 171 poles proposed by Crown, only 20 are new poles as opposed to installations on existing utility structures.   The average height of all Crown poles/antennas is 28 feet.   Another interesting statistic regarding the Crown DAS poles is that 26 of them have two carriers coming out of the ground.   Almost all include Verizon- but some include T-Mobile.

Mobilitie has taken a different tact and not surprisingly, NONE of the 141 small cells that Mobilitie has applied for have been recommended for approval as of the date of the file we reviewed which appears to be October of last year.   The average height of the Mobilitie poles- 66 feet.   The number of new poles vs attachments to existing poles is 117 to 24 respectively.

Lastly, Verizon has submitted 15 small cell applications of their own.

Below is a map we created in Google Maps showing the various DAS and small cell providers and the submitted infrastructure.   You can click on the individual points for further details on who is where and whether the sites have been approved.  (here is a link to the map itself in Google Maps)

 

We Assessed the Accuracy of Wireless Coverage Maps per Carrier, and the Results Disappoint

It’s been a dozen years since Verizon’s catchphrase “Can you hear me now?” became a commonplace precept for any mobile phone user having problems with a cellular connection. Since then, there has been a tremendous amount of industry activity regarding partnerships, mergers, acquisitions and dissolutions amongst wireless service providers. Today, there are four major players in the U.S.; sometimes known as the “Big Four,” Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile are the survivors who have staked claims to national airwaves and their respective licensed markets of POPs. Both Verizon and AT&T currently boast “nationwide national coverage” while Sprint and T-Mobile are standing at about half-mast. Even, so according to the FCC’s end of year report on the state of wireless, the industry is as competitive as it’s ever been. [Read more…]

Our 2015 2nd-Half: Cell Tower Lease Forecast

The year of 2015 has started out flatter than most industry pundits expected.  The expectation was that first half 2015 would be fairly robust, but it hasn’t been.  We expected the first half to find at least two wireless carriers actively building out new cell towers, but that hasn’t been the case.  We examined our leads so far this year and the bulk of them come from landowners who were approached by Verizon for cell towers on their property.  We consolidated all the public tower companies (AMT, CCI, SBAC) together and also the private tower companies into individual groups. [Read more…]

How COAS Can Benefit from Cell Site Leases

In the United States, there are over 300,000 cell sites, encompassing those that are located on cell towers, other structures (like telephone poles and water towers), and rooftops.  Ken Schmidt, President of Steel in the Air, estimates that in Florida, there are between 500 – 750 cellular leases tied to rooftops located on condominium buildings. [Read more…]

CELL TOWER AND CELL SITE LOCATION DATA: A PRIMER

In reviewing some online commentary about cell tower location data on various forums and websites purporting to offer free cell tower location data, I thought it might be helpful to explain what is available and what is not available to individuals looking for cell tower and cell site locations. [Read more…]

Cell Tower Heights Across the US

One of our clients contacted us to inquire about the average heights of cell towers. We did a quick analysis of the FCC tower data and came up with the following chart which shows the height of the cell tower (horizontal axis) vs the number of towers of that height (vertical axis). We thought we would share the chart as it presents an interesting visual on cell tower height.

 

Please note that this chart may not be indicative of the height distribution of all cell towers because the FCC did not always require registration of cell towers under 200′.

Verizon Questioned about Forum Shopping for Cell Tower Sites

From the Associated Press: “Two state officials want to know if Verizon Wireless is putting cell towers on the New Hampshire side of the Connecticut River to avoid Vermont’s rigorous permitting process.” From Verizon: “Vermont has been very good to use (sic) over the last five or six years. We have not lost a local zoning or an Act 250 application in the last five years.” [Read more…]

Important Cell Tower Siting Case

As you may have seen in Steel in the Air’s newsletter this week, the US Supreme Court took up the case of City Rancho Palos Verdes vs. Abrams. Although the plaintiff of the case was a ham radio operator who was erroneously denied a tower, the ruling on this case will extend to cell towers as well. At issue is whether or not federal law authorizes damage suits against cities over the building of cell towers. [Read more…]