Verizon Appears to be Rivada Partner in FirstNet Bid

Capture

In examining the summary of the FirstNet/Rivada litigation as prepared by RCR Wireless, there may be confirmation that Verizon was the silent "carrier" partner of Rivada.  Specifically, in the recently made public documents, the court indicated "the first set of deficiencies related to ‘Rivada’s lack of financial stability, capacity, and required funding'” — including the riskiness of Rivada Mercury’s proposal to monetize the excess Band 14 spectrum through a wholesale marketplace, which required robust Band 4 device support in order to be adopted by non-FirstNet customers".   Band 4 consists of the AWS-1 frequencies acquired from SpectrumCo (cable company consortium) by Verizon in 2011.   In other words, Rivada intended to monetize the FirstNet spectrum by adding it to Band 4 (AWS-1) capable phones.   

While many people have suspected that Verizon was working with Rivada, we haven't seen any other evidence of it.  Of course, it is possible that another wireless carrier with AWS-1 (T-Mobile) could have been the partner, but we strongly doubt their participation given the substantial cost of building out a nationwide network to meet the coverage objectives of FirstNet.   Alternatively, perhaps Rivada was hoping for Verizon's participation- but based upon rumors we had heard previously, the discussions were farther along than that.  

Busted! Mobilitie Tries to Install 120′ Poles without Proper Permits AGAIN!

Cartoon image of individual with traffic cone.
Mobilitie Mistakenly Tries to Install Cell Towers Using Traffic Cone Regs
We have to start off by clarifying that this isn't an April's Fools joke- despite the timing and it feeling like one. On the eve of possible FCC review of their petition to the FCC for relief from small cell siting restrictions at the local level, Mobilitie is busted yet again trying to install 120' poles without following the proper local permitting and planning procedure.  You can see the Post-Star story here.  In the first situation, it appears Mobilitie told the fairground official for the fairground where the tower(s) were to be located that they were trying to drill "test holes" and that it was for "the utility company".   Did their contractors just not know any better?  Was Mobilitie just trying to get the structure standing before anyone would notice?  Given this isn't the first time they appear to have tried to erect a pole without a permit, one has to wonder.

At a second location, the Post-Star reported that Mobilitie appears to have erroneously applied for a county highway work permit which is only applicable for temporary infringement of the county right of way.   "Usually it's traffic cones for a driveway resurfacing, officials said."   Mobilitie indicated in response to the article that it was following the correct procedures to get permission for the towers.  One can see how this mistake may have been made- 2' temporary traffic cones are pretty similar to 120' steel poles with 3' wide bases.   (Sorry for the snarkiness, the ridiculousness of this story assuming it is accurate calls for it.)  

 

Six Sectors for T-Mobile

First 6-sector cell site we have seen from T-Mobile.   Most cell sites have 3-sectors.   The additional sectors are added for capacity- note the LTE and AWS/PCS designations.  

6 Sector T-Mobile Site
A screen clip from a construction drawing of a six sector cell site from T-Mobile.

AT&T Wins FirstNet but TowerCos are the Real Winners

FirstNet Award to AT&T Confirmed: Checks Confirm Amendment Activity before Official Announcement

Tickers: T, AMT, CCI, SBAC

Tags: Ken Schmidt, Wireless Infrastructure

In Examining FirstNet Assumptions 12/9/2016, we reviewed the likelihood that AT&T would win the FirstNet RFP and the impact on TowerCos, Equipment OEMs, and FiberCos. As the time, the FirstNet award was stalled pending litigation over Rivada's claim that it was improperly excluded as a bidder. No timeline for resolution was available even as 2017 models were being fine-tuned across the Street. In our AT&T FirstNet Revisited note from 3/21/2017- we correctly suggested that the award would happen this week- which it did today.

In our previous notes, we pulled forward our expectations for AT&T's deployments of FirstNet-capable equipment by 1-2 quarters. In general, FirstNet site modification work is a positive for the TowerCos, and their 2017 guidance (given on Q4 calls) does not include FirstNet.

 

FirstNet Contract Review:

In review, AT&T gains a long-term contract to utilize 20MHz of 700 MHz spectrum to accompany the up to 5-10MHz of the 700MHz spectrum they already have across approximately two-thirds of the US. Carriers prefer low band spectrum for its ability to penetrate buildings and because it propagates further than the higher bands.

AT&T also gets $6.5B in cash from the Federal government to facilitate the development of the first responder and public safety network. This amount could be less if not all states opt into AT&T's plan, which they are entitled to do, provided they build their own statewide Radio Access Network subject to the provisions of the Act.

Lastly, AT&T also gets a "sticky" market of 3 to 5 million public safety users, which is a market that AT&T has historically underserved.

AT&T has indicated they expect to spend over $40 billion over the next 5 years to build out FirstNet. (We believe that this number includes other non-FirstNet related modifications).

 

Buildout Timeline:

Under the RFP, AT&T is required to develop a public safety network on a certain schedule. Assuming an April 2017 award date, here is how the network will be deployed:

  • October 2017: States Opt-In or Opt-Out
  • April 2018: 20% of coverage to be built out
  • April 2019: 60% of coverage to be built out
  • April
    2020: 80% of coverage to be built out
  • April 2021: 95% of coverage to be built out
  • April 2022: 100% of coverage to be built out

AT&T will be required to develop and obtain approval for suitable devices, applications, and back-end operations and infrastructure to enable FirstNet capabilities. Initially, AT&T can use its network and devices but will eventually need to develop FirstNet-specific devices and infrastructure per the requirements of the RFP. Furthermore, AT&T will need to pay FirstNet at least $5.6B over the 25-year term of the contract with annual fees starting at $80M and escalating from there.

    

Implications for TowerCos

As far back as December, we indicated that TowerCos would benefit from the award, though we cautioned that there are three buckets of sites: some AT&T sites which already have antennas capable of transmitting/receiving in the 700MHz band, where there would modifications that do not justify a rent increase or amendment; some that require antenna change outs and additional remote radio units, and some that require additional antennas and remote radio units.  In the second and third bucket, the TowerCos come out ahead.  In total, we estimate the number of AT&T macrocells that will be touched over 5 years will likely exceed 75% or more of AT&T's total site count.  

Regarding the timing of the amendment activity, our checks show that AT&T was submitting applications for modifications at the end of 2016 that include equipment suitable for FirstNet—months before today's FirstNet announcement.

 

Implications for Landowners and Rooftop Owners

Landowners with AT&T towers on their property, for the most part, won't receive any additional rent due to FirstNet activity.   If AT&T ends up hardening sites by adding generators or backup power, there may be some lease area expansions which could yield additional rent.  Building owners with AT&T rooftop leases may see additional revenue as AT&T needs to modify or expand existing equipment and antennas on the roof.  For those building owners who previously agreed to AT&T's E911 language that they were inserting into their leases that states that AT&T is allowed to make changes to sites if needed for E911 purposes, there may not be the opportunity to charge additional rent for changes even if they exceed the current footprint of the equipment area.

 

Minor Boost for Rip-n-Replace Towers

Ironically, a subset of activities related to FirstNet deployment could cannibalize existing TowerCo revenue. As discussed in our Rip-n-Replace note of 3/22/17 where we discuss the increasing willingness of wireless carriers to relocate equipment from existing towers, the more that AT&T modifies or adds equipment, and particularly in cases where there are changes to the structural loading on an existing tower, the more an adjacent alternative site may make sense.

The more equipment that AT&T needs to add, the greater the structural loading on the tower. The greater the structural loading, the more likely that structural modifications to the tower will be required. The more that structural modifications are needed, the higher the pass-through to AT&T. The higher pass-through, the greater the incentive for AT&T to relocate to a newly built adjacent tower with surplus structural capacity.

 

Want to Know More?

We have strong opinions on who stands to gain from the FirstNet award to AT&T.  Give us a call– we can break down which equipment manufacturers, which construction and engineering companies, and which tower companies are best positioned for upside from FirstNet.

The Glorified Wireless Carrier Lease Renegotiation Bonanza

Wireless carriers are pulling out all the stops to renegotiate their ground and collocation leases in one of the most extensive efforts seen to date.

In the last few months, we have observed more concentrated efforts by individual wireless carriers to issue RFPs and to enter agreements with build-to-suit tower companies to build towers adjacent to existing public and private tower company owned towers. These efforts followed very public statements of discontent with the public tower companies leasing practices. In short, the wireless carrier commits to moving from an existing tower to a new tower built by a private tower company on financial terms and conditions much more attractive to the wireless carrier. They "rip" their equipment off the old tower and "replace" it on the new tower otherwise known as "rip-n-replace." We think further clarity on how the Rip-n-Replace efforts fit into broader efforts to renegotiate will be helpful.

 

HISTORICAL EFFORTS BY CARRIERS TO RENEGOTIATE

By no means are these the first attempts by wireless carriers to renegotiate leases, nor are they the largest. As far back as 2002, AT&T was trying to renegotiate the terms of its collocation, rooftop, and ground leases. There was a flurry of renegotiation activity between 2007 and 2012 after which the wireless carriers started to realize that they were damaging their relationships with the landowners and tower owners who they had to continue to contact for modification and lease extension requests. These landowners and tower owners disliked the aggressive car salesman like tactics of third party "optimizers" for the wireless carriers, so much so that they would often refuse to talk to the wireless carrier or would ask for exorbitant rent increases for changes that weren't allowed under the lease.

 

TODAY'S "NEW" RENEGOTIATION EFFORTS

Today's efforts seem more concentrated and refined but are increasing significantly in the first quarter of 2017. We suspect that the wireless industry has learned a good deal (as have their lease optimization vendors like Md7 and BlackDot Wireless) about what works, what does not work, and what they legally can and cannot say in contract renegotiations. We also believe that the commoditization of the wireless sector has caused the wireless carriers to focus on reducing operating expenses as they find it is harder to increase revenue now that wireless penetration (number of devices vs. number of possible subscribers) has exceeded 100%.

Based upon the inquiries we receive daily from our landowner and tower owner clients, each of the renegotiation efforts tend to make the following requests:

  • Reduce Rent
  • Reduce Escalation in New and Renewed Leases
  • Extend the Term of the Lease
  • Increased Expansion Rights at Fixed or No Additional Rent
  • Revision to Permitted Use Language
  • Incorporate Right of First Refusal Language

These renegotiation requests almost always accompany the implication of termination. We say "implication" because the wireless carriers found out the hard way that the direct threat of termination may be considered "anticipatory breach" of the underlying contract which is a quick way to end up in court as the carriers found out previously. They come with catchy acronyms like "TOSS" or suggest that rejection of the proposed terms will then necessitate an "Alternative Site Review." They include articles and news stories that purport to show that T-Mobile and Sprint must merge. For example, here is a quote from an email a client of ours sent us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below please see a sample letter below from AT&T. Note the careful use of AT&T and Md7 addresses in the document – which is intended to disguise to the landowner where the letter originated.

 

The obvious next question is "If these efforts have been occurring since 2002, why should we care that they are doing them again today?" The answer is that we believe that these endeavors are indicative of both the increasing competitiveness in wireless today and that they predict precisely what the carriers are most concerned with as it pertains to their leases.

 

CARRIER BY CARRIER EFFORTS AND OBSERVATIONS

We do have additional insight based upon the priorities to which each carrier places on various clauses in their renegotiation efforts. We further believe that the scale of the renegotiation efforts by each carrier is indicative of their future concerns.

AT&T: By far the most aggressive in 2017 in attempting to renegotiate their leases. Based upon our landowner and small to mid-size tower client inquiries, AT&T is using multiple outside vendors to renegotiate their agreements. These vendors are even going as far as having term sheets for new tower leases signed with landowners on adjacent properties next to our client's tower or rooftop sites as a means of encouraging our client to renegotiate. These efforts extend from small landowners with single sites to tower companies with hundreds of sites. AT&T seems significantly more focused on procuring unlimited expansion rights and revisions to the permitted use language than other carriers in their renegotiation efforts.

Our checks indicate that AT&T seems to be more active than other wireless carriers in considering alternative towers. Build to suit agreements being offered by AT&T have significant worse terms for the tower developer than the previous build to suit agreements.

Sprint: Sprint has been inactive altogether. We have seen very little activity from Sprint in renegotiating their leases or on anything else for that matter.

T-Mobile: T-Mobile is the most incongruous of the wireless carriers. On the one hand, they appear to be willing to spend more for new leases than other carriers, but on the other, they are using third parties to contact landowners and tower owners to suggest that landowners should renegotiate their terms before a possible merger with Sprint. (Note: They aren't saying they are merging with Sprint- but they attach newspaper articles that address the possibility of such a merger and let the tower owner or landowner come to their conclusion.)  T-Mobile is also emphasizing unlimited expansion rights and revision to the permitted use language in the lease.

Verizon: Verizon doesn't appear to be using outside vendors to renegotiate terms. Instead, they are focusing on addressing more favorable lease terms in their new proposed lease agreements and any contract extensions. Verizon's primary push is reducing escalation in their leases to 2% or less per annum.

 

IMPLICATIONS:

What is our take from all this? We believe that wireless carriers (especially AT&T and T-Mobile) are increasingly concerned with limitations in their leases that prevent them from expanding or increasing equipment. With a possible new spectrum coming from FirstNet and the Broadcast Incentive Auction, we anticipate that AT&T will need to expand or increase the amount of equipment they have at each site more than other wireless carriers. We further expect that T-Mobile will need to make modifications because of winning spectrum in the Broadcast Incentive Auction.

In some cases, we are advising tower owners or building owners to consider accepting revisions to their leases especially when there is a possibility that a new tower could be built or a new rooftop could be selected for "rip-n-replace" of carrier equipment from the current site. The key is knowing what the risk is to your specific location and whether there are other options. Historically, it may not have made sense to move, but with the new deals being entered with build to suit tower companies and the wireless carriers who are seeking rent concessions on high rent sites, there are increasingly more situations where it makes sense to move.

If you have concerns about a letter or proposal you have received, please don't hesitate to contact us. We will gladly review your situation, see if there is anything to be concerned with, and if so, make a fair and reasonable proposal to you for services. Your inquiry to us will be kept confidential, and there is no obligation to pay us anything until you sign a contract for services.

 

 

Are states going to opt-out of AT&T’s FirstNet?

Now that the Rivada court challenge appears to be resolved, many pundits and experts expect AT&T to be awarded the FirstNet contract.  Once the FirstNet contract is awarded to AT&T (only remaining qualified bidder), AT&T has 180 days to prepare state specific FirstNet plans.  States then have 90 days to decide to opt-in or out.   If they opt-out of FirstNet, states have the option of building their own public safety networks to FirstNet standards.  Some states have already issued RFPs and in one case, awarded the state public safety network to Rivada.  This does not mean that the states will opt-out- just that they are evaluating their options.  Should they choose to opt-out, they have 180 days to issue an RFP or provide FirstNet with a plan for review.  To the extent that a state opt-out, AT&T will not get spectrum or funds in that state.  

We prepared this map that represents the states that have issued, awarded, or announced that they plan to issue an RFP.

Map of states with RFPs for FirstNet state networks
states that may opt-out of the nationwide FirstNet

Verizon’s Unlimited Plan- Short Term Pain vs Long Term Gain

Don't misread Verizon's about-face on unlimited plans solely as a sign of network confidence.

Tickers: VZ, T, S, TMUS, AMT, CCI, SBAC, COMM, DY, ZAYO

 

Contrary to their previous explicit direction otherwise, Verizon announced on February 12th, 2017 that they would be offering an unlimited voice and data plan at rates slightly higher than comparable offerings from T-Mobile (TMUS) and Sprint (S). Not coincidentally, in its earnings call on Feb 14th, 2017, TMUS indicated that they were porting Verizon subscribers to TMUS at a 2.8:1 ratio to subscribers ported from TMUS to V. This plan is clearly slated to reduce the churn of postpaid customers from VZ to S and TMUS and we believe that it is a very compelling service offering.

 

Analysts were quick to choose sides: the first posited that this was a sign of VZ's confidence in their network upgrades and capacity, while the second group believes that the network will show signs of strain under the added capacity. We believe that both groups are partially correct and that infrastructure related entities are the ones that stand to gain the most.

 

Back in last January, we applauded VZ for their densification efforts in our note Verizon (VZ) positioning for a range of 5G futures. The premise was simple- Verizon's efforts to add fiber and small cells to their network give them a marked advantage over other wireless service providers in the race for 5G. That premise hasn't changed and further research since that note continues to suggest that VZ still has a 1-2-year first-mover advantage from a US wireless infrastructure perspective.

 

Street light small cell
Small Cell In Boston, MA
Nonetheless, it is our opinion that VZ's densification efforts, while industry setting, are not sufficiently complete to provide seamless and reliable service across all urban areas, especially in the near term. Verizon's densification is based on a three-prong approach: carrier aggregation, dark fiber, and rapid deployment of small cells. On the first prong, VZ has actively deployed 2 and 3 carrier aggregation across most of the nation. On the last two prongs, while they have been leading the market in both efforts, there still are areas where their efforts have been slowed due to factors outside their controls. Based on our on-the-ground level visibility, VZ has a hefty lead in dark fiber and small cells actively deployed or in development.

 

In our previous note, we suggested that the next 12 to 18 months will be tough for Verizon as the impact from their investments will take time to materialize. For urban markets where VZ has encountered delays due to local zoning or permitting for deployment of small cells, there will be a reduction in reliability and data speeds. These issues will be more pronounced in markets where Verizon is relying upon two carrier aggregation.

 

Fortunately for VZ, these issues are surmountable and addressable, but it will take some time to rectify them. Expect to see an acceleration of densification in specific troublesome markets. Verizon will need to rely more on outside fiber and small cell providers like CCI and ZAYO. TowerCos (AMT, CCI, SBAC) should also experience continued and possibly accelerated macrocell modification activity and possibly new macrocell deployment from VZ and TMUS in their efforts to meet the pending needs of video downloads (remember that video accounted for 60% of mobile data use in 2016 and VZ and TMUS now include zero-rated HD video in their unlimited plans). Lastly, we would not be surprised to see T extend their unlimited plans beyond DirecTV subscribers, thereby further increasing densification.  (Editor's note- subsuquent to this being written, T did extend its unlimited plans beyond DirecTV subscribers.)

 

Risks to this note: The perception of VZ network superiority declines at a faster rate than expected, causing subscribers to question whether they should spend the additional money on VZ's unlimited plans before VZ's network investments reverse those issues. VZ could reverse their strategy of using outside fiber and vendors in order to control their fate by increasing CapEx towards the development of owned dark fiber assets, thereby reducing ZAYO and CCI opportunities.

 

(Author's note: This research note was published first on 2/20/17. If you are interested in gaining access to our research on a timelier basis or have a discussion on this note or other wireless industry topics, please contact us.)

 

 

Small Cells Per State in United States

Map showing small cells per state across US
Map showing the distribution of small cells in US based upon 100,000 total

To show the impact of 100,000 small cells being deployed in the US over the next few years, we looked at total population per state and created this map which assumes that small cell deployment will follow population.   In other words, a state's relative population is used as a proxy for small cell need in this map.   In reality, there are many more factors which will influence the number of small cells in each state.

These include:  

  1. Population density
  2. Difficulty of procuring permits for macrocells
  3. Spectrum shortfalls in specific markets
  4. Competitive Pressure between Carriers
  5. Topography

Thus, this map is only intended as a rough estimate of small cells to be deployed by state.  Where it gets interesting is when you assume that the actual number of small cells could be 1,000,000.  Previous FCC Chair Tom Wheeler indicated in a 2016 speech that the number of small cells deployed "may reach into the millions".   Multiply the numbers in the map by 10 to see what we mean.  The state of California alone could see 120,000 small cells with most in urban and suburban areas.  That is a lot of small cells. 

 

Everest Infrastructure Partners: The Phoenix of Tristar Investors?

Illustration of Phoenix Rising from AshesHISTORY OF TRISTAR INVESTORS

Back in 2008-2013, a company called Tristar Investors was attempting to acquire ground leases under American Tower Corporation (AMT) and Crown Castle (CCI) cell towers. They had some success acquiring the leases using a unique acquisition model where they would "buy out" the tower ground lease by paying the landowner an additional annual or monthly payment above and beyond their current rent through the expiration of the cell tower lease. Tristar would then offer the landowner 50% of any revenue from the operation of the tower after the expiration of the lease. The marketing pitch? At expiration, Tristar assumes ownership of the tower and the landowner becomes a "partner" in the revenue generated on the tower. This was an effective pitch to landowners, and our best guess is that Tristar acquired 300-500 leases under valuable multi-carrier towers.   

In 2013, Tristar settled litigation with American Tower and after that, they shut down. We surmise that Tristar agreed to non-compete and non-solicitation language in their agreements that barred them from purchasing leases from under American Tower. We also believe that Tristar executives previously agreed to language with Crown Castle that provided for similar restrictions on acquiring Crown Castle leases.  

THE RISE OF EVEREST INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS

Flash forward to 2017 and it appears that these non-compete/non-solicitation agreements have expired, because a landlord of ours with a multi-carrier American Tower Corporation tower received a purchase offer from a company named Everest Infrastructure Partners that looks suspiciously like previous offers from Tristar Investors. Upon further review of the signatory and the agent who contacted our property owner, it appears that someone has gotten the old Tristar team together and is now attempting to acquire leases under the Everest Infrastructure Partners name. Both the agent and signatory list previous positions with Tristar in their LinkedIn profiles .  

Here is what the offer from Everest looks like: 

Everest Infrastructure Partners, Inc. (“Everest”) is pleased to present to you (“Owner”) this offer letter (“Offer”) for Everest to acquire an easement to the cell tower real estate you own at _____________________(“Property”).    

1. Current Lease.  The Offer is based on the following terms of the current lease for the cell tower operated on the Property:

Current Rent:   $xxx.00 /month    Final Lease Expiration: xx/xx/xx

2. Payment to Owner.  Everest will pay to Owner the sum of xxxxx Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($xx,000.00) per year until the expiration of the Current Lease.  Owner will keep all rents generated by the Current Lease until expiration. Additionally, commencing at the expiration of the Current Lease, Everest shall thereafter pay to Owner ongoing payments equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the rental revenues received by Everest from any lessee(s) of the Property.

 3. Easement. In exchange for the consideration above, Everest will be granted an easement to the property. The easement area shall be the portion of the Property currently leased for wireless telecom use, and shall include access and utility easements thereto. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CELL TOWER LEASEHOLDERS

There are a few concerns that landowners should have about this offer. First, a landowner who receives this offer should clarify with Everest whether they intend to take over the ownership of the tower at expiration, whether they plan to sell the lease back to the tower company, or whether they expect to renegotiate the lease with the tower company and take 50% of the rent for doing so.   

In the first scenario, these types of offers can be attractive to landowners. Our clients who previously sold to Tristar were generally better off for doing so.  

In the second scenario, we believe the landowner is better off just selling or renegotiating the lease with the tower company. Otherwise, at expiration, if Everest sells the lease to the tower company, the tower company could just decide to offer below market lease terms and the landowner would get the very short end of the deal.   

In the third scenario, we also believe that the landowner is better served by selling to the tower company or renegotiating the lease with the tower company. Unless the "buyout" amount exceeds the present value of 50% of future rent from the extended tower lease, the landowner would be better off just keeping the lease and negotiating its own extension or sale with the tower company.   

Accordingly, if you receive an offer from Everest, we recommend confirming with them whether they intend to take over the tower at expiration. If not, we suggest asking Everest about their explicit intentions with the lease. In either of the latter two scenarios, we recommend contacting us so that we can help you determine the value of the lease and explain fully all of your options – not just those presented by Everest.   

Please note that we are not affiliated with Everest. Everest Infrastructure Partners may be a registered trademark. If you found this post while searching for Everest Infrastructure Partners, please direct your browser to www.everestinfrastructure.com.   

AT&T Shifting Capex into Small Cells

Implications: T, S, ZAYO, CCI, AIRO, COMM, DY, ERIC, NOK  (Disclosure- author holds position in ZAYO)

Looks like T's finally cutting over to small-cell investment as S continues to under invest.

Carrier capex budgets for 2017 and forecasts for 2018 aren't out yet, but our checks indicate that AT&T, which has to-date been a relative holdout on small cells, is finally shifting investment share in this direction.

Back in June, T highlighted that 90% of its next-5-year macrocell infrastructure was already in place, but only 5-10% of the small cell infrastructure for this same period had been built.

Checks now show that T is beginning to reassign real estate department personnel to work on small cells. Furthermore, some subcontractors are reporting increased requests from AT&T to do site walks for small cells.

Notably, we are not yet seeing increased municipal permitting / leasing. Given 9-12 month lead times, this suggests that small cell ramps will occur toward the middle of 2017 with a likely acceleration into 2018.

We anticipate that T will focus its small cell efforts in Wireline markets where the company already owns existing fiber and has access to Right of Ways and Franchise Agreements. T will best be able to control costs in these areas where it is already considered a wireline utility and has existing infrastructure in place. These markets include most of the Southeast and Midwest as well as a few markets in California.

Map showing the states in which AT&T has wireline service
AT&T -Landline Markets before CT was sold (Image from AT&T)

Implications

 We see this shift as an incremental positive for fiber providers and small cell operators like ZAYO, CCI and CSAL; although the effect is likely to be muted to the extent that their metro fiber overlaps with AT&T's. It's a likely positive for OEMs like AIRO and COMM that provide small cell equipment and antennas but don't have exposure to the decline in macro cell equipment.  Implications will likely be mixed for DY, NOK and ERIC. They should benefit from increased small cell work but are already seeing reduced capex allocated to macro cells.

Sprint Follow-up

Related to our past comments on Sprint, (see 10/26 – Sprint (S) still behind small cell 8-ball), we continue to see additional data points supporting our thesis.

Sprint confirmed during their last earnings call that last year’s Capex was lower than their previous guidance to the market by $2B ($2.3B actual vs $5B guidance).  Sprint has been talking up its plans for years with relatively little to show for it, and recognition seems to be building throughout the marketplace, and the investor community, that the Mobilitie relationship has yielded far fewer small cells than were anticipated.  Sprint is giving lip service to 2017 being a better year for permits and capex, but its hopes seem to be predicated on FCC leadership changes and possible rulemaking to remove impediments to small-cell deployment in right of ways.  In fact, Mobilitie seems to have pinned a significant amount of hope on a Petition to the FCC for Relief.

We think Sprint's capex will increase in 2017 off of an ultra-low 2016 number, but the service provider continues to struggle to deploy capex dollars.  We wouldn't be surprised to see major revisions to the strategy as well as Street expectations.