4 ms·

For wireless carriers, the three highest opex costs are 1. Real estate (lease costs, no one owns their cell sites) 2. backhaul, which today means fiber 3. emplo

For wireless carriers, the three highest opex costs are 1. Real estate (lease costs, no one owns their cell sites) 2. backhaul, which today means fiber 3. employees Nationalizing the 5G roll out will not help with any of these costs, the real estate costs are more and more coming from local municipalities or other local entities to place in the right of way which is probably the only realistic option with the densities needed for 5G. The Federal government does not have the power to take those rights of way. This constraint applied really to two of the big items, real estate costs for the cell sites and right of way for the fiber. The reason countries like China or others like it can more easily deploy a nationalized network is because the central government has total dominion. We don't have that system here so a federal approach will not reduce costs, if anything it will cause them to spiral as local entities will see that as a cash register from the federal side. And we all understand that a federal work force is not going to be a low cost option for the third component of the equation. For these reasons I disagree with a federal approach. To my way of thinking, if local entities, cities and counties, want 5G wireless broadband, the best way is to make rights of way available to carriers in a fair and accessible way without trying to over play their hand and jack the costs up which inevitably will just price it out of reach of more and more people. The capital outlay to deploy these networks is fairly significant and by making a reasonable accommodation for the carriers will help offset that. The federal government is not a good answer here as much as it may seem like the quick and easy answer. All it takes is a quick review of recent performance of congress to realize how unrealistic that notion is.

saas_co_de 9y ago
> The Federal government does not have the power to take those rights of way This wouldn't be a discussion if they didn't.
- zw123456 9y ago
  They do not; not with out paying. That would be a taking. They have to pay to use the city rights of way just like carriers do. Just because the federal gov is doing it does not mean it is free. In China or other authoritarian governments they just say we are putting fiber here and a tower there and if anyone complains they can just put them in prison or whatever they want. In the USA that is not how it works. The federal government would have to buy the right of way just like carriers do. I don't think that will make it cheaper or faster to do.
aaronblohowiak 9y ago
interstate commerce clause has lead to federal government passing sweetheart legislation for wireless operators, severely limiting local control over the placement of micro-sites like the kind needed for 5g. https://www.fcc.gov/general/tower-and-antenna-siting https://www.fcc.gov/general/tower-and-antenna-siting Huge federal overreach.
- zw123456 9y ago
  That's right, but those rule prevent cities from making rules that prevent any use of the airwaves. Nationalizing a 5G broadband network means taking the rights of way away form the cities. That could not be don't without paying for it. That's not going to make things any cheaper, at least any time I see the federal gov pay for things, it does not make it cheaper.
  - ZoF 9y ago
    Were there enough public support the federal government absolutely could take those spectrum and land rights away.
stcredzero 9y ago
For wireless carriers, the three highest opex costs are 1. Real estate (lease costs, no one owns their cell sites) 2. backhaul, which today means fiber 3. employees Nationalizing the 5G roll out will not help with any of these costs, the real estate costs are more and more coming from local municipalities or other local entities to place in the right of way Doesn't this situation put a moral hazard on municipal broadband? If a city runs the broadband, why wouldn't they use their government power to keep out competitors and maintain a monopoly?
- zw123456 9y ago
  That type of thing actually already happens, I work in the industry and I have seen it happen. A state run governmental fiber network was put in place and the government bodies prevented other carriers from placing fiber and forced the wireless carriers to use their fiber at a premium.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Which state? I can think of one off the top of my head, but the story doesn’t match up.
wmf 9y ago
Having one network instead of four should reduce all those costs, although I agree about the other roadblocks.
- kelnos 9y ago
  I could certainly reduce costs, but that would also mean no pressure to reduce prices or invest in improvements. This is essentially the situation we have in many markets where there is only one or two ISP choice(s): mediocre (or worse) service and inflated prices.
Spooky23 9y ago
The federal government certainly has the ability to use eminent domain to acquire property, particularly with a (specious) national security angle. Nike-Hercules missile sites are an example of what can happen when the Feds are motivated. The interstate highways are another. This is a fairly obvious play at rebuilding the AT&T monopoly of yore. The Feds would just pay a carrier to run the thing, perhaps by using an existing contract vehicle (maybe first net?).
- zw123456 9y ago
  It might be theoretically possible, or legal, but it would be hugely controversial and would be in the courts for sure. I do not think the FCC could do it with a rule it would take an act of congress which seems pretty unlikely in the current political atmosphere. It is not clear that the federal gov could use eminent domain to force cities and counties to relinquish rights of way, perhaps, but it would be pretty unprecedented in peace time as you point out. Interestingly, the former bell system was nationalized for a brief period in 1918 and run by the post office (an arrangement that some European countries have today) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T But it did not last and was a complete disaster. I am sure a redux of that would end in tears. In the early 1980's the Bell System had something called ISDN which purported to be something like what we call the internet today. They had a plan to roll it out (64Kbps !) nationally over a 20 year time frame. Had not AT&T been broken up in 1984 I posit that the internet we know today would have never emerged, it was free enterprise and entrepreneurship that made it happen.
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    > hugely controversial and would be in the courts for sure Controversial like illegally wiretapping every single citizen in the nation for years? Controversial like the current President? The bar is so low on controversy and legality that it practically doesn't exist. > It is not clear that the federal gov could use eminent domain That sounds like an opinion but even if it were true it doesn't mean that the threat of using eminent domain couldn't be used as leverage in negotiations.
ksec 9y ago
For wireless carriers, the three highest opex costs are 1. Real estate (lease costs, no one owns their cell sites) 2. backhaul, which today means fiber 3. employees It also depends on country and location, but from what I remember, most of it goes to lease. 1. Lease on the Cell Sites. And that is why in certain places, ( or all places ) property pricing has an very large effect on Mobile Network pricing. 2. Retail. Servicing the Customers. 3. Lease for Backhaul. Increasingly Mobile Carrier is either part of a subsidiary of local ISP. 4. Lease for carrier equipment. Well we are only left with a few, Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia, and ZTE. Increasingly these equipment are not part of the carrier asset but services agreement. All the four things above made up to 70% of the cost structure. The reason countries like China or others like it can more easily deploy a nationalized network is because the central government has total dominion. Yes, there are no issues ( well relatively little ) with placing cell tower where they want, rent etc. If it the party direction, no one would (dare to) refuse it. You have cost structure issues? They have China Tower which shares the rural area signals, so the three carrier dont have built each of their own.

saas_co_de 9y ago

> The Federal government does not have the power to take those rights of way This wouldn't be a discussion if they didn't.

zw123456 9y ago
They do not; not with out paying. That would be a taking. They have to pay to use the city rights of way just like carriers do. Just because the federal gov is doing it does not mean it is free. In China or other authoritarian governments they just say we are putting fiber here and a tower there and if anyone complains they can just put them in prison or whatever they want. In the USA that is not how it works. The federal government would have to buy the right of way just like carriers do. I don't think that will make it cheaper or faster to do.

aaronblohowiak 9y ago

interstate commerce clause has lead to federal government passing sweetheart legislation for wireless operators, severely limiting local control over the placement of micro-sites like the kind needed for 5g. https://www.fcc.gov/general/tower-and-antenna-siting https://www.fcc.gov/general/tower-and-antenna-siting Huge federal overreach.

zw123456 9y ago
That's right, but those rule prevent cities from making rules that prevent any use of the airwaves. Nationalizing a 5G broadband network means taking the rights of way away form the cities. That could not be don't without paying for it. That's not going to make things any cheaper, at least any time I see the federal gov pay for things, it does not make it cheaper.
- ZoF 9y ago
  Were there enough public support the federal government absolutely could take those spectrum and land rights away.

stcredzero 9y ago

zw123456 9y ago
That type of thing actually already happens, I work in the industry and I have seen it happen. A state run governmental fiber network was put in place and the government bodies prevented other carriers from placing fiber and forced the wireless carriers to use their fiber at a premium.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Which state? I can think of one off the top of my head, but the story doesn’t match up.

wmf 9y ago

Having one network instead of four should reduce all those costs, although I agree about the other roadblocks.

kelnos 9y ago
I could certainly reduce costs, but that would also mean no pressure to reduce prices or invest in improvements. This is essentially the situation we have in many markets where there is only one or two ISP choice(s): mediocre (or worse) service and inflated prices.

Spooky23 9y ago

The federal government certainly has the ability to use eminent domain to acquire property, particularly with a (specious) national security angle. Nike-Hercules missile sites are an example of what can happen when the Feds are motivated. The interstate highways are another. This is a fairly obvious play at rebuilding the AT&T monopoly of yore. The Feds would just pay a carrier to run the thing, perhaps by using an existing contract vehicle (maybe first net?).

zw123456 9y ago
It might be theoretically possible, or legal, but it would be hugely controversial and would be in the courts for sure. I do not think the FCC could do it with a rule it would take an act of congress which seems pretty unlikely in the current political atmosphere. It is not clear that the federal gov could use eminent domain to force cities and counties to relinquish rights of way, perhaps, but it would be pretty unprecedented in peace time as you point out. Interestingly, the former bell system was nationalized for a brief period in 1918 and run by the post office (an arrangement that some European countries have today) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T But it did not last and was a complete disaster. I am sure a redux of that would end in tears. In the early 1980's the Bell System had something called ISDN which purported to be something like what we call the internet today. They had a plan to roll it out (64Kbps !) nationally over a 20 year time frame. Had not AT&T been broken up in 1984 I posit that the internet we know today would have never emerged, it was free enterprise and entrepreneurship that made it happen.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > hugely controversial and would be in the courts for sure Controversial like illegally wiretapping every single citizen in the nation for years? Controversial like the current President? The bar is so low on controversy and legality that it practically doesn't exist. > It is not clear that the federal gov could use eminent domain That sounds like an opinion but even if it were true it doesn't mean that the threat of using eminent domain couldn't be used as leverage in negotiations.

ksec 9y ago

For wireless carriers, the three highest opex costs are 1. Real estate (lease costs, no one owns their cell sites) 2. backhaul, which today means fiber 3. employees It also depends on country and location, but from what I remember, most of it goes to lease. 1. Lease on the Cell Sites. And that is why in certain places, ( or all places ) property pricing has an very large effect on Mobile Network pricing. 2. Retail. Servicing the Customers. 3. Lease for Backhaul. Increasingly Mobile Carrier is either part of a subsidiary of local ISP. 4. Lease for carrier equipment. Well we are only left with a few, Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia, and ZTE. Increasingly these equipment are not part of the carrier asset but services agreement. All the four things above made up to 70% of the cost structure. The reason countries like China or others like it can more easily deploy a nationalized network is because the central government has total dominion. Yes, there are no issues ( well relatively little ) with placing cell tower where they want, rent etc. If it the party direction, no one would (dare to) refuse it. You have cost structure issues? They have China Tower which shares the rural area signals, so the three carrier dont have built each of their own.