Massive 5G Investment, Despite “Regulatory Uncertainty”

            Riding closely on the heels of substantial investment in Fourth Generation wireless infrastructure investment comes a Fifth Generation.  Wireless carriers in the United States appear to have accelerated the rollout of 5G. See, e.g., http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/27/momentum-is-building-for-5g-rollout-ericsson-ceo.html; https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-to-hold-worlds-first-crazy-fast-5g-wireless-field-tests-next-year/; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-27/at-t-boosts-5g-networks-rollout-as-online-video-demand-spikes

            Hang on. Aren’t we living an acutely painful world of regulatory uncertainty foisted on the marketplace by network neutrality zealots?  How can carriers invest substantially in a wireless broadband technology if regulators are hell-bent to mandate access and openness?

            It strikes me that wireless carriers in the United States and elsewhere can handle regulatory uncertain and make prudent investments in next generation network infrastructure.

            There are legitimate reasons not to support network neutrality, or to advocate reforms.  But make no mistake: removing “regulatory uncertainty” is a bogus rationale having no real impact on carrier investment strategies.

Incumbents’ Incentives and Disincentives to Invest in Existing and Next Generation Networks

            Recently anti-network neutrality researchers and advocates have made an assertion that does not make sense to me.  First, they claim incumbent carriers have substantially curbed capital expenditures in plant.  Then they attribute the decline as largely resulting from the FCC’s Open Internet Order.

            Such work would not pass muster under peer review, nor does it pass an informal “smell test.” On the latter screen, why would both AT&T and Verizon make multi-billion dollar investments in legacy content distribution (DirecTV) and content (AOL) if they did not think they could use access to a far larger set of consumers as a way to provide more service bundles?  Put more simply: why would a legacy carrier skimp on its infrastructure after having paid handsomely for content that needs distribution to consumers?

            AT&T touts the DirecTV acquisition as making it possible to offer a “quad-play” bundle of video, wired broadband, wireless broadband and voice; see: http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=18235#fbid=jUSgILGxbqx. Verizon sees AOL as providing a way to diversify into content and improve its web advertising service skills.

            Even as certain stakeholder want regulators, legislators and judges to think an open Internet would shut the investment tap, they also want to tout how much more plant investment we have vis a vis other nations and regions.  Who needs a universal service subsidy mechanism when we lead the world in 4G and fiber deployment?  Recently Verizon announced an expedited schedule for 5G research and development. See http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/verizon-test-5g-2016/2015-09-08.

            As a professor, I have the luxury of time to review everything I possibly can.  I make an effort to maintain an open mind on each and every subject.  I pay a high premium for not having “cast my lot” with one or the other camp and for having an independent (if unreliable) point of view.

            So if you don’t care to rely on my unsponsored perspective on the matter of whether incumbents suddenly have stopped investing in the future consider this from a clearly right of center source, the Financial Times:

            “AT&T is a big spender, investing more in infrastructure in the first half of this year than any other corporation in the US. Over the past five years it has ploughed nearly $140bn into its network, and it plans to spend a further $21bn this year and more still in 2016.

           “‘I fundamentally believe if you are not a number one or two investor in this industry, you get left behind,’ Mr Stephenson recently told analysts.’”  See David Crow, Telecoms: Showtime for AT&T, FINANCIAL TIMES (October 15, 2015); available at: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/70c15980-7321-11e5-a129-3fcc4f641d98.html#axzz3p1qj8qH3.

The Impact of Regulation on Broadband Investment

           Several sponsored researchers have floated the notion that network neutrality and Title II common carrier regulation constitute the major reason why U.S. broadband carriers apparently have reduced capital expenditure in new and replacement physical plant.  Does this pass the smell test?  Is there any empirical data proving causality?  Would these allegation pass muster under appropriate peer review?

           Let’s get one principle straight: capex in most industries primarily correlates with competitive necessity and the life cycle of sunk investments.  In the U.S., wireless cellular radio companies bear the burden of streamlined Title II common carrier regulation.  Such regulation has not dissuaded these carriers from sinking billion in spectrum auctions and in plant investment.  The FCC swears that broadband access providers will encounter even less regulatory oversight than wireless carriers.

           Similarly, a year over year analysis of capex might have little to do by way of regulation impact on the incentive to invest and much more on whether and when a carrier needs to invest in new, or replacement infrastructure. Ventures with very high plant investments typically also have capacity that comes online or offline in very large increments.  For example, a satellite company like Intelsat, Dish, Sirius-XM and DirecTV will show a significantly higher plant investment in years when it has to replace an in-orbit and soon to be deactivated satellite.  Variability in capex has nothing to do with whether regulation ebbs and flows in terms of severity, or burden.

          I will concede that telecommunications management may tinker with capex as political leverage for less regulation.  AT&T CEO Randall L. Stephenson has said as much, but do you really think he would ration capex if it would render his company and its services comparatively inferior to what other wireless carriers offer?

          Telecommunications carriers and their sponsored researchers also like to trot out “regulatory uncertainty” as a capex disincentive.  In the same breath, they also like to claim regulation operates as an unconstitutional “taking” of their property and the capex they previously made.  Newsflash: regulation in telecommunications constitutes a cost of business that incumbents and prospective market entrants alike have to take into consideration.

          Bottom line: regulation and uncertainty about the future of regulation has limited impact on capex decision making.  If a carrier can make do with less investment it will do so.  Right now most airlines are replacing kerosene guzzlers with more efficient and cheaper models.  They might also “right size” inventory with smaller aircraft.  Such a reduction in overall passenger capacity and in investment responds to marketplace conditions not whether aviation regulators have become more aggressive.  The same concept applies to telecommunications.