Home » Posts tagged 'Sprint'
Tag Archives: Sprint
Greetings from Charlotte, North Carolina (picture is, from left, Frank Cairon, formerly of Verizon Wireless and Ryan Barker, currently with Verizon Wireless enjoying some good Mexican food on Friday in the Queen City with yours truly).
This week’s TSB examines the short-term dynamics that could impact wireless growth in the third quarter and through the end of the year. At the end of this week’s TSB we will also briefly examine the current state of litigations and investigations active and pending (T-Mobile/ Sprint, Facebook, and Google).
Follow-up to Last Week’s CBRS article
Before diving into earnings drivers, a quick shout out to Federated Wireless, who raised $51 million this week in a mammoth C Round financing (full announcement here). Existing investors American Tower, Allied Minds, and GIC (Singapore sovereign wealth fund) all participated in the round, and Pennant Investors (Tim McDonald, formerly of Eagle River (Craig McCaw), will be joining the Federated board) and SBA joined with fresh cash. Kudos to Federated CEO Iyad Tarazi for his continued leadership and perseverance. With $51 million in additional cash, spectrum sharing gets a global boost.
In addition to this news, the FCC also has placed the approval and scheduling of the Private Access License auction (this is the dedicated band that gets priority over the General Authorized Access band) on the docket for June 2020 (FCC Commissioner Pai’s blog post is here). It’s generally assumed that this means a C-Band auction will come at the end of 2020/ beginning of 2021 (although this week’s news that Eutelsat has withdrawn from the C-Band Alliance has some believing that there may be a side deal afoot). The PAL auction timeline is in line with expectations, and it’s likely participants will include some new(ish) entrants.
Third Quarter Earnings – What Could Dislodge Wireless?
Speaking of expectations, there’re not a lot of dramatic changes expected in the wireless arena. Consensus has T-Mobile leading the postpaid phone net additions race (no surprise), with Sprint struggling to keep pace, AT&T in the 0-300K range for postpaid phone thanks in large part to FirstNet gains, and Verizon, excluding cable MVNO revenues, growing their retail postpaid phone base only slightly. With the exception of FirstNet (and a few quarters of decent Verizon growth), this is a pretty consistent story dating back to early 2017. What events could change the equation and dislodge the current structure?
- More rapid AT&T postpaid phone net additions led by FirstNet. Here’s how AT&T CFO John Stephens summarized the relationship between spectrum rollout and FirstNet deployments at an investor conference in early August:
We had some AWS-3 and some WCS spectrum that we had, so to speak, in the warehouse that we hadn’t deployed. We had 700 spectrum, Band 14 from FirstNet, which the government was requiring us to deploy. And then we got a whole new set of technologies that were coming out, 256 QAM and 4-way MIMO and carrier aggregation. They were particularly important to us because of our diverse spectrum portfolio. So we got the FirstNet contract and we had to touch a tower, have to go out on the network. And we decided, with this contract, now is the time to, so to speak, do everything. Put all the spectrum in service, that’s the 60 megahertz. In some towers, it’s 50, some towers, it’s 60, but it’s 60 megahertz of new spectrum that was generally unused that we’re putting in.
This has the effect of increased costs, but also improved network performance. With 350,000 net additions already from FirstNet (Stephens disclosed this in the same conference), it’s entirely possible that they could post a 100K net add surprise due to increased coverage and deployments. In turn, improved wireless bandwidth, while driving up costs, should lower churn in areas like Detroit (RootMetrics overall winner in a tie with Verizon – first since 2012), and Boston (first RootMetrics overall win in Bean Town since 2017).
- Faster cable MVNO growth. While this week’s news was on Altice’s aggressive $20 unlimited price point for existing customers (great analysis on their strategy here), both Charter and Comcast see a lot of mover activity in the third quarter. This would seem to be a very good time to present their wireless offer. Here’s a chart of net additions by both Charter and Comcast for the past two years:
While the two largest cable providers accounted for ~390K growth in 2Q (and over 1.3 million net additions growth over the last four quarters), there’s a strong likelihood that this figure could grow even greater as the attractiveness of the wireless bundle pricing takes effect. Both Spectrum and Comcast are maturing their service assurance processes, and those efforts should lower churn.
Comcast also made a number of changes to their “By the Gig” plans which encourage this option for multi-line plans that use 2-6 Gigabytes per line per month (and therefore use a lot of Xfinity Wi-Fi services). It basically amounts to a prepayment for overage services, but could be attractive for certain segments/ demographics (full details on these offer changes are here). Charter did not follow the Comcast changes described in the link and their “By the Gig” pricing continues to be $2/ mo / gigabyte higher.
Both Comcast and Charter are running into Apple iPhone announcement headwinds if next week’s headlines meet expectations (no 5G, no CBRS, no special financing deals, better camera). If the changes do not increase willingness to upgrade/ change to an iPhone, it’s going to be very difficult to craft a cable plan (even $20/ mo.) that will buck the trend. The upgrade cycle will be extended to 4Q 2020, when both the carriers and Comcast/ Charter will have full access to 5G.
Our prediction is that Charter and Comcast will have 475-500K net additions in the third quarter thanks to a combination of lower churn and higher gross additions (led by increased moving activity). Altice’s offer will add another 70K net additions in September, with those gains coming from Sprint retail and, to a lesser extent, T-Mobile retail and wholesale (Tracfone).
- T-Mobile’s 600 MHz coverage (and gross add) improvements. As T-Mobile, Sprint, and the state Attorneys General try to find a resolution to their quagmire, T-Mobile keeps on deploying 600 MHz spectrum. Here’re their reported (through Q2 2019) and estimated (Q3/Q4) progress:
Every new device on the T-Mobile.com website (and every T-Mobile store) is 600 MHz/ LTE Band 71 capable. Many older devices are not, however, and that is preventing greater market share gains in secondary and tertiary geographies (many/ most BYOD Android devices from AT&T, for example, will have the 700 MHz but not have the 600 MHz band). The expected Apple announcement represents a slight headwind for T-Mobile as well.
There’s a natural gross add/ upgrade path that follows 145 million coverage growth over a 12-month period. Assuming T-Mobile keeps their churn rate at 0.8%/ month over 3Q (2.4% of the ending branded postpaid 2Q base would be ~1.07 million disconnections), they have grown their 600 MHz marketable base by 20 million from Q1 to Q2 and by another 50 million from Q2 to Q3. If they just grew their penetration in the 600 MHz band by 1.5% for Q1-Q3 incremental POPs (or 0.5% penetration for the entire estimated 3Q 2019 footprint), they would negate the entire estimated branded postpaid churn for the rest of the country. This ex-urban/ rural growth opportunity is unique to T-Mobile and would at the expense of AT&T and Verizon.
Offsetting the 600MHz growth is small cell progress. T-Mobile committed at the beginning of the year to deploy 20,000 incremental small cells in 2019, but that guidance was withdrawn in their Q2 Factbook with H1 growth of only 1,000. That leaves a very large backlog of in-process capital (excluding capitalized interest, total capital spending was $3.48 billion vs an estimated spending range at the high end of $5.4 – $5.7 billion). T-Mobile should spend at least $2.2 billion in capital spending in the second half of 2019 on 5G, 600 MHz, and other initiatives and will undoubtedly be left with a lot of in-process small cell deployments.
- Sprint’s prepaid and postpaid churn. There’re a lot of headwinds for Sprint in the third quarter – overall 2Q churn trends are higher than previous year’s, and no one expects the seasonal respite to last long. It’s likely that 3Q postpaid churn could exceed 1.85%, led by postpaid phone churn of a similar level (look for late September promotional activity).
Prepaid churn is a bit tougher to forecast and will also be tracked closely. If the postpaid churn comes in below 2Q levels, check the prepaid recategorizations to postpaid (they were 116K in Q2 and 129K in Q1). Both prepaid and reclassified postpaid accounts will be transferred to Dish assuming the merger goes through, but it makes the postpaid headline number more palatable.
The 30-day guarantee promotion, according to most reports, has been an ineffective switching tool. (Sprint’s 5G rollout success has been much more impactful). Expect Sprint to say very little until there is clarity on the litigation, and to post greater than expected losses in prepaid subscribers as they preserve their marketing dollars for a post-merger world.
Litigation Tracker: Why the Facebook, Google, and T-Mobile/ Sprint cases are not all the same
Speaking of litigation and investigation, we were very dismayed that media sources are choosing to lump the New York-led Facebook investigation announced Friday, the to be announced Texas-led Google investigation, and the on-going T-Mobile/ Sprint (TMUS/S) litigation into one mega-story. While there are some similarities, the upcoming Google action is broader than Facebook and more bipartisan than the TMUS/S complaint.
As most of you who are following the TMUS/S suit know, the states of Oregon and Illinois recently joined the original 14 states and the District of Columbia to block the merger. (As an aside, Fox Business is reporting that the state AG group is focusing on the inexperience and shaky financial condition of Dish Networks as opposed to what would have been an uphill market concentration battle). In fact, in the original TSB concerning the lawsuit (here), we were surprised by the absence of Illinois. The figure below shows who is involved in what (underlined states are named in the Facebook litigation):
To recap, there are 40 states + the District of Columbia named in the National Association of Attorneys General comment letter to the FTC (filing here), and at least 30 of them are joining a Texas-led lawsuit against Google to be announced early this week.
The makeup of the states in the FTC letter is very bipartisan: 14 Republican and 26 Democrat attorneys general. All of the states involved in the TMUS/S litigation are also named in the FTC comment letter. To contrast, of the 17 states in the TMUS/S litigation, only Texas (AT&T HQ) is Republican and the other 16 are Democrat.
As we stated in the TSB on the AG lawsuit, very few sparsely-populated states, regardless of political affiliation, are participating in the T-Mobile/ Sprint litigation. Fourteen of the fifteen least densely populated states in the US (data here) are named in the Google/ FTC letter. However, only two of the fourteen (Colorado, Oregon) are participating in the TMUS/S litigation. The promise of a rural solution outweighs the benefits of a fourth carrier in metropolitan and suburban areas.
The Facebook investigation is also widely bipartisan with five Democrats and four Republican states represented. Florida is involved in the Facebook investigation but none of the other two legal activities. In addition, there are nine states (including New Jersey, a Democrat stronghold) that are not currently participating in any legal activity.
Bottom Line: Concerns about Google’s anti-competitive practices are supported by a large number of state Attorneys General and are very bipartisan. A subsegment of Democrat AGs (and TX) is also a part of the T-Mobile/ Sprint lawsuit. And an even smaller subsegment plus Florida is a part of the recently announced Facebook investigation.
Next week, we will highlight some wireline trends and talk about overall profitability across the telecommunications sector. Until then, if you have friends who would like to be on the email distribution, please have them send an email to email@example.com and we will include them on the list.
Have a terrific week… and GO CHIEFS!
The following articles provide a good overview of the Apple Card and the possible role it could play in the disintermediation of traditional wireless carrier phone payments. Please note: This is an emerging trend and not a “done deal” and it’s likely that this thread will be updated several times in the next few months. Look for more when Apple launches their next generation of iPhones, likely in September:
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) report on the state of the consumer credit market is discussed in this week’s TSB. Very useful information, although it’s a bit dated (2016). Link to full report is in the article and also here.
- Link to the actual announcement of the Apple Card last March is here. Apple Pay/ Apple Card discussion starts at 23:59.
- CNBC article from August 9 describing the fact that Apple was offering the Apple Card to as many current Apple users as possible. Goldman Sachs is applying many learnings from their Marcus (consumer banking) product to make the Apple Card as broad as possible.
- Ken Segall’s blog post “The Ghost of Apple Card Past” that is referenced in TSB is here.
- Bloomberg article that explores Apple Card’s Terms and Conditions and reports that Apple may have additional financing options in mind with this product.
- Wall Street Journal review of the Apple Card (detailed and thorough). A subscription may be required.
- To get an idea of where Apple Card could go, have a look at the current My Best Buy financing options. Remember – Best Buy is not a manufacturer – Apple should be able to provide even better offers.
- Mastercard CEO Craig Vosburg CNBC interview on the Apple/ Goldman Sachs/ Mastercard relationship is here.
- CNBC article quoting yours truly as well as Craig Moffett on the impact the card could have on the carrier community is here.
Tax Day greetings from Washington DC (where I chaired a terrific discussion at INCOMPAS), Chicago, Charlotte, and Dallas. Thanks to everyone who showed up at the panel and participated – all of the speakers on Monday were great, including Chairman Tom Wheeler (pictured).
This week, we continue to chronicle the developments of the Set Top Box saga as the Obama administration weighed in through the NTIA with comments. We’ll also weigh in on the controversial “Ghettogate” ad. First, however, we’ll look at a study of balance sheets across the telecom industry which was released last week by Craig Moffett.
Redefining Leverage Ratios
With continued densification (smaller cell sites in more places), spectrum acquisition, and competition, many investors turn to leverage ratios to benchmark long-term financial health and viability. These ratios are not the first thing that companies highlight in their press releases, but many calculate and discuss their net debt to EBITDA metric. Here’s that definition according to Investopedia:
The net debt to EBITDA ratio is a measurement of leverage, calculated as a company’s interest-bearing liabilities minus cash or cash equivalents, divided by its EBITDA. The net debt to EBITDA ratio is a debt ratio that shows how many years it would take for a company to pay back its debt if net debt and EBITDA are held constant. If a company has more cash than debt, the ratio can be negative.
Using that standard definition, communications company metrics would look like this:
From a first glance, this looks as expected to most who follow the telecom industry. Verizon and AT&T maintain low leverage ratios and as a result are afforded low interest rates. Cablevision, Dish, Sprint, and Charter have historically been able to use high-yield debt markets to finance operations, spectrum purchases, stock buybacks, and other investments. T-Mobile and Time Warner Cable lie somewhere in between.
Telecom is not a typical industry, however. With Equipment Installment Plans (which entails moving away from subsidy and into subscriber-paid devices) and phone leasing proliferating, more “debt” is being created and sold to third parties at growing rates. Operating leases create pressure on EBITDA but also frequently mean long and non-cancelable commitments for telecommunications carriers. And pension obligations represent a promise to employees that rarely enters into leverage discussion dialogue.
MoffettNathanson’s adjusted leverage ratio schedule is shown to the right. In this view, the relative health of each carrier is different than what was previously reported. Verizon and AT&T look more like Cablevision and Charter thanks to large pension liabilities, even when the undiscounted size of the pension contribution tax credit is considered. Comcast appears to be the healthiest of the industry with Time Warner a distant second. Sprint’s revised ratio is a whopping 7.9x driven in large part by the reversing of the leasing construct. While it should be emphasized that nothing is truly “real” in the accounting world, this analysis provides some insights into the high-yield market’s reluctance to lend the company money at reasonable rates.
Craig Moffett did a Bloomberg interview on the topic (see here) and his detailed analysis is only available to MoffettNathanson clients. However, if you can get a copy of their work, it’s worth digesting and is on par with the seminal analysis on telecom affordability Craig did in his Bernstein days.
President Obama and the Set Top Box Kerfuffle
Since our article analyzing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was written (see here), there has been a lot of discussion across many constituencies as to who would benefit and suffer the most. In the Sunday Brief devoted to the topic, we mentioned how this is pitting entrepreneurs against established programmers. It’s also pitting Democrat Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (California), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology against Democrat Senator Bill Nelson (Florida), the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee. Representative Eshoo is a supporter of the FCC’s initiative while Senator Nelson wants to study the implications of opening up the Set Top Box market in greater detail (Nelson is supported by the National Urban League, the National Action Network, and the Rainbow/ PUSH Coalition).
To make matters more complex for policymakers, President Obama decided to weigh in on Friday, devoting his weekly radio address to the set top box issue. Here’s the situation assessment according to the White House (full blog address here):
… the set-top box is the mascot for a new initiative we’re launching today. That box is a stand-in for what happens when you don’t have the choice to go elsewhere—for all the parts of our economy where competition could do more.
Across our economy, too many consumers are dealing with inferior or overpriced products, too many workers aren’t getting the wage increases they deserve, too many entrepreneurs and small businesses are getting squeezed out unfairly by their bigger competitors, and overall we are not seeing the level of innovative growth we would like to see. And a big piece of why that happens is anti-competitive behavior—companies stacking the deck against their competitors and their workers. We’ve got to fix that, by doing everything we can to make sure that consumers, middle-class and working families, and entrepreneurs are getting a fair deal.
If that weren’t enough, the President’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) filed supportive comments with the FCC (read more about them here). For those of you who are new to the process, the NTIA is managed under the Department of Commerce and the administrator of the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), one of the biggest boondoggles of the past decade (see New York Times article on BTOP titled “Waste is Seen in Program to Give Internet Access to Rural U.S.” here).
As we saw with the President’s actions on Net Neutrality (his YouTube message following the 2014 election is here), this administration is not afraid to use the power of the bully pulpit to influence the FCC. Without rehashing the previous article, and to continue in the spirit of problem-solving, here’s a few questions I would suggest the FCC carefully consider:
- Will the ruling require Google to open up the Google TV Box? In other words, could the Xbox connect to a Google Fiber coax cable and allow customers to launch a Bing or Cortana query to pull up the latest in Google TV programming? If not, why not? (Note: while it is substantially less, Google TV charges a $5/ mo. lease for every TV after the first box).
- Will the new Electronic Programming Guide (EPG) providers be required to show consumers what information they are collecting on customers? How will consumers access this information as well as any other sources that are being used to drive channel selection. For example, if I am shown the Kansas City Royals game as my first option and I have a Google EPG, will Google be required to show me that they recommended this because I have the MLB At Bat application on my Google Android phone?
- Can each customer of the new EPG service opt out of data collection? Will this selection process be easy for customers to access and install? See the previous Sunday Brief here for more detail.
- With the replacement of a relatively simple, channel-driven search process (using up and down arrow keys on a specially designed remote control) with a more sophisticated algorithm-driven process as the likely decision, how can the Commission state that the process will not alter advertising rates (see Wired article here)? Won’t customers bid (and Google profit) from paying for higher page rankings on EPG search results? If so, then what will prevent Black Entertainment Television (BET) from outbidding their apparent competition? As Roza Mendoza, the Executive Director of the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership stated in the aforementioned Wired article “They’re asking us to trust Google? All of us know about their diversity record. The only people that are going to benefit from this are Silicon Valley companies.”
Let’s keep the recommendation very simple:
- Require all Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPD) to provide the same set top box on-line and through distribution channels such as WalMart, just as they do with cable modems (see Time Warner Cable disclosure above).
- Require all MVPDs publish a list of boxes that they support (according to the Tivo Bolt FAQ page, all of their devices are compatible with every major cable provider in the US as well as FiOS. Chairman Wheeler carefully omits Tivo’s competitive offer in this Washington Post interview when he says “Today there is no competition in set-top boxes, and therefore the incentive to innovate and come up with all kinds of new alternatives is somewhat limited”).
- If the set-top box order is enacted, require opt-in consent and on-demand publication of how search results are being determined. Allow opt-out capabilities at any time and for any reason with no corresponding financial penalty (including termination penalties on the equipment).
- If the set-top box order is enacted, allow cable companies five years to comply with the decision.
No one can defend the current state of the Electronic Programming Guide (with the exception of the Xfinity X1/X2 and the Tivo Bolt). But to state that there is no set-top box competition when Tivo clearly positions itself as an alternative for digital cable providers is deceptive. And to fail to acknowledge that Google will financially benefit from search result rankings, and that entrepreneurs will have to pay up to achieve a top page ranking, is equally deceptive. The transition of value from cable companies to Google, Apple and Microsoft is apparent to anyone who digs deeper, and should receive the same bright spotlight that communications service providers have received throughout the entire Open Internet process.
Sprint’s Controversial (?) Ad
More than a few heads turned when Sprint released (and subsequently retracted) the following ad:
Lead statement: Real questions. Honest answers. Actual Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T customers. No actors.
Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure, talking to focus group but specifically addressing woman sitting to his right: “I’m going to tell you the carrier name, and I want you to basically tell me what comes to your mind. T-Mobile. When I say T-Mobile to you, just a couple of words.”
Woman sitting to Claure’s right: “Oh my God, the first word that came into my head was ghetto (laughter, Claure nods and smiles in approval). That sounds like terrible. Oh my God, I don’t know. Like, I just felt like that there’s always like three carriers. It’s AT&T, Sprint and Verizon. And people who have T-Mobile, it’s like “Why do you have T-Mobile?” I don’t know.
Claure taps her shoulder in approval. Sprint logo appears. End of ad.
For those of you who are struggling with the definition of ghetto, here’s the version from dictionary.com: a section of a city, especially a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships.
Sprint had the sense to pull the ad, and Claure apologized, but his Twitter posts triggered intense reaction from many of Claure’s followers. Interestingly, John Legere, T-Mobile’s CEO, declined to comment other than the exchange nearby.
This is probably an innocent mistake, a miss due to personnel changes occurring within Sprint’s marketing department. Or perhaps Claure did not understand the racial undertones of the word ghetto. Regardless, it provided some unneeded attention this week for the struggling carrier, and Sprint (and Boost) customers can rest assured that it will not occur again.
Thanks for your readership and continued support of this column. Next week, we’ll dive into Verizon’s earnings as well as the Open Internet Order ruling if it is released. Until then, please invite one of your colleagues to become a regular Sunday Brief reader by having them drop a quick note to firstname.lastname@example.org. We’ll subscribe them as soon as we can (and they can go to www.mysundaybrief.com for the full archive). Thanks again for your readership, and Go Royals and Sporting KC!
April greetings from Louisville (pictured is the view of the Muhammed Ali Center and the Ohio River from my room at the Galt House Hotel) and Dallas. This week, we begin the earnings watch list with some questions for AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile.
Before diving into the questions, I wanted to let you know that Roger Entner, Jan Dawson, and I will be hosting a conference call a few days after the Appeals Court Open Internet Ruling comes out. Please check my LinkedIn feed or check www.mysundaybrief.com for the details. If the ruling comes out next Friday, I’ll provide the details on the conference call on Monday.
Also, for those of you who will be at the INCOMPAS (f.k.a. COMPTEL) show this week, I’ll be leading a panel discussion Monday morning on trends in wireless with representatives from Microsoft, T-Mobile, and Lumos networks. Please join if you are at the show and ask a probing question or two.
Four (or more) Earnings Questions We’d Like to Ask
- At what point should AT&T be viewed as a global communications network provider and not as a traditional wireless service company? It was reported by Telecompaper this week that AT&T will post net additions of ~1 million in Mexico. For those of you who are familiar with this market, that equates to about 350-400K US post-paid wireless net additions from a revenue perspective, and likely less from an EBITDA view. All of this has happened without really turning up most of Mexico City on the new platform. How should investors look at AT&T Mexico?
As of the end of last year, AT&T Mexico had 8.7 million wireless subscribers, while Telefonica and Telcel (America Movil) had 23.4 and 73 million wireless subscribers. That equates to just over 8% market share for a brand that’s worth at least 15% market share just for showing up. Adding a million customers in a quarter is newsworthy, but, considering the capital investment AT&T is making ($3 billion) as well as the brand, it’s not an unexpected number.
While AT&T has not disclosed a long-term target number, it’s hard to imagine that 20% market share by the end of 2020 is a moonshot given their fiber and LTE funding levels. Assuming the market in 2020 is at least 120 million subscribers (~2.7% wireless subscriber annualized growth rate), that would equate to 32 million subscribers by the end of 2020 or roughly a $10 billion unit (it entered 2016 at a $2.5 billion annualized revenue run rate). Said another way, AT&T has completed 1.6 million net adds or 7% of their (minimum) 23 million net addition five-year goal.
With $7.5 billion in growth over the next five years in Mexico alone, AT&T deserves a global communications provider designation. The follow up question is “What’s the halo effect of the Mexico investment on US (likely Cricket) wireless growth?” We commented a few weeks ago that Cricket is poised to have a very strong quarter (~400K net additions which will be their fourth consecutive quarter at this level), and, while a lot of this is attributed to solid execution, some of their growth has to be tied to a stronger Mexican operation. Note: the Sunday Brief post mentioned above focused on the possibility of bundling Cricket with DirecTV. There’s a growing sentiment that more Mexico success will spill over into retail prepaid net additions.
Bottom line: AT&T’s broad and global strategy needs a corresponding scorecard if they are to receive the credit due for their execution in the financial markets. If they fail to steer the conversation, they will fall into the same retail postpaid wireless comparisons that will mask the full extent of their efforts. Communicating the full impact of Mexico is a good starting point.
- Can Verizon become a content and applications company? There was lots of speculation this week that Verizon is going to proceed with a bid for Yahoo (see Bloomberg article here). As was the case with the AOL acquisition, Yahoo brings with it some ad platform assets (enhanced through 2014’s acquisition of Brightroll) and also a legacy brand associated with web portals, news, and email. There is no doubt that Yahoo’s acquisition would bolster Verizon’s content/ media position.
To answer the question above, let’s look at the performance of AOL since Verizon acquired the company:
- Verizon has kept key talent, including CEO Tim Armstrong, through the past year (the one-year anniversary of the closing is late June, and we might see some activity then, but the transition has been smooth). This is a good sign for integration with Yahoo assets.
AOL/ Verizon’s first acquisition, Millennial Media (closed October 2015), has gone extremely well. Recently, AOL promoted Mark Connon, a top Millennial exec, into a key role in the company. Given Millennial Media’s previous operating relationship with Verizon, it’s not a real surprise that the integration went smoothly, but it provides evidence that integrating most Yahoo ad platform operations should not be a challenge.
- Both aol.com and Verizonwireless.com websites have been performing better since the acquisition (see Alexa measurement results for Verizon wireless and aol.com nearby). In comparison, AT&T has had a slight rise over the same period (and is US ranked #70), T-Mobile’s ranking is #200, and Sprint’s is #302.
The old thesis that “Verizon will screw it up” just isn’t holding up. Go90 is doing well (top 5 in the Entertainment category in both the iTunes and Google Play stores and Top 100 in free apps overall), and signing up new content (see latest signings here).
Verizon’s potential acquisition of Yahoo would add $8 billion to the bet (using the figures from the Bloomberg article). That would bring the total media investment to $13 billion and make Verizon one of the top online/ app content producers in the world. It’s a long way from DSL, Private Lines, collocation and wireless voice, but there’s a growing body of evidence that they could pull it off.
- Can Sprint use their current network collateral and lease financing vehicles to transform the company? This week, Sprint announced that they will be selling network equipment assets for $3 billion and receiving proceeds from these assets of $2.2 billion. This will provide immediate liquidity to pay down debt maturities of approximately $4 billion due in the next 12 months. With this transaction, Sprint has emerged as the pioneer with customer handset leases and company equipment leases.
We have shown this chart from Morningstar several times (link is here), but it is worth providing one more time:
Sprint has approximately $34 billion in debt with $5.3 billion due in the next 18 months. They have been cutting costs with vigor and constantly looking for ways to improve their network performance (we reported in a previous column that cost cutting will likely take precedent over growth in the first quarter results and result in negative postpaid phone additions). A sale leaseback of network assets solves the December maturity but March is a different story.
Bottom line: If the repayment of the December note restores bond market confidence, Sprint’s leasing transaction could trigger a refinancing of some of the March 2017 maturities. However, if Sprint has to collateralize additional assets, including spectrum, the cash committed to repaying bankruptcy remote lenders could exceed the projected discounted cash flows of the company. More to come with their April earnings announcement.
- Will T-Mobile preannounce first quarter operating results this week? In 2015, T-Mobile waited until the actual news release to disclose earnings (they were terrific – see here). Right now T-Mobile is in the middle of the 600 MHz auction and has not scheduled any events prior to May that would serve as a pre-announcement venue. Most analysts expect that they will have a strong quarter driven by increased advertising (albeit they are competing with more political ads as a result of a competitive primary season) and lower churn (Binge On has been a “churn stopper” according to the company).
The biggest questions raised by many of you are “Does Binge On help or hurt growth?” and “What are the long-term effects of Binge On?” We’ll devote an entire Sunday Brief to the overall network pressure that their latest program brings, but the long and short of it is that Binge On helped the network in 2015 and will further help the network in 2016, and will hurt network performance in 2017 and beyond (when T-Mobile has network densification completed and more 600 MHz spectrum to deploy). Overall, Binge On will put to rest the argument that consumers would gladly trade off paying more for higher resolution. In fact, the results will likely show the exact opposite.
To support the “it has not hurt network performance so far” let’s examine the RootScore results since the beginning of the year. As of last Friday (April 8), RootMetrics released 59 market results (out of 125 they review semi-annually). Of these 59 that have been released, T-Mobile has won (including ties) 13 markets and finished second (including ties) 15 times. Of these 28 first or second place finishes, they have beaten AT&T 10 times and tied with them 15 times (the other 3 times AT&T finished first and T-Mobile finished second). These figures represent a big improvement over 2013 and 2014 and continue their LTE expansion and densification started in 2015.
There are no signs of a weakening network from these recent reports. In fact, it’s very likely that T-Mobile’s quality metrics are improving because of the immediate network benefit Binge On provided. SD quality is OK for consumers while they are out and about, but at home or in the office, WiFi speeds take over.
Bottom line: While the long-term prospects of zero-rated data are uncertain, the short-term benefits are clear – Binge On will be shown to attract and (more importantly) retain customers. We will know more when earnings are (pre)announced.
Thanks for your readership and continued support of this column. Next week, we’ll dive into the implications of the Appeals Court ruling on the Open Internet Order (due out this week). Until then, please invite one of your colleagues to become a regular Sunday Brief reader by having them drop a quick note to email@example.com. We’ll subscribe them as soon as we can (and they can go to www.mysundaybrief.com for the full archive). Thanks again for your readership, and Go Royals and Sporting KC!