Verizon 150 meters 230Jessica and Craig Moffett, top Wall Street analysts, tested 40,000 locations in Verizon's Sacramento mmWave footprint against the Verizon availability. Unless there is a major improvement in reach, the cost would be much too high, (Update: Let me emphasize. The data implies a problem now, It can and will get better. Please don't conclude there will never be a solution.)

Verizon's current deployment in Sacramento is being built to an assumption of 100-150 meters, not the 600 meters Verizon has discussed often.

 "Based on an exhaustive census of serviceability of 107 of the 273 small cells in Sacramento, each served an area of 27 eligible addresses." That will improve but there is a huge gap between these results and what Verizon needs to reach the target cost of US$200-350.

Verizon never released comprehensive data but they convinced many of the best on Wall Street (and me) the reach is much better. 

All opinions and mistakes mine. I made a serious mistake believing Verizon without enough data. Comments to investors usually are true to the speaker's beliefs.

“Across the board, Ultra-Wide Band 5G's performance is beating expectations and disproving the naysayers.” – CEO Lowell McAdam

“We have successfully completed our 11 city 5G pre-commercial trials where we demonstrated propagation over 2,000 feet from the node on mmWave spectrum,” said Verizon CFO Matt Ellis. (emphasis added.)

"Every variable tested during the trials came out better than assumed." Goldman Sachs

“We're charging ahead. … I have never seen a technology that is as disruptive and has as much benefit to consumers as 5G.” – Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam

I did warn

Doubts about proponents’ claims
• Verizon has not released enough data to allow a careful, independent review of the performance. Carriers should confirm the results through their own trials.

Which is insufficient.

The Moffetts also note, "Some 80%+ of all residential addresses within 100 feet of a small cell are deemed by Verizon to be eligible for 5G Home service. That drops to just 49% of residential addresses between 300 and 400 feet away, and to just 18% of residential addresses that are between 400 and 500 feet away." 

The take rate is very low, but there has been little marketing.

 (There's much more in the report. If you are a substantial investor, you should do what is necessary to obtain a copy.

Verizon 150 meters 650

dave askOn Oct 1, Verizon turned on the first $20B 5G mmWave network with extraordinary hopes. The actual results the first four months have been dismal. Good engineers tell me that will change. Meanwhile, the hype is unreal. Time for reporting closer to the truth.

The estimates you hear about 5G costs are wildly exaggerated. Verizon is building the most advanced wireless network while reducing capex. Deutsche Telekom and Orange/France Telecom also confirm they won't raise capex.

Massive MIMO in either 4G or "5G" can increase capacity 4X to 7X, including putting 2.3 GHz to 4.2 GHz to use. Carrier Aggregation, 256 QAM, and other tools double and triple that. Verizon sees cost/bit dropping 40% per year.

Cisco & others see traffic growth slowing to 30%/year or less.  I infer overcapacity almost everywhere.  

Believe it or not, 80% of 5G (mid-band) for several years will be slower than good 4G, which is more developed.

-------------------

5G Why Verizon thinks differently and what to do about it is a new report I wrote for STL Partners and their clients.

STL Partners, a British consulting outfit I respect, commissioned me to ask why. That report is now out. If you're a client, download it here. If not, and corporate priced research is interesting to you, ask me to introduce you to one of the principals.

It was fascinating work because the answers aren't obvious. Lowell McAdam's company is spending $20B to cover 30M+ homes in the first stage. The progress in low & mid-band, both "4G" and "5G," has been remarkable. In most territories, millimetre wave will not be necessary to meet expected demand.