Mike's one of the best, so his points are worth considering even though I see things differently. Mike writes:

"The actual details of Verizon’s service are decidedly mundane. 

1. Verizon is still going to have to do a truck roll.

2. Verizon isn’t providing 1 Gbps speeds.

3. Verizon is going to trash all this equipment next year anyway.

The truck roll  issue:

In some of its early discussions about its fixed 5G plans, Verizon executives hinted that the company was working on technology that would allow customers to install their own 5G 28 GHz receivers"

Mike is right that the "white glove" service Verizon is providing at the beginning will be expensive. But I don't see any reason they won't find a more efficient method as volume builds next year, Hans Vestberg suggested that a day later at Goldman.

300 megabits versus a true gigabit

At the beginning of this year, Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam clearly said that “we’re very comfortable with being able to deliver a Gigabit of service to everyone that we’re providing service to.”

I was also surprised that Verizon is talking 300 megabits rather than the gigabit they will be delivering to many. Vestberg at Goldman noted that in rural areas, most customers will be served with lower speeds. No one receiving a gigabit is likely to complain about Verizon over-delivering. 

The pre-standard equipment

This is the big one, in my mind. In its announcement, Verizon specifically said that customers who sign up for its fixed 5G service now are going to have to scrap all their equipment at some point in the future when Verizon’s suppliers begin producing 3GPP 5G NR gear.

My take again differs, Samsung and Ericsson are committed to upgrading the radios with software. The backhaul, antennas, and most other elements will continue to work. Even if Verizon had to mail out a new gateway, that's a small cost in a $29 billion project.

dave askAugust 2018 Verizon's $20B 5G build is starting to add customers in 2018. Gigabit LTE & Massive MIMO became real in 2017 and enow expanding worldwide. Almost all the other "5G" is mid-band, 70%-90% slower + hype. Europe is mostly pr. The term 5G has been bastardized, unfortunately.

Being a reporter is a great job for a geek. I'm not an engineer but I've learned from some of the best, including the primary inventors of DSL, cable modems, MIMO, Massive MIMO, and now 5G mmWave. Since 1999, I've done my best to get closer to the truth about broadband.

Send questions and news to Dave Burstein, Editor. I always want to hear from you, especially if you catch a mistake.

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

 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, millimeter wave will not be necessary to meet expected demand.

McAdam sees a little further. mmWave has 3-4X the capacity of low and mid-band. He sees an enormous marketing advantage: unlimited services, even less congestion, reputation as the best network. Verizon testing found mmWave rate/reach was twice what had been estimated. All prior cost estimates need revision.

My take: even if mmWave doesn't fit in your current budget, telcos should expand trials and training to be ready as things change. The new cost estimates may be low enough to change your mind.