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 askOn Oct 1, Verizon turned on the first $20B 5G mmWave network. It will soon offer a gigabit or close to 30M homes. Thousands of sites are live in Korea; AT&T is going live with mobile, even lacking phones. 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, 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.