Verizon’s consumer chief: Net neutrality ‘went literally nowhere’
Today, I’m talking with Verizon consumer CEO Sowmyanarayan Sampath, who goes by “Sampath.” As CEO of Verizon’s consumer division, Sampath oversees the biggest part of the business: Verizon Wireless, which has more than 115 million wireless connections, and Fios, which adds another 10 million or so consumer broadband connections to the mix. That’s something like a solid third of the entire country in business with Sampath.
As you’ll hear, Sampath is a longtime Verge reader, and in particular he’s been paying attention to my coverage of both 5G and the net neutrality debates for a long time. So we talked very directly about whether the huge 5G investment had actually paid off — whether the “race” we were supposedly in with China was actually worth it, and what kinds of new apps and services actually come to light. You’ll hear Sampath say that network capacity isn’t a small thing, and 5G really helped with the explosion of mobile data — although I was told we’d all be doing robot surgery in driverless cars by now.
The mechanics of all that buildout are fascinating to me, regardless of the hype. Building network infrastructure takes years — everything from figuring out what spectrum to bid on to making deals for towers and running fiber to them is a huge process, and I wanted to ask Sampath how he balances all those very long-term, very tactical decisions against the decisions we all see and feel in very obvious ways, like consumer pricing. Sampath had one of the very clearest answers to the classic Decoder question about decision making here — like I said, you can tell he was very ready to be on this show.
Listen to Decoder, a show hosted by The Verge’s Nilay Patel about big ideas — and other problems. Subscribe here!
Sampath and I also spent a while talking about the push and pull of integrating content and applications directly into the network. That’s something that all the big wireless carriers flirted with in various ways, especially in and around the peak net neutrality debate. In 2018, AT&T bought HBO and CNN parent Time Warner, right after Verizon bought Yahoo and started something called go90. For one brief extremely weird moment there, Verizon even owned Tumblr.
The goal of all these media plays was to differentiate the various networks from each other, and it basically didn’t work for anyone — even though Verizon in particular fought the various net neutrality regulations that would have prevented this sideshow in the first place. Sampath and I got pretty far into the weeds on that. You’ll hear him say he thinks no one cares about net neutrality, and, well — I disagreed with him.
And while Verizon has always fought tooth and nail against the sort of “normal” regulations like net neutrality, the second Trump administration isn’t nearly as hands-off when it comes to things like holding up deals because of DEI policies — something that’s happening to Verizon right now. So I had to ask Sampath if he was going to push back on that kind of clear government overreach as hard as Verizon has pushed back in the past.
This one is all kinds of wonky, because it’s two telecom nerds going at it, so some notes before we start. You’re going to hear me talk about local loop unbundling, which is when multiple internet providers can use the same fiber to reach consumers. We don’t really have it in the United States — there are not four different ISPs all competing to reach your house on the same mile of cable or fiber — but many other countries do, as a way to increase broadband competition.
The other thing you’ll hear us get into is something called OpenRAN. That’s an initiative the US government committed some money to last year that’s supposed to open up competition in the broadband hardware space and get US providers off of Huawei components. It’s a little complicated, but it’s a big bet in the mobile industry, and I wanted to hear Sampath’s take on it.
Okay: Verizon Consumer CEO Sowmyanarayan Sampath. Here we go.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Sowmyanarayan Sampath, you’re the CEO of Verizon Consumer Group. Welcome to Decoder.
Good to see you, Nilay.
I am very excited to talk to you. It’s a topsy-turvy time in America, but telco stocks are doing great. Everyone needs internet service, and there’s a really interesting dynamic there that I want to explore with you.
But first, we don’t get a lot of telecom CEOs on the show. It’s hard to understand how telecom companies are structured. I want to start with the Decoder question because all of these companies have been built by mergers, spinoffs, sales, and recombinations. You were the CEO of Verizon’s business unit. Now you’re the CEO of the consumer group. Explain how all of this is structured and what the Verizon consumer actually is.
The way we think about it is, we are customer-facing. We have a Verizon Business group, which takes care of all businesses — small businesses, government, large enterprises, anything from Walmart down to Joe’s Pizza. We take care of that.
Then everyone else is a consumer. It’s you and me in our private lives. The wireless service, the fiber service, the broadband to the home — all that’s in consumer. The consumer business is a little north of $105 billion in revenue. I’m responsible for sales, marketing, product offering, customer care, and digital. It’s an end-to-end unit getting things done. Most telcos, at least Verizon, have a common network that serves all of us. We call it the Intelligent Edge Network. It’s a single network that serves different types of underlying networks and businesses, so we don’t multiply costs in it. That’s it. It’s a pretty simple structure. Go to market for business, go to market for consumer, and a common network that is a shared service that serves all of us.
I’ve spent a lot of time covering telecom companies, and in particular, wireless and mobile companies. One thing that always feels opaque to me is the differentiation that you can do to a business or a customer based on the network. This was a big fight in the net neutrality days, that you’d want to differentiate the actual network for different customers in different ways, and that has waned.
When you say you go to market for the customer, are you in charge of things like pricing and promotion, or do you actually get to say, “Here’s what the network can and cannot do?”
Here’s what the network can and cannot do. It’s the whole end-to-end offering, including the product. The way we think about it is that a product is a network. Look, there will always be a good operator and a non-good operator. It’s historically always been the same. For a country as large as America, you’ll always… Look at the end of the day, we and my peers use the same steel to make the towers. We use common tower companies to take care of our tower business. We use pretty similar vendors. We use Ericsson and Samsung. Some may use Nokia. There’s a commonality there. But the secret sauce is in the operations. When you’re running a network this big, how do you take care of outages? How do you plan for it? And even small things like how you design your tower or the specs you put on your tower?
For example, almost all our sites have generator backup. Whenever a hurricane falls or there’s a natural disaster, our sites are up and running because we have backups on our sites. Second, we like resiliency on our sites. There will always be a better operator and not a good operator. We know it. We’ve got 25 years of experience or 30 years, depending on how you count it in the space. There will always be a gap. Now, is the gap narrowing between us and the second network? Probably yes. But there’ll always be a gap, and that’s why people always choose us for the network. If you go and ask people who’s the better network, they’ll always end up saying Verizon. We have to stay on top of it by using more AI in our operations. Self-healing networks. Spectrum is another thing. We have to keep buying a lot of spectrum to put it… There is always a case for a better operator and a better network.
I think that’s the heart of my question. Verizon, as a company, in a very reductive way, has to go to the government, lease a bunch of spectrum capacity, and go to a bunch of tower operators. I always think it’s funny that the biggest one is called TowerCo. It’s just a very literal name that no one except you has to consider. You have to go to a bunch of tower companies and site operators, give them the spectrum so they can operate the towers, and lease the capacity back from them to run your network.
Your competitors might be on the same infrastructure or the same sites in many cases because it’s so hard to build a cell tower in many places. Then, somehow, at the end of that, the consumer perceives Verizon’s network as the best one. That is as much a function of consumer marketing and experience… When I moved to New York in the early 2010s, everybody had a Blackberry and Verizon, and that impression has stuck with me for all this time.
Maybe that’s still the case that Verizon is the best, but what happened was I moved to New York in the 2010s, and Cingular had the best network in Chicago at that time (where I moved from). Then Verizon was the best on the East Coast. I spend a lot of time thinking, “Where does that impression actually come from?” Because no customer holds two phones in their hands and says, “This one has better service.”
There are two ways. One is, is it a better network, and then the other is, how do people perceive it? We talk about national networks. We are the largest network because more customers are on us, but the end of the network is a very local thing. The vast majority of our customers, I would say 60 or 70 percent of our customers, never go outside a five-cell cell site travel zone for the year. Think about it, you may have a great network in Alaska, but 70 percent of your customers are not traveling within five or six-cell sites outside their home or their workplace. It’s a very local conversation about how good you are.
Of course, there are some people who travel a lot. People like me who are on the road 150 days per year. It’s a different equation. But for most people, how good is the network at home? How good is the network at work? How good is the network during their commute? And that’s what makes the experience. You cannot have national standards to do these things. A lot of it is a local game. Getting access to sites locally. Getting access to better network technology at the local level. Having people who know the network topology at the local level. It’s a very local game, this network thing. And that’s why you see Verizon tends to do well when local networks come into play.
How much impact do you have on the capital expenditure of building the network itself? You have a number of customers, and the business side has a number of customers. Do you jointly show up in front of the core network team and say, “You need to build more capacity in Connecticut”?
The consumer group has 85 to 90 percent of all the usage on the network. Maybe it’s a slightly stilted conversation there, but the way it works is… Network is a little bit like scotch. It takes a long time to really become good. Decisions we make today on the network tend to show up three, four, five, or seven years later down the line because there’s a huge lead time to it. You’ve got to procure the fiber, backhaul the sites, and the spectrum to do that. The way we start is by asking, “What is the network I need to deliver my customer’s needs?” And it’s at a local level. In Philadelphia, by markets, what do I know? How much share do I have? What am I going to grow? Then we take that back to the network team and say, “Based on what assets you have, what’s available? Can you deliver this?”
And 9 out of 10 times, they can deliver it. The one out of 10 times they can’t, then we move our marketing plans… If they don’t have capacity, they’re not going to get capacity in this market in the next few years. The second thing is having objective metrics of network performance. For a common person, if a call drops or a network data session goes down, it’s bad. But we track it a million different ways by design. Having that common nomenclature… Back in the day, it was dropped calls. Thinking, “How many drop calls did you have?” We used to measure every single one of them, and then if a drop call happened, we used to go and do root cause analysis. Now it’s data sessions. How many data sessions do you have? When did it drop? What were the speeds? How did the signal flow?
Having really good instrumentation at the local level is really important. We’ve created basically a digital twin for every single customer. Every customer has a digital twin in the network where we measure the network 24/7, and we give them a score. Nilay had a score, it’s out of 10. You can say Nilay had a 9.7 score this morning on his commute from A to B. It’s a good score. If he had a score of five, we would go and understand why the score of five happened. Every single customer is monitored 24/7, from a network performance perspective, and then we track them through the system.
When you look at that kind of data at scale, you obviously have lots of customers who, I’m guessing, have lots of different scores across the board. Where’s the median? Where do you want people to be?
You want people to be in the eights and nines for the vast part of their lives. Now, one of the things with the network is… A bigger issue we have to face, as an industry, is that when things work well, nobody thinks of us. When things don’t… It’s a little bit like parenting sometimes. When the kids are happy, they don’t think of us. Then, when they’re less than happy, they think of us. It’s a little bit like that, because 90-something percent of the time, the network works flawlessly. Whether we’re discussing the fiber in the home or the wireless network. And we are largely forgotten, which is good. But when it doesn’t work, all the emotions come out in front. We are trying to solve for that one percent where the network doesn’t work, or we’ve disappointed the customer. Most of our work is isolating where it doesn’t work. Because where it works, we know it, and we just have to let the machine run its course.
We’ve talked a lot about the mobile network. You also have oversight of Fios, right? The fiber buildout. Verizon has been up and down with Fios over the 15 years that I have covered this company. There are huge investments, huge government-backed investments, disinvestment, and reinvestment. Where are you with Fios now?
We love fiber. Some of it is personal. Look, I built my career on fiber. In every role I’ve had at Verizon, we ended up building more fiber. Verizon was the first. In 2004, we created the Fios network. It was the first, probably in the world, to have fiber. We slowed down a bit in the middle; it was mostly a capital allocation issue for us. We always liked the business. We committed to it at an OPEX level, but we had to invest in 4G. We had to buy the spectrum to invest in 4G. Then we had to buy the spectrum for 5G. Some of the capital that we would’ve put into fiber then, we ended up moving to the wireless side of the business. Now that the 5G is towards the back end of its build, we are back in the fiber business.
We bought Frontier, and we are going to close before the year’s end, or maybe in the first quarter of 2026. That’ll give us another 10 million homes. Nilay, we’re going to have a path to get to 40 million homes of fiber. And fiber is so resilient. The churn is very low. The customer satisfaction is crazy high. Then, when you put the two together, mobile and home, the economics are fabulous. We are really committed to a converged strategy on fiber plus mobility, and that’s the business we are in. We are not distracted as a company. It’s very simple. People ask me, “What do you do?” I say, “I connect things, I connect people.” Full stop. There’s no other business we want to be in, and fiber is part of that story.
Well, I’m on a Fios connection now. So if this drops, it’s on you. Just letting you know.
Nilay, it ain’t dropping. I’m on a Fios connection too, and it ain’t dropping.
Describe the structure of Verizon broadly. You’ve laid it out in a big way, right? There’s the network, there’s business, and there’s consumer. How many people do you have in consumer, and how is that actually structured inside Verizon?
We work with partners, as well as… A lot of our call centers have partners. Some of our stores have partners. We have probably around 30,000-ish people in the consumer unit broadly. I probably end up managing, directly or indirectly, the 30,000 people between our call center partners and our agents to do the work that Verizon consumer is tasked with. The way we are structured internally in Consumer is that we have a gentleman, Frank Boulben, who runs revenue for us. He has all the product offerings. The go-to-market sits with him.
Then we have Kevin [Zavaglia], who runs our field. We are the sixth-largest retailer in America. We have 8,000 exclusive stores between our brands. Kevin runs all of that, plus our relationships on the distribution side. Then we have Nancy Clark, who runs our prepaid business. It’s a fully integrated business. We’ve turned around that business really well. We should touch on that at some point. She runs that. Monica Hammond runs all our customer service, customer care, and customer success organization. And Brian Higgins runs customer experience and digital. A very typical structure that we have. I think most telcos end up doing something quite similar to this.
Is there any innovation in that structure? We have a lot of startup founders come on the show that have big ideas about structure, and then maybe they land in one of two or three different ones. But then you see some companies show up and say, “Okay, there’s actually efficiency from rethinking the structure.” Telcos are big, regulated companies. Obviously, that shapes how you would run a company like Verizon. But do you see any efficiency there compared to your big competitors like AT&T or T-Mobile?
I was a management consultant. I was with a Boston Consulting Group for a very, very long time before this. We had a strong thesis on organization and structure. Then I became a day-to-day operator. I think as long as your structure is not crazy stupid, it works. It all comes down to people and taking friction out of the process. Because any structure will have a seam in it, otherwise the president of the country should be running every single thing on a single day-to-day basis. It doesn’t work. When you break it up into a company, break it up into divisions, you’ll have a seam everywhere. The question is, how do you manage the seam? Because every time you ship a product out, you ship your org structure. We know it. Okay? The question is, where are the seams, and how do you take the friction of those seams out?
For example, customer care and digital. One is the digital channel. One is a human being getting called. When you call up, does the lady in customer care know what you did in digital five minutes ago? There’s a seam in the organization. You have to go and manage those seams, not get too bent about who reports to whom and what structure it is. And I think people tend to change structures a lot, hoping they’re going to get magic out of it. But I think the magic is in friction, seam management, and never ever shipping your org structure on your product. Your product should not look like your org.
The other big Decoder question I ask everybody is about decisions. You have a lot of decisions to make. Everything from going to try to buy spectrum, to customer-facing decisions. How do you make decisions? What’s your framework?
I have a framework for decision-making. It’s a two-by-two matrix. Of course, any recovering consultant has to tell you that. On the X axis, it’s what I call a one-way decision or a two-way decision. One-way decisions for me are really big and very difficult to unwind. It’s things like buying other companies. Even some big leadership decisions, long-term pricing decisions, and big product categories that you want to be in. These are one-way decisions. The cost to unwind is very high, very painful, and will take a toll on the company and its finances. That’s one. Then I have what I call two-way decisions. It’s a promotion. It’s moving a few people around in the markets. It’s trying different things with retailers, trying different compensation things. These are two-way decisions. They can be reversed. Damage can be limited. You could make a bad decision, but you can limit the damage.
Then on the other axis, I have low dollars and high dollars. Low dollar, I have a certain threshold in my head. These are low-dollar decisions. And then you have high-dollar decisions. You never want to spend time with one-way, low-dollar decisions. They’re just bad. You should never even have one of those, but people spend time in companies on that. I work very hard not to make those decisions at all. Because if something is a one-way decision and big enough, it had better have a high impact. If it’s low impact, you shouldn’t do it because there’s risk in it, and it’s not worth it. Anything that is a two-way decision, that is also low-dollar, you should delegate it. Someone else can make the decision, you’ll be fine. And you have to trust the governance model, that there are checks and balances, so nothing bad happens.
I try to spend 60 percent of my time on one-way decisions that are high-dollar value. Where to invest? What categories to do? Who are the big leadership positions I want to fill with talent? And I map every decision down to this framework, and I actively manage it. Just moving from a staff role into a large ops role, the best way to understand how a company runs is to follow the decision-making style. How do decisions get made? Who makes them? Who has the pocket vetoes? You can understand every single thing about a group you’ve inherited by just following decisions. Take five decisions, and track them end-to-end. That’s it. That’s all you need to know. You know about people. You know about pocket vetoes. You know who the naysayers are. You know who’s not ambitious, and you know about talent. For me, decision-making is a science and an art, and one that I practice really aggressively every time I can.
That was the best answer to the decision-making question we’ve ever gotten, but that’s the thesis of the show, right? Inside the question about structure and decision-making, I can tell you about 80 percent of your company. I know it from the jump, and then we can go on to the actual specifics.
But yours is an interesting answer because you’ve devalued the structure question, and you’ve raised the value of the decision question. Most folks do it the other way around. Why make the flip?
Because I think organization is a people construct. When people like each other, when they feel like their work is well taken care of and appreciated, and they’re in a well-supported framework, they’ll give it their best. I think people use structure sometimes to pit people against each other and give conflicting priorities to different people, thinking they’re going to get the best answer. I do not believe in that. I strongly believe… I have extra time sometimes. Rare, but I do have extra time. This afternoon from 4PM to 6PM, I don’t have anything on my calendar. I will go back and say, “Where can I take the friction out of the organization?” Because when my role is… The best use of my time is when I take the friction out. For example, there may be friction between two groups. I go sit down with them, “Tell me, why is there friction? Oh, we have an issue with priorities. Let’s go sort it out.”
The minute we take the friction out, people work well together. Organization gets devalued completely. Then it all comes back to decision-making. And second is… Organization is always a moment-in-time issue because priorities change, people change, and organizations change. You can’t use an org structure to drive performance in the field and priorities. I like decision-making as a more powerful tool to do that. And the second is, how much data is enough to make a decision? This is something, I think, a lot more material should be written about. I promise I will not write a book on this when I retire. People think there are some groups that think they need 100 percent of the data to make a decision. Some make it on a gut. I don’t think both are right or wrong, but we also need a good framework for that as well. Like, “When are you ready to pull the trigger on things?”
It’s difficult in big companies, but it’s also very difficult in startups, and I think it’s a very different construct. Because in my business, I know the market, I know the customer. I have 100 years’ worth of customer experience and customer elasticity models to work with. It’s a very different thing. When in startup mode, you’re creating a category. TAM doesn’t exist. You’re stretching PowerPoint to make your TAM real. You have to rely more on the gut to make those calls. When it comes to people decisions, you can put them through evaluation, but you have to make decisions based on gut [feelings]. But when we’re making a pricing promotion, or product-fit decisions in my world, I think it’s a little more data-driven. That is another area where I think I’ll become a better manager if I practice more of that.
Let’s put some of this into practice. Let’s just walk through an easy one here. Verizon just announced a three-year price lock for customers. This is right on top of the Trump tariffs. I always wonder how these decisions get made. A long, long time ago, I asked another network executive, “Why is this pricing like this?” And the answer — this is a real answer that I received from your other big competitor, but a decade ago — was, “Well, this is how the computer system works. To make it different, we would have to reprogram a bunch of billing systems, and that’s costly. This is how our pricing works.”
It was a very honest answer. It was also somewhat disillusioning, in the moment, that the pricing of the network plan was more related to the structure of the computer system that ran the billing than anything customers could perceive. I’m assuming it’s been a decade. I’m assuming everyone has upgraded their billing systems. But you announced this three-year price lock right on top of the tariffs. The marketing is that you want to give customers predictability. Lots of people have lots of feelings about wireless pricing. I have lots of feelings about wireless pricing. But that decision, you’re going to lock rates for three years, that touches your marketing, revenue, and forecasting. How do you make that kind of decision?
We are in the middle of a large turnaround in the consumer business. Verizon used to take the most share of the growth. We had the lowest churn in ‘21. In 2021 and ‘22, we lost our way a little bit. My chairman, Hans, spoke about it. We got sloppy. We know it. Since then, we have been back on the turnaround track to do that. It’s a three-step turnaround. Step one for me was to fix sales. Fix our stores, fix our compensation system. Become a local company. We came to national… Everything was decided in this building. It didn’t make sense for a company our size. Step two was to take care of a price premium.
We had a 40 percent price premium to the market on our plans. I think that is unsustainable for us. Look, we had a better network, we knew it, but 40 percent was too much for us. So we tweaked it. We are now down to 10 percent, 10 to 15 percent, depending on how we look at it. I think it is sustainable. We are growing our non-connectivity business really well. The third journey for me was to get my churn back in shape. Churn is the number of customers who end up leaving us every single month. It’s still very low. It’s like 0.7 or 0.8. So think about it. Nine percent of our customers leave us every year, which means our average customer stays with us for 11 years, which is crazy, by the way. And in Fios, that number is close to 20 or 30 years, depending on how you look at it.
It’s a loyal base, but you want churn to go down every single time because it’s expensive to acquire customers. We spend a lot of money upfront acquiring them. For me, it was how do you get churn in a much better place? We went and asked customers. For the last four quarters, we polled customers. Nilay, I’ll give you a great tool that we built with AI, where… It’s an internal tool we built. Every day, I get half a million calls coming into my customer care centers. Every single day, they come in. And we take every one of those calls, transcribe them, and put them in a generative AI machine. At 9AM, I get a sheet of paper that tells me the sentiments, key themes, and what happened with all of yesterday’s calls. It is mind-blowing because earlier [before this tool], I had to call people. We had analysts who used to listen to calls, transcribe them, and make notes.
Now every single call is put in a machine, and I get a piece. We picked up two very clear themes when I did that. The first one for me was certainty. People are like, “Everything in my life is uncertain right now. There’s uncertainty about the economy. There’s uncertainty about my job. There’s uncertainty about work from home. There’s just a lot of tension. I want certainty with prices, especially with categories I cannot live without. And phone is one of those categories.” Certainty kept coming up again and again in our reads from the market. The second thing that came up was flexibility. I never want to pay for something I don’t use. That’s one of the reasons why we took out all those inclusions. You get this free, you get that free. And people are like, “I know Disney is good. My kids love Disney, but I don’t watch Disney. Why should I have to pay for it?” Those were the two really clear insights we got from customers. That’s one.
Second, we’ve done a series of price increases over the last couple of years. We had a couple in January. We know elasticity. When we do a price up, we model it. I would say the last price up we did, the elasticity was a little more than what we had modeled. That, coupled with all the insights we got from the customer, we had to respond and tell the customers that we are going to lock prices for three years. Now, it gives customers certainty. It puts a little more pressure back on us because we have to drive revenue in other ways. We have clear ways to do that, but I think it’s an industry first, especially now. Look, we knew the tariffs were coming in the day before yesterday. It was announced… It’s on TV. We are very comfortable doing that because, at a time of uncertainty, we want to give our customers some certainty and some peace of mind.
All right, I’m going to be pretty hard on you now. I have covered the telecom industry for a long time. I noticed yesterday [April 3] that every other stock in the world dropped, and telecoms went up. Because people have to have your service, right? It is a requirement of modernity to be connected to the internet and to have a phone. And it feels like one of the reasons fiber customers stick around for a long time is that there’s nowhere else to go, right? The switching costs are very high, or maybe infinite, because there’s literally no other competitor that can offer the service that Fios offers, in many places.
That’s true for every residential broadband provider, as competition is generally low. In mobile, the competition is basically you and AT&T, and then T-Mobile is a very strong challenger that’s gotten bigger. But Verizon and AT&T are the biggest players still.
There was supposed to be a fourth player, and the government created this Dish Network deal, which I will ask you about soon. That has gone nowhere, right? There’s not actually a fourth national carrier that competes with you. When you say customers stick around for a long time, what I see is, well, there’s nowhere else to go, right? How much does that come to your thinking that, actually, a Fios customer can’t leave?
A Fios customer can leave tomorrow morning. Every single Fios customer today can move to cable broadband that afternoon. There are very few Fios customers who don’t have a cable competitor in play. I just think Fios is a better solution. It’s a significantly better solution than cable because of the pricing practices they’ve had and the quality of their network. But there is a full-
I hear you, and I’m sorry to interrupt, but I’ve heard that line from many, many, many telco executives in the United States. I look at the United Kingdom, for example, where they’ve done local loop unbundling. And, actually, my colleagues who live in London have 15 fiber providers at much lower prices and much higher speeds because the presence of competition is so much higher, right? It’s not literally switching from fiber to cable, a different kind of network, it’s different providers within the same fiber network offering more competition. We’ve not done that here, but they’re always switching, and you can see the prices come down because of it.
I think it’s a careful balance. Canada has moved to a local loop unbundling scenario as well. The UK has always had it. That’s why European telecom has one of the lowest investments in telecom ever, in any country, almost in any region of the world today, because they just don’t have enough of a profit pool and cash flow to reinvest back in their network. Think about 5G. We are going to get to 90 percent deployment in a country as large and diverse as us. Most European countries are not even at 40 to 50 percent deployment of 5G. I think one of the things, if America wants to be competitive, if America wants to compete with China, having high-quality broadband is super important for that. Whether it’s mobility or whether it’s that. And you want to create profit pools in the system to go back and reinvest.
Think about it. I’m going to invest close to $18.5 billion in just capital. In the last seven years, we’ve invested $200 billion in the network. $200 billion between spectrum and fiber, and the mobility business. I don’t see any European carrier investing $200 billion in seven years. In fact, if they invest a 10th of that, they’re going to get an award. I think it’s super important for a country to be really at the cutting edge of technology, the cutting edge of fiber, the cutting edge of 5G. And look, when 6G comes, we will be the first. I’ll tell you that today. We were the first in 5G. We beat the Koreans by 12 hours.
We will beat whoever else… And most likely it’s going to be China on 6G as well. I think it’s a national security issue. It’s a national competitive issue. We need to keep reinvesting in broadband every single time, and we are not going to stop. You’ll see us investing at the same rate for a very, very long time. And all our investment is in America, in LA. I’m not investing in other countries. I’m 100 percent invested in America, and I think the profit pool lets us do that.
All right, we’re here at the end, right? 5G is done, it’s deployed. Everybody has the 5G phones. What were the stakes of losing the race to 5G? No one ever gave me an answer to this question. If China had somehow won the 5G race, what would they have gotten that we didn’t get?
What does it mean to lose the race? I think the first thing is standards. You want a standard that… You don’t want a bifurcation of standards, and it may happen. It could happen in the chipset, it could happen in AI, or operating systems and handsets. You’re in an interesting phase where you could potentially see a bifurcation of standards between the Western world and China. On 5G, we aligned on a very similar standard, and I think it helped because you’re able to take the price of the technology down to do that. The second is to think of all the applications and the tech economy that you have today. The app ecosystem, the Amazons of the world, the Googles of the world, and the Metas. They rely on the mobility network more than anyone else. Think about Instagram, it is worth zero without the cell phone and the connectivity. In fact-
No, but specifically 5G. Instagram was worth a lot on the LTE network, and most of the 5G networks we have today are not running on millimeter wave 5G or whatever. They’re running on LTE enhanced, right? We’re still running… The core of the network here in the United States is a hybrid of 4G and 5G.
No, if we had stuck with just LTE, we would not be able to take care of the capacity that’s happened. Think about it, the pandemic happened, we all moved to working from home, people… We were able to take care of those networks immediately because we had 5G; we could scale up. So 5G adds capacity in a way 4G could never have added because it comes down to spectral efficiency to do that. And we also ended up adding… Look, at the end of the day, capacity is a very simple thing. You can either add more spectrum, which is expensive, but you can add it. We do it every X years, we do that. Or you can add more cell sites because you can reuse the spectrum, or you can get back to spectral efficiency. That’s the only three ways to add capacity. And 5G helps with one in three.
It puts new spectrum bands into play, and it also helps with spectral efficiency. You got a lot more capacity out of 5G, and also took the cost of capacity down. Every incremental bit that abides, depending on how you put it up in the air, the cost goes down significantly. We saw a 30 to 40 percent reduction in cost per bit when you move from 4G to 5G. Without 5G, we could not have done that. The second is that we created a whole business around fixed wireless access, providing broadband by using wireless. It’s all on 5G. It ain’t on 4G, I’ll tell you that. It’s a multi-billion-dollar business for us. In a few years… Right now, probably 50 to 60 million homes could potentially get that. It’s another competitor to broadband. And what has happened is that cable has not been able to raise prices, and so it’s a lot more beneficial to customers because they have another competitor in the space to do that.
The third thing, which I think has been a little underwhelming for me, personally, is new products and services using some of the 5G capabilities. And you never get this right because you have to get the network, the handset, and the apps all perfectly aligned. I don’t think that happened very well on 5G. I think the third leg of the stool still has more work to do. I think a lot of the AR/VR type new form factors that we are seeing are going to require really low latency, and that will require 5G. You definitely can’t do it on 4G. Sitting where I am, I’m so happy we did 5G. I wish we had done it two years earlier, but that’s always the scenario. And look, we’ll keep building our network, adding more capacity till 6G is up.
I sat in all the demos of all the hyped 5G applications. I went on so many self-driving car rides at CES, powered by 5G, with the data center somewhere that was driving the car for me because the latency was low. I heard a lot about robot surgery — an infinite amount about robot surgery. Those were the applications that were promised. That was the vision of the war: that if we lose the war, China will own this set of industries that is built on the new network. It was not about network capacity in COVID, right? No one foresaw that what we would need is a more efficiently run network.
It was not really about bringing prices down in any substantial way, because the only thing that ever happens is prices go up. That’s the spread, right? I’m just wondering, do you see the gap in how much hype there was for 5G and how oversold it was? And also the consumer reality of it, which is, yeah, everyone’s phones might have a little more network capacity. Yes, it’s great at the concert or the football game to have millimeter wave serving everyone really fast. I agree that that’s a great use case. But it actually didn’t pan out that the big set of applications we were promised, to justify this enormous cost and all of this literal war hype. It never came to pass.
Yeah, I think wireless is one of the categories that has had negative inflation over the last 15 years. Think about it. When you had 300 minutes on your phone, you were allowed… Evenings and nights were free. You remember the time when you got maybe 300 texts.
You were paying more for that than you’re paying today when you get a 5G phone with unlimited data, unlimited text, and satellite messaging included. There are very few categories… In fact, the only other category I can think of that has had negative inflation over the last 15 years is TVs. Flat-screen TVs have really crashed in price. TVs and us are probably the two biggest categories that have gone up. Everything else, prices have gone up significantly. All the way from eggs to others, everything has gone up. Our prices have actually come down for what we provide there. I think the industry is probably one of the most unique industries where we tend to give you a lot more for the same amount or a little less than we did 2, 3, 5, or 10 years ago to do that. The second thing is I do… Technology is interesting. For decades, nothing happens, and then in months, decades happen.
You saw that with AI, right? You and I have been listening to AI ever since we were in college, and then suddenly, two years or a year and a half ago, the whole thing exploded. I think a lot of these special cases, new applications that we are working on, tend to be like that as well. It takes a while to work it. Look, I don’t think autonomous cars or robotic surgery are going to be the ones that are going to break the bank or are going to be the breakthrough services. But I see new form factors emerging. We may be in the last generation of phone form factor as we know it right now. I think you’re going to see a lot more control of the phones using LLM models.
I think it’ll have huge implications for the operating system and huge implications on the app store. But I think this may be the last generation of smartphones that we see. And to power all of the other things, we just need a better network. The second thing is that we are doing a lot more work on 5G in the industrial space. It’s not something you and I end up using a lot, but in my old job, we used to do a lot of private networks, low-latency networks, running robotics, and factory automation based on a wireless network. There’s a lot more happening in that space. When you roll out such transformational technologies, you’ve got to play the long game. Look, Verizon is a company. We are committed to America. Look, we don’t do business in other parts of the world except for small business. We are committed to America, and we want Americans to have the best network, and we’ll keep deploying capital to make that happen.
I think most consumers saw 5G as something that just sort of happened to them, right? They upgraded the phone, the network is there, and then I hear you on negative inflation and value over time, but the main thing that happened is you upgraded your iPhone. Now it’s 5G capable. You need a 5G plan, and that costs more than the plan you had yesterday.
That is not true.
But that was true for a vast majority of people across the vast majority of the industry. The plans did get more expensive.
Actually, it didn’t. If you see phone ARPU, average revenue per user, which every carrier reports in some form or the other. ARPU has moved very little on a per-phone-line basis in the last 20 years that I’ve been in the space. And you’re getting a lot more now than you got many years ago. I think people have this notion that the phone bill is going up, but the phone bill is going up because they’re signing up for new services. For example, in my case, we are going to have a $2 billion business selling streaming services and entertainment services. Now, we give great savings. We give you a 40 percent discount when you buy Disney or Netflix, Max, and all the cool services from us. But the core phone service, as you know it, has really not gone up in price.
And we’ve delivered more than pretty much any other industry for the price point that we do. And I’m very, very comfortable with that equation. It’s my job as the CEO of the business to ensure that we give more to our customers. Satellite messaging is one. It’s something… We found a way, we made it work, and we included it in our plans. You pay zero for it. I think we are adding significant value to customers, which is why our churn is so low.
People can move wireless easily, but because of the value we bring to them every single day, they like us and they stay with us.
One of the things that’s interesting there is the comparison to televisions, which you made. The reason televisions got so cheap is that the industry realized that putting a computer in the TV let them develop huge new revenue models, right? A $500 TCL TV is actually a revenue generator because there’s advertising baked into every layer of that TV now, or effectively a free Roku box. Roku owns the entire ad stack. That’s how they make all their revenue. It’s easy for them to subsidize the TVs in that way. That’s not really the case with mobile handsets, right? It might be the case on maybe the low end of Android phones. There’s some subsidy happening there. With the iPhone 16 Pro, Apple’s not going to let you monetize that device as directly as anybody wants to. The push has always been to go up the stack, right? To go into the application layer.
A decade ago, we had a fight about net neutrality where the carriers really wanted to be in the application layer and modify the network to prefer some applications over others. That has petered out. I think it burbles up every now and again, but it’s mostly petered out.
Now you’re saying the opportunity is to bundle Disney+, right? To bundle other applications. Is that settled now that that is the strategy? Or is the push into developing custom applications for your network, or the push to prefer bandwidth for some applications? Is that incentive still there?
I think what does Verizon bring to the table? We bring distribution. We bring billing and customer care. We know how to manage subscriptions. We bring a brand that has got unaided awareness of close to 100 percent. Those are the big things we bring. And I think what we’ve decided is that we want to build our non-connectivity. My non-connectivity business is almost $15 billion. It’s the size of Hilton Hotels. My non-connectivity business is a standalone company. And we partner with the best in the world to do that. I partner with Netflix. I partner with Disney. We have an insurance protection product inside that. We partner with other folks to do that piece. I think we want to use our distribution, our ability to scale subscriptions, our ability to lower the cost of acquisition, and partner with the best. But second, the more people use my network, the more excited I get.
We are working very, very closely with the likes of Amazon, Meta, Google, and Apple to ensure that they use our network more to develop more services because we will monetize it at the network layer really well. Then, on top of the network, we’ll find adjacencies to sell in. But if people don’t use my network more, all the cool services I build ain’t going to matter much. I think we’ve pivoted to a strategy, which is single network, scaled network, put as much traffic on it as people can, and we’ll find ways to monetize it in a pricing construct if we do that. On top of that, we have adjacencies. We have six categories we sell into, and there we use our scale distribution, and some integration back with our network to make it real to do that. I think, in a way, we are probably the largest incubator in the world today because we work closely with companies for them to go and innovate services. It’s a pretty cool position to be in. And as we finish deploying 5G, we’ll start seeing more and more of those cool services come out.
One of the things that I think about is that there was just an explosion of big carriers buying media, right? Because you have the distribution, you have the billing. It made sense to vertically integrate all the way up to the top.
At one point, Verizon owned Yahoo, which was very confusing. You started what was like a prototype of TikTok called Go90, which failed almost immediately. It’s a long-running joke in our other show, The Vergecast. You owned HuffPost. You had Tumblr for a second. On the business side, you bought BlueJeans, which is a video conferencing solution.
That notion that you need to actually own the icon that the user is pushing on or the media they’re consuming on the phone. AT&T bought Time Warner, another obvious disaster that collapsed almost immediately. Where did those incentives come from to do that? And do you think that they’ve gone away? Has everyone learned their lesson?
Yeah, and look, it happens in every industry. Look, at the end of the day, you can either grow horizontally or you can go vertically. There are only two ways to grow. We went through a phase… Look, I was on the leadership team of Yahoo and AOL. I was sent from Verizon to help run those assets and eventually sell them. And part of the thesis was that we create data in the telco world, whether it’s clickstream data, location data, or other network data, that, if matched with online data, could create a better targeting engine for advertisers. That was a thesis going in all the way. But then we realized that customers trust us because we don’t share data. And it was a deep, insightful conversation we had within ourselves, and we realized that we should not be in a business sphere, so we sold that business.
But, again, for a company our size, if you look at our enterprise value, it was still a rounding error for us. Fine, it was something we should not have done, but it was still a rounding error for us. At the end of the day, we are focused on our core. Our core tends to be mobility. Our core is fiber, and our core is cloud/AI, enabling those things. That’s it. Those are the only three businesses we are in right now. Carriers around the world have sort of come to a similar place, but we are probably, I would say, the most focused of carriers anywhere in the world right now.
Verizon fights the hardest against any net neutrality rules that appear at the state level and at the federal level. We can set a watch on the Verizon lawsuit against those rules. It happens every time. You’re saying you don’t need those rules, right? If I’m listening to you correctly, you’re saying, “We’ve learned our lesson. We’re not going to monkey with the network. We’re not going to prioritize our own services or someone else’s services. We just want volume,” right? Pure volume is what will drive your growth. Why fight against the rules if you’ve already come to the same conclusion?
I don’t know what net neutrality does. I’ve been in this business for a little north of 20 years. Before that, I was in college, having fun. And I still don’t know what problem we are trying to solve with net neutrality. I actually don’t understand that, because at the end of the day, if there are 300 people using a congested road, and if a firefighter needs to go through, people are going to move aside and let him go through. That’s all we are saying.
For traffic management purposes, we need to have some controls in the network. Otherwise, when in New York City, when the traffic core or the emergency services want access and it’s congested, I’m going to have to move people off so they get priority service. That’s all it is. And we need traffic management tools. Or you have one person in your town who’s sucking up all the bandwidth, and we have places like that where they use 100 or 200 times the average bandwidth. And because of that, 99 percent of the people are getting a shitty experience. We’ve got to manage the traffic. That’s all we are saying about it.
I think this was a little bit of drama about nothing. And at the end of the day, we want to build networks and we want people to use them. We just want the ability to manage network management in a way that’s good for the broad set of people. I don’t think we really care about making one group better versus one group worse, which is why I think it got no traction, because I don’t know what problem it was trying to solve.
To be clear, it did get traction. It passed through the FCC under Title II in one administration. It was undone by another administration. I have never encountered a net neutrality rule at the federal or state level that hasn’t allowed for reasonable network management practices, right? That’s always the heart of the rule. It’s really: can you prefer some content and services over others, right? No blocking, no throttling. It’s the heart of the rules, and Verizon has fought against those.
I have seen your competitors do things like sponsor data, right? I’ll let you off the hook for one second. AT&T, when they owned Max, exempted Max from their own data caps, which was just openly unfair, right? It’s just straightforwardly unfair that using Netflix would cost a customer money, and using AT&T’s owned and operated service would not. And that was an advantage that AT&T wanted to give to Max at that time. And that is the sort of thing that isn’t a firefighter on the road, that isn’t one person using all the bandwidth. That is a distortion in the market. That’s what the rule is supposed to correct.
What good did it do for AT&T or for any customer in that scenario? Look, I don’t know what AT&T did, but I think at the end of the day… I don’t think a lot of these folks understand how networks work. Because at the core of these networks is a very complex set of technologies. You have the access network, you have the core, you have peering points, and you have the backbone of the network. Congestion can happen anywhere in the network. For example, if someone doesn’t come and peer with me, they’re going to get congested, but it has nothing to do with me. They’re congested because they chose not to peer with me, and they chose not to peer with me because they didn’t want to pay the $3 or three cents it needed to go and get a port in a particular porting hotel that was needed.
I think the network is a very complex thing. It’s not a single pipe that starts at one end and ends at the other. There are a lot of different interfaces and other things. I think this whole concept that you’re going to unfairly manage someone’s network or give someone an unfair advantage, I don’t think it works that way. The second is an economic incentive piece. Look, in the case of AT&T, again, I’m being an academic here, which is that they bought Max, or whatever it was called back then, and they were willing to give up their dollars because network costs something. They’re able to give that up to drive sales of content. That’s a decision they made. In the end, it didn’t work out that well because it didn’t matter. I think there are economic incentives in place to manage all of this. That’s why I think net neutrality has gone literally nowhere because it doesn’t solve any problem that I think is a problem.
Again, I want to be clear that it’s the law in New York. It’s the law in California. It was the law at the federal level, and it was rolled back. So, it did go somewhere at one point. And the most instructive thing I ever heard about net neutrality was that it was just the arc that Netflix went on. Netflix was once the loudest proponent of these rules. And then several years later, I saw Reed Hastings at the Code conference, he said, I believe it was to Peter Kafka, “Oh, we don’t need to have this fight anymore because we’re so big it doesn’t matter.”
All that indicated to me was they needed the rule and they needed the fight when they were small, to preserve the access. And then they got so big that they didn’t need the rule to give them access because they were so big that taking access away wouldn’t be a problem. That’s the competitive playing field that I think you want at the application layer as well. It’s really hard for people to perceive.
I think they didn’t realize it was a problem because it was not a problem. I think it had nothing to do with size.
Well, that’s what Reed Hastings said. He said, “I am so big it doesn’t matter.”
I know, but I think he probably said that to cover up something where he made a big to-do about nothing. In the end, it didn’t change anything. If customers want Netflix, they’ll get Netflix. We make shitty content, no one’s going to watch it. I think it’s the core of that issue. He very soon realized… I remember that conference. He realized this was a fight about nothing. At the end of the day, if you make good content, customers want it, they’ll appear, and you’ll get access to it. If you make poor content that nobody wants to watch, nobody’s going to watch it. Irrespective of all the so-called net neutrality rules you have. I think that was the perfect example of how it had nothing to do with size. It just had to do with the fact that they were chasing something that made no sense at that point, and he was the first to admit it, so he could focus his efforts on putting on new shows. By the way, I like their new show, The Residence. It’s a good show.
You live in a different regulatory environment now. You have Brendan Carr, who’s the chair of the FCC. I’m not a fan of Brendan Carr. I think he’s wielding his power irresponsibly, and he knows that I think that.
You mentioned earlier your deal with Frontier, that’s going to go through, and Brendan has been very clear that he will not allow these deals to go through unless you get rid of all your diversity initiatives. And he says there’s an investigation against Verizon on these initiatives. That feels like straight coercion. If Verizon wants to go body up and file lawsuits against the FCC imposing regulatory requirements, this would be where you do it. Are you going to fight that fight, or are you going to roll over?
For Verizon, there are a couple of things. Internally, as a company, certain things are non-negotiable for us. How we treat human beings, human dignity, and ensure that we have the best talent pool when we build and operate the largest consumer telco company in the world. We ain’t walking away from that. I think that’s there. At the end of the day, we have to follow the rules and regulations of the land, and we will work constructively. We have a constructive dialogue with the FCC to ensure that we follow the rules and regulations of the land. That’s exactly the piece we are in right now with them. We got the letter from them. We are working closely with the staffers out there. Whatever the regulations or rules of the land are, we’ll follow them.
Do you think that you’ll fight that as vociferously as you fought net neutrality?
It goes down to the rule of law. Whatever the rule is.
Do you think the FCC commissioner has the authority to tell you how to hire and fire inside your company?
It goes back to the rules and regulations that the administration puts in place. They have certain rules, they work through it, and we have to follow the rules of the way it lays itself out. That’s all we are going to work towards: a constructive dialogue with Chairman Carr on that piece, and we’ll continue to deliver that. But at the end of the day, I want the best talent pool for my company. I will do anything that is needed to get the best operators, the best marketers, and the best network operators in the world for Verizon to do that piece. I’m walking away from that. I’m going to follow that. In the process, I have to follow rules and regulations — we’ll do that. And if there are some changes that have to be made, we will make those changes. But let’s not forget, this is about getting the best talent from us, and we are not walking away one minute from that mission.
Literally, just a few days before we’re talking, I think T-Mobile closed the deal to do a JV on some fiber initiative. But to get there, they had to delete the word diversity from a bunch of its web pages. Is that the level of meddling that you’re willing to accept?
We are still working with the FCC on what the rules are. How we develop the rules. How we execute the rules on that. It’s a work in progress right now. We are still working through that. But look, at the end of the day, we’re going to have to follow the rules of the land. We did that before, we’ve done that. We’re going to do that after that. This is just one of those pieces, we’re going to have to follow the rules that are there.
I want to be very clear, I’m being very explicit about this. When the government passed net neutrality rules, it wasn’t, “We have to follow the rules of the land.” It was, “We are going to file lawsuits for a decade to get out of these rules because we think they’re dumb.” And in this case, you’re saying Brendan Carr, who has been openly censorious, openly chilling of speech, openly hostile to companies because they have diversity initiatives — you’re saying you just have to follow his rules?
We have to follow the rules of the land. I don’t think those are his rules. They are the rules of the land and administration —
Are you going to file a decade’s worth of lawsuits about these rules?
We don’t know. We’re going to work constructively with them to follow the rules that are needed. But at the end of the day… Look, our role is to the stakeholders that we have. My stakeholders are my shareholders, my customers, my employees, and society at large. We have to manage, and we are going to deliver to those stakeholders what’s needed for us, and we will do whatever is needed with the administration to deliver to all the stakeholders. When you run a large company our size, you have to balance the different stakeholders, and we will balance those stakeholders. We’ve done it extremely well in the last 25 years that we’ve been Verizon, and we’ll continue to do that going forward.
Can you put this in your decision matrix? When you look at an administration that shows up and says, “We’re going to start meddling with your deals.” From an agency that traditionally has not done this specific kind of meddling in how you hire and fire, how do you think about that decision in your two-by-two matrix?
This is not the first deal we’ve taken through administrations. We worked with Democrats, we worked with Republicans, we worked with both sets of the administration. We’ve had good success working with both of them on that piece. Every time we take a deal through, there are trade-offs that have to be made. When we bought TracFone, we had trade-offs we had to make with California that were probably not perfect for us as well. I do think there are trade-offs that need to be made in any large transaction. But at the end of the day, you have to follow the rules of the land. I think that’s the most important thing, and we’ve got to manage the stakeholders. And that’s pretty much all we are going to do here.
All right. I want to wrap up by asking you about a very silly thing from the first Trump administration. In the first Trump administration, T-Mobile bought Sprint. And at the time, that set of players in Trump one concocted a deal where Sprint would sell some assets to Dish Network, and we would invest in a thing called Open RAN to get away from Huawei and have more competition at the tower level. These are all good ideas in theory. Have you spent one minute thinking about the competition posed by Dish Network?
Look, we have three large wireless carriers in a very, very competitive market. We have Dish with its Boost network, which is competitive in the prepaid space. They’re a pretty large player in the prepaid space. They’re starting to build postpaid. Then you have the cable companies today, Comcast, Charter, and Cox, all offer wireless services at very competitive prices. In fact, in many cases, the first line is free, and their average ARPU is significantly lower than ours. It is one of the most competitive telco markets in the world today. Three full players, a fourth facility player who is building up, and then a cable company that has 100 percent coverage of the country, which is able to offer wireless. It’s a pretty competitive market that we have in this space right now.
No, but I’m asking you specifically about Dish, right? That was five years ago. I think June or July of 2020. That deal was completed. They had access to T-Mobile’s network for seven years. We’re coming to the end of that. They are supposed to have a next-generation 5G Open RAN that is a national competitor to you by now. Do you think they have a national, competitive Open RAN that causes you to lose any sleep?
They’re a competitor to us. They have, I think, a little less than… The Boost network creates millions and tens of millions of customers —
But that’s just what they bought from Sprint. That was the existing asset they bought from Sprint. That’s not the thing they were meant to build.
They’ve built local networks. And do we compete with them? We compete with them in the space. But think about it, we have three full networks that are building up, and then we have competition. This is one of the most competitive markets. Look, Open RAN is a completely different animal. We should definitely talk about that. Look, over a period of time, Open RAN is a good thing, because it deconstructs the network a little bit. You can have multiple players in a stack. And for folks who are not close to this, today, when we buy equipment from a partner, we end up buying almost the whole stack. The head end that goes on to the tower, all the equipment at the bottom of the tower, is from a single provider. And Open RAN says, “Make those interfaces more standardized so that you can mix and match operators more easily.”
I think philosophically, Open RAN is a good concept. I think more work is needed to get to the performance that makes us comfortable using it at scale. But what we’ve done is we’ve virtualized our networks more than any other carrier in the world. What does that mean? We’ve put generic hardware in our sites, and then the equipment providers have to load their software on it. We think that’s actually a more powerful tool in mix and match, scaling, and loading cost than sometimes de-standardizing or standardizing these interfaces. But over a period of time, it’s important to have more diversity of vendors and have more people play in this space. It’s good for us, it’s good for the economy. I think we are very supportive of O-RAN. We are part of the Alliance. We spend a lot of time, energy, and money on R&D and making those interfaces stable. But I feel it has a little more to go before they’re standardized, and they give you the performance that I get to put on my network.
Well, Sampath, you’ve given us a lot of time. I feel like you should come back and we should talk about Open RAN for a full hour, because I can. I think it is fascinating. We’ll have to have you back soon. Thank you so much for being on Decoder.
Take care, Nilay. Bye.
Questions or comments about this episode? Hit us up at [email protected]. We really do read every email!