What I would say on BEAD is, I think it will depend. I think in some cases there could be some instances where there’s a substitute in a state, but I think in some cases there could be some incremental. And a lot of it will depend on the nature of the particular build geographically where it’s located and what our relative contribution is in it. And so I hate to give you such a soft answer, but the good news is it doesn’t change anything we’ve guided you toward in ‘24. It doesn’t change anything we’re building now for ‘24. It doesn’t change what we’ve committed to you for in ‘25 in terms of our commitment for the total number of fiber homes passed. If we find some incremental opportunities to go after, and if we win some, we won’t know that until next year.
We’ll, of course, make some changes, but that’s not going to be something that you’re going to be seeing over the 18-month horizon in terms of what it does to our investment levels, sub-count levels, or anything like that.
Craig Moffett: Very helpful. Thank you.
Operator: Our next question will come from the line of David Barden of Bank of America. Please go ahead.
David Barden: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. John, a big part of the growth that AT&T and the sector has enjoyed has come from the pricing lever. And you guys were early in calling out pricing as something that had to move to reflect inflation in the economy. But as you look ahead into 2024, given the realities of the cable industry’s presence here now, and maybe the gravity that they represent from a pricing perspective, could you kind of opine a little bit on how you see the price lever being a part of the, kind of, short to medium term growth story for AT&T? And then maybe also, second question if I could, would be kind of any, obviously we just saw the new FCC net neutrality NPRM come out. I’m wondering if there’s anything new in there that you see that you incrementally agree or disagree with, based on what we kind of went through with Wheeler on this topic? Thank you.
John Stankey: You’re really just trying to fire me up, aren’t you?
David Barden: Got to get you going in the morning, John.
John Stankey: I guess. Here’s how I kind of view the pricing issue. First of all, the industry has invested at an incredible level. If you kind of look, last year was a record investment level for the wireless industry. It’s entirely possible, obviously don’t know yet, but I look at trends that are going on, it’s entirely possible this year could be pretty close to that as well. And so it’s not a surprise to me in a rational industry when investment levels are up like that, that there’s a desire to make sure that everybody’s getting a return on these massive investments they’re making and the incredible performance that they’re putting out in these networks and the value that’s driving into the consumer experience. And so I step back from that and say, is it perfectly reasonable with what I see going on with the industry in general and other players in the market, understanding that that value equation is customers are getting more speed, more reliability, greater capability, that that value exchange needs to be adjusted a little bit.
And I see that happening. And I see it happening in a lot of different quarters in a lot of different ways, and sometimes it manifests itself in a exchange for value, giving, because there’s more capacity out there, giving people more free things and more hotspots for an incremental amount of money. Sometimes it’s looking at those that are maybe at the ratio of how much they’re using to how much they’re paying need to be hit a little bit as a result of it. But I see a lot of rational moves in that regard and I think as the market continues to mature, the industry, from my point of view, has shown that it can do that in a fairly effective way. And I look at things like customer satisfaction and utility and use, and all those things are headed in the right direction.
So I’m going to conclude that it’s being done in a fairly smart way and I look at, I know my numbers and I look at my churn numbers and my churn numbers are really, really good. We’re really pleased in that regard. And so to me it’s like there is plenty of places to navigate and look at this and do it strategically if you’re experienced in managing a subscription base, which I think that we are, and I think we’ve done over time. Cable is running the play that they’re running. They’re attacking a particular segment of the market that they want to attack. I’m a person that kind of use things long term and structurally, and as I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s a sustainable strategy to be the low cost or price leader in a market when you’re on a variable cost structure.
And so, ultimately, there’s some repricing. It’s a little bit lumpy at times in this industry. We know that that’s the case, but ultimately there’s a repricing that goes on. And our job is to play for the long haul, and that’s why we’re focused on accretive, profitable growth, looking for the right customers, the ones that want to stay with us. And I think we’re doing just fine in that regard, and if you get those customers that really understand the value that you bring to the equation, you shouldn’t have a problem adjusting pricing on that value as you work through the evolution of your product. So, on to your second question. The United States demonstrated coming through the pandemic that it had one of the best and most scalable broadband infrastructures in the world, both at home and at business, and where other regions of the world were doing silly and crazy things, we relocated massive amounts of work and shifted massive amounts of traffic on wireless networks from the urban core during the days to the suburban residential dwellings and we shifted video from workplaces to home and we performed remarkably well and that’s indicative, I think, of what has been very sound and good policy driving investment in infrastructure in this country.
We’re — as I just said, coming off a record investment year in wireless infrastructure. If you look at fiber, there is — I’ve never seen the amount of private capital and money that’s going into fiber builds right now around the United States that are incenting more infrastructure builds on that side. We just passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act not only dealt with the underserved, but it had a component in there for affordability of the underserved. And I think what’s most important to understand is while the government’s putting up $43 billion, $44 billion for that, private capital will probably match that to the tune of about $100 billion. You could have $150 billion of investment going in to solve the underserved and unconnected problem.
There’s more choice every day in the broadband industry. There’s no indications that in the ISP segment there’s any discrimination going on. We have an industry in aggregate, that supports no blocking, no paid prioritization, no throttling, contrary to what we see going on with some platform apps that are out there that are choosing to do some of those things and how they operate their business. The ISP industry is, I think, the last of customers’ concern. No customers are complaining about what’s going on in that front. So why we would use taxpayer money and resources and political capital to chase a problem that doesn’t exist is a bit of a mystery to me. Chasing an unnecessary partisan issue when we have bipartisan issues — potential bipartisan issues like what is a competitive spectrum policy for the United States and how do we reauthorize spectrum authority so that we can keep pace with places like China and have a growing economic environment and great innovation, how do we deal with the fact that we have a broken universal service process that is so important for those that can’t afford their services to make sure that it’s sustainable.
These are bipartisan issues that need to be dealt with and solved, and I think that’s where regulators should be spending their time. Now, having said that, I think the facts are pretty clear. We will participate in the process with the FCC constructively. We’re going to bring all this data to bear. We’re going to demonstrate that this is in fact how the markets are operating. Hopefully, there’s reasonable individuals that take that, get a good reading of it, understand it, and decide to set policy consistent with that, that that reality ultimately results in rational policy, and we see a reasonable outcome on that, and I haven’t given up hope that that could be the case. However, if what we end up is a heavy-handed approach of taking early 1900s regulation and applying it against the Internet and using it as a government influence to something that’s working just fine in the public markets, I will tell you as a company, we will do everything we need to do to ensure that the record reflects what the law allows the regulator to do and what the record supports.
So that’s kind of where I’m at on it at this juncture.
David Barden: Thanks, John. I appreciate the comments.
Amir Rozwadowski: Thanks, operator. We’ve got time for one last question.
Operator: Our last question will come from the line of Frank Louthan of Raymond James. Please go ahead, sir.
