In the fourth quarter, based on all the passings analysis that we look at, we actually grew despite that higher fiber overbuild inside of our footprint in the fourth quarter, we actually grew in that space despite the mix contribution of additional overbuild. So I think that’s positive. And so that’s — it’s small. And as you can tell through the net add numbers. But I think it’s promising for the future, and that’s even prior to having the benefit of additional marketing claims through the network evolution as well as having clearly the wind behind our sales over time of additional network expansion and the promise of having a fundamentally different and better product than any of our competitors can have through a converged offering that has gig powered wireless.
So those initiatives, they won’t happen inside of Q1 or Q2, but they’ll continue to steadily increase and improve our position and ability to grow. The biggest one would be, if we can get market volume coming back, that would actually be the biggest contributor of growth more than any of the things that I just mentioned. I’d note as a tangential and somebody will ask it, and so I’ll comment on it. We have not — as we’ve talked about, we’ve not seen any demonstrable impact on our churn as it relates to fixed wireless access. And we think it could have had some impact on our gross adds, particularly on ads that we would have pulled from DSL. But when some pricing actions were taken in December, we saw for the first time a very limited impact on our voluntary term, but not where you would have expected it.
It’s actually in our non-gig overlap and in our MDU footprint where you have higher churn to customers, higher tendency to move around, higher tendency to non-pay. And so it was a — maybe it’s just a blip, but there’s two linings to that. One is that, for the first time, we saw a small amount of churn related to that. And the flip side is those customers tend to be very mobile, if you will. And I think given the experience of that product even more so are used for the return of them coming back to a proper broadband product with or without convergence. So anyway, that’s just food for thought around that. I hope that answers the question.
Jessica Fischer : So on your other two questions, in cost to serve, quarter-over-quarter growth in Q4 was 5.8%. I would expect Q1 to look more like — to look a bit like that. And then for it to sort of the year-over-year growth to decrease across the year until you’re more in line with the sort of growth trajectory that we’ve seen before, which is really largely flat. For programming per sub cost, the reason that they remain flat year-over-year that, that’s our expectation, really has to do with customer mix and whether customers are taking sort of packages that have larger channel sets or more premiums or whether they continue to be priced out of those packages and come into some skinnier packages where the programming cost per sub is less. So it’s a mix issue, certainly not an issue that programmers are no longer raising rates.
Philip Cusick : We used to talk about them.
Christopher Winfrey : Go ahead.
Philip Cusick : Sorry. No, I was just going to ask, do you have some room on — we used to talk about the sort of small video package mix and how that might peak out at some point? Is that an issue anymore? Or can you kind of put people wherever you want in terms of packages?
