Dycom Industries, Inc. (DY) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm Steve Fisher, UBS machinery, engineering and construction analyst. We are really pleased to have the management of Dycom here with us to kick off this conference. We have Steve Nielsen, CEO; and Drew DeFerrari, the CFO. You can use the question function to pose questions. We can address them during this session. But otherwise, we're just going to have a fireside chat here. One just quick disclosure from my part, which is, before we get started, as a research analyst, I'm required to provide certain disclosures relating to the nature of my own relationships and that of UBS with any companies on which we express a view on this call today. These disclaimers are available at www.ubs.com/disclosures. Alternatively, please reach out to me, and I can provide them to you after the call. So Steve and Drew, welcome. Great to have you here.

Thanks, Steve. Glad to be here.

So maybe if you could just start off by giving a quick few minutes overview of the company for those that aren't familiar and where you see the biggest growth opportunities.

Sure, Steve. And before we start, I just want to remind, we have a slide available in the presentation with our forward-looking statement, safe harbor. And just to remind everybody, in the course of the presentation today, we may make forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that we've outlined in our SEC filings, which we recommend for your review. So we provide engineering, construction and maintenance services throughout the U.S., typically in 48 or 49 states, every once in a while in Alaska. And if we think about the revenue of the business in the trailing 4 quarters, a little over $3 billion, just over 14,000 employees. And the focus of the business really is on those services to telecommunications providers. That's about 90% of revenue. We have about a 6% to 7% of revenue that's underground facility locating, of which a good portion of that is also for telecom and cable companies. And so that's really the business we're in. The drivers of that business have always been, in the long run, the secular growth in traffic on telecommunications networks. It's grown at 30% or 40% over a generation. I think if you looked at any trend over the last 25 years, you'd be hard put to see one that has had such a substantial and significant CAGR over a long period of time. In fact, a couple of months ago, we looked at the Open Vault numbers that looked at the amount of downstream data that a consumer, a typical subscriber would consume. And it was, I think, something like 9 gigabytes per month in 2009, 57 in 2014 and approaching 700 or 800 right now. And what was interesting is the CAGR from 2009 until now and the CAGR from 2004 until now was kind of right in the same ballpark, with plus or minus 1%. And so it's that growth in traffic that causes our customers to, on a recurring basis, upgrade the technology in the network to facilitate that kind of traffic growth. And also, as the connections have become central to our lives, never more central than in the last 15 months, that's also created a great maintenance business around keeping the network, once deployed, in great shape. If we think about the drivers, Steve, one of the things that we talked about a year ago was that pandemics like recessions, it appears, take trends that were accelerating into the event and fortify them and trends that were decelerating into the event, the recession or in this case, the pandemic and exhaust that. And clearly, a winner here has been residential broadband. Just everybody working from home, the importance of -- the increasing importance of upstream capacity as well as downstream capacity, the number of connected devices and really, the importance of the network, not only in urban and suburban America but rural America and all of those drivers have created great opportunities for us.

That's really helpful. Is there anything that you think is really sort of underappreciated about the opportunity? I know you and I have talked about the fiber-to-the-home. I think there a lot of people that are focused on sort of the 5G and the wireless aspect, but maybe it's more about the fiber in the home and these connected devices that you're talking about. What -- is that underappreciated? And what else might be underappreciated?

Well, if you think about it, the Verizon FIOS program started now 17 years ago with a large-scale fiber-to-the-home deployment. And as one analyst said, I think, a couple of weeks ago, 5 years ago, people on -- investors in telcos often thought fiber deployments were hard to earn good returns on. 2 years ago, people had a debate as to whether fiber-to-the-home was an actual infrastructure asset and accordingly, could profitably be invested in with lower-return thresholds. And today, everybody wants to do it. And so if you think about just the news in the last 6 to 9 months, we've had AT&T that had paused fiber-to-the-home program that they had conducted from 2015 to '19, has come back and indicated that they expect to double the number of locations served by fiber over the next 5 years and then perhaps do another 10 million beyond that. You have Frontier coming out of bankruptcy with a large fiber build program and then some smaller investor-owned ILECs, TDS and Consolidated, doing large fiber builds that all create substantial opportunities. And so I don't want to diminish the 5G effort, but we do think that there's a broad play not only in the companies that I just mentioned but also, in part with help from the FCC, a broad deployment of fiber in rural America that quite honestly, has never been seen before in the history of the industry. Now certainly, the C-band auction and all of the wireless work that has to be done to facilitate new spectrum deployment is always great for the industry, too. But the magnitude of the fiber build is really quite encouraging.

And you just started to touch upon it a little bit with the AT&T program and Frontier. Any other programs or any more detail you can provide about some of the key customers that you're pursuing and a little bit about your customer base?

Sure, sure. We have a long-term relationship with AT&T. And as I mentioned earlier, we've had a long footprint with them in the Southeast. We've expanded some into the Midwest and the Southwest and into California. And so we have a good, well-established business there. We have been quite busy with them as they had completed 12.5 million homes that they committed to as part of the DIRECTV approval process. Well, what's really interesting is, in the last year, they've come back and said that the focus of the business is really fiber and 5G. And in fact, here, a couple, 3 weeks ago, they announced the spin-out of WarnerMedia and the resizing of its dividend. And what they said ostensibly was, "Look, we're doing this to create more cash flow so that we can increase CapEx to $24 billion from where it had been, somewhat lower." And so I just think we're in a period of time where our customers believe that creating more capacity in their networks is strategic. And when we do that, we tend to see things like these types of announcements. The other thing that we've seen, we've talked about, is the increasing importance of upstream capacity. And so a number of the cable operators have launched initiatives to improve the upstream capacity of the network. That creates technical services work for us. That is something that we're also looking forward to participate in. So a lot's going on. And then, of course, there is C-band, which we said on our earnings call here, a couple of weeks ago, that we had begun receiving C-band sites to deploy for both AT&T and Verizon. It's not a huge amount yet, but it is the beginning. And we expect that to increase as we go into next year.

Can you just expand a little bit more on that upstream capacity and what work that entails for you?

Yes. So the cable operators have talked for a long period of time that there are ways to improve upstream capacity that entail reallocating a portion of the existing spectrum in the network from downstream to upstream. And so in order to do that, there is new equipment that must be installed at the node and at the amplifier locations to facilitate that. And so that is a -- that's a technical service that we are providing today. We have provided lots of that over the history of the company. And so I just think it's another example of the byproduct of that kind of 30% to 40% CAGR in traffic growth over a generation, that when you have those kind of growth trends in traffic, periodically, our customers will need to upgrade the capacity of the network in ways that require new technology. And this is new technology. We'll be replacing, in some cases, equipment we put in 20 or 25 years ago. So just a good opportunity to revisit the network once again and increase capacity.

Got it. Now in the most recent quarter, your revenues are declining organically, but you seem to be at a potential inflection point here. As you think about as this inflection happens and what you have ahead of you, how long do you think this next up cycle could be? And what are the gating factors around duration of that?

Yes. First, Steve, the way we think about the industry over a long period of time, and we've been providing the data to investors now for, I think, north of a decade, is our industry tends to be an upwardly sloping sine curve. And so there are periods of time where you have acceleration as new programs come online, and then there are periods of time when you lap that where you may be somewhat slower. But at the end of the day, the industry gets larger. And so if you thought about kind of what's in line of sight today, based on what customers have said, so AT&T has said they'd like to get from roughly 15 million customer locations with fiber to 30 million by the end of '25. You have both the Consolidated and Ziply builds that are kind of 3, 4, 5 years that they'd like to get done. And then you look at the structure of the Rural Digital Opportunities Fund or called RDOF, which is an FCC subsidy for construction of primarily fiber in rural America. And that's a program that by its design, has to be 40% complete by the end of '24, which 20% a year thereafter through the end of '27. And so I think when we have customers that are talking about the duration of programs that are that long and in AT&T's case, talking about based on success, it could go longer and address more locations. There's a pretty encouraging outlook over the next, let's call it, 4 or 5 years.

And as long as -- you brought up the RDOF. Can you just give maybe a little bit more detail on that? What's the size of that opportunity, the dollars that are available? Are those flowing already, if it has to be 40% complete by 2024? Where do you stand with that program?

Yes. So the RDOF was a $20 billion fund that will be paid out over 10 years. There was -- the first phase auction happened late last year and awarded a little bit over $9 billion. Now what's interesting is because it was set up as a reverse auction and that incented the use of FCC dollars as an enhancement to the returns, not as an enabler of the returns, that there is private capital that is coming in on top of that. One participant talked about kind of $3 of private capital for every $1 of subsidy. So if we just kind of took a 2:1 ratio, then obviously the $9 billion actually could be north of $20 billion or $25 billion in terms of total spend when that gets done, depending on a number of factors. So that's why it's an exciting opportunity. There is a long application process. It's not quite completed. But what we've talked about on our call is that a number of participants who are confident that their applications will be finalized with the FCC soon have gone ahead and begun to deploy networks with their own private capital. Now that's not everybody, so it's not broadly moving yet. But there is forward momentum. There are things that are being done right now even in anticipation of the finalization of the applications. So I think as those applications get finalized, it probably only gets better.

So it sounds like that's fairly inconsequential to your revenue stream right now, if at all, but...

Well, the RDOF auction is, Steve, but the rural deployment -- and there were a number of rural electric cooperatives who were successful in the RDOF auction. And what we had disclosed last quarter -- our April quarter, those electric co-ops were about $47 million of business, which was up about 92% year-over-year. So not a huge amount of money but would have been a top 5 customer had they all been aggregated. So there's some movement, but we think there's more to come.

Right. And it sounds like it could be quite a bit more when you get that multiplier effect of public and private money. And would you say sometime in 2022, that's when you think you'd be really in the thick of that kind of rolling through?

Well, clearly, being 40% done by the end of '24, there's going to have to be activity that picks up. The other thing that we had also mentioned in our comments or in the Q&A on the earnings call is that as an order of magnitude, there's about $1 billion of business in the pipeline right now, not in backlog but to where we have reasonable line of sight that we feel pretty confident that there's some opportunity there.

Great. Now one of the other things that you guys have talked about is -- within your customer base is the utilities as a growing customer section -- sector. How did they become part of the growth opportunity? And how does your relative position -- how is your relative positioning there? Does that change the way you need to do business at all?

So what's interesting -- it's a good question, Steve. So I think it was 6 or 7 years ago, we participated with what we -- what I think are, if not the 2 first electric co-ops to deploy fiber-to-the-home networks, they were very early in doing those deployments. And what's interesting is because of the larger companies and the amount of fiber that's been deployed, the ecosystem around setting -- deploying and setting up one of these fiber-to-the-home networks is not as daunting today as it was 15 years ago, right, where it required probably more technical expertise than it does today. And so I think those deployments were successful, and then they led to more and more. And so we have established a pretty solid reputation in that marketplace and have done, I think, something like 15,000 or 18,000 miles of deployment since we got started, so a good track record to build on. So interestingly, even though the customer is an electrical -- or electric utility, it really hasn't changed how we go to the market nor has it changed what's important to the success of a project because it's a fiber project.

And do you think we should expect to see that some of these customers will become in your top listed customers at some point?

So it's interesting, Steve. Typically, these co-ops are in rural America, and they're fairly fragmented, although, oftentimes, they serve adjacent territories. And I'm sure it's got history that goes back decades as to why the geography was divided the way it is. And so oftentimes, we'll work for a group of cooperatives but have individual contractual arrangement with each one. So it's certainly possible, but my expectation is that we'll be talking about it as an aggregate group of customers rather than a single customer going forward.

Got it. Any way to maybe size that whole market opportunity?

Other than what we provided on the call, Steve, that we're looking at kind of $1 billion in the pipeline, it's early so it's harder to say. The one interesting thing, and it's tied up with the negotiations in Washington over an infrastructure bill, is that the administration's view of where infrastructure dollars should flow would place a priority on -- not surprising, I guess, from the administration's perspective, on these electric co-ops and on municipalities. And we also have a strong history, track record with municipalities also. The -- I believe, if it's not the largest, it's one of the largest municipal fiber builds in the country, is the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, and that's a project we did about 10 years ago. So there is a bias at least so far in the infrastructure bill to push even more dollars out to these types of companies.

Got it. One of the things that we've heard is that the cost to connect a home with fiber is now lower than it was before. And I think you made reference earlier in our conversation about some customers being successful with it, thinking it was not as difficult as possible. Maybe that's connected. Is the lower cost of connection a good thing or a bad thing for Dycom?

Well, it's interesting, Steve, and it's illustrative over kind of a decades-long trend, which is, as the technical capabilities of telecom equipment improve, right, so that they can provision greater and greater amounts of bandwidth, they also get cheaper. So it's kind of the silicon economics of telecom. And so I can remember early on, say, 15, 16 years ago, there were all kinds of different varieties of devices that connected fiber to the edge of the home, and they were pretty expensive because they've never been built before. And at this point, like consumer electronics, they're a whole lot cheaper now. And so the dynamic has been as the... [Technical Difficulty]

So I apologize. I'm having some technical difficulties. I'm not sure if it's on my end. It might be. Drew, are you...

It looks like Steve may have just dropped, but he'll come back in a minute. We'll just give him a minute.

Okay.

Am I coming through clear?

Yes, you're coming through great. We'll let maybe Steve finish that thought when he comes back around.

Perfect.

And maybe we can talk -- a little bit shifting forward to -- maybe margins might be a good topic to move along to. Can you talk a little bit about the margins you're achieving today and put them into context, where they are historically, what's the potential and maybe what some of the key drivers of these margins are going to be?

Sure. So we have had a little bit of margin pressure in the business. We've talked on a number of calls now related specifically to one large customer program. I think if you look at the rest of the business, what we've spoken about is that we're able to achieve historical margins on the rest of the business, and that large customer program is one that we're working through. We'll be happy, just like everyone, once we're through that, and we think we get through -- continue to work through that this year. So there was some pressure in the quarter that we spoke about. It was in relation to that program as well as there were a couple of customers that spent less in the first half of the year if you look at where their public disclosures are. And then that just becomes an absorption issue for those components.

Can you -- do we have Steve back? Okay. Well, we can -- just a follow-up on that. Any bookends that you can sort of put around those margin numbers? I think you may have talked about a 200 basis point number on the call. I'm not sure if that was the drag from that one customer program. But what should this business do when you guys are sort of -- if we were to kind of dream the dream over the next couple of years, you get the fiber-to-the-home programs going, you get the RDOFs, you got the utilities, you're executing well, you move beyond this one big customer program, what's the "dream the dream" scenario with good utilization and all those programs going and good execution?

Sure. And I see Steve Nielsen. Did you rejoin?

Yes, I did. But I'm waiting to hear the answer, Drew.

Well, certainly, when we've had broader -- broad-based growth across a number of customers is when the margins have been at higher levels. We see opportunity for that as we move forward. As Steve mentioned earlier on the call, we have a number of customers reemerging relative to fiber deployments as well as the rural opportunities that are really coming into the business now.

Okay. Fair enough. What would you say are, at the moment, sort of the biggest drags? I know you've got the one customer. Is it really just that customer and underutilization or is there any other type of mix that is a drag?

I think as we spoke about on the call, Steve, is that we had -- it was really a couple of things. One was the large customer program. Secondly, with the few customers that were slower on their spend in the first half of the year, that was more of an absorption thing or absorption component. Really no reason that we can't achieve higher margins as we move forward because the fundamentals of the business are the same. We just continue to work through this one program.

Yes. And Steve, I think the other thing to add is any time that we can get better revenue density, and there's always exceptions, but if -- as customers increase spending across the same geographic footprint, that's where it's easier for us to manage that growth and get good operating leverage. So it's not really utilization question because it's more of a leverage question across the resources that we have.

And we did get a question e-mailed in here on this topic, so maybe I'll just read it out. It kind of maybe puts it out there pretty directly, that EBITDA margins have been 10% or less for 3 years now, and this year is now, again, forecasted to be another tough margin year. So basically, asked directly, when do we get back to 12-plus percent margins?

Well, I mean, we haven't provided guidance, and I -- we're not providing back half guidance. We're probably not providing multiyear kind. But we had, throughout last year, said that if you pulled out effect of the large customer program, Steve, that the EBITDA margin was in line with, let's call it, the 10-year average. And that was in an environment where a number of these programs that are just getting underway with existing customers were not active. So last year was not a busy year from that perspective.

Got it. Now I think, Steve, we lost you a little bit before when you were talking about the cost coming down. Does that make it -- does that drive more volume? Or is it lower?

Yes. It's really a cycle that we've seen in the industry for a couple of decades, which is equipment costs come down, which means that the cost to deploy the entire network produces better returns for customers, and that's what incents investments. And customers have been very direct. I mean the cost of deploying a fiber-to-the-home network today with respect to particularly the electronics is far better than it was 15 years ago. So think about it as kind of silicon economics. The network devices that enable passive optical networks are all a lot cheaper now than they were when industry first began using them. And as they get cheaper, then these deployments become higher returns, and so customers are incented to do them. And -- but that was true with copper-based technologies in the 90s, right? It's just a perpetual cycle.

Got it. Okay. Maybe we could talk a little bit about diversification. Do you need more of it? Or -- and is it better achieved, if you are going to diversify, to have different programs within your existing customer base? Or do you have a desire at all to have a more diversified customer base over time relative to the concentration you've had historically? Or are you just content to let it play out as it does and see where it takes you?

Well, certainly, inside of the opportunities that we currently address, we always want to grow market share and increase the value that we're providing customers, right? So certainly, we're always going to, in that sense, become more diversified geographically. I'd have to think about this, but my guess is, right now, even as these programs are just beginning, we're probably providing more fiber-to-the-home services in more diverse geographies than we ever have, right? So it's certainly something that we can continue to do. In terms of diversification beyond our industry, the way we've defined it, we made the decision several years ago that as our customers consolidated, we had a choice to either get bigger with them as they got larger, which entailed some concentration risks; or to diversify away from them, which would, in essence, say, as they were getting bigger, our exposure to them as a percentage of the overall company was getting smaller. And we opted to grow larger as our customers grew larger. We think that's the right decision for us. Interestingly, in the last quarter, Steve, if you look at our other than top 5 customers, that represented just under 1/3 of the business, which we look back 10 years and it has never been at that level. And so in part, some of the rural opportunities, some of the fiber opportunities with the smaller ILEC telcos certainly have created opportunities to become more diversified. But right now, if we look ahead over the next 3, 4, 5 years, it's hard to find an industry that we could get into that will have as great growth opportunities, at least for us, as the one we're in.

And if you project out, does it -- do you think that top 5 being 1/3 kind of stays in that range? Do you think it will come down a bit as some of these [ smaller ones ] grow?

It's other than top 5. So kind of top 5...

Oh, other than top 5.

And look, we have some great opportunities in the top 5, AT&T being our largest customer. So I wouldn't say necessarily that the mix shift will stay this way forever, but I do think that the absolute dollar value of the work that we perform each quarter for kind of customer #6 through the end of the list certainly has some really great opportunities to grow that are encouraging.

One more question just back on the margin front. Typically, when we get these growth programs that come together, there may end up being some additional business development costs that materialize. Do you think there's going to be -- will that be noticeable? Do you -- are you anticipating some new business development costs? Or have you factored that into your thinking?

Well, I mean, certainly supporting growth is something that we factor into our thinking. I think this goes back to -- again, to Drew's earlier point, which is when you get broadly distributed growth across a number of customers in geographies where you already have a footprint, that is certainly -- there are certainly less costs to develop the business in existing areas for new programs than if you have to plant the flag in new geography. Now we like to grow the geographic footprint of the company, but there are -- as you have identified, there are some costs associated with doing that.

Okay. Now your stock has had periods of time where it's volatile on earnings day, and I think that has -- you're not the only one in the broad industry that has experienced that. And so what can you tell investors that have somewhat maybe of a skeptical view on construction-oriented or specialty service contracting, however you want to call it, business models in general? When they see that volatility, what can you tell them to make them feel a little more comfortable? Do you think that will be mitigated over time? Or is that just going to be par for the course on an ongoing basis?

Well, the trading dynamics, as always, everybody remarks on volatility when it's down. When it's up, it's just good fortune, right? So the -- we're not going to comment on the trading dynamics. But it does go back to your earlier question, which is we have very large customers that we have served for long periods of time. Occasionally, they can go through periods of time where, for various reasons, they modulate their spending, and that can have an impact on the business. But we still look to kind of the 3- to 5-year outlook that we talked about earlier and said we're happy to be in that business. And if there are consequences periodically to having a large concentrated customer list, then we'll manage the business to deal with that. But we don't want that to diminish at least our outlook for where the industry can go.

Fair enough. Maybe for Drew, some questions on cash flow. Just looking out at consensus. If you're doing somewhere in the range of $350 million to $400 million of EBITDA, what's the amount of cash that, that could translate into on an ongoing basis? And maybe if you want to frame also in terms of DSOs. How do we think about that? I think you cited in the 90s ex some special programs. Can you get that into the 80s? How should we think about cash flow?

Sure. So first off, we're not providing guidance in terms of the EBITDA number that you referenced. I think if you look at -- the way the model works is that generally, when we're growing on revenue, we will consume some working capital because there's a working capital cycle to the business. And then ultimately, we get good flow-through and conversion of that EBITDA into cash flow. So if you look, we provided a slide in the last earnings call, over the last several years, we were north of $300 million in operating cash flow in the periods. But for 2019 and '20, where we had some growth on the DSO, as we called out on the call, a component of our -- a large component of that relates to this large customer program. If you look at the rest of the business, it's generally trended in that 90-day range. As we work through that large customer program and convert that to cash, we would expect the DSOs to come through. We continue to work hard at it. We continue to work hard kind of every day on it as we move forward.

Yes. Steve, the other thing to add is that because we're using unit-based accounting, there is no prebilling or very little prebilling, Drew, on the balance sheet, right? So if you look at kind of just the accounts receivable and contract asset, ex the large customer program, you're in the kind of the mid-90s. And I think that we can always do better, but that's probably structurally about where it is.

Very helpful. And in terms of capital allocation there, what might this whole opportunity set -- as you think about the next 2 years, what might that require in terms of your either M&A activity? Are you concentrated enough in all the right geographic areas? Do you want to add more capacity? Or have you already built that out and now it's just a matter of getting the fruits of being there?

Well, organic growth, Steve, is always the highest return, right, because you're investing in fixed assets that have a fair market value and you're investing in working capital where, essentially, we're providing cash to our customers as we go through the billing cycle. So that's always going to be the highest return use of cash. And then we look at M&A versus share repurchase. I mean we have a broad footprint. There are not a lot of businesses out there that would be material from an earnings accretion perspective. And so the way we look at M&A versus share repurchases, simply one of kind of the clearance over the hurdle rate of our cost of capital. I mean it's not an EPS accretion gain. We don't work everywhere, so there may be opportunity to expand geographically. But we don't need to do M&A to have the capability to address customer opportunities at this point.

Okay. So you feel that your network is built out enough to serve all the opportunities that are out there?

We can always be better, right? And there's growing pains organically, just as there are integration cost to do an M&A. But it's an art, not a science. It's really just a balancing act. We've done something like 47 or 48 acquisitions in my tenure, so we certainly know how to do it. It's just making sure that we get the right returns for shareholders when we do, do it.

And this RDOF, does that require any particular investment on your part?

Well, one of the interesting things that we've talked about is we've always done lots of rural work. If you look at the stimulus of 2009, there was a rural fiber element to that program. And although all the numbers are much smaller than they are today in Washington, but that was about a $6.5 billion, $6.7 billion plan. And we did -- kind of pro forma for the assets we acquired during that period of time, we did just under $600 million, so a pretty good percentage of the total authorization. What's interesting is, since that time, we've actually done some acquisitions and have good footprint in the Upper Midwest and some other geographies, and we did not have as good a coverage then. And so once again, we can always be better. For the right opportunity, we'll certainly be interested. But we do have a pretty good capability to serve rural America right now.

Any comments you want to make on the wireless side?

Yes. We said on the call, Steve, that we are seeing C-band sites being issued, so that's encouraging. It's a big plan. Lots of towers are going to get touched over the next 2, 3 years. And I think that business has always done well when new spectrum has had to be deployed. And so it's somewhat less than 10% of the business. It's been high as 10% or 11%, but we do see good growth opportunities. As we exit this year going into next year, again, encouraged that our largest customer in wireless, AT&T, specifically went out of their way to put a C-band deployment target as part of their WarnerMedia spin disclosures. And so we think that's going to be a nice driver for the business.

Great. Well, we're coming up on the end of the session here. I want to just turn it over to you for the last 30 seconds or a minute. Anything else you want to say? What really makes you excited about where we are today and what you want to leave investors with?

Yes. Steve, well, thanks for the opportunity to be here. I think and we said this on our call in February, that people will look at -- the pandemic has had lots of consequences on the country, but it's had a lasting effect on our industry in that it's expanded the map to rural America. And it certainly has encouraged, for the most part, the large telcos to deploy lots of network on a pretty rapid basis. And so it's an exciting and encouraging time in the business.

Terrific. Well, it sounds great. And I want to thank you, Steve and Drew, for your participation, and we look forward to chatting again next time. Thank you.

Yes, absolutely. Thanks, Steve. Have a good day.