08.22.11
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 2:08 pm by timfarrar
Today, DISH has filed its transfer application for TerreStar’s 2GHz spectrum licenses with the FCC, stating that it plans to combine the spectrum with that of DBSD, so that it can use the full 40MHz to launch a “hybrid satellite and terrestrial mobile and fixed broadband network…to provide American consumers with greater choice for mobile broadband services”. DISH plans to deploy its network “based on the LTE Advanced standard” for which “commercial devices are expected to be generally available by 2014″, and seeks permission “to provide dual-mode terminals to customers who want them, and single-mode terrestrial terminals to customers who do not want the satellite function” noting that “relief from the integration requirement is an important component of DISH’s plan”. DISH also seeks a waiver of the ATC gating requirement to acquire a backup satellite.
In exchange, DISH states that it “is prepared to work with the Commission to develop a reasonable, attainable buildout schedule keyed to commercial availability of the LTE Advanced standard” and make “certain substantial terrestrial network deployment commitments intended to increase wireless broadband competition, including in rural areas”. However, though DISH has previously indicated that it will seek partners for its mobile broadband play, it does not commit to make network available on a wholesale basis to third parties.
As I’ve pointed out previously, DISH is now in a perfect position to replace LightSquared as the FCC’s favored option for providing additional wireless competition. Indeed DISH highlights specifically in the TerreStar application that “use of the [2GHz] band also does not give rise to the GPS interference issues that have hampered the use of the L-band” which is one of the factors meaning that the “promise of MSS/ATC has yet to be fully realized”. DISH also notes pointedly that it is “a well-financed, capable, and recognized innovator in communications technology [with] unique experience in developing an innovative and competitive retail operation and growing it from zero to approximately 14 million subscribers”.
Thus this application now sets the scene for a negotiation with the Commission over the terms of the promised buildout, including the specific coverage commitments and perhaps even some later promise (depending on the views of DISH’s key partners) to enter into wholesale deals with smaller players. With the cable companies apparently aligning themselves with Sprint, it looks very much like DISH will now partner with MetroPCS and perhaps even DirecTV and/or Leap as well.
Permalink
08.09.11
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 3:07 pm by timfarrar
It seems from today’s unexpected press conference that the FCC Chairman has finally realized that there is no way to avoid the fact that the GPS interference issues are a showstopper, and he is now preparing the ground to basically throw LightSquared under the bus. In particular the FCC is now characterizing the January waiver as a “stop work” order, stating that there is “no timetable” for the review (despite LightSquared’s recent insistence that it was “confident that the FCC will green-light its plans in mid-September”) and suggesting that there will now be more testing of the lower band plan, while use of the upper band will not be “happening anytime soon.”
Judging from these comments, my best guess is that there will now be six more months of testing on the lower band proposal (lasting into the spring or early summer of 2012, depending on how long it takes to issue the ruling), and a final decision could plausibly be deferred until after next year’s Presidential election (in order to avoid a political battle with the farming lobby). In addition, I suspect that even if LightSquared (assuming it is still around) received approval at that time, there could still be a delay of several years for precision users such as farmers and surveyors to modify their equipment before the lower band was brought into use.
Of course the reason that LightSquared had insisted on a mid-September approval is that it needs to raise additional funding before it can move forward with the Sprint deal, and as noted in Sprint’s 10-Q, there are “contingencies related to possible interference issues” in the network hosting agreement which give Sprint the right “to terminate the arrangement if certain conditions are not met either by September 30, 2011 or December 31, 2011.” However, this would apparently involve giving back LightSquared’s prepayments, so it seems more likely that the agreement would be “terminated for LightSquared’s material breach, non-payment or insolvency” in which case “Sprint maintains a second lien on certain of LightSquared’s spectrum related assets” (though that may be worthless) and presumably can also keep any payments made by LightSquared. Unfortunately, as stated today, although the FCC “would be sensitive to the financial situation of LightSquared’s owner, Harbinger Capital … that would not affect how it came to its decision on how to proceed” and FCC officials “insist they never told LightSquared the review would be completed by [mid-September].”
On the other hand, this morning, DISH stated that it plans “to make a mobile broadband play with its recently acquired S-Band satellite spectrum” and it intends to play a “significant role” in the wireless industry. When asked if DISH would reveal its strategy as soon as the Sprint announcement on October 7, DISH cautioned that they “wouldn’t expect anything in the near term.” Thus it seems that with LightSquared now left hanging, and the stock prices of Sprint, MetroPCS and Leap all suffering badly after their Q2 results, DISH is in an increasingly strong position, and may want to take more time to obtain the best possible terms for the partnerships needed for its wireless strategy. However, if that is the case, it is harder to see what might be a plausible “fourth chapter” for Sprint’s wireless strategy in early October, and it is always possible that DISH’s comment could be intended to put pressure on Sprint to offer them a better deal.
Permalink
07.13.11
Posted in ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 3:49 pm by timfarrar
As LightSquared continues to be engulfed by a tidal wave of criticism from the GPS industry, it now appears that this storm is setting up perfectly for DISH Network to solve the FCC’s problem: how to ensure that a competitive wholesale mobile broadband network can be deployed when it seems nearly impossible for LightSquared to use its L-band spectrum. While some think that DISH could lease its 2GHz spectrum holdings to LightSquared, to me it seems far more likely that DISH has plans for its own national 4G LTE wireless network, in partnership with “somebody who is more of an expert in that business than we are“.
Indeed in the application to transfer DBSD’s spectrum licenses to DISH, filed back in April, the company stated that “we expect the transaction to result in the provision of mobile broadband services” and in particular:
DISH plans to deploy a hybrid satellite/terrestrial system dedicated to the provision of mobile broadband services. If successful, consumers will be able to use their mobile terminals for high-speed Internet access as well as a myriad of Internet Protocol-based, over-the-top applications, including mobile video. DISH expects that the consumer equipment will include broadband-capable tablet computers, among other devices. DISH anticipates offering services both on a stand-alone basis and in a consumer-friendly bundle with its multichannel video services.
If DISH does manage to line up the partners to deploy such a network (potentially including MetroPCS, whose interest in the 2GHz band is well known), then that might well leave LightSquared to sink without a trace, as it would make it much easier for the FCC to defer to demands from the NTIA for six months of additional testing on LightSquared’s new spectrum plan. Of course, a six month delay would put the decision timeframe into the midst of a presidential election year, when it is all but inconceivable that either the White House or Congress would go against the wishes of millions of farmers, engineers, aviators and boaters.
In contrast, an alternative network proposed by DISH would have a ready made support base, not only from those parties demanding increased wireless broadband competition, but also from all those who have demanded that LightSquared’s network be moved outside the L-band. It seems both sides would therefore be eager to support the FCC granting DISH a waiver similar to LightSquared, permitting terrestrial-only devices, if DISH was to commit to aggressive buildout milestones and to providing wholesale access to its network capacity as Harbinger did back in March 2010.
Today there have been renewed rumors that Sprint will announce a deal with LightSquared during its Q2 results call on July 28, although another source has suggested to me that Sprint does not intend to set out its Network Vision plans at that time. Thus I’m left wondering whether this is an attempt to derail DISH’s plans, which certainly seem to be in pretty high gear, judging by the number of visits DISH has made to the FCC in recent weeks to discuss the 2GHz MSS spectrum band.
Maybe we are therefore moving towards the last few minutes of this Seinfeld episode. However, as Charlie Ergen knows only too well, in Seinfeld there are very few happy endings, except when they come at someone else’s expense.
Permalink
07.05.11
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 10:07 pm by timfarrar
I noted 10 days ago that one possible outcome for LightSquared would be for the company to sue the US government and/or FCC if it was unable to move forward because of the GPS interference issues. Last week’s Technical Working Group report submission was accompanied by a very strongly worded set of recommendations by LightSquared blaming the GPS industry as “it is inescapable that their disregard for the Commission’s policies regarding the immunity of receivers to transmissions in nearby frequency bands that is the source of the technical problem”.
This set of recommendations served to deflect from the results of the TWG itself, which highlighted widespread interference and the difficulties in mitigating this even under LightSquared’s revised plan. However, it also may act as something of a red rag to a bull, in terms of Congress’s reaction if the FCC does allow LightSquared to move forward. Of course, if Congress did act to ban LightSquared from operating, then that would provide a much more definitive trigger for any legal action by LightSquared (compared to a move by the FCC to delay any decision or postpone authorizing LightSquared’s operations until more testing is carried out).
On the other hand, while the FCC is still considering whether to give LightSquared the go ahead, it seems unlikely that we will see more overt legal threats. Indeed, the FCC’s deliberations about how to treat LightSquared are especially sensitive because it seems that some blame for the interference problems could very well attach to the FCC, given its apparent failure to live up to the commitments made in the 2005 ATC Order:
While we agree with the GPS Industry Council, NTIA, and other government agencies that it is essential to ensure that GPS does not suffer harmful interference, it is also important to ensure that new technologies are not unnecessarily constrained. In this regard, we recognize that the President’s new national policy for space-based positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) directs the Secretary of Commerce to protect the radio frequency spectrum used by GPS and its augmentations through appropriate domestic and international spectrum management regulatory practices . . . . Furthermore, the President’s PNT policy calls for the establishment of an inter-agency Executive Committee, on which the Chairman of the FCC will be invited to participate as a liaison, and a National Space-Based PNT Coordination Office. It is our intention to establish discussions with other agencies, through the PNT Executive Committee and Coordination Office as appropriate, to better understand what protection levels for GPS are warranted. The results of those discussions may lead to future rulemaking proposals in order to ensure that all FCC services provide adequate protection to GPS, and produce a more complete record upon which to establish final GPS protection limits for MSS ATC
licensees
Since the release of the TWG report, LightSquared has been attempting to highlight other signs of progress, including raising $265M of additional funding today. However, it seems that the vast majority of this new funding is likely to have been in the form of Harbinger having to stump up its previously unfunded $250M commitment to LightSquared. Harbinger also seems to be experiencing some internal turmoil, and it will be very interesting to see what has happened at the end of the second quarter in terms of redemptions. Most problematically, with the FCC comment and reply period on the TWG report now extending until August 15, and indications that the FCC will not rush to judgment after that, it appears more likely that Sprint will announce details of its Network Vision plan before it has been determined whether LightSquared is able to move forward or not.
In parallel with this activity, it seems we may know more about DISH’s plans for DBSD and TerreStar relatively soon, as comments are due on Friday in the 2GHz spectrum consultation. After Charlie Ergen met with the FCC Chairman on June 22 to discuss matters including DISH’s recent 2GHz MSS spectrum acquisitions, it now seems ever more likely that DISH could provide a readily available alternative source of spectrum for prospective LightSquared partners.
Permalink
06.27.11
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 11:00 am by timfarrar
Last week’s Brattle Group report for LightSquared, not only highlights the regulatory “gift” from the FCC involved in their January 2011 waiver, but also contains an estimated value of $12B for LightSquared’s L-band spectrum. This valuation is derived by assuming that LightSquared’s terrestrial-only waiver means its spectrum should have an equivalent value to “unencumbered AWS wireless broadband spectrum”, which Brattle believes to be worth approximately $1.00 per MHzPOP.
Unfortunately, this valuation, which is derived from an April 2011 Brattle Group analysis, is also deeply flawed. As an aside, it is almost identical to the valuation put on LightSquared (then MSV) by Brattle back in October 2005, when they estimated that 30MHz of MSS-ATC spectrum had a “potential” value of $0.99 per MHzPOP (although ironically, at that point it was asserted that “there are questions regarding interference and other technical issues that potentially make L-band use for ATC problematic, which would require L-band spectrum to be priced at a discount to S-band spectrum”).
The most obvious problem with Brattle’s valuation of LightSquared’s spectrum is that is is just as inappropriate to use AWS spectrum as the sole benchmark for L-band valuation today, as it was to use PCS as the benchmark in October 2005. Today the AWS-1 block has substantial existing infrastructure already deployed (both base stations and handsets) which can readily make use of the spectrum, whereas LightSquared was not even able to provide test handsets or full power base stations for the recent Las Vegas testing.
In addition, there are also more subtle issues which render the AWS value in the April 2011 paper unreliable. Notably, Brattle estimates trends in spectrum pricing by reference to a spectrum price index created and maintained by Spectrum Bridge. Brattle suggests that the index “tracks changes in spectrum value reasonably well” because as one example, “the change in SpecEx Index values closely tracked the change in AWS spectrum value based on NextWave’s AWS spectrum sale to T-Mobile in July 2008. The NextWave sale reflected a 91% increase in AWS spectrum value, whereas, the SpecEx Index in the same period indicated an 86% increase in spectrum value.”
However, the cited transaction reflects the sale of spectrum which by July 2008 could be readily put into use in T-Mobile’s built-out AWS-1 network, compared to spectrum which in summer 2006 had not even been cleared of interference. It is as if I bought some farmland and then a developer put in utilities and roads on the adjacent tract of land. The value of my particular plot might have increased, but that would say nothing about the market price of farmland. In spectrum terms, no-one (including Brattle) would suggest that Aloha’s windfall on sale of its 700MHz spectrum to AT&T was largely due to a general increase in the value of spectrum, as opposed to the DTV transition and the 700MHz auction creating certainty about whether the spectrum could be put to use.
A second factor is that of survivorship bias: in the cited NextWave transaction, NextWave’s AWS holdings were sold because the offered price was acceptable (higher than the original price paid), but NextWave failed to sell its 2.3GHz and 2.5GHz spectrum holdings which were on offer at the same time (because the offers, assuming there were any, were too low). Spectrum Bridge claims that its index takes account not only transaction data but also a “custom weighting of value, spectrum, and macro-economic based factors driven by SBI’s valuation and trading data”. However, this inevitably obscures the methodology and makes it all but impossible to determine whether the index accurately tracks spectrum values.
Returning to my farmland analogy, it would seem that the most important factors in attempting to exclude both “improvement” and “survivorship” bias would be that (for currently unused spectrum) the ecosystem for use of the spectrum should not have changed dramatically in the intervening years, and the timing of the sale should be dictated by external events (e.g. a bankruptcy auction) rather than by whether or not the prior holder can make a profit over what it paid previously. In that context, the recent sale of DBSD and the current auction of TerreStar almost certainly provide a better indicator for trends in the value of LightSquared’s spectrum than the index used by Brattle.
At current levels (of roughly $0.25 per MHzPOP), DBSD and TerreStar’s spectrum has actually gone down in value compared to 2005 and is broadly similar to the trading price (and the Motient/SkyTerra exchange valuation) back in 2006 (before most of their satellite construction expenses were incurred and well before the spectrum could be brought into use). This compares to a SpecEx index which has doubled since mid 2006 and trebled since 2005.
If (perhaps optimistically) we assumed that LightSquared’s spectrum with the terrestrial-only waiver is similar to AWS-1 spectrum when it was auctioned in 2006, then based on the DBSD/TerreStar trend (of minimal change in price since 2006) the AWS-1 auction pricing ($0.54 per MHzPOP) might be an appropriate valuation to use. On the other hand, if DBSD and TerreStar also include in their current valuation some allowance for the possibility that the FCC might also grant them a waiver (so are more directly analogous to LightSquared), then their $0.25 per MHzPOP valuation might be more appropriate.
In order to come up with an actual dollar valuation of LightSquared’s spectrum assets, you then need to take into account the impact of interference (i.e. whether to use 20MHz or 40MHz as the basis of valuation) and the NPV of the Inmarsat payments (where a relatively low (8%?) discount rate would probably be used by any established wireless operator purchasing this spectrum).
At the low end (20MHz @$0.25 per MHzPOP), you come out with a negative valuation after the Inmarsat payments (minimal value for the first lien debtholders), whereas at the high end (40MHz @$0.54 per MHzPOP) you have a valuation of about $4B (before paying off the first lien debt). That’s why I said that “It is very hard to see how you justify an equity value for this business (in line with) what Harbinger has invested, unless it can show it will be able to use all the spectrum it owns”.
Permalink
06.14.11
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 3:32 pm by timfarrar
News emerged on Tuesday afternoon that TerreStar Networks (TSN) was close to agreeing a $1.2B to $1.4B stalking horse bid with DISH Networks. It appeared that DISH is likely to outbid a group of first lien debtholders and another bid from MetroPCS (possibly in conjunction with Harbinger), who jointly bid for DBSD with Solus and Harbinger back in March and were also outbid by DISH in that auction.
UPDATE: It has been confirmed to us that Harbinger was one of the parties attempting to acquire TerreStar’s spectrum assets, but its not clear whether Harbinger was aligned with MetroPCS or the other first lien holders (and it may even have been a potential customer/partner for both groups).
It seems that Harbinger had hoped to be in a position to announce a 2GHz first strategy, just as it planned back in March, in an attempt to head off the findings of tomorrow’s GPS Working Group report to the FCC which will state that testing demonstrated “widespread interference with GPS.” However, once again Harbinger may now have been thwarted by DISH.
UPDATE: Details on the agreed $1.375B stalking horse bid have now been filed with the Court. It is stated that the bid amount will exceed the secured debt (15% Notes plus PMCF plus DIP) by $90M. Thus the Exchangeable Notes (nearly $200M) and other unsecured creditors will have to make do with well under 50 cents on the dollar and no value would flow down to the equity holders in TSN (which is owned 88% by TerreStar Corporation and 12% by LightSquared). For these unsecured creditors to be paid in full and excess value to flow to the TSN equity would therefore require the winning bid in the auction to be increased to something between $1.5B and $1.6B (rather higher than I had previously estimated). Of course the disappointed equity holders (in TSN and by extension in TSC) may have some company, because at the current $1.375B bid level, Harbinger will also take a bath on its majority holdings of Exchangeable Notes, which it was buying at up to 82 cents on the dollar back in November.
Whether further bids might emerge in the subsequent auction is still unknown. The other first lien debtholders may be content to be paid in full in cash for their claim, though there were indications last night that they were still actively competing against DISH as the price rose towards $1.4B. Perhaps MetroPCS (and Harbinger?) could also try to outbid DISH in the auction itself. Unfortunately, that didn’t work in the DBSD case, and it could well be the case that no further bids emerge at the auction, given the protections that the successful stalking horse bidder will have.
If Harbinger is unsuccessful in securing rights to TerreStar’s 2GHz spectrum, its unclear where Harbinger and LightSquared go from here, unless Sprint is prepared to take LightSquared’s side in the GPS interference debate. However, if Harbinger did in fact team up once again with MetroPCS, that would make it harder to believe that a deal with Sprint is anything like as imminent as LightSquared has been hinting.
Permalink
05.31.11
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 11:08 pm by timfarrar
Although Charlie Ergen has his Seinfeld strategy for exploiting DISH’s new assets, including DBSD and Blockbuster, Harbinger’s plans for LightSquared are becoming ever harder to discern, with news today that LightSquared is “considering a deal with AT&T to buy network capacity from the carrier”. Presumably this story comes in response to concerns that LightSquared might be forbidden from operating its L-band terrestrial network indefinitely, if new language in the National Defense Authorization Act passed by the House of Representatives last week is ultimately included in the final bill. At the very least it now appears that the FAA will insist that LightSquared’s operations be confined to only the lower half of its 40MHz of L-band spectrum, while John Deere contends that “permitting LightSquared to operate its network as proposed or any variant of its currently proposed network will create massive interference into Deere’s StarFire system and other similar systems risking serious harm to the U.S. agriculture industry”.
This news marks yet another 180 degree turn in LightSquared’s ever-changing story, which over the last year has shifted from a $7B contract (or rather MoU) with Nokia Siemens Networks (which disintegrated in January) to a joint bid with MetroPCS for DBSD to a network sharing agreement with Sprint (which at one point was supposedly even going to supplant Clearwire) to now an “initiative” with AT&T, along the way apparently including talks with Cablevision, Time Warner Cable and any number of other companies. This extraordinary saga reads like something by Hans Christian Andersen, the only question being whether the final tale will turn out to be “The Ugly Duckling” or “The Emperor’s New Clothes“.
Meanwhile, the FCC appears to be doing its best to make the TerreStar bankruptcy auction even more confusing, releasing a Public Notice on May 20 which “invites technical input on approaches to encourage the growth of terrestrial mobile broadband services in the 2 GHz spectrum range”. Unfortunately for TerreStar, the FCC once again insists that “the public interest” requires that “any grant of terrestrial rights in the 2 GHz band [should] have ‘conditions designed to ensure timely utilization of the spectrum for broadband and appropriate consideration for the step-up in the value of the affected spectrum’” in the form of “Voluntary Incentive Auctions” or “Voluntary Return of MSS Spectrum Rights”, thereby potentially reducing the perceived value of TerreStar’s MSS spectrum in the upcoming auction quite significantly.
Of course, things are not looking that great for the FCC’s other attempts to bring additional spectrum into use for terrestrial mobile broadband (i.e. LightSquared and broadcast TV incentive auctions), so perhaps the buyer of TerreStar’s spectrum will simply tell the FCC to go pound sand, and continue to pursue a (loss making) satellite-based business plan until a better offer is on the table. However, in those circumstances, whoever buys TerreStar would need to have deep pockets, and be happy to wait for several years rather than seeking a quick flip of the spectrum. Given Harbinger’s experience with LightSquared, that might well put off some of the financial players who could otherwise have been interested in TerreStar’s spectrum.
Permalink
03.22.11
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Spectrum, TerreStar at 8:48 am by timfarrar
As I noted last month, I found it very surprising that LightSquared chose to announce that it had “five customers” for wholesale fourth-generation service, consisting of “a national retailer, a device manufacturer, one Web site, and two carriers”, but declined to name any of them. Over the last five weeks, two of these names have emerged – Open Range Communications and today Leap Wireless. However, LightSquared is still to reveal the “major retailer that it will name before the end of March”.
Just like the deal with Open Range ten days ago, when everyone thought LightSquared would announce a major deal with MetroPCS, today’s release also seems to be a major let down. LightSquared had promised everyone that it had a network sharing agreement with Sprint to announce at CTIA. Perhaps this will still be announced tomorrow, but that would be a rather peculiar PR strategy, and PR is one thing that LightSquared has been very effective at. Given the complex array of choices now facing Sprint, as it decides how to respond to the AT&T/T-Mobile deal, it seems more likely that Sprint has taken a step back to reconsider what happens next.
As I understand it, the Leap Wireless roaming deal was agreed six months ago, leading LightSquared to claim at the SATCON conference in New York in October that it had already secured a 3G roaming partner to “augment” its network coverage. It also hardly seems likely to generate a meaningful amount of revenue for LightSquared, especially if it is a reciprocal roaming agreement. If 30% of Leap’s 5.5M customers opted for 4G roaming, and the net revenue flow to LightSquared was $2 per sub per month, then this would only generate about $40M of revenues per year for LightSquared, a drop in the bucket compared to its planned $14B investment.
The second major LightSquared announcement that was expected at CTIA was a network infrastructure deal with Ericsson. Its therefore surprising that an interview with a LightSquared executive has been published today on Telecoms.com, once again talking about LightSquared’s “deal” with Nokia Siemens Networks. As an aside, I’m told that the reason it is always referred to as a “deal” or an “agreement” with NSN, is because the original MoU, signed last July, has never been converted into a formal contract.
In my previous post, I wondered “which of DBSD/TerreStar, Clearwire and LightSquared will ultimately turn out to be the good, the bad and the ugly”. Given the results of the DBSD bankruptcy auction, DBSD certainly turned out to be good for its investors. Now we just have to wait and see what happens with TerreStar, Clearwire and LightSquared.
Permalink
03.18.11
Posted in ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 12:58 pm by timfarrar
On Wednesday, the FCC Chairman gave a speech at the Mobile Future Forum promoting his plan to hold incentive auctions of spectrum “voluntarily contributed by current licensees like TV broadcasters or mobile satellite operators, who would in return receive a portion of the proceeds of the auction”. This comes at an awkward time in the debate over MSS spectrum, given that DBSD has just been sold and a resolution of the TerreStar bankruptcy is still to come.
With Harbinger’s bid for DBSD, many observers had assumed that 2GHz spectrum holders would be able to secure waivers of the ATC obligations just as LightSquared did, despite the FCC expressing its intention in last July’s NPRM to secure “appropriate compensation for the step up in value” generated by converting the 2GHz band to terrestrial spectrum. As a result, this injection of additional uncertainty can’t be good news for TerreStar’s investors as they seek bids for the company’s assets.
The FCC Chairman’s intention to treat 2GHz differently from L-band (apparently on the basis that L-band spectrum is “worse” than 2GHz because it will take a substantial amount of time and money to resolve the interleaving and interference issues) also draws more attention to the ongoing debate over the LightSquared waiver.
Earlier this week it was suggested to me by an Obama Administration official that the FCC’s actions in granting the waiver may have contravened the intent of the President’s spectrum policy, as laid out in a June 2010 memorandum. This Memorandum states the following:
Section 1. The Secretary of Commerce, working through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall:
(a) collaborate with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make available a total of 500 MHz of Federal and nonfederal spectrum over the next 10 years, suitable for both mobile and fixed wireless broadband use. The spectrum must be available to be licensed by the FCC for exclusive use or made available for shared access by commercial and Government users in order to enable licensed or unlicensed wireless broadband technologies to be deployed;
(b) collaborate with the FCC to complete by October 1, 2010, a specific Plan and Timetable for identifying and making available 500 MHz of spectrum as described in subsection (a) of this section. For purposes of successfully implementing any repurposing of existing spectrum in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, the Plan and Timetable must take into account the need to ensure no loss of critical existing and planned Federal, State, local, and tribal government capabilities, the international implications, and the need for appropriate enforcement mechanisms and authorities;
Specifically, it was suggested to me that the FCC did not “take into account the need to ensure no loss of critical existing and planned Federal, State, local, and tribal government capabilities” with respect to GPS interference, because the waiver was granted before the issue had been fully addressed. This dispute appears to highlight an ongoing debate within the US government about how to balance the conflicting objectives of protecting GPS while increasing the availability of broadband spectrum, which has seen at least one senior officer speaking out against LightSquared. As a result, it will be interesting to see how the political debate evolves, in light of the ever-intensifying lobbying campaign from the GPS industry.
Permalink
03.16.11
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum at 7:20 pm by timfarrar
Back in the 1990s, the oft-repeated mantra from proponents of the Iridium, Globalstar and ICO projects, when asked where they would find subscribers and investors, was “build it and they will come“. Unfortunately, this Field of Dreams approach didn’t quite work out, when between them these projects lost over $12B of investors’ money.
It now looks like Phil Falcone may end up playing the role of another character from the film, and an even better known resident of Chisholm, Minnesota, Archibald “Moonlight” Graham, whose claim to fame is that he never managed to get a chance to bat in his only appearance in Major League Baseball.
At Satellite 2011 today, the consensus of industry observers and regulatory advisers alike was that GPS interference issues are likely to render much of LightSquared’s L-band spectrum unusable for years to come, as I noted last night. As a result, it is very hard to see where we go from here in terms of LightSquared’s network buildout, even if the plan was fundable.
UPDATE: LightSquared appears to be hinting that it plans to announce a network sharing deal with Sprint next week at CTIA. Though this would be an interesting development, it is a far cry from the planned deal with MetroPCS, which could have potentially ensured an ATC buildout in the 2GHz band. LightSquared would still have to raise the money to fund the buildout, and this will still cost billions of dollars, not least because Sprint only has the right to deploy majority owned spectrum (such as from Clearwire) on its leased towers (unless new agreements are struck with the tower owners). If GPS interference issues render much of LightSquared’s spectrum unusable, it will also be much harder to offer adequate security for any new fundraising.
After Harbinger’s unsuccessful attempt to gain control of DBSD, it may now prove difficult if not impossible to access the 2GHz spectrum. With MetroPCS apparently also unwilling to publicly announce its partnership with Harbinger, it appears more plausible that MetroPCS would decide to team up with DISH than to continue the pursuit of TerreStar in conjunction with Harbinger. As a result, it seems ever more probable that there may never be a LightSquared terrestrial network, and Mr. Falcone may have lost his chance to bat in the major league of mobile operators.
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
