06.28.10
Posted in Financials, Globalstar, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 1:32 pm by timfarrar
The President has now announced his support for the proposal set out in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan (NBP) to free up 500MHz of spectrum for wireless broadband over the next decade. However, even though “Our nation’s ability to lead the world in innovation and technology is threatened by the lack of sufficient spectrum for wireless broadband applications and services” according to the FCC, it doesn’t necessarily mean that spectrum will prove to be a good investment over the next few years. (In this analysis, we’re looking at the opportunity for financial investors, as opposed to cellular operators – just like in the housing market, if you intend to use your spectrum, then that’s a different proposition from planning to flip it to someone else).
Indeed it is highly desirable from the FCC’s point of view that spectrum should become cheaper rather than more expensive, because that will enable more competition in the wireless market and result in lower prices for consumers. In the absence of lower prices for spectrum, it is likely that some cellular operators will be shut out entirely from 4G, or will be forced to merge with competitors in order to combine their spectrum holdings – not the outcome that the FCC wants to see. The FCC also doesn’t want to reward speculators – it would much prefer spectrum to be put to use, rather than see financial investors lock it up with a view to profiting from higher prices in the future. Although some might argue that the FCC also needs to raise money from auctions (not least to fund the buildout of public safety networks), it is far from clear that such motivations will weigh heavily in the FCC’s decisions (even if some members of Congress disagree). Certainly the concept of maximizing the proceeds of future auctions was not emphasized in the NBP.
From a historical perspective, despite this apparent crisis, spectrum prices in the US (on a per MHzPOP basis) are actually far lower than a decade ago. This is entirely logical: if it now takes 50MHz+ of spectrum to support $30 of monthly data services, whereas ten years ago operators required only 20MHz of spectrum to provide $50 of monthly voice services, then cellular operators simply can’t produce the same ROI from each MHz of spectrum as they did in the past.
Just the objective of freeing up 500MHz of spectrum (almost doubling the amount currently available for terrestrial cellular service) alone is likely to put a damper on spectrum prices. In recent months, we have also seen the FCC moving rapidly to finalize rules to enable use of 25MHz of WCS spectrum, and formulate policies to ensure that 90MHz of MSS-ATC spectrum is put to use. In addition, the FCC may also decide to limit the amount of additional spectrum that AT&T and Verizon (who accounted for the vast majority of spending during the 700MHz auction in 2008) can acquire in the future.
In my view, all of these developments point to lower spectrum prices in the next few years. In the short term, prices will be depressed further by the glut of spectrum owners seeking to monetize their holdings at the moment: Harbinger, Clearwire, NextWave and other MSS operators, to name just a few. This comes at a time when there is a relative lack of buyers, with most analysts hard pressed to name anyone other than T-Mobile that is an obvious partner for these companies. Investors who acquired undervalued spectrum assets a few years ago (particularly if that was prior to recent rule changes) may be OK, but new investors will need to be more cautious about the price they pay for these assets.
In summary, even if there is considerable long term demand for spectrum, it is a fallacy to equate this with increasing prices. In that regard, spectrum is like oil: you know there will be more demand in the future, but that tells you nothing about how the price will move in the next year or two. The short term price (and indeed the price in auctions) is determined by the balance of demand and supply today. That alone is a negative sign for investors in spectrum assets. However, when the FCC (unlike OPEC) would also prefer to see lower prices for spectrum, then it certainly looks like a risky bet to assume that prices will go higher anytime soon.
Permalink
06.24.10
Posted in Broadband, Financials, Inmarsat, Maritime, Operators, VSAT at 5:12 pm by timfarrar
In recent discussions we’ve heard rumors that Inmarsat may soon make a bid to take over Thrane & Thrane, its biggest equipment supplier. Inmarsat has certainly been in acquisition mode over the last year, taking over Stratos and Segovia and investing in SkyWave. Nevertheless, such a move would still be quite a shock for many in the MSS industry.
However, it would be a logical accompaniment to Inmarsat’s Ka-band strategy: Inmarsat would be able to reduce the price of L-band equipment (particularly FleetBroadband terminals) and thereby help to fend off the threat from Ku-band VSAT for the next few years until its new Ka-band satellites are in orbit. Thrane could also play an important role in development of mobile Ka-band terminals, which are clearly the biggest technical risk in Inmarsat’s entire Ka-band plan.
Though the threat from Ku-band has been hyped up recently, most notably in Comsys’s recent maritime VSAT report, our view continues to be that L-band has a very sustainable market position, outside the highest spending ships. To date, Ku-band VSATs have achieved only limited penetration within Inmarsat’s core maritime commercial transportation market (which incidentally is much smaller than 100,000 ships), and most of these ships spend far too little to ever contemplate a move to VSAT.
By reducing the cost of L-band equipment, in concert with its aggressive moves on airtime pricing over the last year, Inmarsat has a very viable opportunity to hold off Ku-band VSAT incursion. Even the recent concerns about shortfalls in Inmarsat’s maritime revenue growth during the first quarter of 2010 appear to stem much more from the price reductions that Inmarsat and its distributors have used to remain competitive on high spending vessels, rather than any substantial loss of market share to VSAT in the commercial transportation business. Indeed many maritime VSAT service providers had a very disappointing year in 2009, and quite a number of them are now up for sale, in what we would view as an attempt to exploit the perception of rapid future market growth before they actually need to fulfill these expectations.
Permalink
06.02.10
Posted in Aeronautical, Broadband, Financials, Globalstar, Handheld, Inmarsat, Iridium, Maritime, Operators, Services, VSAT at 2:57 pm by timfarrar
So Iridium has finally announced the contract to build its NEXT satellites, which was won by Thales Alenia Space (TAS) with the support of a stunning $1.8B loan package which will be 95% guaranteed by COFACE, the French Export Credit Agency (ECA). By the sound of it, Lockheed had been confident of winning the contract, but the US Ex-Im Bank simply couldn’t match the level of support offered by COFACE.
Even Iridium appears surprised by the $1.8B Promise of Guarantee, given the suggestions in their March 2010 results call that the company would need to raise additional unsecured or subordinated debt in the public market. We had expected Iridium might need to raise $300M or more in backstop financing, based on Iridium’s April 2010 investor presentation which stated that the company was “seeking support for a[n ECA] facility of approximately $1.5B”. COFACE’s additional support therefore clearly appears to have tipped the balance in favor of TAS, because it removes the risk that Iridium would have faced in trying to tap the public markets at this point in time.
We now expect Globalstar to point out that Iridium has received an even more favorable financing package than Globalstar did last year (when Thermo was required to provide additional backstop funding as a condition of the $586M COFACE-backed facility) and potentially to seek a $200M+ extension of its current facility. This would provide funding so Globalstar could exercise its option to purchase the last 24 second generation satellites, allowing them to add more satellites to their constellation before NEXT becomes operational (and before radiation problems are expected to start impacting their 8 first generation spares in about 2015). Such a facility could also give Globalstar more firepower to market its new second generation services in 2011 and 2012, without the risk of eating into the contingent equity and debt service reserve accounts previously established by Thermo.
The next stage in this war of the Export Credit Agencies may then come in the shape of Inmarsat’s upcoming Ka-band constellation, which we expect to involve 3 or 4 dedicated Ka-band satellites (costing at least $200M each including launch and insurance), providing oceanic coverage to complement and extend its existing FleetBroadband and SwiftBroadband services. With Inmarsat’s new satellites expected to be deployed between 2013 and 2015, an order could well come as soon as this summer, when Inmarsat announces its investor guidance for the next five years. More details of Inmarsat’s plans and our expectations for their future Ka-band revenues were given in the March 2010 report, available to subscribers to our MSS information service.
The competition to build Inmarsat’s new satellites appears once again to be shaping up as a US vs European battle with TAS, SS/L and Astrium all bidding for the contract. Will ECA financing once again prove to be a key factor in the decision, even though Inmarsat has much less need for a guarantee than Iridium and Globalstar? Certainly Inmarsat has not been reluctant to seek cheap government-backed funding when it is available, as seen in its recent European Investment Bank loan to fund the Alphasat project.
In summary, its clear that ECA financing is now going to play a very substantial role in supporting the MSS industry. As a result, the prospects for a long awaited consolidation of the sector appear to be diminishing. That is certainly good news for end users of MSS, as well as service providers and distributors, who will be able to take advantage of an increasing range of competitive alternatives. This is particularly true in the maritime and aeronautical markets, where Iridium is really the only potential MSS competitor for Inmarsat. Indeed Iridium’s ability to serve these markets gives it a much more sustainable long term position than some other systems, because most maritime and aeronautical opportunities are much less likely to be undermined by the buildout of terrestrial wireless systems.
Nevertheless, it also seems hard to justify the $8B+ of capital investment that has been committed by Iridium, Globalstar and all of the other players (Iridium NEXT, Globalstar 2, Inmarsat 4, Orbcomm, ICO/DBSD, SkyTerra and TerreStar) in an industry sector which only generated $1.1B in wholesale service revenues in 2009, and though growing healthily, doesn’t appear poised to breakout from the 8% annual growth rate seen in recent years. Unless new sources of value appear (spectrum monetization being the obvious option for several players) it appears unlikely that all of the MSS operators will be as successful as they and their investors hope.
Indeed the main story of the next decade is likely to be the competition between Iridium and Globalstar, as they both strive to be the second biggest player in an MSS market that will continue to be dominated by Inmarsat, while other providers may fall by the wayside. If Iridium can grow from its current 19% share of wholesale service revenues to about a 25% market share, or Globalstar can grow from its current 5% share to 15% or more (based on its lower cost satellite system), then that should be sufficient to achieve an attractive return on capital for either company. However, with Inmarsat holding a more than 60% market share today, it appears unlikely that both Iridium and Globalstar could achieve this level of success simultaneously.
Permalink
05.25.10
Posted in Financials, LightSquared, Operators, Spectrum, TerreStar at 4:08 pm by timfarrar
As Harbinger tries to secure partners for its proposed 4G LTE network, it now looks like Craig McCaw and Clearwire could potentially end up playing spoiler.
A research note from Credit Suisse, published on Monday highlighted the potential value of MSS spectrum and suggested it could be worth as much as $0.50 per MHzPOP. It also noted that the spectrum value of Clearwire “is likely underappreciated”. No substantive justification is given for the $0.50 per MHzPOP valuation suggested in the research note, other than the fact that this is close to the median value in the 2006 AWS spectrum auctions, and there are a number of elementary mistakes in the analysis of TerreStar (most notably that no mention is made of the more than $400M of Convertible Preferred Stock which must be repaid before any value from the 1.4GHz spectrum is realized by the equity holders). The fact that the FCC “will expect a portion of the
step up in value for both [2GHz] MSS and broadcast spectrum” is also only mentioned in passing, despite the fact that this will have a huge impact on the realizable value if the spectrum is ultimately included in an incentive auction. Despite this, the research certainly seems to have stimulated some increased interest in MSS-ATC spectrum, as evidenced by the jump in the price of TerreStar’s stock on Monday, and could be seen as potentially helping Harbinger in its quest to attract investors for its 4G network.
However, perhaps coincidentally, last Friday, Business Week published an article highlighting Clearwire’s spectrum value (which it puts at “$20B or more” or $0.50/MHzPOP). In my view, this article clearly indicates that Clearwire is now open to offers for purchase of some of its spectrum. In that case, wireless operators who are looking for spectrum in the short or medium term, such as T-Mobile, would certainly have a viable alternative to MSS-ATC spectrum if they are looking to build out a 4G network. Given that there are only a few potential purchasers of wireless spectrum at the moment (and the it now looks like the FCC doesn’t want AT&T and Verizon to buy any more spectrum in forthcoming auctions), the fact that Clearwire and Harbinger may end up competing to attract one of this limited number of partners won’t do anything to push up the price that can be secured for their spectrum in the near term.
Permalink
05.14.10
Posted in Financials, Handheld, Operators, Services, Spectrum, TerreStar at 10:26 am by timfarrar
Back in March, I was lucky enough to try TerreStar’s Genus phone at the Satellite 2010 conference. At that time it was clear that the phone needed further work to get it ready for commercial service, and recent filings from TerreStar indicate that the company is now working with HNS on an “ATT-QoS Workaround” to address some “APN Issues” (APN or Access Point Node relates to data services, which I did not try to use back in March).
UPDATE: I’m told by a technical expert in this area that the GMR1-3G protocol used by TerreStar treats all information as packet data, including voice (which has the highest QoS). Given that AT&T’s terrestrial network carries voice over GSM and does not normally provide an equivalent voice over packet data service at this point in time, it appears quite plausible that the workaround relates to an attempt to optimize voice performance rather than being an issue for TerreStar’s data services.
However, my concerns about the viability of the Genus phone relate much more to whether the orientation-sensitivity of the phone will actually be acceptable in real world usage conditions. To use the phone you need to know where the satellite is located (roughly southwest when you are on the East Coast) and have clear visibility in that direction. Though that was simple at the Satellite conference, where this direction was out over the Potomac river, it certainly won’t always be the case in rural areas, unless its a desert or a prairie. I still remember only too well the joke I was told by a Globalstar engineer ten years ago – that their system was designed for a “man out standing/outstanding in his field”. More to the point you also need to stand still and not turn around – very different to the situation with Iridium and Globalstar handsets, where the extending antenna goes above your head and allows you to “walk and talk”.
If orientation-sensitivity does prove to be a big problem for potential users, as I think it will, then TerreStar is faced with an unpalatable choice: design a phone with an extending antenna, which will work fine, but would have no mass market appeal, or sell a phone like the Genus, which could conceivably have wider appeal, but won’t provide acceptable performance in satellite mode. Fundamentally, I therefore don’t see any reason to change the opinion I expressed last year during the DBSD bankruptcy, that “the part of TerreStar’s business plan directed to a mass market service is very unlikely to succeed”.
However, there has been one important change in the environment for TerreStar over the last six months, because the FCC has now held out the possibility that 2GHz MSS spectrum holders will be able to participate in an incentive auction, which would potentially allow them to return their spectrum to the FCC for re-auction as terrestrial spectrum without any ATC restrictions. Given the difficulty in realizing value from a satellite roaming business plan, then unless Harbinger negotiates a lease agreement for TerreStar’s satellite spectrum, as part of its planned L-band ATC deployment, it seems likely that this would be the best exit TerreStar could hope for. However, given that the FCC would only give TerreStar a proportion of the proceeds from the auction, and it would probably take a couple of years before that auction even happened (during which period TerreStar will have to raise more money to keep its satellite in operation), it is hard to imagine that the proceeds could exceed the secured debt load that TerreStar has accrued to date. Even if TerreStar did enter some sort of lease agreement with Harbinger (some details of the draft term sheet for the Spectrum Pooling Agreement, which appears to contemplate a “potential purchase of the S-band Spectrum” as one option, but not a takeover of TerreStar itself, have also been publicly filed), then it seems implausible that this payment would exceed the value of SkyTerra’s lease agreement with Inmarsat, which calls for payments of $115M per year, and it could very well be much less. Unfortunately even $115M per year would be insufficient to pay the interest on TerreStar’s secured debt, when it becomes cash pay next year. Remember also that if TerreStar stays out of bankruptcy, it will at some point have to pay Sprint’s spectrum clearing expenses, which Sprint has claimed exceed $100M for each of TerreStar and DBSD.
At this point in time, the future for TerreStar therefore looks pretty uncertain. More importantly for the rest of the MSS market, it is far from clear whether the Genus phone will provide meaningful competition to other handheld MSS providers, and even whether AT&T will actually go ahead with any large scale commercial launch of the handset. I’m sure everyone will be watching with interest to see what news emerges over the next few weeks.
Permalink
03.30.10
Posted in Financials, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 8:48 am by timfarrar
The initial response of AT&T and Verizon to the FCC’s approval of Harbinger’s plans has been extremely hostile, with AT&T describing the action as “manifestly unwise and potentially unlawful”. Presumably their reaction is at least partly due to the fact that it appears at least one and possibly both of them were caught napping by the FCC’s action.
Interestingly, Communications Daily is also reporting that the FCC’s Republican commissioners sought to have the limitations on leasing to AT&T and Verizon stripped from the Order, but were unsuccessful. We also understand that at least two MSS operators have come away from recent meetings with the Commission convinced that the forthcoming proposals to encourage the use of MSS spectrum for mobile broadband (promised in the National Broadband Plan) will suggest removing the requirement for all ATC terminals to have dual-mode satellite-terrestrial capability and instead simply require that the satellite services are offered to some subset of customers.
This sets the scene for a big political battle if and when Harbinger moves forward. You can imagine the potential for arguments between Democrats and Republicans about favoring well-connected hedge funds. Of course what might trump it all is if it turns out that Huawei is building (and possibly vendor financing) the network. In that case the specter of national security implications is likely to make Mr Falcone’s previous appearance before Congress seem like a cakewalk.
Permalink
03.27.10
Posted in Financials, Inmarsat, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 4:01 pm by timfarrar
As we’ve been blogging over the last month, Harbinger is planning to deploy a multi-billion dollar US ATC network which is breathtaking in its ambition. On Friday, Harbinger filed a letter with the FCC summarizing these plans, which it had told the FCC confidentially a month earlier, before the FCC approved Harbinger taking control of SkyTerra and approved its ATC license modifications, both of which were also announced on Friday.
Specifically, Harbinger plans to develop a nationwide terrestrial broadband mobile 4G LTE network, which, without regard to satellite coverage, will provide wireless data on a nationwide basis, through over 36,000 base stations. The network will be operated on an open access basis and will initially use 23MHz of spectrum, including 8 MHz of 1.4 GHz terrestrial spectrum, 5 MHz of 1.6 GHz terrestrial spectrum (1670-75MHz) and 10 MHz of (SkyTerra’s) MSS/ATC L-band spectrum. Through a cooperation agreement with Inmarsat and associated waivers of the Commission’s ATC rules, by 2013 Harbinger will have access to an additional 30 MHz of ATC spectrum (in the L-band).
In addition, Harbinger also is discussing with other Commission licensees (presumably including TerreStar but clearly also including other terrestrial bands such as WCS) the possibility of hosting or pooling their spectrum in order to enable them on the terrestrial wireless network, i.e., the spectrum would be incorporated into the infrastructure of the terrestrial wireless network. The hosted or pooled spectrum then could be integrated with Harbinger’s spectrum to enhance the broadband capacity of the terrestrial network.
Service will begin in two trial markets, Denver and Phoenix, with a commercial launch before the third quarter of 2011 providing service to up to 9 million POPs. All major markets will be installed by the end of the second quarter of 2013. Harbinger has committed to the FCC that it will construct a terrestrial network to provide coverage to at least 100 million people in the United States by December 31, 2012; to at least 145 million people in the United States by December 31, 2013; and to at least 260 million people in the United States by December 31, 2015. By 2015, the company expects to serve more than 40 million connected consumer terrestrial devices on a wholesale basis, which is even more ambitious than Clearwire’s targets.
Just in case it wasn’t clear already, the proposed Harbinger bid for Inmarsat is not going to happen: the emphasis is on the Cooperation Agreement as the means of exploiting the L-band MSS-ATC spectrum. On the other hand, Inmarsat can’t be disappointed with $115M per year of incremental revenue with no cost and no risk.
Oh, and just to throw one more random guess out there, the first thing I thought of when reading T-Mobile’s recent statements that it has enough spectrum for the next couple of years, but that it was looking at various joint ventures to boost its holdings, and correlating it with Harbinger’s commitments not to sell more than 25% of its capacity to the two largest mobile operators, was that I bet I know who is number one on Harbinger’s list of potential target partners to use its new wholesale network.
Permalink
03.17.10
Posted in Financials, Handheld, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Services, Spectrum, TerreStar at 8:27 pm by timfarrar
This morning I had a brief chance to try TerreStar’s new Genus phone before the MSS CEO panel at Satellite 2010/MSUA-7. As pointed out in previous posts, the link is quite sensitive to phone orientation (remember not to turn around during a call). In addition, the phone software is still being optimized to address various issues such as the delay in establishing a voice channel after a call is answered, and the registration time necessary to switch from cellular into satellite mode. However, satellite SMS appears to work well (both to and from the phone) and may end up being more important to TerreStar than originally anticipated. It will therefore be interesting to see to what degree TerreStar is able to take customers away from Iridium and other MSS providers (as TerreStar’s CEO indicated was his ambition) once the phone enters commercial service in the next few months.
While some questions remain about TerreStar’s satellite service, more clarity is emerging about Harbinger’s likely ATC plans after the release of the National Broadband Plan yesterday. As we noted a few weeks ago, it appears that a consortium is being put together by Harbinger (and a team of executives recruited) to build a new entrant LTE-based mobile broadband network, using a mixture of spectrum in the L-band, 2GHz band, 1.4GHz band and 1670-75MHz band, along with substantial vendor financing. The Broadband Plan indicates that the FCC is likely to be supportive of moves to accelerate the deployment of an ambitious ATC network, though Harbinger’s network would probably not require any substantive changes to current FCC regulations. It has been suggested to us that the network would ultimately require $4B of capex and another $4B in funding for subscriber acquisition and other costs, indicating a similar scale of ambitions to Clearwire, which is targeting a subscriber base of 30M users over a 10 year period. Such a plan would certainly be a transformative move for the entire MSS industry (even if its focus is almost entirely on terrestrial services), and so all of us will be waiting with bated breath to see whether Harbinger realizes its plans, something that now seems more likely than not to become clear in the very near future.
Permalink
02.24.10
Posted in Financials, Globalstar, ICO/DBSD, Inmarsat, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 11:32 am by timfarrar
So the cat is out of the bag. As we noted last December, the FCC has been looking hard at how to make sure MSS spectrum is put to productive uses, and now in a speech by Chairman Genachowski, he has stated that the Plan will propose a Mobile Future Auction “permitting existing spectrum licensees, such as television broadcasters in spectrum-starved markets, to voluntarily relinquish spectrum in exchange for a share of auction proceeds, and allow spectrum sharing and other spectrum efficiency measures”. Specifically:
“The Plan proposes resolving longstanding debates about how to maximize the value of spectrum in bands such as the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) or Wireless Communications Service (WCS) by giving licensees the option of new flexibility to put the spectrum toward mobile broadband use-or the option of voluntarily transferring the license to someone else, who will.”
It is going to be very interesting to see whether this “new flexibility” involves further liberalizing the regulations governing ATC, over what would undoubtedly be the heated objections of existing wireless carriers (who have always had a problem with potential “windfalls” for MSS spectrum holders). For example, would the FCC contemplate removing the requirement that all terminals must include satellite capability and offer a dual mode service (similar to the European S-band licenses which do not include any such restrictions)? Presumably any such carrot might come with a corresponding “use it or lose it” stick, although if an operator chose to stay with MSS-only services, it is hard to imagine that any third party could use the spectrum for terrestrial services at the same time.
However, MSS operators will certainly now be faced with a choice: do they continue to bet that (what conceivably might be more liberalized) ATC is the best way forward, and hope they can either partner with a leading wireless operator or attract investors to a new entrant wireless business plan, or do they agree to return their spectrum to the FCC in exchange for a share of the proceeds in the proposed Mobile Future Auction? The rest of this year will certainly be filled with many twists and turns in the MSS sector as we see which way operators will jump.
Permalink
02.18.10
Posted in Financials, Handheld, Inmarsat, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Services, Spectrum, TerreStar at 8:05 pm by timfarrar
The FT’s Alphaville blog has highlighted various documents filed by SkyTerra with the SEC as part of its going private transaction with Harbinger, and suggested that Harbinger is still focused on the acquisition of Inmarsat that it originally proposed back in July 2008.
However, in our view these documents actually indicate the opposite, that although Harbinger is actively attempting to put together a consortium to fund an ATC network deployment, this is unlikely to include a bid for Inmarsat. The UBS analysis for Harbinger in July 2009, suggests three possible strategic options after the privatization of SkyTerra (Sol), namely:
(a) Acquire Inmarsat (Ignis)
(b) Pursue the Inmarsat (Ignis) Coordination Agreement
(c) Lease TerreStar (Taurus) Spectrum.
Over the last several months, it is clear that Harbinger has in fact pursued options (b) and (c) rather than option (a) (although admittedly it would not be able to launch a bid for Inmarsat prior to the SkyTerra takeover):
- SkyTerra declared the Inmarsat Coordination Agreement effective in December 2009 (prior to the two year deadline for this action); and
- TerreStar announced in January 2010 that it had entered a 90 day exclusive negotiation period to lease its satellite spectrum to Harbinger in exchange for an advance of $30M against its prior terrestrial (1.4GHz) spectrum lease to Harbinger.
While the Inmarsat coordination agreement (including its payment of $250M to Inmarsat to fit filters to existing Inmarsat terminals) is a necessity to make use of SkyTerra’s spectrum in any ATC network, in our view the potential Harbinger-TerreStar satellite spectrum lease is a direct alternative to pursuing a takeover of Inmarsat (albeit one which may not give access to European S-band spectrum, unless TerreStar is successful in its challenge to the European S-band process, or either Inmarsat or Solaris give up their licenses for this spectrum).
Similarly, while we understand that Harbinger is attempting to raise money from a consortium of investors over the next month or two, using this new funding to acquire Inmarsat would mean that it could not be used to fund a near term buildout of an ATC network. In fact, given the rise in Inmarsat’s stock price over the last year, it appears plausible that Harbinger might even decide to sell off some of its Inmarsat shares in order to provide funding for an ATC deployment, especially if Inmarsat decides to go down the route of spending its cashflows on a new I5 constellation with Ka-band capabilities.
There would be two ways in which an ATC network deployment could happen: if the buildout was funded by an existing wireless operator as a way to add capacity to its existing network, or as a (self-funded) standalone 4G new entrant to the US wireless market. We believe that Harbinger is pursuing the second of these alternatives at present, because the (less expensive and risky) first option is simply not open to it for the foreseeable future. As SkyTerra notes in its preliminary proxy statement:
“The Company had been actively pursuing a major strategic partner for a considerable period of time. In addition, during early to mid 2009 the Company had pursued and encouraged such parties to submit indications of interest to make an investment in and/or acquire the Company. No such partnering efforts were successful and no bona fide offers were received. In the judgment of Morgan Stanley, it was unclear that there was a short-or-medium term need for additional spectrum by ATC companies who were potential strategic partners. In addition, potential strategic partners had sources of spectrum other than through a partnership with SkyTerra, including via spectrum auctions by the FCC, and sales from SpectrumCo, Clearwire or from other entities in the satellite sector.”
Thus the pressing question is whether Harbinger will now be able to convince prospective partners/investors that a new entrant wireless business plan (presumably similar to that of Clearwire but based on LTE) would make sense. Though some funding might be available from (for example) an equipment vendor who would like to demonstrate its 4G technology (as has happened with Clearwire), it is less obvious who might be interested in providing distribution. Most importantly, with doubts persisting about whether Clearwire (with significant backing from wireless and cable operators) will be able to develop a sustainable 4G business, Harbinger will need to demonstrate a compelling reason why customers should choose its service over those of more established wireless providers. The only credible differentiator for such a wireless network lies in the satellite roaming capabilities that will be available (and mandated) in an ATC network deployment (and which Mr Falcone suggested to the Wall St Journal back in April 2009 would attract “vast global demand”). Thus potential partners’ attention will need to be focused on the TerreStar Genus phone (which now looks like it will come to market sometime in the second quarter of this year, after the deadline for Harbinger to complete its potential satellite spectrum lease with TerreStar), and whether they believe it can provide a compelling demonstration of competitive differentiation and market demand, based on this satellite roaming capability.
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
