09.28.10
Posted in Financials, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 10:36 am by timfarrar
Back in August, it looked very much like TerreStar was poised to file for bankruptcy, using a large DIP facility of $200M+ to fund the company for the next several years while it attempted to build a satellite roaming business. Harbinger indicated at the time that it believed a bankrupt TerreStar’s spectrum was worth $1.5B to $2B. This suggests that (as we speculated) the plan may well have been to cram-up the ~$1B of first lien debt that is outstanding at TerreStar Networks. However, it appears that Blackstone was unsuccessful in finding takers for that financing, and so the question arises as to what is now their Plan B for TerreStar.
In TerreStar’s 2010Q2 10-Q, filed in early August, the company stated that “there is substantial doubt that the available cash balance, investments and available borrowing capacity as of June 30, 2010 will be sufficient to satisfy the projected funding needs for third quarter of 2010″ and yet we are now at the end of the third quarter and there has been no bankruptcy filing. AT&T also announced the commercial release of the Genus phone last week. Some have therefore suggested that this means TerreStar is likely to avoid bankruptcy, because AT&T would not have gone to market with the phone immediately prior to a bankruptcy filing.
Of course, if TerreStar had actually secured further investments, these would have to have been disclosed in an 8-K filing, but it is certainly clear the company has managed to make its cash resources last longer than it previously expected. One possibility is that AT&T paid upfront for the Genus phones it is selling, which would have provided some cash for TerreStar without the need for a public filing. It would also explain why AT&T is keen to move ahead with the commercial launch if it now owns several tens of thousands of Genus phones.
UPDATE: According to documents filed in the TerreStar bankruptcy proceeding, Echostar and Harbinger allowed TerreStar to draw a further $10M from the Purchase Money Credit Facility, and agreed to waive any claims of potential default. However, given that the bankruptcy documents show only a few hundred thousand dollars of expected receipts for TerreStar from phone sales by the end of the year, it still appears possible that either AT&T may have paid upfront for the phones it expects to sell, or (perhaps more likely) Elektrobit has been left holding the bag, given the substantial losses it expects to book on its TerreStar receivables.
However, TerreStar obviously also needs to raise further funds to cover its ongoing operating expenses. It has a window of time until August 2011 when no cash interest is due on TerreStar Networks’ first lien debt, and so it appears plausible that raising say $50M+ at TerreStar Corporation (presumably against the security of the 1.4GHz spectrum) would be (barely) sufficient to see the company through to next August, when the outcome of the FCC’s MSS NPRM/NOI should be clearer.
This might well still require a bankruptcy filing by TerreStar Corporation (depending on what happens with the outstanding $408M of Preferred Stock, since the company has certain obligations to redeem the Preferred Stock if it has more than $10M in available funds), but we assume that Blackstone might conceivably look to keep the TerreStar Networks subsidiary out of bankruptcy (assuming this is permitted by the cross-default provisions on the first lien debt) and thereby enable TerreStar Corporation to retain its shareholding in TerreStar Networks.
Then, if it turned out that the FCC’s NPRM allowed the 2GHz satellite spectrum to be monetized for more than the value of the outstanding first lien debt (something we regard as unlikely), the proceeds could potentially flow to the owners of TerreStar Corporation (although it is implausible that an auction could occur by August 2011 so there would certainly still be significant arguments about the value of this spectrum). In addition, this outcome would ensure that TerreStar’s 2GHz spectrum is not on the market as an alternative to LightSquared, while Harbinger seeks to secure partners for its LTE network buildout over the next 9 months.
UPDATE: From the TerreStar bankruptcy filings, it does not appear that the approach we speculated about would have been feasible, presumably at least in part because it was not possible to raise money against the security of the 1.4GHz spectrum, and in the last few weeks the alternative plan to accepting a deal with Echostar was to try and prime the first lien debt which Echostar controlled at TerreStar Networks. However, in the end TerreStar has had to take a $75M DIP from Echostar and agree to the restructuring plan which Echostar proposed.
Permalink
09.23.10
Posted in Aeronautical, Inmarsat, Operators at 11:59 am by timfarrar
Its now been announced that JetBlue has signed an MOU with Viasat to install Ka-band connectivity on its fleet, starting in 2012. One of the primary reasons cited by JetBlue was that the satellite capacity was much cheaper than at Ku-band.
We analyzed the cost of providing service for Aircell and Row44 in one of our recent research reports, and concluded that (as JetBlue also asserted), Ku-band satellite capacity can rapidly become the dominant cost driver for aeronautical broadband even at moderate usage levels and take rates. For example, we estimated that at a 25% take-rate, the cost of Ku-band satellite capacity would be between $30K and $80K per plane per year, depending on the amount of bandwidth allocated to each customer. This compares to an amortized satellite equipment cost of perhaps $40K per plane per year. Viasat’s Ka-band satellite could reduce the capacity cost by a factor of up to about 5 times, bringing the cost of capacity down to say $6K to $16K per plane per year.
Thus the strategic question for JetBlue is whether it will use this capacity cost differential to make the service free to end users (or free for most applications other than say streaming video). As noted in past news articles, charging for in-flight broadband has a huge impact on take rates. However, Row 44 (with expensive Ku-band capacity) and Aircell (with a limited amount of terrestrial bandwidth) can’t afford to offer free usage, unless they constrain the service significantly (e.g. no streaming video and limited bandwidth). JetBlue has already offered free (albeit very limited) service on its Beta Blue plane, whereas Southwest (which will set pricing on its Row44-equipped planes) has indicated that it plans to charge for the service.
If JetBlue did offer free service, then this would certainly shake up the in-flight broadband business. Would airlines step-in to pay Aircell directly for their service instead of relying on passenger revenues? Will there be a return of the sponsorship model used on airlines like Virgin America for a period last year? More to the point, will the mere prospect of such disruption cause airlines thinking about installing Ku-band to consider waiting for Inmarsat’s new Ka-band Global Xpress service in 2014?
UPDATE: Now Southwest has agreed to buy AirTran, which already has fleetwide in-flight connectivity through Aircell, will Southwest have yet another reason to reconsider its Ku-band plans with Row44?
Permalink
09.20.10
Posted in Globalstar, Handheld, Inmarsat, Iridium, Operators, Services at 8:46 am by timfarrar
One of the most interesting questions about Inmarsat’s new ISatPhone Pro is how well it will work at low elevation angles, including for example whether the phone antenna needs to be pointed towards the satellite. This is going to be particularly relevant in Alaska, much of which lies very close to the nominal edge of coverage, and well outside the 20 degree elevation angle contour (where Inmarsat suggests that “more user cooperation is required”), as shown below.
However, I’ve been told by Inmarsat that the phone is performing better than expected, even at relatively low elevation angles, so it will be interesting to see what this means in practice. Given that the beams used for registering the phone on the Inmarsat satellite are lower power than the beams used for a call, it appears probable that either the phone will register successfully and then calls can be made OK, or the phone won’t register and then no calls can be made at all.
Its surprising that we haven’t yet seen any published real world tests of the Inmarsat phone in comparison to Iridium, similar to the Frost & Sullivan reports which compared Iridium and Globalstar in 2008 and 2002. However, I’m sure similar analyses will be undertaken by both Iridium and Inmarsat at least for their own internal purposes, and possibly even for external publication if they believe the results are favorable. If you’ve tried out the phone in “fringe” coverage areas then feel free to let us know about your experience in the comments section below.
UPDATE: So now Frost & Sullivan has released its comparison of the Iridium and Inmarsat phones, which was commissioned by Iridium. It is notable that in Anchorage, Alaska, Frost & Sullivan “was unable to make or receive a call despite dozens of attempts and was only able to briefly find a satellite”. This points to difficulties with registration, as we suspected. However, Inmarsat sources tell us that it is perfectly possible to register on the satellite in Alaska, and make calls there. We haven’t yet got an independent view, but it would seem likely that the actual answer may lie somewhere between these two opposing views. We would speculate that you will probably have to have a pretty good idea where the Inmarsat satellite is so you can point the phone antenna at it during registration (maybe using a compass would be helpful?).
Permalink
09.16.10
Posted in Handheld, Operators, Regulatory, Services, Spectrum, TerreStar at 10:02 am by timfarrar
We’re told that TerreStar is planning to announce (tomorrow?) that the Genus phone will be released by AT&T next week. However, surprisingly enough, AT&T’s filing yesterday in response to the FCC’s NPRM/NOI on MSS spectrum, didn’t mention the Genus phone once. Not only that, but AT&T actually suggested that “rationalizing the MSS bands for terrestrial wireless use is a
good first step to implementing a comprehensive broadband spectrum strategy”, and supported the concept suggested in the NOI, that “there may be opportunities to ‘meet future [MSS] needs with less allocated spectrum in some or all of the bands.’”
Therefore the obvious question is whether AT&T cares about the success of the Genus phone, or instead would actually benefit from it failing, because it believes that the “2 GHz MSS band is a good target for the creation of new terrestrial mobile services”. Of course AT&T is a large company, and what is in the interests of AT&T at a corporate level may differ from the priorities of the staff working on the Genus launch. However, given the challenges that the Genus phone already faces, it is noteworthy that the project does not appear to enjoy much recognition or support when AT&T is setting out its strategic interests in the wireless business.
Permalink
09.14.10
Posted in Financials, Globalstar, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 9:54 pm by timfarrar
The FCC today released its ruling denying Globalstar’s request for a postponement of the deadlines in its ATC license, which required launch of its second generation satellites by July 1, 2010 and provision of two-way service to its ATC terminals by July 1, 2011. The FCC has granted Open Range a temporary waiver, which basically gives it 60 days to make other spectrum arrangements or its network will be shut down.
This ruling comes as quite a shock to most observers, because it was assumed that the FCC was contemplating providing more flexibility to MSS-ATC licensees after release of its recent NPRM/NOI. However, as we argued at the time, the contents of the NPRM/NOI were actually something of a disappointment to those expecting such liberalization, because the emphasis was on reallocation of the 2GHz spectrum for terrestrial use, with incentive auctions or other mechanisms used to ensure that the government receives “appropriate compensation for the step up in value” that would occur if the existing ATC restrictions were removed in that band. In that context, as we suggested, it would be hard for the FCC to provide further flexibility to ATC licensees in other bands (i.e. LightSquared and Globalstar) with no offsetting “compensation”. Nevertheless, we had still expected that Globalstar might be granted its requested waivers, because LightSquared had achieved the ATC license modifications it desired back in March.
However, now that the FCC has taken a hard line with Globalstar, it raises the question not only of what Open Range will do next for spectrum, but whether any future inability to meet license conditions will place other ATC licenses (and the associated spectrum assets) at risk. Notably, observers will presumably begin to wonder what will result from the proceeding relating to the reimbursement claimed by Sprint from DBSD and TerreStar for clearing the 2GHz spectrum band (estimated by Sprint at $100M+ per operator), compliance with the outcome of which was a condition of TerreStar’s ATC license grant back in January. Though DBSD has sought to avoid these costs through its bankruptcy filing, it is less certain that TerreStar would be able to do likewise. TerreStar has also recently requested certain waivers of the ATC base station and terminal requirements from the FCC. In addition, it is quite possible that there may be requests by Harbinger to extend the very aggressive terrestrial deployment deadlines associated with the LightSquared network at some point in the future, and in the near term, LightSquared recently delayed the launch of its first next generation satellite to December 2010, which will also require a waiver from the FCC, and questions are sure to be raised about whether this delay was solely attributable to technical problems.
With comments due in response to the July 2010 NPRM/NOI tomorrow, it is likely that a lot of last minute redrafting of submissions is going on tonight, so it will be interesting to see whether any of these issues are raised either by the satellite companies themselves, or by terrestrial wireless interests encouraging the FCC to continue to take a hard line on ATC.
Permalink
08.31.10
Posted in Financials, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, TerreStar at 10:50 am by timfarrar
In early August, LightSquared announced an agreement with Airspan Networks, under which Airspan will “exclusively market LightSquared’s 1.4 GHz wireless spectrum” to the utilities industry as “a comprehensive solution for Smart Grid and Smart Utility applications”.
The spectrum will be managed by Airspan and used in conjunction with “Airspan’s proven, reliable and robust broadband and next generation 4G products”. Notably, Airspan’s products appear to be WiMAX-based, so it appears that any buildout by Airspan in the 1.4GHz band will now be totally decoupled from LightSquared’s nationwide LTE-based ATC network deployment, and will instead depend on the individual contracts that Airspan is able to secure with “utilities in their distinct geographic markets”.
Financial details of how this exclusive agreement will work have not been released, although Harbinger/LightSquared has committed to pay TerreStar $2M per month to lease the spectrum, with an option to buy the spectrum for up to $250M. However, it seems unlikely that Airspan would have the resources to take over these lease payments, as according to SEC filings, Airspan’s revenues declined to $70M in 2008, with an annual loss of $50M, before the company was delisted.
This means that any utility that would contemplate a deal with Airspan faces considerable uncertainty about whether it can rely on the spectrum being available for the long term (given that the lifetime of any Smart Grid solution would be a decade or more). Not only is TerreStar (the ultimate owner of the spectrum) in financial difficulties, but the prospects for LightSquared are also hard to determine. In addition, Airspan has clearly been experiencing financial challenges, given its history of losses and declining revenues, and the future of its WiMAX technology is therefore somewhat uncertain. One contact of ours, who has been looking to acquire spectrum for wireless backhaul, suggested that these complexities would make it very hard to consider partnering with Airspan at this point in time.
As a result, it is unclear how much if any revenues will flow from the LightSquared-Airspan agreement, and the valuation that can be attributed to the 8MHz of 1.4GHz spectrum (and will need to be assessed if TerreStar files for bankruptcy) is similarly difficult to establish. In this context, the history of the 1.4GHz spectrum is quite interesting. It was originally auctioned by the FCC in Auction 69 in Feb/Mar 2007 for a total of $123.6M, with half the spectrum acquired by Echostar (through Port LLC) and half the spectrum acquired by CCTV Wireless (backed by Columbia Capital). In spring 2008, TerreStar purchased Echostar’s share of the 1.4GHz spectrum in exchange for 30M shares of common stock (valued then at ~$140M), while Harbinger bought the remaining 1.4GHz spectrum from CCTV Wireless for $212.5M, before contributing the spectrum to TerreStar in exchange for non-voting Junior Preferred Shares convertible into 30M share of common stock. Jefferies provided a fairness opinion at that time, and TerreStar suggested that the spectrum could be used in combination with its satellite spectrum “to service projected demand in the machine-to-machine market” and that it contemplated using the 1.4GHz spectrum “to enter the emerging femtocell market by alleviating spectrum interference issues”.
Subsequently in September 2009, Harbinger agreed to lease the 1.4GHz spectrum from TerreStar for an initial amount of $1M per month, increasing to $2M per month in June 2010. Harbinger could purchase the spectrum initially for $150M, later increasing to $250M, with credit for 50% of lease payments and with 40% of the purchase price paid in TerreStar debt or preferred stock. The agreement also contemplated pairing the 1.4GHz spectrum with other spectrum (the details of which were not specified in the publicly filed version of the agreement), although it is not clear that permission was ever sought from the FCC for such a change.
Presumably such a change would have made the spectrum more useful for LightSquared’s LTE network, but the agreement with Airspan appears to indicate that LightSquared now no longer plans to use the 1.4GHz spectrum itself. This leaves LightSquared with 5MHz of terrestrial-only spectrum between 1670 and 1675MHz, plus rights to use up to 46MHz of L-band satellite spectrum through agreements with Inmarsat. LightSquared has also stated its intention to offer terrestrial-only devices using its terrestrial spectrum. While this could simply refer to Airspan’s network in the 1.4GHz spectrum, it seems more reasonable to assume that this comment was intended to refer to the 1670-75MHz spectrum. Will LightSquared therefore be deploying a 5MHz TDD LTE channel in this band to complement the 5x5MHz FDD LTE channels being used in the L-band satellite spectrum?
Permalink
08.23.10
Posted in Financials, Handheld, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Services, Spectrum, TerreStar at 12:09 pm by timfarrar
That’s the big question facing TerreStar and its investors, as the company moves towards a bankruptcy filing which we assume will come in the next week or so. TerreStar Networks has a very substantial amount of debt secured against its in-orbit satellite and 2GHz spectrum assets, with $857M of 15% Secured Notes and $109M of 6.5% Exchangeable Notes outstanding at June 30, 2010 according to TerreStar’s latest 10-Q.
TerreStar stated in the 10-Q that it had “commenced restructuring discussions with certain holders of our 15% Secured Notes and 6.5% Exchangeable Notes”. However, if these discussions are not successful, and TerreStar and its advisers want to argue that the satellite spectrum is worth considerably more than the outstanding first lien debt, then it is possible that they could try to keep this debt in place and raise DIP funding based on TerreStar’s other assets, such as its 1.4GHz spectrum and the ground spare satellite (which is encumbered by a separate $73M Purchase Money Credit Facility).
The result would likely be a dispute in bankruptcy court over whether it is better to halt TerreStar’s plans to launch commercial service, and sell off its satellite and spectrum assets in the near future (e.g. if the current FCC proceeding permits incentive auctions for the 2GHz MSS spectrum), or to keep the company afloat and moving forward with the launch of the Genus phone, which was recently postponed until September. Of course the second option would require considerably more funding to be made available, and it is extremely questionable whether a feasible business plan could be developed to justify commercial launch of the Genus phone. In our profile of TerreStar, published back in January 2010, we estimated that the handheld Genus phone could generate perhaps $25M in wholesale service revenues by 2014, but after trying out the phone in March, we scaled back our expectations.
It may also be difficult to argue that TerreStar’s in-orbit satellite and spectrum is worth significantly in excess of the $966M of outstanding Secured and Exchangeable Notes, when a judge found in the DBSD bankruptcy case last fall that DBSD (with a satellite in orbit and having chosen its 20MHz of spectrum ahead of TerreStar) should be valued at $492M to $692M.
It is far from clear that either DBSD or TerreStar are better positioned than they were last year to secure a strategic partner (such as a wireless operator) who is prepared to fund the rollout of a multi-billion dollar terrestrial ATC network. Indeed, given the recent decision of Harbinger to go it alone with a wholesale approach for LightSquared, major wireless operators have to date proved unwilling to invest on the basis of the ATC model and associated satellite spectrum (despite five years of trying on the part of SkyTerra, ICO/DBSD and TerreStar).
The FCC’s recent NPRM could potentially enable the 2GHz MSS operators to monetize their spectrum via an incentive auction or similar mechanism once the proceeding is completed in 2011, which does represent a change from last year, but the FCC has also emphasized that it will need to receive compensation for the step-up in value accruing from removal of the current ATC rules in the 2GHz MSS band. If the proceeds of an incentive auction were shared 50/50 between the current spectrum holders and the government, as appears plausible, then (taking into account the delay before an auction could take place, most likely in 2012, and the need for additional funding in the interim) such an auction would need to raise close to $0.50 per MHzPOP in order to repay the Secured and Exchangeable Notes.
Although such a valuation is similar to those mooted by Clearwire and Credit Suisse in recent months, the FCC’s interests are not necessarily supportive of increasing spectrum valuations, and the balance between potential buyers and sellers of spectrum is significantly different to that back in 2006, when the AWS auction raised an average of $0.54 per MHzPOP.
Permalink
07.17.10
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 7:17 am by timfarrar
The FCC’s NPRM/NOI issued on Thursday clearly indicates that we are approaching the point where the 2GHz band will be redesignated for terrestrial-only use, with the ATC rules abandoned, and some form of compensation paid (to the government) for the step-up in value accruing to the current 2GHz spectrum holders. It also looks quite possible that any attempts to offer MSS services in those bands could be discontinued, despite the $1.5B spent to date on satellites by DBSD and TerreStar. Ironically, this comes at a time when the only real barriers to ATC deployment are economic and financial, rather than technical.
Even more significantly, the Wall St Journal is reporting that Harbinger is now seeking a $400M debt investment “to keep the [SkyTerra MSS-ATC] project moving forward” and “pay off debt coming due in the months ahead and other expenses related to the wireless plan”. This is a dramatic turnaround from the $1B to $2B of equity and bank financing that Harbinger was reported to be seeking back in April.
SkyTerra has numerous expenses coming due in the months ahead, according to its 2009 10-K, including $120M of vendor notes payable to Boeing, for which the principal is “due in full in December 2010″. Other items listed include the senior secured discount notes (cash pay from October 2010), and various other amounts related to next generation network construction, satellite launch services, and the “chipset, device and satellite base station subsystem” (which totalled an expected $150M during 2010, though could presumably be cut back). According to SkyTerra’s 2009Q4 results presentation in March 2010, the company also estimated it will need to pay $70M for insuring the SkyTerra-1 satellite launch (which is currently scheduled for August 17).
Given these expenses, $400M of new debt wouldn’t provide much money to pay for any large scale terrestrial network deployment. More to the point, will Harbinger be able to continue to fund TerreStar, which has been costing about $10M per month to keep afloat, in addition to SkyTerra (note that SkyTerra’s existing funds were used for the most recent injection of $40M into TerreStar via a “Satellite Minutes Agreement”)? I’m sure we will see the answers to that question very soon, given that Harbinger’s current 90 day exclusivity agreement with TerreStar (signed on May 6) expires on August 4.
Permalink
07.15.10
Posted in Globalstar, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 10:15 am by timfarrar
At today’s FCC Commission meeting, the Commission began its proceeding “to spur mobile broadband investment in MSS bands”, which will take the form of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and a companion Notice of Inquiry (NOI). The NPRM and NOI have now been published along with a press release and accompanying statements from all five of the Commissioners.
The NPRM is focused on two issues: First, it proposes to add co-primary fixed and mobile allocations to the 2 GHz band. Second, it proposes to expand existing secondary market policies and rules to address transactions involving the use of MSS bands for terrestrial services. However, given that the Commission notes that the Globalstar-Open Range lease was already evaluated under this standard, this second issue is more of a streamlining matter than a substantive change in policy.
The NOI “requests comment on further steps the Commission can take to increase the value, utilization, innovation, and investment in MSS spectrum. It builds upon the proposals in the NPRM and addresses, in part, the recommendations of the National Broadband Plan for increasing terrestrial deployment in the MSS bands. The NOI inquires about ways to create opportunities for more expansive and efficient use of the 2 GHz band for stand-alone terrestrial uses. It also asks, if the value of the spectrum increases, what actions the Commission should take to further the overall public interest.
The NOI further requests comment on other ways to promote innovation and investment throughout all three of the MSS bands while also ensuring market-wide mobile satellite capability to serve important needs like disaster response and recovery efforts, rural access for consumers and businesses across America, and various government uses.”
Most of the NOI is focused on the 2GHz band, as I suggested last month, and suggests that either incentive auctions or a voluntary relinquishment of part of the spectrum would be means of providing appropriate compensation for the step up in value for the remaining spectrum. Of course, if part of the spectrum was relinquished, and the license for the remaining spectrum was still based on the MSS rules, it would quite possibly be necessary to continue to operate an MSS satellite. Such an outcome would almost certainly require a merger of DBSD and TerreStar (and disposal of two of their three satellites – 2 in-orbit and 1 ground spare), in order to reduce their satellite operating costs.
What the NOI doesn’t do is make specific proposals about relaxing the ATC rules in the Big LEO and L-bands, although it asks whether there are “any other actions that the Commission could take that would increase terrestrial use of the MSS bands”. To me, the tenor of the NPRM and NOI suggests that the FCC feels it has given ground to Harbinger (in approving the SkyTerra transaction and ATC modifications) and Globalstar (with what will presumably be a near term approval of its ATC waiver requests, for which the deadline is now August 2). Now the FCC needs to sort out the 2GHz band and it appears to be adopting a somewhat harder line than some might have hoped.
In his statement, Commissioner Copps highlights his belief that “charging fees for the ancillary terrestrial use in the MSS bands could provide incentives to ensure that the spectrum resource is used more efficiently and intensively”. However, whether this position will be shared more widely by the other Commissioners is still to be seen.
This must be a disappointment to those who had hoped for a relaxation of the ATC gating requirements without any significant givebacks in exchange. In particular, it may be hard for the FCC to agree to such a relaxation if a hard line is taken over incentive auctions or other compensation for the “step-up in value” in the 2GHz band.
With this proceeding going forward at the same time as MSS-ATC proponents are trying to secure partners and further investment (and in some cases are in bankruptcy or on the verge of it), it is going to be very interesting to see how the regulatory and financing activities affect one another over the next few months.
Permalink
07.13.10
Posted in Globalstar, Handheld, Inmarsat, Iridium, Operators, Services, TerreStar, Thuraya at 2:37 pm by timfarrar
Inmarsat has now launched its ISatPhone Pro, which I was lucky enough to try out the other week. Although the phone itself is not particularly attractive, the call performance was better than I expected – voice quality was good (with the other party easily recognizable), and the ability to ‘walk and talk’ was far superior to my experience with the TerreStar Genus phone. Latency was also somewhat better than on the Genus phone. The main limitation was that the phone only registers on the Inmarsat satellite when the antenna is extended and pointed in the direction of the satellite, which means there is a delay of 1-2 minutes before a call can be made, and calls will rarely, if ever, be received on the phone (assuming the user doesn’t want to carry it around with the antenna extended).
Though Inmarsat’s phone is not expected to perform well at high latitudes (particularly in Alaska), it should generally be a good alternative for those MSS voice users who aren’t worried about carrying such a large device. The phone itself has been priced very aggressively, with pricing currently around $599 and in some cases close to $500.
However, the most surprising development is the airtime pricing that Inmarsat has set. Postpaid wholesale pricing has been set very low, leading to retail offers of $150 per year with 60 free minutes of calls. Even more extraordinary is the prepaid pricing, where a user can buy a 25 minute card, valid for 2 years, for only $20.
In my view the fact that Inmarsat has selected a uniform 2 year expiry date on its prepaid cards is a huge mistake, which I can only assume is due to the limitations of Inmarsat’s prepaid billing system (note also that prepaid service is currently not available in the US, due to patent litigation over the prepaid platform that Inmarsat uses). Iridium has previously indicated that about half of handheld MSS users are “glovebox”-type customers, who only use the phone for emergencies (and rarely use any minutes). To date such users have been paying at least $30 per month for satellite phone service (apart from occasional dual mode roamers on Thuraya), but now they will be able to get service for less than $1 per month. Inmarsat has thus completely undermined the economics of a significant part of the handheld MSS market, making it impossible for its service providers to justify targeting these customers (especially as SPs are busy competing away the margins which Inmarsat expected would be available on its handsets). In addition to leaving large amounts of money on the table, this action may also create added costs for Inmarsat, as these users are the least likely to be familiar with the limitations of satellite communications and thus may well end up consuming disproportionate levels of customer support resources.
Inmarsat may well have had a reason to act in such a destructive manner a few months ago, when it thought it might have the opportunity to prevent Iridium gaining funding in the public markets to pay for its NEXT contract. However, now that Iridium can rely on more money than expected from COFACE, such a calculation looks less sensible.
Despite having an attractive proposition for low end users, Inmarsat may still prove less successful than it hopes amongst higher volume users. In particular, these users will gain less of an advantage from the low occasional use tariffs, and may be somewhat reluctant to churn after making a substantial investment in buying an Iridium or Globalstar handset in recent years. Inmarsat has stated that it believes the average lifetime of a satellite handset is around three years, but in reality Iridium and Globalstar handsets are used for up to 8 years (and there is a thriving market for secondhand phones). As a result, churn in the handheld MSS market is much lower than Inmarsat apparently expects (even for Globalstar users, who have had to cope with a lack of two-way service in recent years), which will make it difficult to persuade large numbers of existing users to switch over rapidly to Inmarsat’s new service. On the other hand, competition from Inmarsat will potentially force Globalstar to offer rather more aggressive pricing as it tries to rebuild its subscriber base in 2011 and 2012.
In the end therefore, Inmarsat may end up being able to trumpet a fairly large number of handheld subscribers (potentially up to 150K by 2014), but many of these will be less desirable customers and ARPUs may be rather lower than expected. Thus the overall impact for the handheld MSS market of Inmarsat’s new service (even when combined with Globalstar’s two-way relaunch in 2011) may remain subdued, and at best we expect wholesale revenue growth of no more than 10% p.a. in the next five years. Indeed a more pessimistic view, assuming significant erosion of ARPUs at the low end of the handheld market could put wholesale revenue growth at less than 5% p.a. over this period.
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
