01.03.26
Posted in Broadband, D2D, Financials, Operators, Services, SpaceX at 11:52 am by timfarrar
The reactions to my comments last month on The Information’s TITV program about SpaceX needing a new story for its planned $1.5T IPO were fascinating, mainly because no one actually disagreed with the fact that SpaceX has consistently missed its targeted revenue growth over the last three years. Back in July 2023 SpaceX originally estimated revenues for the year would double to around $8B, before this whisper number was raised in November 2023 to $9B, with a forecast of $15B in 2024. That caused analysts such as Payload Space to come up with a figure of $8.7B for 2023, which is still often repeated as the actual figure, despite the NY Times finally confirming in August 2025 that SpaceX’s 2023 revenue was only $7.4B (with Starlink generating “roughly $8 billion” in revenue during 2024, implying a companywide total of ~$11B).
In 2025, SpaceX once again appears to have missed the revenue prediction of $15.5B that Musk stated publicly back in June, with Bloomberg reporting in its IPO coverage that “the company is expected to produce around $15 billion in revenue in 2025, increasing to between $22 billion and $24 billion in 2026.” That’s despite surging broadband subscriber numbers, which reached 9.2M by the end of the year as SpaceX dramatically cut the price of its terminals and reduced US residential service pricing to stimulate demand. Of course Starlink’s revenue growth is incredibly impressive, as is the speed with which it has come to dominate the satellite industry, but justifying an $800B current valuation (let alone a $1.5T IPO valuation), usually requires outperforming revenue guidance, not missing it.
Even so, it seems likely that SpaceX’s revenue target for 2026 will once again prove too optimistic, because ARPUs on those millions of customers are much lower than most analysts think (especially now there’s a $5 per month service option for suspended terminals). And the next generation D2D/DTC system won’t start launching in volume until “around Q4″ 2026 (at best since that depends on rapid progress with Starship), while SpaceX can’t access EchoStar’s AWS-4 spectrum until November 2027, so it can’t start offering a Band 70 DTC solution in the US with existing handsets until then.
It’s also undeniable that SpaceX needs more than just Starlink to justify a $1.5T valuation, given that even its expected lead investment bank, Morgan Stanley, only thinks Starlink revenues will get to $126B in 2040. So its understandable that the proposal for space-based data centers took center stage in last month’s reports of IPO preparations.
Curiously, however, data centers didn’t even rate a mention in Starlink’s end of year progress report, which focused instead on talking up the Starlink V3 satellites and the DTC constellation in particular as the key payload for Starship. And interestingly, in this progress report Starlink also modified the company’s September 2025 comments that “in most environments, [DTC] will enable full 5G cellular connectivity with a comparable experience to current terrestrial LTE service,” to instead promise that “in most environments [DTC] will enable full 5G cellular connectivity with a comparable experience to current terrestrial service.”
In many ways, Musk’s plan for space-based data centers offers a Rorschach test for potential SpaceX investors, just like Optimus does for Tesla investors. Both allow for near term demonstrations that look impressive but aren’t meaningfully revenue-generating, while allowing Musk to make long term projections of “infinite” revenues that can be (nearly) infinitely postponed.
In the case of Optimus, he’s claimed “humanoid robots will be the biggest product ever. Because everyone is gonna want one, or more than one,” while for space-based data centers, he’s claimed that “satellites with localized AI compute, where just the results are beamed back from low-latency, sun-synchronous orbit, will be the lowest cost way to generate AI bitstreams in <3 years. And by far the fastest way to scale within 4 years, because easy sources of electrical power are already hard to find on Earth."
Or put another way “Optimus and space data centers are two sides of the same coin…Optimus promises to provide all needed physical labor (and even better than a human!), while space data centers promise to provide all needed mental labor (and even better than a human!).”
But if you read yesterday’s WSJ piece on Optimus and think that Musk is simply lying again because “in public appearances, the robot is often remotely operated by human engineers” then you’ll believe the same is likely true of his plans for SpaceX’s space-based data centers. Conversely if you read that article and think that Tesla is making continued progress in opening up an untapped market opportunity where Adam Jonas “predicts that by 2050, humanoids will bring in $7.5 trillion in annual revenue across the industry globally,” you’ll probably have the same reaction about space-based data centers. And of course the latter are the investors that SpaceX actually wants for any IPO.
This is not to say that the market for either is non-existent: just like many companies are working on robots (with or without legs!), there is plenty of interest in space-based data centers. Both will also be particularly useful to the DoD, and especially in the space market the US government is seen as the best source of new revenue by many players right now.
And SpaceX has substantial advantages both in access to cheap launch, and in the ability to build a distributed network of data centers based on the Starlink V3 bus (which is a much better solution than a handful of extremely large space-based data centers several km in diameter, not least because achieving low latency requires the data center to be in view). However, that’s very different to saying revenue will be “infinite” or that this market can justify a $1.5T valuation for SpaceX.
But to return to my original interview, its particularly amusing to note the CEO of Starcloud suggesting in a subsequent TITV interview that this was “the dumbest thing I’d heard in a quite a long time”, because the dumbest thing I’ve heard in quite a long time is Starcloud’s business plan, which (if you take their story about launching huge arrays into space at face value) is essentially totally dependent on gaining access to Starship launches at cost.
Of course that means sucking up to Elon Musk is a necessity, but when one of SpaceX’s key competitive advantages for Starlink (and a key source of value in any IPO) lies in exploiting the huge difference between the cost and price of Falcon 9 launches, there’s no reason to believe that the same wouldn’t be true for Starship. In other words, SpaceX will be able to launch its own space-based data centers at a much lower cost, compared to the price of Starship launches for third parties, allowing SpaceX to gain far more scale than any other player at much lower cost, just as it has done with Starlink. In fact, I understand that all Starcloud has is some interesting in-space cooling technology, which only becomes valuable in extremely large arrays, and that’s unlikely to be useful if SpaceX’s distributed space-based data center architecture proves more cost effective.
Permalink
08.12.25
Posted in AST SpaceMobile, Financials, Operators, Services, SpaceX at 9:36 am by timfarrar
AST SpaceMobile did their best on today’s call to obfuscate the delays in their launch schedule, which has already shifted by several months since the company’s last quarterly update in May. Back in May the company’s CEO stated that “we…are now able to announce our plans to support five scheduled orbital launches over the next six to nine months” (i.e. by Nov-Feb) but now the company merely claims that it is “anticipating at least five orbital launches by end of Q1 2026.”
And this demonstrates that the bizarre and contradictory FCC submission in late July saying the company anticipated launching “up to 20 satellites…through the end of this year” appears to have just been nonsense inserted by the management at the last moment, presumably to pump the stock further, as I guessed at the time.
In fact, the FCC certainly will be annoyed by the fact that AST merely expects FM1 will “be ready to ship in August 2025″, indicating that the satellite still isn’t ready for shipment as of today. Again the company obfuscated by adding a picture on slide 6 of the presentation of a “Block 2 Bluebird encapsulated” without indicating that this was actually FM1 (as in the picture above showing FM1 in the thermal vacuum chamber) instead of simply a ground test model. Of course if it was FM1, you can guarantee that AST would have wanted to point that out.
But what’s more significant is that today’s announcement only refers to AST being “on target to complete 40 satellites equivalent of microns by early 2026″ with no mention of how many satellites will be completed by that time. Previously AST had said they were “on track with satellite manufacturing of 40 Block 2 BlueBird satellites”. That’s hardly surprising, because a significant redesign is needed to cut the mass from 5850kg to 4200kg for FM3 and subsequent satellites, and ISRO has already pointed out that FM1 has been experiencing “developmental issues”.
However, by avoiding mentioning the number of satellites they plan to complete, AST clearly hoped to avoid highlighting how few are actually going to be launched on the first five launches through next March. Unfortunately, the presentation gave the game away, when it confirmed that the eight sets of BB2 microns built to date are enough for four launches. That confirms my expectations that after FM1, the FM2 launch will be standalone on F9 and then there will be three satellites on each of the next two Falcon 9 launches. In fact the chart on slide 7 clearly shows AST’s entire planned schedule of 13 launches through the end of 2026, although given the track record of continued delays, it is hard to have any confidence in this actually being met.
My update to this chart above adds actual launch dates to the satellite shipment dates, with launch 5 being at the end of Q1 2026 as the company hopes, and assuming one more month of slip in launches after that. And then adding in the fact that New Glenn is not expected to be available for other commercial launches, including AST, until flight 6 or later, in late summer 2026 at the earliest. Again being generous to the company, I’ve assumed they might get two New Glenn launches in before the end of 2026. And despite trying to correct himself to say “6-8 satellites” per launch, AST’s CEO effectively confirmed that there will most likely be only 6 satellites per New Glenn.
Bizarrely, AST’s CEO didn’t even mention the Falcon 9 launches, as he tied himself in knots, claiming that the company would build 6 satellites per month and then have a launch every 1-2 months. Of course, there’s no point in building 6 satellites per month (let alone 40 sets of microns by early 2026) if you can only launch 3 satellites per launch on the only rocket you have access to for the next year.
So now you can see that this is how AST plans to get to 45-60 satellites in orbit by the end of 2026, which in fact means ~41 BB2s plus the existing 5 BB1s. Of course that only happens if the company somehow avoids the delays that it has consistently reported every quarter and FM1 works as planned. And the supposed intermittent service at the end of 2025 will be utterly pointless, with at most two more satellites in orbit, and most likely one or both of those not even being operational.
EDIT (8/12): It seems likely that AST’s assertions in the headline of the business update that the company is “Preparing to deploy nationwide intermittent service in the United States by the end of 2025, followed by the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada in Q1 2026″ actually represents the company’s hopes for when SCS approval might be received, not when any sort of service will actually be provided to the public. Or taken more literally, AST may claim this phrase means that “by the end of 2025″ the company will start “preparing to deploy…service” but that does not mean the company is currently preparing for a service to be deployed by the end of 2025.
There won’t be 25 satellites in orbit until July 2026 at the earliest, and it will be Sept-Oct 2026 before these are operational, and capable of generating revenues. Incidentally it was funny to hear the CFO (mistakenly?) claim that 25 satellites will generate positive operating cash flows, when the company’s 10-Q is careful not to include the word positive, simply asserting that “we believe the operation of a constellation of 25 BB satellites will enable us to potentially generate cash flows from operating activities to further support the buildup of the remaining constellation”.
And finally, there won’t actually be even the barest level of continuous (operational) coverage for a few parts of the northern US until the first quarter of 2027 at the earliest. I’m sure AT&T are desperate to forget their CEO’s claims back in October 2022 that they chose AST because it was 18 months ahead of Starlink and T-Mobile.
Permalink
08.02.25
Posted in AST SpaceMobile, Echostar, Handheld, Lynk, Operators, Regulatory, Services, SES, SpaceX, Spectrum, ViaSat at 9:36 am by timfarrar
Yesterday EchoStar chose to announce its plans for a new $5B D2D constellation of 200 satellites, including an initial US$1.3B contract with MDA to build the first 100 satellites. Though the MDA contract was in line with my prediction back in March, EchoStar’s heavy emphasis on prospective wholesale partnerships with mobile operators during the results call suggests that Apple has declined to provide financial backing for the system. That’s perhaps unsurprising after the press revelations in May describing a lack of consensus within Apple about whether to continue investing in D2D.
As EchoStar CEO Akhavan noted in the results call, EchoStar had to make a decision now, because the EU is in the process of deciding what to do about the current European 2GHz licenses held by EchoStar and Viasat when they expire in spring 2027. Indeed I understand that EchoStar assured the EU of its plans to build this system in its confidential response to the EU’s consultation back on June 30. Now we face an all-out battle between at least four players (Viasat, EchoStar, AST/Vodafone and SES/Lynk) for only two licenses when they are awarded at the end of this year.
However, EchoStar’s announcement also came as an unwelcome surprise to many investors, who were hoping that reports earlier in the week of FCC Chairman Carr’s “Best and Final Offer” to sell AWS-4 spectrum signaled that EchoStar would scale back its ambitions and strike a deal to sell or lease this spectrum. Contrary to some analyst perceptions, the biggest threat from the FCC has always been a potential rulemaking on the 2GHz MSS band that would open it up to additional sharing by Starlink. However, it was also very unlikely that Elon Musk and Charlie Ergen would have a meeting of minds on the value of this spectrum in any commercial deal for Starlink to access the band.
So its now clear that Ergen has decided to defy Carr’s mandate and move forward on his own, without providing any evidence that a major new partner for the system has been secured. Hopefully clarity on financing and partnerships will be provided in September when EchoStar has promised to give more details of its plans. But in the meantime, Carr must decide whether to launch a 2GHz rulemaking or leave Starlink out in the cold without access to MSS spectrum that will soon be sorely needed to increase the capacity of its D2D system. Carr’s decision may well turn on whether Ergen has secured President Trump’s backing, after his recent falling out with Elon Musk, and that would certainly help to explain why EchoStar is highlighting a large headline investment of $5B in the planned D2D system.
Fortuitously for those who are trying to make sense of these developments, yesterday evening I also released my new 100+ page deep dive report on D2D, telling you everything you need to know about D2D technology, regulation and the progress of all the different satellite operators involved in this market, updated with the latest information on EchoStar, AST, Starlink, Apple/Globalstar and other planned systems. We’ve seen lots of ludicrous forecasts about the size of this market, which simply fail to understand the technological constraints on these services in terms of capacity, data rates and costs. Unlike these other forecasts, my analysis looks at realistic capacity, usage and pricing models to assess how many customers Starlink and AST’s systems can serve and what they will need to charge per Gbyte of capacity. That’s a familiar topic to who followed my blog posts on LightSquared back in 2011-12 when it became clear that there was no there there…
I also analyze regulatory constraints, feasible deployment schedules (especially in light of continuing delays for AST which make the company’s claimed launch plans totally implausible) and how much spectrum will be needed for these systems to operate. As I discussed in another report back in January, MSS spectrum (and the 2GHz band in particular) is likely to be critical to providing adequate capacity for D2D constellations. Starlink only has a paired 5MHz block of spectrum in the US, but has already decided that it needed to upgrade to a paired 15MHz block in New Zealand after only 6 months of operations. So EchoStar’s announcement, and how the FCC now decides to respond, will be critical in determining the future direction of this market.
Permalink
07.23.25
Posted in Broadband, Operators, Regulatory, Services, SpaceX at 12:12 pm by timfarrar
Last week, the Washington Post published an article about Starlink’s supposed capacity limitations, based on a paper from X-Lab. This is part of the larger fight over the future of BEAD funding and how much should be redirected from fiber to satellite, with a rival ITIF paper suggesting the opposite, that it’s a myth that “LEOs Don’t Belong in BEAD”.
SpaceX has also been lobbying hard on this topic, publishing a network update that notes speeds and latency have both been improving in the US, even with more than 2M active users, and regulatory chief Dave Goldman highlighting his conversations with the FCC, NTIA and others “about how Starlink will make gigabit speeds available to people across the country”. Countering that, several articles have been published suggesting that Starship might never succeed, which would mean SpaceX being unable to launch the larger V3 satellites that the company is “targeting to begin launching…in the first half of 2026″
As one might expect, the lobbyists take an extreme position and the reality is somewhere in the middle: fundamentally there must be some limit to how much it is worth spending on fiber deployment to the most rural and remote locations, when Starlink (and in the future hopefully Kuiper) can provide an high quality, cost-effective residential broadband service. But on the other hand, putting fiber in the ground is a long term investment and it is comparing apples and oranges to equate that to the cost of a Starlink user terminal that the company expects to have a useful life of three years.
The X-Lab paper suggests that Starlink shouldn’t be funded by BEAD in areas where the population density is more than 6.7 Broadband Service Locations (BSLs) per square mile (which corresponds to limiting the addressable market to just over 3M homes around the country). However, when Starlink had waitlists in parts of the US such as the Pacific Northwest in January this year (since replaced by “congestion charges”), these were in regions with an average of about 4-5 customers per square mile, based on Starlink’s estimated US subscriber base in the area deemed “sold out”.
Since not all households would be expected to actually subscribe to internet service, this suggests that Starlink has already seen plenty of demand in areas at or above the proposed 6.7 BSL per square mile density limit, and those customers certainly found it worth paying for, even if the uplink speeds often fell short of the BEAD benchmark. Regardless of when/if Starlink actually gets to orbit, even the current Falcon 9 launch tempo is allowing the capacity of the Starlink service to improve significantly over time, so this proposed cutoff seems too low in limiting where Starlink can usefully provide service.
More to the point, the calculations in the paper simply don’t match the actual constraints on the Starlink service. The assumption is that only one satellite can serve a given cell, but a Starlink user would realize that’s not how it works in practice because if you set up a portable Starlink terminal and take it down each evening, one day you may be told (by the app) to point it say northeast, and the next day you may be told to point it west. That’s because the system is load balancing across the multiple satellites serving a given cell.
At the moment, the primary constraint on the downlink is the FCC’s limit on spectrum re-use (known technically as Nco=1) which means Starlink can only serve a single cell once with a given channel across Starlink’s 2GHz of downlink spectrum (10.7-12.7GHz). While the efficiency of spectrum use varies (for example it’s lower for a Starlink mini than a regular terminal), a reasonable estimate is ~3-4bps/Hz. So 2GHz of spectrum would equate to a maximum of ~7Gbps in a cell, which isn’t too different to the 6Gbps assumed in the paper. However, the FCC has allowed Starlink’s Gen1 and Gen2 satellites to be counted separately for the purposes of the re-use limit, and so the current theoretical maximum downlink speed in a cell is actually twice this level. And now the FCC is consulting on loosening these limits further.
The X-Lab paper focuses more on the uplink capacity as the key density constraint and it is certainly the case that the amount of spectrum available to Starlink is more limited there, because only 500MHz of Ku-band spectrum is allocated to uplink (14.0-14.5GHz) compared to 2GHz for downlink. However, the primary determinant of uplink capacity for Starlink end users is the number of timeslots allocated to uplink transmission, because the network uses Time Division Duplex (TDD) and was originally only configured to support transmission up to 10% of the time. That was intended to ensure that the terminal cannot produce enough radiation to heat up the head of someone standing in front of it (what the FCC refers to as SAR limits). Over time SpaceX has been able to improve this percentage (now 15.5% of the time for uncontrolled use) and professionally installed terminals can go even higher. So there’s no reason to conclude that the supposed 0.4Gbps per beam assumed in the paper is a hard limit.
On the other side of the lobbying effort, the ITIF paper ignores the fact that the BEAD funding mechanisms are extremely poorly suited to fund satellite deployments, as I discussed in this thread on X/Twitter. BEAD has been set up so you bid for money to deploy infrastructure in a particular geographical area, regardless of how many customers actually sign up. That makes sense when funding fiber or even wireless infrastructure: if you build a tower or lay a fiber line, the only way to make a return is to sell service within that coverage area. However, if you fund a satellite operator to build more LEO satellites, then those satellites will spend only a tiny fraction of 1% of the time over that area as they go around the Earth, and can devote 99%+ of the orbit to earning money from more valuable customers. So there is no real incentive for a satellite operator to actually sell service to the unserved customers.
The best way to square this circle would be to provide affordability instead of deployment incentives (i.e. a subsidy for terminals and/or monthly service), so that the satellite operator only earns money when end users in these unserved areas actually sign up, which was how the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) was structured. Otherwise the satellite operator is getting paid for something they are already doing: Starlink has over 7000 satellites in orbit already and is launching dozens every week, why pay them to launch a few hundred more? One possibility is to structure reimbursement payments “based on the number of subscribers the provider serves and/or enrolls” rather than “in equal installments throughout the period of performance”.
And when it comes to bidding, why wouldn’t any satellite operator bid a very low amount for the right to deploy service in unserved areas? If they can prevent terrestrial broadband technologies like fiber and wireless from getting subsidies for deployment, then they have a captive market to themselves. Certainly if both Starlink and Kuiper are bidding against one another, and these reimbursements are independent of the number of customers served, it would be logical for their deployment bids to be particularly low, since the cost of simply making service available is essentially zero. We saw in the RDOF auction (when Starlink didn’t face any meaningful competition from other satellite operators) that SpaceX was able to undercut terrestrial technologies, but the fight over whether or not they actually were going to receive their $885M in winning bids, made absolutely no difference to the number of satellites that the company put into orbit.
So in conclusion, satellite has a great opportunity to enhance broadband service in rural areas, potentially in more places than the very lowest density parts of the country. But unless the BEAD payments are linked to the number of customers served, the program will not do a good job of helping consumers realize those benefits.
Permalink
07.14.25
Posted in Broadband, Financials, KVH, Maritime, Operators, SpaceX at 4:29 pm by timfarrar
As I told the Wall St Journal last week, the revenue growth reported in the newly filed accounts for Starlink’s international operations is amazing, in the context of a satellite industry that does not grow fast. In fact, Starlink’s near $2B of international broadband service revenues reported in 2024 compares to about $3B for all other satellite operators combined, a roughly 40% market share that has been obtained in only the third full year of Starlink’s operations.
However, that alone represents a warning sign: in order to grow further and faster, Starlink now needs to focus heavily on expanding the market beyond traditional satellite users, not just winning customers from other satellite operators (though of course they will do that too). And terminal prices are already getting lower and lower: Starlink’s consumer terminal revenues in these international markets averaged only about $230 per new terminal manufactured in 2024, so terminal subsidies in 2025 (with 5M terminals manufactured in the last 11 months) may end up being as high as $1B.
These accounts don’t represent the whole of Starlink’s business, they exclude direct US sales to individuals, businesses and the government, which account for more than half of Starlink’s revenues. We’ve just published a note giving a more detailed breakdown of these accounts by customer type and geography, as well as an assessment of the changes to our 100+ page Starlink profile that was published last October. Get in touch if you’re interested in subscribing to our research.
One additional area of interest in Starlink’s financial reporting is the large prepayments that the company has received, which have gone a long way to shoring up its cash position and allowing the company to claim it has $3B of cash on hand (at least before the company handed over $2B of that to xAI). At the end of last year Starlink’s international business had booked over $600M of deferred revenue from one or more counterparties and I’m sure there will be lots of speculation about the source of those payments.
One example of how (much smaller) prepayments work is given by KVH, which as a public company helpfully discloses this information, with enough granularity to allow all of the details to be worked out. We published a profile of KVH last November which discusses all of this, but as shown below, KVH entered into a purchase of 15PB of data for a total of $16.95M in June 2024 (i.e. a price of $1.13 per Gbyte), with the data to be consumed over 15 months (according to KVH’s 2025Q1 call, the “follow-on pool” will be renegotiated “at some point later this year”).
However, according to KVH’s Q1 results, the company is far short of this goal, only having consumed 30% of the total after 9 months, and even being generous in terms of future growth in KVH’s Starlink business, it will likely take until early 2026 for the data pool to be used up. So the question is what will Starlink and KVH do at the end of Q3? Roll the additional data into a new larger pool? Or forfeit perhaps $5M of prepaid capacity?
This highlights one of the challenges for Starlink distributors that commit to prepurchase large amounts of data at an attractive rate. Each time a distributor renews their capacity pool, they may end up more and more dependent on Starlink continuing to supply them with capacity, and less and less able to divert spending to other LEO systems, even if they want to be “network-agnostic.”
And what then for other competing LEO providers who are seeking distributors to sell their services? Which distributors will actually have any spare budget to divert to these other sources of capacity? And what about the risk that Starlink might someday decide not to rollover millions of dollars of unused capacity if a distributor looks elsewhere? That’s likely to add to fears that Starlink will dominate the satellite industry, as I discussed in an NPR podcast a few weeks ago.
Permalink
02.07.23
Posted in Echostar, Financials, Globalstar, Handheld, Operators, Services, SpaceX, Spectrum at 8:35 pm by timfarrar
Yesterday, Globalstar filed an 8-K noting that on January 31 it had entered into a forbearance agreement with MDA and Rocket Lab, the contractors building 17 new satellites, under which additional payments beyond an initial $20M will be delayed until March 15. In addition, Globalstar noted that:
“The Company is currently exploring financing options for satisfying its remaining payment obligations under the Contractor Agreements, as well as its obligation to refinance its 2019 Facility Agreement. It cannot currently predict whether, and on what terms, any such financing will be available but maximizing shareholder value is the driving consideration.”
The reason for these financing challenges is that Globalstar is unable to close on the new first lien debt agreement to fund the satellites (that was expected to be backed by Apple to the tune of $450M) unless and until it has refinanced the $150M currently owed to Echostar under the 2019 Facility Agreement. Under the September 2022 Partnership Agreements between Apple and Globalstar, Globalstar is required:
“(i) upon commencement of the Services, to convert all loans outstanding under the 2019 Facility Agreement that are held by affiliates of the Thermo Companies (collectively, “Thermo”) into non-convertible perpetual preferred stock with a cash pay interest rate of 7% per annum or lower, convertible preferred stock with cash pay interest rate of 4% per annum or lower, common stock, or another security acceptable to Partner (the “Thermo Debt Conversion”) and (ii) within 90 days of the commencement of the Services, to refinance or convert all loans outstanding under the 2019 Facility Agreement that are held by persons other than Thermo on terms that are no less favorable to the Company than the Thermo Debt Conversion.”
Of course there was no chance whatsoever that Charlie Ergen would agree to exchange first lien debt with a PIK interest rate of 13.5% for preferred stock that would be subordinate to ~$500M of new first lien debt with an interest rate of 4%-7%, so the only plausible reason for Jay Monroe to agree to these terms was a Hail Mary bet that he could find a buyer for Globalstar before the deadline occurred for Echostar’s debt conversion.
That deadline is coming due on Monday February 13, 90 days after Apple began offering services on November 15, 2022 and no buyer has appeared for Globalstar. The Key Terms Agreement has specific provisions dealing with an offer for the company:
(i) Sale Notice. If a third party submits a non-frivolous proposal to acquire any material Required Resource or the Spectrum Subsidiary or for a Change of Control transaction involving Globalstar or Globalstar’s board of directors (or any committee thereof, including the Strategic Review Committee) approves a process with respect to the potential sale of any material Required Resource or the Spectrum Subsidiary or a Change of Control transaction (each, a “Sale Transaction”), Globalstar shall provide written notice of the Sale Transaction, with the material terms and related process of such transaction, including (A) at a minimum the structure of, and the assets proposed to be sold in the Sale Transaction and any relevant timelines or deadlines relating to the Sale Transaction, and (B) other material terms and related process to the extent permitted by Globalstar’s confidentiality obligations (a “Sale Notice”), to Partner within one day following Globalstar’s receipt of such proposal or such determination by Globalstar’s board of directors (or any committee thereof, including the Strategic Review Committee), which Sale Notice shall be considered Globalstar Confidential Information. If Globalstar enters into any confidentiality agreement relating to a potential Sale Transaction after the Effective Date, such agreement shall not restrict Globalstar from providing to Partner any of the information set forth in Section 10.2(e)(i)(A) that is required to be included in the Sale Notice.
(ii) Discussions. Following the delivery of the Sale Notice to Partner, Globalstar’s board of directors (or any committee thereof, including the Strategic Review Committee) shall, and shall cause the management, employees and other representatives of Globalstar to conduct discussions with Partner in good faith and on a non-exclusive basis and provide Partner with all information made available or provided to any potential third party acquiror, to enable Partner to make a proposal to Globalstar for a Sale Transaction, during the ten business day period following the date of the Sale Notice. Globalstar hereby agrees that it shall not, and shall cause its Related Entities, management, employees and other representatives not to, enter into a term sheet or letter of intent or other binding agreement or obligation with any other third party with respect to a Sale Transaction during the ten business day period commencing on the date of the Sale Notice.
(iii) Proposals. If Partner makes a proposal for a Sale Transaction prior to the expiration of the ten business day period, then Globalstar’s board of directors (or any committee thereof, including the Strategic Review Committee) will exercise its fiduciary duties to evaluate Partner’s proposal along with any other proposals for a Sale Transaction. In the event Globalstar’s board of directors (or any committee thereof, including the Strategic Review Committee) determines the proposal from Partner is in the best interests of Globalstar and its stockholders, then Globalstar will enter into a binding agreement to negotiate in good faith with Partner on an exclusive basis for a period of not less than 20 business days.
(iv) Consummation. If Partner declines to make, or Globalstar (after having considered such offer or proposal in good faith) declines to accept or pursue, a proposal for a Sale Transaction from Partner, then Globalstar shall be permitted to consummate a Sale Transaction with a third party, provided that Globalstar shall have first obtained and delivered to Partner a written agreement from the acquiror in the form included as Attachment 7.
So what happens next? The statement in the 8-K that “maximizing shareholder value is the driving consideration” suggests that Ergen will soon (or perhaps already has) submitted a “non-frivolous proposal” to acquire Globalstar, presumably at a very low price, given that Globalstar will soon be in breach of its obligations to Apple. This will trigger the 30 (business) day period for Globalstar to advise Apple of a sale transaction and then negotiate on an exclusive basis, which would also run through the mid March satellite payment deferral period (assuming Ergen has now made an offer for the company).
However, given the cards that Ergen and Apple hold in respect of a potential forced default on the Apple agreement, and that neither appears to have much interest (or belief that there is meaningful value) in Band 53, it is hard to see how their offers would meaningfully exceed the value generated by Globalstar’s satellite services, including the value of Apple’s messaging contract. I estimate that in those circumstances the best Globalstar might obtain would be roughly $1B-$1.5B in cash plus an agreement to assume the costs of the construction contract. That would be a pretty disastrous outcome for Jay Monroe after he’s invested over $800M and 20 years of his life in trying (against overwhelming odds) to make something of Globalstar, and Globalstar shareholders would also be hugely disappointed.
The most interesting question is what Ergen would seek to gain from Apple, if he was to either enable Apple to buy Globalstar at a low price or buy Globalstar himself (presumably through Echostar) and continue the partnership. One obvious possibility could be to collaborate to include the 2GHz satellite spectrum held by DISH and Echostar into future iPhones for additional NTN capacity. Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, Echostar announced plans to build a 28 satellite LEO IoT network just last week.
I also noted a few days ago that D2D is likely to be the next focus for hype over Starlink’s future prospects (which we can already see in the decision of SpaceX’s Jonathan Hofeller to join the Satellite-Cellular panel at Satellite 2023). And I predicted in my D2D report that SpaceX’s next step might be to acquire more MSS spectrum, most obviously Omnispace, but perhaps even Ligado. So now we could face the real prospect of a fight for this new market opportunity and the associated global satellite spectrum rights between Musk and Ergen, building on prior skirmishes over the 12.2-12.7GHz band. Wouldn’t that be fun!
Permalink
02.05.23
Posted in Globalstar, Handheld, Iridium, Operators, Regulatory, Services, SpaceX, Spectrum, T-Mobile at 9:42 pm by timfarrar
There’s been plenty of hype about the Direct-to-Device (D2D) market for satellite to smartphone connectivity in the last couple of years, and that has only intensified in the wake of recent announcements about Apple’s partnership with Globalstar and Qualcomm’s partnership with Iridium. Some analysts have even gone so far as to suggest that D2D represents the “largest opportunity in Satcom’s history“.
But the reality is that going beyond basic messaging presents significant technical challenges, and the messaging market will remain modest in size, anchored as it is by the size of Apple’s deal with Globalstar, which costs Apple little more than $100M per year for both global coverage and the ability to support tens of billions of messages per year. Regulatory challenges are still significant, with some regulators going so far as to ban systems that plan to use terrestrial spectrum from operating anywhere near their territory.
Nevertheless, D2D is becoming the next opportunity that SpaceX can hype, beyond its core fixed broadband market, as it looks for additional increases in the company’s valuation so it can keep raising money to keep developing Starship, while putting even more distance between Starlink and broadband competitors like OneWeb and Kuiper. And just as SpaceX has scared away potential investors in nascent LEO broadband systems like Telesat’s Lightspeed, we expect SpaceX to crowd out many of the other players in the D2D market, now that funding for speculative space projects is becoming more scarce.
Unfortunately, the perspectives of some investors and commentators have been skewed by the unrealistic D2D projections that were made during the SPAC boom, and they have failed to look at relevant benchmarks such as current levels of spending on international roaming. Our new 70+ page report on the D2D satellite smartphone communications opportunity, which has just been released, looks in detail at the regulatory constraints and technical limits to system performance, and projects revenue growth in both the messaging segment and in the voice and data segment over the next decade.
Our conclusion is that while D2D messaging is likely to deliver meaningful upside for existing MSS networks like Globalstar and Iridium, it will be much more difficult to gain global consensus on use of terrestrial spectrum. As a result, SpaceX is likely to hedge its bets and pursue a twin-track strategy of seeking access to both terrestrial and satellite spectrum, and potentially follow up its 2021 acquisition of Swarm with further deals to buy satellite operators and their spectrum licenses.
Then, as Starlink moves beyond its initial D2D messaging capabilities later this decade, and perhaps even amplifies the hype still further by suggesting that the next step will be to build a SpaceX smartphone, Starlink is likely to gain a majority share of the D2D market. Even so we project the potential market size to remain far smaller than Starlink’s fixed broadband opportunity and it is not at all clear that it will be possible to make an economic return on these D2D investments.
If you’d like to order a copy of the report then an order form is available here. And you can hear me speak about many of these issues this coming week at the SmallSat Symposium in Mountain View, CA.
Permalink
09.08.22
Posted in Broadband, Financials, Operators, SpaceX, Spectrum at 10:06 am by timfarrar
Up until 2020, I was very skeptical about the LEO broadband opportunity, and whether any of the planned systems would be able to raise enough money and build out a constellation that could deliver a service that is competitive with existing GEO operators. That skepticism seemed entirely justified after the failure of LeoSat in late 2019 and OneWeb’s spiral towards a bankruptcy filing in March 2020. SpaceX had also given wildly over-ambitious forecasts for Starlink’s revenue and timing, with projections for $6B of revenue in 2021, rising to over $30B in 2025.
But over the last two years, Starlink has launched a consumer broadband service that has upended the industry by providing vastly more capacity per subscriber than Viasat and Hughes, with a simple, easy to install terminal, and as of June 2022 already served over 400K users. Successfully developing such a system is an extraordinary technical feat when so many previous broadband constellation plans have failed. And after raising over $6B in the last 2.5 years at ever increasing valuations, SpaceX has been able to launch thousands of Starlink satellites and build scale that competitors will struggle to match.
I didn’t think that SpaceX would pull this off, but they did, and today too many people in the industry, who are rightly skeptical of Elon Musk’s litany of unfulfilled promises, remain far too complacent and are continuing to dismiss Starlink as just a consumer service that won’t threaten other parts of the satellite market, or are even suggesting that the network remains economically unviable and is doomed to failure.
However, the dam is starting to break for acceptance of Starlink amongst professional users, with Royal Caribbean’s recent move to deploy Starlink representing just the start of disruption in traditional satellite verticals. And SpaceX’s latest $2B in equity funding should see the company through to late 2023, by which time I expect Starlink to have captured around 1M users and have reached cash flow breakeven (even accounting for ongoing satellite replenishment costs).
That doesn’t mean Starlink (or SpaceX more broadly) will offer a positive return to those recent investors at the ludicrous valuation of $127B, because satellite will remain a last resort solution compared to terrestrial fiber, cable modem and even 5G fixed wireless options, but it does mean that there’s no reason to suppose that Starlink will cease to be an enormous competitive threat to the satellite industry in the foreseeable future.
One largely unrecognized issue in the LEO market is that there are significant benefits to scale, due to the virtuous circle that comes from adding more satellites to a constellation, as shown in the diagram below.
With more satellites in the sky, the user terminal antennas don’t have to scan as far to find a satellite to connect to, so they can be cheaper, with fewer antenna elements. And the altitude of the constellation can be lower, improving the link margin and capacity, and allowing the user terminal to operate at lower power. Capacity provisioning also becomes more uniform, as traffic loading can be averaged across multiple satellites, improving the quality of service. Starlink has been designed from the ground up to minimize the cost of the terminal, unlike traditional satellite systems (even recent designs like Telesat’s Lightspeed), which optimize the satellite and treat the terminal as an afterthought. Cheaper terminals and more capacity attract more users and generate more revenue, which can be fed back into building yet more satellites, making it ever harder for competitors to catch up.
So now we’re in a position where Starlink has clearly won the race for LEO broadband (at least for the next 4-5 years, since Amazon’s Kuiper won’t be completed before 2026-27), and is likely to become the largest satellite operator by revenue within that timeframe. Our new report on LEO broadband and the future of the satellite industry forecasts what this means for industrywide growth in revenue and traffic, and analyzes how satellite operators, distributors and equipment suppliers are likely to respond to what for many will represent an existential threat. The outcomes will include an acceleration of industry consolidation, decisions to exit, and even bankruptcies. The report also complements our June 2022 Starlink profile, which analyzes Starlink’s technology and forecasts Starlink’s revenue growth by segment. You can order one or both reports using the form here, or contact us to discuss subscription options for all of our industry analysis.
Permalink
01.18.22
Posted in Aeronautical, AT&T, Operators, Regulatory, Services, Spectrum, Verizon at 10:45 pm by timfarrar
What on earth has gone wrong in the C-band rollout that has led to hundreds if not thousands of planes now being grounded? That’s the question that so far the news reports seem to have failed to get a grip on, given the complex technology and difficulty in interpreting what is going on behind the scenes between the FAA, FCC and wireless companies.
On January 4 a deal was announced between the FAA and the wireless companies to delay the rollout by two weeks in exchange for DoT and FAA agreeing that they “will not seek or demand any further delays of C-Band deployment, in whole or in part”. The FAA also committed that it would “work to issue AMOCs as filed by aviation stakeholders to allow for operation of aircraft to the extent permissible.”
The FAA is issuing two forms of notices to deal with the possibility of interference from 5G. The first of these is the NOTAM (Notice To Air Missions) for a specific airport, which sets out constraints on aircraft operations, such as restrictions on use of particular flight paths during bad weather. The second is the AMOC (Alternative Means Of Compliance) which allows certain altimeters (and therefore the specific aircraft types which carry them) to be exempt from these flight path restrictions if the FAA’s analysis has shown that the altimeter type is “high performing” (i.e. resilient to the possibility of interference).
What appears to have happened in the last two weeks is that the FAA has failed to issue as many AMOCs as had been expected and therefore a very large number of aircraft remain subject to the NOTAM restrictions. As of Tuesday, the FAA had only approved two types of altimeter, which account for “about 45% of the US commercial aircraft fleet” and “include Boeing’s 737, 747, 757, 767, MD-10 and MD-11 and the Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330 and A350.” This leaves more than half of the US fleet subject to restrictions, including most regional and wide body jets, notably Boeing’s 777, 787 and 747 aircraft.
Over the weekend we heard stories, based on FAA briefings, about new constraints on 787 operations because “during the two-week delay in deploying new 5G service, safety experts determined that 5G interference with the aircraft’s radio altimeter could prevent engine and braking systems from transitioning to landing mode, which could prevent an aircraft from stopping on the runway.”
But the FAA appears to have failed to complete its analysis of the 777 and 747 during this period, and in what seems to have been an attempt to force the FAA to address the issue, Boeing released an advisory to airlines on Monday evening covering the 777 and 747-8 which “recommends operators do not operate 777 aircraft on approach and landing to U.S. runways” unless there is an alternative means of compliance. This language presumably means that Boeing believes that these altimeters should be approved through the AMOC process, but the FAA has failed to act. As a result, international airlines are now cancelling flights to the US on Wednesday or rearranging them to use other aircraft including the 787 and A380.
One obvious question (even ignoring the delays in taking action before January 3) is why the FAA has been so slow to make the expected progress over the last two weeks. Is it sheer incompetence? Or did the FAA think it was going to be able to extract a better deal from the wireless carriers, with a new and permanently lower signal level, as some aviation experts think could happen? Certainly the FAA now appears to have abandoned its commitment not to demand “further delays of C-Band deployment” and instead secured an indefinite delay to deployments near additional airports, instead of the maximum of 50 airports agreed to on January 3 (which is essentially a return to the demands from DoT on December 31). And the FAA maintained its hostility to C-Band operations even after signing an agreement not to try and delay them.
No wonder, even FCC Chair Rosenworcel, after keeping quiet during the January 3 negotiations, expressed frustration noting that “the FAA has a process in place to assess altimeter performance in the 5G environment and resolve any remaining concerns. It is essential that the FAA now complete this process with both care and speed.” Conversely, the DoT, who on January 4 celebrated the “the amazing [FAA] team for long hours over the holiday to minimize flight disruptions” are now conspicuously silent about the lack of progress over this most recent holiday weekend, with no commitment from the Secretary of Transportation to move quickly.
So how does this end? Will the FAA issue the AMOC approvals for the 777 and 747-8 on Wednesday before tens of thousands of Americans are stranded overseas, as the airline CEOs predicted on Monday? That seems to be what US airlines are betting on, at least for now. And what about regional jets, which account for most of the remaining aircraft, and whose representatives are complaining they have been left out of the agreement? In that case, disruption may be sporadic, since there is no grounding order and cancellations will be dependent on the weather, so things may not come to a head until the next major winter storm.
None of this looks good for the Administration and it certainly isn’t “great work by all involved” as the White House Chief of Staff suggested. However, it looks like the FAA will have to bear the lion’s share of the blame for what seems highly likely to be substantial disruption in air travel over the next few days and possibly much longer when it comes to regional jets.
UPDATE (Thu Jan 20): After the debacle on Tuesday, with the cancellation of 777 and 747-8 flights by multiple international airlines, it seems the FAA was embarrassed (or forced) into accelerating the issuance of AMOC approvals for additional altimeters, approving the 777 on Wednesday morning, and the number of altimeters approved and percentage of the US fleet covered has now grown very quickly:
Tuesday Jan 18: 2 altimeters and 45% of the US fleet
Wednesday Jan 19: 5 altimeters and 62% of the US fleet
Thursday Jan 20: 13 altimeters and 78% of the US fleet.
The result has been that most disruption has been avoided, although regional jets remain a concern, with some problems resulting from low visibility. However, the rapid pace of approvals, and the expectation from airlines that there won’t be “any material disruption going forward”, further discredits the FAA’s fearmongering over the weekend, not least because an AMOC has now been issued covering all 787 jets, which were supposedly the cause of greatest alarm. Suggestions that airlines would need to “swap out the altimeters” in a process lasting years and costing billions of dollars, also appear to be well wide of the mark.
At this point the consensus seems to be that this has been a crisis created by the FAA’s foot dragging, and the more AMOC approvals that are issued, the more obvious that becomes. So the biggest remaining question is whether and when the Secretary of Transportation will ask for the resignation of the FAA Administrator, who after all is a holdover from the last administration, and therefore will make a convenient scapegoat for this whole episode? However, it also shouldn’t go unnoticed that the reaction of the President (echoed by members of Congress) was to push “as hard as I can to have the 5G folks hold up” rather than calling out the incompetence and delaying tactics of the FAA.
UPDATE (Fri Jan 21): It seems like I was far too confident last night that the 5G problem is on its way to being solved, despite airline executives declaring that the doomsday scenario is over because “The technical experts that are working on it tell us it’s really not that complicated once they all are able to share information and work on it…So they seem encouraged that we’ll be able to address this in a way that allows for full deployment of 5G, including near airports.”
As described by the Regional Airline Association, the tests are conducted by manufacturers and then those plans are “submitted…to the FAA” who issue the AMOC. The airlines appear confident that those manufacturer tests show there will be no problems even after full deployment of 5G.
But the FAA’s statements appear to confirm that they are only issuing AMOCs approving altimeters to operate while the current 5G deployment restrictions remain in place: “The new safety buffer announced Tuesday around airports in the 5G deployment further expanded the number of airports available to planes with previously cleared altimeters to perform low-visibility landings.”
So it is perhaps no wonder Boeing is refusing to comment because they don’t want to get into a public shouting match with the FAA, despite the behind the scenes confrontation over the 777 at the beginning of this week outlined above. But you can be sure that many aviation interests are demanding that the restrictions continue permanently and the FAA is preparing for another showdown on July 5th, when the current six month period of restrictions is set to expire.
Permalink
04.13.20
Posted in LightSquared, Operators, Regulatory, Services, Spectrum at 1:41 pm by timfarrar
No I’m not talking about SpaceX and the RDOF auction, I’m returning to a topic I haven’t written about for years (but also provided plenty of opportunities for pointing out the idiocy of some billionaires), that of Ligado.
Over the last year there’s been a great deal of dysfunction at the NTIA, leading to the unfortunate loss of David Redl and what Oscar Wilde might have described as the “careless” loss of Diane Rinaldo. These problems were amply summed up in Redl’s speech a few days before he resigned, where he noted that:
“In this era of competition for spectrum resources, it can be easy to think that we’re in a winner-take-all battle, but that mindset asks us to make false choices that will shortchange America. For example, we don’t have to choose between making more spectrum available for the private sector and sustaining our critical government systems. We also don’t have to choose between terrestrial 5G and satellite services.”
Although it is not the only area where these problems have been manifested (and the fight over the 24GHz spectrum auction was far more important), Ligado has employed its usual lobbying tactics of attempting to secure high level political backing (just like in 2010-11), apparently getting former acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney to push the FCC into drafting an order to approve Ligado’s application last fall (which is why Defense Secretary Esper’s November 18 letter to Chairman Pai was specifically copied to him) and more recently even persuading Attorney General Barr to make the bizarre proposal that Ligado’s L-band spectrum could be used in conjunction with C-band as part of a plan to counter China, which would involve the “United States aligning itself with Nokia and/or Ericsson through American ownership of a controlling stake” in these companies.
Of course this latest business plan is just as much nonsense as the previous business plans presented by Ligado and its predecessor companies in their attempts to persuade the FCC to grant them a license, because other countries are deploying TDD networks in their C-band spectrum for the entirely logically reason that it maximizes the performance of MIMO, and are never going to approve use of L-band uplinks in satellite spectrum in any case. Why would US telcos decide to do anything other than follow suit?
But Ligado’s management has the singular objective of securing regulatory approval and keeping their jobs, rather than actually developing something that would be economically valuable, just like their prior business plans to provide a dual mode satellite-terrestrial network for utilities (despite seamless roaming from terrestrial to satellite mode being impossible), promise rural LTE service using satellite capacity that cost $10,000 per Gbyte, or meet the supposedly “vast global demand” for dual mode satellite phones that turned out to amount to fewer than 2000 phones when Terrestar tried to sell them.
So let’s take a step back. What is the problem we are trying to solve here? Is this really about whether Ligado gets a worthless approval that does nothing to benefit 5G one way or the other? Or is it really what Commissioner O’Rielly’s letter last week asked the President to do, to make sure that the DoD (and other agencies) do not simply get to veto any reallocation of spectrum within IRAC, and instead the NTIA works to properly balance competing spectrum interests, as Redl said last year?
Ligado’s current proposal, that the FCC simply ignore the NTIA’s public recommendation (which was set out even more forcefully in another letter from Associate Administrator Doug Kinkoph last Friday) and “bring an end to…this proceeding“, would make things worse not better. If the NTIA has stated on the record that “We believe that the Commission cannot reasonably reach such a conclusion [that the harmful interference concerns have been resolved]” then the next step is to set up a process to resolve them, not to simply reject this conclusion. Both sides have behaved badly here, Ligado in claiming that there is no harm whatsoever (when some older high precision devices and perhaps even some DoD systems certainly do need to be replaced) and the DoT in claiming that a 200MHz wide swath of spectrum should remain completely unoccupied in order to protect GPS. The US needs an NTIA that works, not an NTIA that is to simply be ignored.
Moreover the idea that the FCC would rush something like this out on delegated authority (which is basically what was being implied by news reports last Friday that an order could come later that day) would repeat the mistakes of LightSquared’s January 2011 approval, which was also approved by the International Bureau on delegated authority, in a ruling which former (Republican) Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth noted “was an unprecedented and surprising development. That they would make this decision at the bureau level and not at the full commission level is just stunning”.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
