03.24.26
Posted in Amazon, AST SpaceMobile, D2D, Globalstar, Lynk, Operators, Services, SpaceX, Spectrum, ViaSat at 5:43 pm by timfarrar
After more than 20 years, it looks like Jay Monroe has finally achieved his goal of selling Globalstar at a profit. In the coming days, I understand that the sale process initiated back in October will reach its conclusion, and Globalstar will be sold at something close to Jay’s asking price of $10B. And as I promised Jay in Paris last September, I’ll owe him an apology for ever doubting that he would be able to make money on his Globalstar investment.
Rumors have been swirling all week here at the satellite conference in Washington DC and many people have guessed that the winning bidder would be Amazon. That seemed to be the most likely outcome back in January. However, I think that Jay took Amazon’s offer to SpaceX and they probably decided to beat it, in order to further cement Starlink’s dominance of the satellite industry. Amazon already faces severe competitive pressure from Starlink in the broadband market, and a Starlink purchase of Globalstar would block another opportunity for Amazon to broaden its appeal and match Starlink’s D2D offer.
Buying yet more spectrum might not be seen as the wisest course of action for SpaceX, if some international regulators decide that because Starlink controls Globalstar’s MSS spectrum there is no need to grant Starlink additional rights in the 2GHz MSS spectrum acquired from EchoStar. But Brendan Carr’s threats that he will block European satellite operators from the US market if the EU withdraws Starlink’s spectrum rights should carry the day in the near term.
In particular, a two year extension is likely to be granted for the current EU 2GHz spectrum licenses (which is conveniently beyond the November 2028 presidential election). And 2029 is a long way away, given the number of balls Elon Musk has to juggle in the next few years to get Starship flying, meet NASA’s moon ambitions and sort out the challenges at xAI and Tesla.
What is much less clear, is what will happen to Globalstar’s C-3 constellation and the relationship with Apple after a sale. Would Apple continue to pay Starlink hundreds of millions of dollars per year to support connectivity on existing iPhones? Would the C-3 constellation still be completed, especially if it takes MDA another two years or more, by which time Starlink might have its own next generation Starlink Mobile constellation on orbit? That decision could go either way, depending on how confident SpaceX is that Starship will be ready to launch the next gen constellation on time.
Meanwhile, in other news, it seems that Viasat has concluded that it will have to put some of its own money on the line to get started with the 2800 satellite Equatys constellation, with RocketLab likely to be chosen as the satellite bus contractor. Plausibly, RocketLab’s recent $1B fundraising could be used to provide an equity injection into the Equatys joint venture.
And AST is telling people that it will now rely on New Glenn for 9 of its first 12 launches, implicitly confirming the rumors that the company can’t figure out how to stack satellites within the much smaller Falcon 9 fairing. Of course, there’s no way that New Glenn will provide AST with anything like 9 launches this year, so AST’s deployment plans will be pushed out even further.
The level of skepticism about AST at the conference is quite remarkable, but despite Starlink’s dominance, there’s little reason for mobile operators to withdraw their support in the immediate future. Instead, with Starlink’s next generation Starlink Mobile constellation at least two years away and alternatives including AST, Equatys and Lynk all on a similar timetable, MNOs can wait and see, and perhaps pray, that one or more alternatives to Starlink ultimately emerges, and that, in the meantime, more clarity emerges about whether their customers actually care about D2D at all.
Permalink
03.06.26
Posted in Aeronautical, Operators, SpaceX at 8:29 am by timfarrar
Last Sunday afternoon (4.11pm Pacific time), March 1, Elon Musk posted a curious tweet:
This came in response to another tweet about use of Starlink on US attack drones, but that’s not the important issue (and in fact, as it applies to US-approved uses, the statement is somewhat misleading: Starlink satellites are widely used in Ukraine for military purposes, with funding from the US Department of War, it’s just that SpaceX uses the Starshield brand for these sales, not the “commercial Starlink” service).
Musk’s tweet states that “weapon systems” using Starlink are “shut down when discovered”. So what did Starlink shut down right after this tweet? That became clear on Monday morning, when general aviation users started complaining that their Starlink service had been affected because “effective immediately, the maximum supported in-motion speed for Roam and Priority plans is 100 mph”. Instead Starlink has introduced Aviation 300 and Aviation 450 plans (with much higher pricing) that allow for usage at up to 300mph and 450mph respectively.
But what is even more notable is that the rules for these new plans require you to submit a scan of your passport, as well as details of the aircraft that the Starlink service will be used on. In contrast, all you need to sign up for the Roam plan is a credit card.
So what “weapon system” flies at not much more than 100mph and shouldn’t be provided to certain passport holders? We all know that Russian attack drones have been an issue in Ukraine and Starlink introduced a whitelisting process last month to address this. But it seems no one thought about Iran at that point in time.
And the remaining question is how did Musk “discover” this on Sunday? God forbid that the Iranian drone which killed six US servicemembers earlier in the day in Kuwait (and was described as “flying slow and low to the ground”) was using Starlink…
Permalink
03.02.26
Posted in Aeronautical, D2D, Globalstar, Operators, Regulatory, Services, SpaceX, Spectrum, T-Mobile at 7:36 am by timfarrar
It was fascinating to see today’s announcement at MWC, that Starlink is partnering with Deutsche Telekom to “support over 140M subscribers across 10 European countries“. Most remarkable is that DT is explicitly confirming that “the service will operate only in Starlink’s MSS (Mobile Satellite Service) spectrum”, effectively treating renewal of EchoStar’s existing 2GHz MSS license in Europe as a fait accompli.
That’s perhaps not surprising, because I’m told that an announcement from the EU on the process for reallocating the 2GHz licenses after they expire in spring 2027 remains stalled, and may take several more months to emerge. As a result, the expectation is that the current licenses (held by Viasat and EchoStar) will be extended, probably by two years, to allow time for that process (with appeals and a need for subsequent actions by national regulators) to conclude.
But there is a wider context here to the alignment between Starlink and Deutsche Telekom here, which is seemingly happening with the implicit backing of the German government (and makes me wonder what will happen to Tesla’s factory in Germany this week).
Back in January, news broke that Starlink had struck a fleetwide deal to equip Lufthansa’s aircraft with connectivity. After the prior loss of IAG to Starlink in November 2025, Lufthansa was the last remaining anchor customer for Viasat’s European Aviation Network (EAN).
Lufthansa’s defection fatally undermined the case to retain EAN in its current form and therefore has called into question the need for Viasat to retain 2x15MHz for its 2GHz MSS license. In supporting Viasat’s application for renewal, Lufthansa had even gone as far as to claim that “The EAN is a critical building block in continuing our journey to offer an industry-leading connectivity solution to our passengers.” Of course, it will take some time to replace the EAN terminals on both Lufthansa and IAG, but that just reinforces the rationale for a two-year extension to the current European 2GHz licenses, before any changes take place.
Those changes could potentially reduce both Viasat and EchoStar to paired 10MHz blocks and free up a third license for a European provider (prompting a fight between the AST/Vodafone partnership and the SES/Lynk/Omnispace grouping). But now I wonder if DT might switch its position and suggest cutting Viasat to 2x10MHz, in order to free up 2x5MHz for IoT, while leaving EchoStar/Starlink with the full 2x15MHz. Though whether that would fly with EU regulators is far from clear.
What is interesting is that Lufthansa’s decision to defect to Starlink was apparently very sudden, in fact I’m told that Lufthansa had been negotiating a major deal with another IFC provider for the last couple of years, which was close to being confirmed publicly, and rumors suggest that the German government had a hand in the switch.
Now we have a similar major deal between Deutsche Telekom and Starlink that comes after DT reportedly vetoed T-Mobile US’s plan to buy EchoStar’s spectrum last summer to enhance the partnership between TMUS and Starlink. And last June, DT had been just as unenthusiastic about any changes to the 2GHz band, stating that “Deutsche Telekom AG plans to continue operating the European Aviation Network (EAN) using the MSS 2GHz spectrum beyond 2027…preserving the current spectrum allocation is crucial for the continued operation and economic viability of the EAN.”
So the natural question is “what changed”? I’m told that even after vetoing the TMUS-EchoStar spectrum deal (and then replacing the TMUS CEO while privately characterizing TMUS as “going rogue”), DT continued investigating D2D options and was one of three companies that looked at Globalstar when that asset was put up for sale last fall (the other two being SpaceX and Apple).
But nothing happened there, and now DT has decided instead to strike a major partnership with Starlink, preferring to rely on the 2GHz MSS band over Globalstar’s Big LEO spectrum. And there’s even a DT panelist (Jaroslav Holis) scheduled to speak at the Equatys event on Wednesday which raises the question of what DT might have been exploring there. So I’m left wondering whether there are wider German political factors behind the decisions of both Lufthansa and Deutsche Telekom to reverse themselves in short order.
Permalink
02.08.26
Posted in Broadband, Financials, Operators, Regulatory, SpaceX at 2:29 pm by timfarrar
On Friday, redacted versions of two SpaceX financial forecasts, one from 2021 and the other from 2023, were disclosed in the Delaware litigation between SpaceX shareholders.
While only very limited numbers in the financial projections remain unredacted (beyond the expectation in the 2021 forecast that “government” revenue for Starlink would grow to $5B by 2027), there is enough that can be extracted to determine that Starlink has exceeded the 2021 revenue forecast, but Starship has fallen dramatically behind expectations even in 2023. The 2021 forecast helpfully used redactions matched to the number of characters, showing that Starlink was first expected to exceed $10B in revenues in 2026, while in actual fact Starlink passed $10B in 2025.
The projected valuations on the last page of this document also make it possible to back into the total company revenues forecast in 2021 and 2027: the $102.8B valuation was 25x revenues, implying a revenue forecast of $4113M for 2021. By 2027 this valuation was expected to have increased 4.9x, to around $500B, which was said to be 20x revenues, implying a revenue forecast of ~$25B for 2027. That again is slightly less than SpaceX’s likely total revenues in 2027, even if you remain skeptical about SpaceX’s ability to meet the current published 2026 forecast of $22B-$24B.
However, the 2023 forecast shows how SpaceX was expecting Starship to start launching Starlink satellites to orbit in 2024, with Falcon 9 phased out for Starlink launches in 2026. Now even on Musk’s optimistic timeline from December 2025, Starlink V3 launches on Starship aren’t expected “at scale” until “around Q4″ of this year. So Starship launches of usable payloads have now consistently remained 12 months out for nearly three years.
It’s also fascinating to me how the ongoing debate about orbital data centers tends to ignore launch constraints. SpaceX is just beginning to scale up to develop these “AI satellites”, but until now the emphasis for Starship has been on getting it ready to launch Starlink V3 in volume. That’s meant building extensive launch pad infrastructure in Florida and seeking permission for a high launch tempo there.
Florida is ideal for Starlink launches to 40 and 50 degree inclinations, which will be much more difficult in Boca Chica. However, Florida is a terrible location for sun synchronous launches, which is where these orbital data centers are supposed to go, to utilize maximum sunlight. Back in 2020, SpaceX conducted the first sun synchronous launch from Florida in more than 50 years, and has continued to launch some Transporter rideshare missions to sun synchronous orbits since then, but this requires a very fuel inefficient “dog leg” maneuver and so is only suitable for light payloads, not bulk launches of AI satellites.
Similarly, undertaking sun synchronous launches from Boca Chica would be extremely challenging (and potentially cause an international dispute), as these rockets would need to fly completely across Mexico, not over the open ocean. That’s why Vandenberg is typically used for sun synchronous missions, but SpaceX hasn’t even begun building a Starship pad there, and a high launch tempo is likely to be very politically controversial in California. So how exactly does SpaceX intend to get these AI satellites to the desired orbit?
Permalink
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
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
