05.14.09
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, Inmarsat, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 2:07 pm by timfarrar
The European Commission has announced the result of the S-band MSS selection process: as expected the two winners are Solaris Mobile and Inmarsat, with ICO and TerreStar’s applications rejected.
In response to the announcement, Inmarsat said it was “delighted to be the recipient” and “will look to pursue the commercial partnerships necessary to ensure that the returns from the required investment in our S-band programme will generate acceptable returns on capital without undue risks or uncertainties”.
However, it may not have much time to establish these partnerships, since the EC has stated that “within 30 working days of the publication of the list of selected applicants they shall inform the Commission in case they do not intend to use the radio frequencies”. If applicants decide to move forward (i.e. do not return the license) then they “will be bound by the commitments that they have undertaken, including commitments made concerning consumer and competitive benefits and geographic coverage” and all new systems must have “development and deployment completed” by May 2011 “at the latest”. A two year deadline for deployment is extremely tight, and Inmarsat would have to start spending serious money in the very near future (probably close to $100M in the next 12 months and $300M over the next two years) to complete and launch a satellite in this timeframe.
It will be very interesting to see if Inmarsat can find partners to come up with this amount of money (or enter into some alternative form of capacity purchase contracts) in the next 30 days. Given that Solaris already has a satellite in orbit (albeit with more limited coverage) and has not yet announced any meaningful capacity commitments, it would be quite a surprise if Inmarsat was successful, especially in the midst of an economic downturn.
It remains unclear what sanctions the EC can impose on operators who fail to live up to their “commitments” and ultimately do not complete an S-band satellite on the promised schedule. We would have thought it unlikely that fines or other monetary penalties would be imposed, but coming a day after Intel was fined more than 1 billion Euros by the EC’s Competition Directorate, this may not be a good time to get on the wrong side of the Commission.
Permalink
04.30.09
Posted in Globalstar, ICO/DBSD, Inmarsat, Iridium, LightSquared, Spectrum, TerreStar at 10:44 am by timfarrar
On Monday, the Wall St Journal revealed that Harbinger plans to push ahead with “a multibillion-dollar plan to build an international satellite-cellphone business” which would “complement existing cellular networks with satellite coverage, and…use new chips that could fit inside affordable, mainstream phones, keeping costs down for consumers”. This is quite different from the original plan of SkyTerra, TerreStar and ICO to build out Ancillary Terrestrial Components (ATCs) – basically a new terrestrial cellphone network using their satellite frequencies. Instead, subscribers will simply rely on their existing cellphone networks and only use the satellite services of these companies as a roaming partner when they are in uncovered areas. From that perspective, the new plan is much more similar to the business plans of Iridium and Globalstar in the late 1990s, that business travelers would rely on satellite networks to fill in the gaps in cellular coverage. For example, here’s a description from the Economist in June 1998:
“By far the largest number of subscribers is likely to come from the “cellular roaming” market. These are users of land-based cellular phones who want to be able to extend the range of their handsets when they are travelling through areas of poor or incompatible coverage. MSS subscribers will be equipped with a dual-standard phone that will switch to a satellite when a ground connection is unavailable (Iridium’s first offering is a soon-to-be-superseded $3,000 half-kilogram brick). Subscribers will pay a higher standing charge to their normal cellular operator and a premium on MSS calls. Numbering will not change and unified billing will be standard. This week Iridium said it had recruited 200 distribution partners among cellular companies.”
Of course there are many advantages that the new and very capable satellites being built by SkyTerra and TerreStar will offer over the 1990s technology of Iridium and Globalstar. Most obviously, the extra power and sensitivity of their satellites will allow the satellite service to be added to mainstream cellphones with little or no penalty in size and weight, as opposed to the ‘brick’-sized handsets produced by Iridium and Globalstar in 1998 and 1999. In addition, SkyTerra, TerreStar and ICO have signed agreements with Qualcomm to incorporate satellite technology into Qualcomm’s next generation cellular chipsets, which are likely to be used in a wide range of handsets.
However, there is a major difference between the principal sources of revenue for an ATC and a satellite roaming business plan. In the ATC case, a cellular operator would pay to lease the satellite spectrum to provide terrestrial services over a new terrestrial base station network, thereby enabling it to add capacity or new broadband services to its network. Satellite services, while available, would be a minor component of the overall revenue stream for the satellite operator. On the other hand, a satellite roaming business plan relies on the satellite services themselves to generate revenue, with perhaps some incremental benefit to the cellular partner through reduced churn, if the satellite service is sufficiently compelling to subscribers.
Even more importantly, the decision maker who will produce these revenue streams is very different: in the ATC case, it is simply a matter of convincing the cellular operator to lease the spectrum, whereas in the satellite roaming case, the end user must decide to buy the satellite service. Many people who were intimately involved in the launch of Iridium and Globalstar’s services remain convinced that it will be very difficult to explain the limitations of satellite service to a mass market: those services were sold as enabling coverage “anywhere”, and so there were numerous complaints about the inability of satellite service to work reliably in buildings, cars and urban areas. For most people, their experience of cellphone coverage limitations is in precisely these areas: in the Bay Area there are 375K riders of BART each WEEKDAY (where coverage in the underground parts of the transit system has only recently started to be deployed) compared to less than 200K visitors to Pinnacles National Monument each year (the location where we most recently spent an extended period of time outside cellular coverage). Remember also that even the new phones almost certainly won’t switch beween terrestrial and satellite modes in the middle of a call, so will likely drop an ongoing call if the user moves through a cellular (or satellite) deadzone. As the Wall St Journal explained in July 1999:
“At its core, Iridium is struggling with an incongruity between its design and its market ambitions. It was originally intended for millions of globe-trotting business travelers, and it was launched with a $180 million world advertising campaign last year aimed at that market. But when Motorola began operating the system on Nov. 1, the Iridium handsets weren’t powerful enough to work within buildings or urban areas. As a result, a vast network intended for a mass market was usable only by niche groups, such as mariners, oil-rig workers or the military. Iridium faces a tough struggle to cover its huge costs in such relatively small markets.”
Indeed there are about 150,000 Iridium and Globalstar satellite phone subscribers within these niche markets in North America at the moment, generating about $100M in retail service revenues per year (excluding international users like the DoD). New smaller, cheaper handsets from SkyTerra and TerreStar should increase the size of this “professional” MSS niche significantly (including amongst “police, fire and ambulance personnel”). In addition, a low cost “satellite backup” service might appeal to several million consumers, particularly in earthquake or hurricane-prone areas such as California or the Gulf Coast, if it is explained properly: as an emergency service for use outdoors in the event that other communications are unavailable. In order to achieve this level of take-up, cellular carriers will not only have to sign roaming deals with the satellite networks, but also ensure that satellite connectivity is included in the phones they sell and support large scale distribution of the phones themselves. Even then, it may be hard to explain properly: there were reports after Hurricane Katrina that first responders were unable to get their satellite phones to work, and it was later discovered that some were trying to use the phones in a basement conference room or inside the Superdome. Although gaining several million subscribers would be a great achievement for the MSS sector, in view of these challenges we remain skeptical that there will ever be “vast global demand for the network [Harbinger] envisions”.
In contrast, we are more positive about the long term potential of ATC: cellular operators will ultimately need more spectrum to cope with the surge in wireless broadband data demand and will use up the stockpiles of 700MHz and AWS spectrum which they have purchased in recent years. At that time ATC will be one of the most obvious sources of supplementary spectrum, and there is no technical reason why it can’t be made to work. Indeed many of the developments being put in place to enable satellite roaming (such as the Qualcomm chipset) are precisely those needed as a pre-requisite for ATC deployment. The only problem is how long it may take before major cellular operators feel a pressing need to use MSS spectrum for their terrestrial operations – it is likely to be several years off at a minimum. Indeed, if WiMAX struggles, then Clearwire’s spectrum may be sold off to other players, pushing out the timeframe in which ATC might be considered even further into the future.
Permalink
03.12.09
Posted in ICO/DBSD, Inmarsat, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 1:43 pm by timfarrar
Although the European S-band spectrum allocation process is well underway, its looking increasingly possible that there might never be more than one satellite system actually built to use this spectrum, namely the Solaris payload to be launched on Eutelsat W2A later this year. Amongst the other three entrants to the spectrum allocation process, ICO and TerreStar’s financial situation already makes it difficult to see them being able to fund construction and launch of new European satellites, although ICO maintains its legacy claim to the spectrum (by virtue of the MEO satellite launched in 2001), and has vigorously protested Ofcom’s planned cancellation of its registration in the ITU’s Master Frequency Register.
On Inmarsat’s results call today, the company was explicit about its intention not to “put its balance sheet at risk” to build its proposed EuropaSat S-band satellite, and when the CEO was asked about whether he would adopt a “build it and they will come” approach, he replied “absolutely not”. Inmarsat instead plans to seek external investors to fund the project, and ultimately to spin it off as a separate company. The contrast between Inmarsat’s description of its Alphasat project as bringing more capacity in the EMEA region, more spectrum and more redundancy to support future growth, and EuropaSat as a “non-core” project, was particularly striking.
While Inmarsat highlighted that EuropaSat could have interesting prospects in satellite radio as well as mobile TV, Ondas (which now looks to be the most likely vehicle for satellite radio development in Europe) has been growing closer to Solaris in recent months. This comes despite SES’s earlier skepticism about the prospects for satellite radio in Europe, and presumably reflects the very dim outlook for satellite-delivered mobile TV in Europe and elsewhere. Its therefore far from clear where Inmarsat might find the partners needed to fund EuropaSat, especially in such difficult economic times, and we believe it is now plausible (and perhaps even likely) that even if Inmarsat is awarded a license by the EU later this year, the EuropaSat satellite may never be built.
Ironically, the EU’s allocation rules don’t appear to envisage such an outcome, focusing instead on how to resolve a spectrum shortage and restricting any one operator to at most half of the 2x30MHz of spectrum available. In these circumstances it is quite possible that some of the spectrum might eventually end up being reallocated to terrestrial 3G networks instead of satellite services, as happened in North America back in 2003.
Permalink
02.04.09
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, Spectrum, TerreStar at 10:50 pm by timfarrar
Its now been reported that Echostar has acquired a substantial portion of Sirius XM’s maturing debt as part of a possible attempt to take control of the company through a forced bankruptcy filing. This doesn’t come as a great surprise given Echostar’s other investments in satellite-delivered mobile TV (in Korea and China), in 700MHz spectrum that would likely be used for mobile TV in the US, and in TerreStar’s MSS-ATC system (where it has stated an interest in using the satellites for mobile video, most recently at the SATCON conference in New York last October). Indeed, a primary reason for the spin-off of Echostar from DISH was to enable Echostar to exploit new business models in mobile entertainment, while the slow growth DISH business would ultimately be sold to a telco or merged with DirecTV.
In our view, satellite radio has always had a far more viable business model than mobile TV, despite the recent downturn in new car sales making it difficult if not impossible for Sirius XM to achieve subscriber growth this year. We believe that satellite radio will remain an attractive feature for car manufacturers in the medium to long term both because the satellite infrastructure is ideally suited to providing a near ubiquitous car-based service with only a limited number of terrestrial repeaters and because the technology is not going to change dramatically over the next decade, avoiding the risk of existing OEM installations being left with no service (as happened to many OnStar subscribers when analog cellular networks were switched off). Compare this to cellular-based navigation and entertainment systems, where technology is advancing very rapidly and an aftermarket solution (or a flexible OEM solution such as Sync) is the most viable option for car manufacturers and end users alike. However, we also view a bankruptcy filing by Sirius XM as highly likely, because it will enable the company to renegotiate its biggest (controllable) expense – that of content rights. While some providers such as talk radio hosts may feel that there is a better deal on offer from terrestrial free-to-air networks, for most sports programming there is no viable alternative to satellite radio as a distribution mechanism, because no other broadcast (audio) medium can offer sufficient capacity and reach to deliver multiple simultaneous games to a widely distributed national audience. Some may argue that internet streaming is an alternative, but 3G and 4G wireless networks are (and will remain) ill-suited to providing continuous in-car coverage (not to mention the difficulty of extracting any revenue stream for content providers other than advertising from such users).
So if Echostar does now move to take control of Sirius XM, how will this fit with its other investments? Most obviously it seems plausible that TerreStar’s satellites could be used to provide a two-way communications channel for future generations of Sirius XM receivers, while Sirius XM’s repeater network could form part (although not all) of the necessary Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) to ensure signal reception for TerreStar in urban areas. This would enable low cost integration of other services into cars, whether desired by the manufacturer (such as over-the-air fault monitoring) or paid for by the consumer (such as an OnStar alternative). Indeed, with the exception of mobile video (which we do not believe is likely to gain traction in cars, for the simple reason that the vast majority of satellite radio use is by solo commuters, who obviously couldn’t watch a video) this sounds surprisingly similar to ICO’s proposed Mobile Interactive Multimedia (MIM) service, and given Sirius XM’s strong relationships with most of the major auto manufacturers, this prospect could make it even more difficult for ICO to move forward with a commercial launch of MIM. Perhaps it might even provide an incentive for ICO to contemplate merging with TerreStar (as has often been rumored in the past)? Certainly Echostar’s interest in satellite radio is likely to shake up the MSS sector as well.
Permalink
01.21.09
Posted in Financials, Globalstar, ICO/DBSD, LightSquared, Regulatory, Spectrum, TerreStar at 9:46 am by timfarrar
Last week, the FCC awarded ICO its ATC license, with no requirement to enter into a ground spare contract at this stage. Indeed ICO will only have to demonstrate 30 days before commencing ATC service that “firm arrangements are in place to meet the spare satellite requirement” within 1 year of service initiation. Of course, since a satellite would normally take around 2 years to construct, ICO would have to enter into a ground spare contract well before that 30 day notice period. However, ICO has gained considerably more flexibility to keep its expenditures to a minimum, while pursuing resolution of its litigation with Boeing and waiting for a more favorable economic climate in which to launch commercial service.
With this ruling, along with Globalstar’s ATC license grant last year, the FCC has shown a desire to be flexible in its interpretation of the ATC rules, so as to ensure that ATC deployments do eventually take place. Arguably, this flexibility has advantaged operators such as ICO and Globalstar, over TerreStar and Skyterra (formerly MSV), who have committed to considerably greater capital expenditure, based at least to some degree on a more cautious interpretation of the ATC requirements. Most notably, TerreStar is already well advanced with construction of its ground spare satellite, although we have heard rumors that work may have paused in anticipation of the ICO ruling, and (unless TerreStar gains a European license in the near future and decides to use the satellite there) we expect that construction will soon be formally suspended to save money, on the assumption that this will not impact TerreStar’s pending ATC application.
A future question for the FCC with regard to ATC “flexibility” may well relate to what level of satellite performance is needed to justify that an ATC service is truly “ancillary”. TerreStar and Skyterra have built very large and powerful (and expensive) satellites, in order to deliver voice and data connectivity to “standard” mobile devices without external antennas. ICO and Globalstar’s satellites are rather less capable (and cheaper), but if they are not required to deliver fully reliable handheld satellite voice services, then these satellites could also operate with “standard” mobile devices. For example, if the only test required is to complete a call from a handset on a tripod in an open field, with no head blockage or obstruction from trees etc, then a far less expensive satellite is required than if link margin is needed to overcome these obstructions and the call is made or received by a real person walking around with the phone.
Given that many hundreds of millions of dollars of satellite construction costs are at stake, it will be very interesting to see how the FCC ultimately decides this issue and therefore who has made the right call with their satellite design.
Permalink
11.03.08
Posted in Globalstar, ICO/DBSD, Spectrum at 9:07 pm by timfarrar
It came down to the wire, but on Friday October 31, the FCC approved Globalstar’s application to offer ATC in conjunction with Open Range Communications. Friday was the deadline for Open Range to secure spectrum under the terms of its $267M USDA rural development loan agreement and as the FCC pointed out in its order, it was faced with a difficult choice between waiving many of the ATC requirements until Globalstar’s next generation satellites are launched, and losing the loan which would facilitate WiMAX deployment in 500 rural communities.
The FCC voted 3-2 to approve the application, over the objection of two (Republican) commissioners who worried about the “inappropriate precedent” it might set. Notably, the CTIA also came out strongly against the application, suggesting that a “grant of the sweeping waivers that Globalstar is seeking would effectively eviscerate the MSS/ATC rules of any meaning and enable Globalstar to ‘game’ the MSS/ATC regulatory scheme to maximize use of MSS spectrum for terrestrial service”.
The FCC has imposed a fairly strict time limit for Globalstar to deploy its second generation satellites and come into compliance with the ATC rules, but it already appears that the door has been opened for other prospective ATC operators to seek a relaxation of the conditions associated with ATC. For example, ICO indicated today that it does not believe it will be necessary to order a ground spare satellite before the FCC will approve its ATC application (merely that a satellite will have to be on order before ATC service commences), despite the fact that the ATC licensing rules require a “substantial showing that a non-operational MSS licensee will soon meet the gating criteria” established by the FCC, including a ground spare being available within 12 months of commencing service.
It also looks like the stage is now set for a bigger fight between the cellular operator community on one hand and the MSS-ATC proponents on the other. This may actually be a good thing from the point of view of the ATC proponents, since at least it shows that cellular operators are once again taking ATC seriously (cellular operators dropped their earlier opposition to ATC several years ago, apparently believing that it would never come to fruition). However, it will be interesting to see who will gain the upper hand in the regulatory battles to come, especially if the change of administration leads to a number of new faces at the FCC.
Permalink
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, Spectrum at 12:47 pm by timfarrar
After the punitive damages phase of the ICO-Boeing lawsuit, it looks like the total damages awarded to ICO (including interest) will be approximately $707M. The question now facing ICO, assuming it is able to settle the case and collect something approaching this amount (which is by no means a foregone conclusion since Boeing has stated that it will appeal and according to ICO it would likely take two years for such an appeal to run its course) is what to do with the money.
Broadly speaking there are three things that this money could go towards:
1) Repayment of the ICO North America convertible bonds (which total $767.7M including interest and are due in August 2009)
2) Bringing the Mobile Interactive Multimedia (MIM) system into commercial operation in North America by 2010 (which ICO has stated will require about $700M of further investment)
3) Investing in completion of the global MEO system, which ICO is attempting to retain its license for in Europe (or conceivably even switching to a new GEO system in Europe, similar to the change ICO made in North America).
The most interesting issue is that the convertible bondholders do not actually have any rights to the proceeds of the Boeing lawsuit, since they have invested in ICO North America, not the ICO Global parent company. As such, their only security is the North American GEO satellite, the development work towards MIM, and the associated spectrum licenses. If ICO decided to sell these assets on the open market, it is entirely possible in the current financial market that it would realize far less than the $767M due on the bonds. However, it seems rather unlikely that ICO Global would simply put ICO North America into bankruptcy and keep the lawsuit proceeds for the parent company. Presumably they might instead attempt some swap of the ICO North America debt into ICO Global equity at a discount to the $767M face value of the bonds. This seems especially likely if there is a delay in concluding the Boeing lawsuit and so ICO’s available cash is limited, and appears to be the approach indicated on ICO’s conference call today.
ICO also remained tight lipped on the conference call about priorities for North America vs Europe. However, in terms of moving forward with ICO’s satellite system, its hard to see that it would make sense to prioritize a new deployment in Europe in preference to bringing the existing North American system into full commercial operation. It seems doubtful that there is a particularly positive business case for Solaris or Inmarsat’s proposed European S-band project, let alone for a new entrant such as ICO, and ICO seemed to hint on the conference call that it would focus on its current single MEO satellite as the reason why it should be entitled to a European license. However, even the future for MIM in North America is questionable in light of Toshiba’s decision in July 2008 to shut down the equivalent MBCO service in Japan next year and ICO emphasized its intention to pursue fiscal restraint, delaying commercial service until the economic and financial environment improves.
Thus, as we’ve speculated before, it looks like ICO will continue to wait and see whether cellular operators eventually decide to acquire MSS operators such as ICO to get hold of their spectrum, perhaps revisiting the handheld MSS market in the meantime. It now seems probable that ICO will be able to outlast TerreStar and thus it could also perhaps hope to acquire TerreStar’s assets and spectrum in the future at a very attractive price, creating a more compelling spectrum platform for terrestrial partners.
Permalink
10.09.08
Posted in Financials, ICO/DBSD, Inmarsat, Spectrum, TerreStar at 10:52 pm by timfarrar
We now know that there are at least four applicants for the European 2GHz MSS spectrum licenses, namely Solaris (the SES-Eutelsat joint venture), Inmarsat, ICO and TerreStar. Applications were due by October 7, and the first phase of the selection procedure (identifying which applicants are technically and commercially “qualified”) should be completed in the first half of 2009. There are 2x30MHz of spectrum available, which is sufficient for 2 or at most 3 applicants, so the current list of applicants will certainly have to be cut back during the selection process.
Perhaps the most surprising application is that from TerreStar, given that it has to date failed to raise external funding for TerreStar Global (its European venture) despite attempting to do so over the last year. TerreStar may calculate that it has little to lose, since it has committed several million dollars to EADS for initial preparatory work and it has already signed a launch agreement with Arianespace. From this point of view, its financial commitments to the European project to date are equivalent to those of Inmarsat (which has stated it will only spend “single digits millions of dollars” on “business development activities” prior to securing a license), although of course TerreStar does not currently have sufficient funding available to complete construction and launch of a European satellite, in addition to its two North American satellites (one of which is a ground spare). However, since both Solaris and Inmarsat strongly prefer 2x15MHz over the 2x10MHz which a three way split would imply, we assume that if TerreStar’s application was approved, it might subsequently seek to team up with one of these two competitors, rather than pursuing a standalone project. For example, Solaris has already indicated that it may acquire a follow-on satellite to the Eutelsat W2A to offer wider pan-European coverage.
Its also worth noting that in addition to putting in an application, ICO is separately seeking to challenge the legality of the EU’s licensing process, in an attempt to preserve the spectrum priority rights of its MEO satellite that was launched in 2001. ICO had been hoping to know the outcome of its litigation with Boeing before the European 2GHz applications were due, but to date it appears the jury has not reached a verdict (after three weeks of trying). Clearly, given the amount of money at stake, this litigation will have a significant impact on how ICO decides to move forward from here on.
Permalink
08.25.08
Posted in LightSquared, Spectrum at 10:10 am by timfarrar
Investors in MSS-ATC spectrum are hoping to see the value of spectrum assets increase over time, as wireless operators are forced to acquire additional spectrum to serve surging data demand. Some recent benchmarks, such as the Canadian AWS spectrum auction which raised four times what was expected, are encouraging. However, Nextwave has struggled to sell its spectrum assets (including holdings at both 2.3GHz and 2.5GHz), with the exception of a modest amount of AWS spectrum. This sale took place at an average price of $0.25 per MHzPOP, which although it represents a profit on NextWave’s investment, is much lower than the prices paid for AWS spectrum in many major metro areas during the 2006 auction.
Now Clearwire has announced that its investors will receive $1.62B of stock in New Clearwire in exchange for their existing equity. Clearwire owns 15.9B MHzPOP of 2.5GHz spectrum in the US and a further 8.7B MHzPOP internationally (which it values at $0.03 per MHzPOP). Given Clearwire’s existing cash and debt, this places a value of between $0.09 and $0.13 per MHzPOP on Clearwire’s US spectrum (the higher value assumes all of Clearwire’s enterprise value is attributed to spectrum, while the lower value includes its $633M of PP&E). This is also a relatively low value, given that Clearwire paid $300M for the 1.7B MHzPOP of spectrum it purchased from BellSouth in early 2007, equating to $0.18 per MHzPOP.
Thus it seems the current credit crunch may also be putting a damper on spectrum valuations, as NextWave highlighted when explaining its failure to sell spectrum assets. The impact seems to be particularly significant in spectrum bands that have yet to be exploited, which is unsurprising since these bands tend to be the most attractive to new entrants, who are worst affected by the market downturn. As a result, MSS-ATC operators may have to wait a while for the perceived value of their spectrum to increase.
Permalink
08.15.08
Posted in Inmarsat, LightSquared, Spectrum at 8:41 am by timfarrar
Harbinger Capital has just acquired a 4.9% stake in Cablevision at a cost of some $350M, only a few days after we suggested that it would have to invest billions of dollars in a wireless operator to facilitate the deployment of ATC.
Notably, Cablevision is not participating in the Clearwire JV with other cable companies and instead has opted to deploy a WiFi network in the New York area with a planned investment of some $300M over the next two years. Most other operators have found the use of unlicensed spectrum less than satisfactory, particularly for providing indoor coverage, which requires much higher power levels. As a result, Cablevision may ultimately find that it needs to move to licensed frequencies for its deployment, and there has been speculation that it would be a potential purchaser of NextWave’s 2.5GHz spectrum. However, to date NextWave’s efforts to sell this spectrum appear to have been unsuccessful.
While Harbinger’s initial stake in Cablevision is relatively small, its past record suggests that it may increase its stake over time and seek to influence the direction of the company. Cablevision could well be a potential user of the L-band MSS-ATC spectrum block that Harbinger is seeking to put together via a merger of Skyterra and Inmarsat. We speculate that Harbinger might even try to engineer a consortium of Cablevision and Leap (and perhaps other companies), similar to the Clearwire JV, to build and sell broadband services on a national ATC network.
Permalink
« Previous Page « Previous Page Next entries »
