11.03.08

ICO awarded ~$707M in Boeing lawsuit

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.

10.09.08

European 2GHz applications are in

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.

08.25.08

Is the value of spectrum going up or down?

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.

08.15.08

Will Cablevision now consider using ATC spectrum?

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.

« Previous Page « Previous Page Next entries »