NextNav Inc. (NN) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, everyone. It's Tim Horan, the Cloud and Communications Analyst here at Oppenheimer. My pleasure to be hosting on our second day of our Tech and Communications Conference with the NextNAV management team. We have both the CEO and CFO. Mariam Sorond joined in November and quickly doubled the stock price. Chris has been with the company since before they became public. With that, Mariam, I don't know if you have any -- or Chris, any opening regulatory or comments you need to make. If not, Mariam, maybe we just talk about a little bit of kind of your background and why you joined the company. I know you have extensive technical background and you know spectrum extremely well. So it seems like a perfect complement, but some more color there would be great.

Yes, absolutely. First of all, thank you, Tim, for having us on this fireside chat. Really appreciate the opportunity. [ The ] statement would be all related to forward-looking statements and the typical statements that come with that. So with that, just my background comes from basically commercializing technology and making sure that spectrum is repurposed and rebranded and put to use for telecom operators. I've done it with several companies in the past, starting at Nextel then a company called ICO then additional work, I was the Chief Wireless Architect working over there on basically starting from incubation of all the different pieces of spectrum that was acquired whether an auction or through transactions and basically putting together a spectrum position that allowed for Dish to become a -- the fourth wireless operator. Also I've worked on the 5G technologies extensively starting at the Open RAN days, and basically commercialize a lot of the new technologies. As it relates to NextNav. Here, we have an incredible opportunity to solve a national security problem which is a backup in complement to GPS. And while solving that national security problem, we will only sure have the opportunity to have 15 megahertz of nationwide 5G broadband spectrum for use for all operators while leveraging a signaling capability in there to make sure that PNT is served. We submitted this the FCC on April 16. And recently, there was a PN issued. We're very excited about this and solving such a huge problem for our nation -- sorry.

So while we're on the topic and I want to start back from the beginning on going into point navigation and timing, why that's important, and then get into a lot more details on the basically spectrum swap you're looking to do. But at a high level, I know you sit on some -- Boards had a very important for spectrum, the NTIA Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee and the FCC Technological Advisory Council. So you have a lot of insight into the public policy of the U.S. regarding spectrum and obviously regarding PNT. But maybe just starting on the spectrum front, it's very important. Just at a high level, what's the FCC's goals and the NTIA's goals regarding spectrum and wireless broadly speaking?

Yes, absolutely. I've served on the CSMAC since 2014 and then more recently, the FCC Tech and also been involved with multiple spectrum initiatives from the technology perspective. also included in almost all the most recent auctions and how band plans were created and often a speaker or an adviser in this context for spectrum technology and as it forms the policy for the nation. Basically, I think the FCC is from the PN that they put out the they're taking this proposal very seriously. I think this commission has been challenged in the sense of not having auction authority. So they've lost auction authority due to some background reasons. And basically, the opportunity to put 15 megahertz of spectrum to broadband use while not having auction authority is an incredible opportunity for them. So I think they're perspective might be to look at that aspect and also, also look at the national security crisis. This has become a focus for Federal agencies, not just the FCC and the NTIA who care about this, but also the Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security. We've been working with a lot of these agencies over the years. And basically, there's no question right now that the U.S. needs a complement and a backup to GPS. I think it's a solution that basically that we have presented that I think is a compelling solution that is being taken very seriously across multiple agencies. Notably, we just got awarded from the Department of Transportation, a grant, it's the highest dollar value grant among 9 companies that this was given to and the Department of Transportation in the past has identified us as a PNT leader. So we know the technology really well. And obviously, a lot of the spectrum work to know that this opportunity is incredible. So I do believe that the FCC and NTIA and all the related agencies are looking at this carefully and closely.

So can you elaborate a little bit more why do we need another PNT network when GPS is working so well? And are you more accurate? I know you also have some vertical positioning technology that's quite unique, and that seems to be extremely accurate. And obviously, GPS can't do that. But yes, just to elaborate on that a little bit more.

GPS is an incredible technology, by the way. It's everywhere. It's not just in how we use maps and navigation and positioning, right? It's in our critical infrastructure. It's in our financial transactions, banking, transportation, agriculture, the positioning and also the timing reference is a critical aspect in our daily lives and our economy. That's how significant and important GPS is, but it's single sourced and it's provided by satellite. So what that means is that satellites basically have -- are very weak when they get the signal gets to the earth level. And so they can penetrate walls, so we don't have indoor positioning and timing from GPS. We also -- if anyone has tried to get a cab in New York or Uber, you know how that works in urban canyons, it's just inherent to satellites. So GPS is incredible, but it needs a complement in the sense of having indoor and unleashes a lot of use cases and also really addressing the urban canyon situation. So the backup comes from the fact that satellites are very vulnerable, basically the recent events worldwide, whether it's what's happening in the Ukraine or in the Middle East have demonstrated that how GPS could be used by adversaries to really cripple things, for example, spoofing and jamming, when satellite signals are this week when they get here, it's very easy to jam. You can't jam a cellular signal. So that's why a terrestrial backup is what makes sense because another satellite backup will have the same vulnerabilities. Also, the fact that satellites can be really taken out very easily, right? They fly all over the earth, there's been threats from Russia in the news. So there a lot of both journal and post articles highlighting this, that it was interested to look at it on all of these threats. In fact, the jamming also and the spoofing that has been picking up a lot. So there's the very heightened awareness of these vulnerabilities of GPS. The one country in the world that does have a terrestrial backup to basically address satellite-related positioning vulnerabilities is China. And we don't have it. So it's very critical for us to do this in order for us to address all of these vulnerabilities and also the fact that it provides other use cases. So you touched upon the vertical position. So GPS is incredible in providing horizontal position or what we call the XY-axis. So where you are on earth, you're coordinates, this is all really provided by GPS. Vertical positioning, meaning which level of a floor you are on or how high up you are is today primarily provided by what is a barometric pressure sensor and handsets. And so based on that, we take that and extract that data and we could say what floor you are. The one of the critical applications that serves is for E-911 calls. You're in a building and you call 911 and the responder needs to know which floor you're at the accuracy provided by biometric pressure sensors really need some calibration. So what we've done is we've deployed this nationwide, close to nationwide network of basically sensors that take weather information and calibrate that signal to be able to give you floor level accuracy. And that's defined by the FCC's plus and minus 3 meters because if you're off by that, then you could miss a floor. That is a commercial product. It's being used in the Verizon network and among other, other use cases that today in other operators that we have. So that's also highlighting the vertical position necessity that basically it's very hard for satellites, right, to provide.

Sure. So what are T-Mobile and AT&T using for vertical positioning because I think it's a requirement for them to have vertical positioning now.

So there is definitely FCC mandates and there's upcoming dates associated with them. But currently, handsets like Apple and Android handsets do have a biometric pressure sensor, any handset that provides or has a barometric pressure sensor gives you vertical positioning. There's a debate out there, whether that's floor level or not. We do something additional to the handset. So that's what many of these phones rely on. There's also handsets that are not as accurate. So we go level beyond that to get that accuracy even sometimes plus or minus 2 meters, but that's what they rely on and the sensor in the phone.

And how accurate is that versus your plus or minus 2 meters with phone?

I think I'll leave that to comment there's the CTIA and various other operators are engaged in assessing that. I can speak to our own solution, that can get as good as plus or minus 2. But I think other handsets or what's happening, there's definitely in the works, there's existing reports that could point to that data.

Okay, great. Can you maybe just elaborate on just what your secret sauces or your intellectual property for PNT? I obviously, I know you have the spectrum, which is critical, but why else are you better than everyone else doing at doing PNT?

Well, first of all, there is no terrestrial positioning provided solution out there by anyone. So we're the only ones who have a spectrum asset and have the capability to use that spectrum to provide a beacon. And right now, we're doing that as part of the 5G wave form to be able to fit into ecosystems. I don't think there's anyone else with a solution like that. Are there positioning and navigation and timing solutions, absolutely, there are -- they're are satellite base. There's things that take LTE signals. There's other ones. But this is a very unique solution that is able to, number one, be able to be a backup to as -- a actually system that is highly as accurate as GPS. GPS is very accurate, right? So one, it needs to be as accurate as GPS for backup, and it has a vertical. So it has XY and Z and also the timing signal. So I think we're a leader. And also the fact that we had a spectrum asset to be able to do this is very unique right now.

And I guess in urban areas, you're probably more accurate than GPS. Is that accurate?

I mean I think that in urban areas, because of the European Canyon problem that satellites have, right, because of the buildings and the shadowing than a terrestrial-based inherently, just when you have a signal coming from a tower and earth versus something from the sky, it's going to be stronger. So therefore, it's better in calculating our position.

And do you have any patents or many patents or other intellectual property protecting this?

We do. There's a lot of patents that we've had over the years. I mean, obviously, NextNav has been a leader in the PNT Industry across all of our solutions. And more recently, we have filed patents that are related to how we use the spectrum in the 900 megahertz spectrum, leveraging 5G signals.

Great. Actually, a lot to talk about. Can you just maybe talk about what the business model looks like for PNT? And are there new applications you can enable, but I guess, what generates the incremental revenue to support the network?

So first, I mean, we have to take this as a step at a time. Right now, there's a public notice out by the FCC. That public notice unleashes the ability to use the 15 megahertz of spectrum. As we've stated publicly, that will be built by a wireless carrier, right? Wireless carriers today are continuously adding spectrum because capacity demand is increasing, especially something like low-band, especially something that's compelling as the spectrum within low-band. Oftentimes, people kind of think this is not enough spectrum. I just really want to remind everyone that you can't compare apples and oranges when you talk about mid-band and you talk about millimeter wave region, those come with higher spectrum depths. Below 1 gigahertz or the sweet spot that we're in right now, which is the 700 megahertz to 1 gigahertz, and then we've gone down to 600 [ obviously, ] megahertz, that does not have this kind that much of a spectrum death availability. It's, first of all, it's just what, 350 megahertz. Second, there's a lot of use. It was the original cellular bands. So this is an incredible amount of spectrum. So we believe that the operators would be interested in this kind of depth for low band. So they will be spending the CapEx to build this 5G network, and we will just take that signal and use it. Now that business model could move have various, various actually options to it. For example, leasing, for example, revenue sharing. For example, whatever that's in our shareholder interest in order to be able to use the spectrum. We're not there yet. It's really premature to talk about what that is. We still have to go through the FCC proceeding. We need to get the spectrum and the report and order done. And I think along with it will come to carrier interest of what the model actually looks like on what are these options. And we're going to be very...

I was implying a little bit more on PNT. Like if we -- if someone builds out a new PNT network, how do they get revenue from that? And what -- how much revenue can they get?

Absolutely. I'll address it, but I just wanted to say that the spectrum set itself has a revenue, right? For example, in a leasing model, it has revenue obviously, there's growth potential here with the acquisition of it or the leasing of it or the spectrum itself can have a revenue share model, meaning, for example, a 5G operator says, I don't lease it. I don't want to buy it, but I'll share revenues. But those are 5G revenues. They're not PNT revenue. So I want to highlight there's a revenue associated.

Yes, of course. Of course, yes, yes.

And that is significant. So then PNT itself has a large addressable market today. I mean, there's misreports that talk about this value, and there's a huge addressable market basically, one, let's talk about the backup of it. If we lose GPS, it costs our economy billion dollars a day. Second, there is actually the markets that we would look in are in the billions of dollars of total addressable market that we would look at that have an opportunity for revenue. So there is a revenue opportunity there. It's just that this is the first step, that's the second step.

Yes, I understand that. I was just saying, ultimately, I know there's two different buckets. It's the PNT bucket and really it's using the spectrum as a normal usage of mobile or private wireless networks. But do you think it's still for PNT billions of dollars addressable market ultimately. And is that paid for...

Yes. I don't want to -- so there's numbers out there that says it's a $1 trillion economy. Just to let you know, right? But our TAM, it's positioning itself as a very large addressable market.

And who pays for that?

Sorry?

And who would pay for that? Like I guess, for PNT, like where do the revenues come from out of PNT directly? Is that paid for by the government? Is it pay for specific applications?

It could be all of the above. The government could pay for it on backup and complement. There could be military use for it. There could be civilian use for it. And there's also the use cases that you be vertical position. Obviously, right now, we have a positioning revenue-generating [ Z-axis ], right? So vertical location has its own revenue. XY has its own revenue, I think there's future use cases with respect to multiple sort of navigation and aerial navigation that is being looked at. So there's various use cases in it.

Okay, great. So just switching gears on to the spectrum. I think you own -- well, initially owned roughly 8 megahertz on average. I mean I know it varies quite a bit, and you just acquired or are acquiring an additional 4 megahertz. So you'll have 12. And then you have a proposal, do some swapping with the FCC to get 15 nationwide. Is that reasonably accurate?

Correct. We have about 3.5 billion megahertz PoPs with our Spectrum holdings today, the existing 8 megahertz. And the newly acquired 4 megahertz licenses. We also have the rights to some terminated licenses that I'm not counting as part of the 3.5 billion megahertz PoPs or doesn't get counted in when we talk about 8 plus 4 or 12 megahertz in some markets. So that's what we hold right now. And then we're proposing a swap that's in the public benefit to the FCC for a single 15 megahertz nationwide license.

And that would be 10 megahertz down, 5 up?

Currently, that's how we've configured the [ band ], right? But we would process you go through the FCC, right? You have to look at the comments, you have to look at operator interest, you have to look at what makes sense, but we believe that this is a really good shot to basically start the dialogue and the discussion to be able to then form what goes into the NPRM.

Got it. And are you vacating in your spectrum to clean up the spectrum or to swap? And like I guess the question is the spectrum you're going to be getting, what's being used for now? Or are there any impediments to the swap technologically or usage-wise here?

Well, we don't see any major problems, right? Every time you do a spectrum repurposing. So obviously, we have existing licenses. We want these to be moved around a little bit to make it so that it's attractive for 5G broadband, we want the rules, which are very outdated, command and control rules to be updated to reflect what today's industry need. And every time you do that, you obviously have to look at the stakeholders in the band. This band has or the in it, which is why the purpose of a public notice is to get the stakeholders to comment. We obviously have reached out to the stakeholders. We've had dialogue with the stakeholders, whether it's the federal agency use of it or whether it's the LMS use of it, that's site-based and the multiple entities over there or whether it's the unlicensed use. So we've reached out. And I think the PN process will help even further, sort of this these findings, where people would say, what the impact to them is. But currently, based on our initial analysis, we don't see a problem that can't be worked out, but we obviously have to go through the process.

Okay. Got it. So those are the 3 uses right now. There's some unlicensed, LMS and federal use.

And amateur radio.

Amateur radio. And if they move to another band, does that require any hardware upgrades on their part?

I don't anticipate anyone needing to move to another band at this point.

Okay, great. And so then they don't really need spectrum hardware upgrades either at -- in any form [indiscernible].

It's within the band, meaning there's a 902 and 928 megahertz, right? There could be that some licenses need to return the frequencies because now there will be an overlap, it will be retuning, but it will be within the band. They don't -- not outside of this region.

Okay. So they won't need new radios?

We don't know if there will be any new radios needed. Sometimes radios have the ability to be retuned because they see the whole band, right? And then you could move something from here to that. Sometimes radios are need to be upgraded. We wouldn't know that at this stage, but we will get smarter on this after the PN process.

Okay. Got it. And if you do have -- if some of the radios have to be upgraded, would you guys pay for that? Or with -- who pays for that?

I think it's very premature to discuss that before we even know if one -- if there is problem. So first, you have to identify a problem, right? I mean if you don't -- if you get interfered with or you think you're going to interfere with someone, you come out and you comment, you look at the data, then you look at does it need a swap, does it need a retuning? And then you talk about, okay, who's responsible for paying for this?

Okay. Got it. Got it. And then -- so I firmly believe the FCC is going to approve this, and I didn't want to waste too much time on it. I know there's a process that will probably take another year and you've discussed the process pretty -- very -- in a lot of detail. But when you have the 15 megahertz, obviously, from the FCC's point of view, this -- it's going to improve PNT. It's also going to improve our probably mobile networks. But do you think the spectrum in this PNT, does it make more sense to end up in a private network situation like Anterix assumed for electric utilities? Or would it be more valuable with public companies like Verizon or T-Mobile?

So we actually want the spectrum to be used for 5G broadband so not -- it's not a utilities based or IoT-based spectrum, okay. So it's not that. Now with that said, an operator could decide to run private networks. If they wanted to in their network or serve the utilities market, if they wanted to. But we envision that valuable spectrum and low band that has this kind of depth, its primary purpose is going to be for 5G broadband.

Okay. Got it, got it. And is there any issue around doing PNT and broadband on the same spectrum band? Is there any interference at all?

Not at all because the 5G as it's defined in the 3GPP standards has in existing within the standards, an existing framework for what is known as a PRS or Positioning Reference Signal. So you don't need any modifications or any enhancements to an existing 5G radio. It's a matter of turning the signaling on. And then our software, which is just purely software-based. You take that data and you calculate the P and the T and then ultimately what gets used for the N, which is why we changed our technology direct direction earlier this year to be able to not have any modifications such that when a 5G operator deploys this just for 5G broadband, then PNT is automatically available through the standards.

And so it's basically just software at that point?

After that, it's purely software. It's like our vertical position, right? We take network from -- data from the existing network operators or the handset that's existing within standard space. No modification and then our software calculates the vertical location. It will be very similar to that. Now turning on the PRS is about as we have estimated, it's about 2% to 5% of capacity of a 5G network, which would get used to turn on. It's an estimate for that signal.

Okay. Got it. And this signal being much better than anyone else can get. I mean what -- any particular carrier before to open it up to the other carriers? Or would they have a competitive advantage on PNT that -- would the government would be okay with that? And I know like AT&T has got a first responder network, which is somewhat of a competitive advantage than their peers. Yes, I guess would any one carrier only this be allowed?

We have to go through the FCC process to see how, first of all, the FCC see things around this. And then also with the ultimate partner that we have will think around this. I think that's more of a business model question. Nothing in the technology or anything prevents having this widely used.

Got it. Got it. And then I mean how expensive or complex would be for the carriers to build that 900? I know they have 800, that 700, 600, it would be a relatively new band for them. Would it be worth the expense and the complexity for the amount of capacity they're getting?

Well, exactly. That's why it's very important to look at spectrum depth, right? Sometimes carriers will not spend because it's a radio and a new radio, and it's a new antenna. They're not going to most likely spend something for 3 plus, 3 megahertz of spectrum and low-band, okay. And I want to be clear, I'm just talking low-band. When you get to mid-band, when you get to C-band, when you get to millimeter wave, you're talking about 100 of megahertz or 500 megahertz over there, right, with low-band we're talking about certain depths. Most spectrum that was the auctions and the blocks came in 5 plus 5 megahertz of spectrum. So carriers bought 5 plus 5 megahertz of spectrum, and they deployed it. The 700 megahertz band, the 800 megahertz band, 600 megahertz band, they were 5 plus 5 blocks. In some cases, sure, carrier went after 10 plus 10, very rarely -- that's not even available in 700 or 800 megahertz, but in 600 megahertz very rarely a 20 megahertz block. So that's where it make sense. So low-band spectrum, this is the kind of depths we've looked at, 5 plus 5, 10 plus 10. So -- and if you -- another statistic that would help you is that we looked at across the 4 major MNOs. They have about average 25 megahertz of downlink spectrum, 25 megahertz, in 10 megahertz downlink would be a 40% increase to their existing that's significant, right? So that's -- so that's talking about a depth that makes sense to spend the CapEx because sometimes it doesn't make sense to spend the CapEx. In this case, it does make sense. If you're increasing your low-band by 40% and then yes, it's very likely that you would go spend it. Now what that dollar amount is, it varies. Every operator is going to be different. Every operator is going to have a different spend, there could be an operator is already deploying radios, and they'll just add one to it. One operator may have to wait a little bit longer to deploy radios. Everything is very operator based.

Got it. And like, for example, AT&T is deploying a Open RAN nationwide. I think it's more mid-band, but you would know a lot better than me. A lot of that has MIMO in it with a lot of radios. I know this band is very separate. But do you have a rough idea of how complex that is? How much would it be? Do they need new antennas and just new radios. Any thoughts around that would be helpful.

So I think any new spectrum needs a new radio. The question is how easy that radio is, 900 megahertz has existing equipment. They have to -- and there's a lot of overlap with 3GPP bands. So that's very important because you don't have to go and spec out a new PA or a Power Amplifier, antennas typically sometimes cover wide ranges of bands. But I mean it would be, let's say, a radio and in some operator cases, it may be a new antenna I think that, that's what you're looking at with this band. But it's really great that is existing in the ecosystems. And I'll highlight like 600 megahertz when it came out, it was right, 600 megahertz was needed, new power amplifiers, new filters, the device ecosystem, especially when it gets larger and equipment, it was challenging. But this 900 megahertz is not because there's existing bands around it.

And your 10 megahertz, is that all contiguous? And how important is that?

I think contiguous spectrum in uplink and downlink is really important. Fragmented band plans are very hard and basically, yes, it's contiguous. Currently 8 megahertz in the downlink is contiguous in our proposal in the entirety is all contiguous spectrum.

So the 25 megahertz carrier has on average, I mean how much of that would be contiguous 10 megahertz? Like do they -- I know this is just rough, but do they just have one existing 10 megahertz contiguous downlink out of that 25 megahertz?

Geographies -- very geography-based, right? So typically, what happens is just to make sure, I think I said, this 25 megahertz of downlink spectrum right? So 25 megahertz, there's markets that a carrier only has a 5 megahertz downlink and there's a market that a carrier could have 10, 15 or very rarely a 20 megahertz, and that's only in the cases of the spectrum that allowed it. For example, the 700 megahertz band doesn't allow for 20 megahertz carrier, the other spectrum band, 13s or whatever that came about the [ band 14 gigahertz ], they don't allow for 20 megahertz spectrum. So in the case of 600 megahertz, for example, where that existed and uniquely existed, there could be a market that somebody did acquire a 20 plus 20 megahertz spectrum. So it varies by geography. That's why I'm giving an average number.

So spectrum auctions have gone from $0.50 to $5 range. You probably average around $1.50 over the years. Is there a particular option or spectrum band that you think the spectrum is most comparable to?

I think looking at spectrum below 1 gigahertz, so between 600 megahertz and 1 gigahertz, whether that was an auction or whether that was a transaction is going to be relevant in this analysis. Now with that said, everything has to be considered on what were the assumptions, what happened? Like, for example, if there's a spectrum on a transaction that the major carriers are not going to participate in the auction, the spectrum is going to go cheaper, right, because you don't have major carriers participating in the auction. And so you have to take a look at what's between 600 megahertz and 1 gigahertz, where are these [ transaction hub ] and then come up with what the range is? Is it $1, is it $2? I mean, obviously, there -- the loss transactions went up as high on average, by the way. So there could be $3 or $4 spectrum, right? But we're talking about average. On average, there was a $2.71 that happened and transaction happened and 600 megahertz. So you look at -- what was the transaction? What were the assumptions behind it to then be able to deduce, okay, how much is this? Obviously, timing is important and the assumptions are important. We think this is a great timing for our spectrum, and we think our spectrum doesn't have many of the -- some of the issues that other spectrum may have encountered. So this is really good in golden spectrum.

Are we out of time? Sorry, I should be on top of this. Let me just stop and check. No, no, we have a -- great. I think I have 5 more minutes. If you guys have the time, I have the questions.

Sure.

Great. Great, great. Let me just double check to see if there's any questions from the audience because I don't do a great job monitoring that, but I ask you this stuff. So I know I asked you this in the past. But are there any other -- I mean it was a great transaction behind the 4 megahertz. I think what are you spending $50 million for it?

Yes.

Yes, it seems like a great deal. And that really enabled you to do all the swapping and reengineering of the spectrum, correct?

Yes. I mean, that spectrum didn't make sense to be in the hands of anyone else except for us because we can put this together and also from that [indiscernible] follow right now that's not going to have a lot of interest. So we're repurposing and rebanding it. So it becomes this kind of spectrum this 5G purpose. I think what I wanted to highlight, and I touched upon this, I really do think that the public notice that the FCC put out last week is a very positive, extremely thorough and thoughtful PN that the FCC has done. I've been in over 20 spectrum proceedings and I was -- this is a great public notice. I think it shows a lot of work by the commission. I think we appreciate it. And I think that they're taking this very seriously. So I just wanted to highlight that we're very super excited about that public notice.

And when do you think the notice of proposed rule-making will come out? I mean I know it's -- there's a lot of steps that we have to go through, but -- and things go reasonably well. When do you actually have control of the spectrum?

I think that's in the hands of the FCC. But I think that, obviously, we just got a public notice that shows a very serious intent to move this forward. So I have no reason to doubt the fact that the commission is going to take -- obviously, they have to go through the process of waiting for the comments that are due September 5 and 20. They have to study these comments when you ask a lot of questions, which we think were great to ask those questions, you have to also study these questions to be able to go to the NPRM phase yet to address them. You have to have meetings with folks to do that. So we'd like to thank the FCC and also understand that their process takes them the -- it is what the process is, but we have no reason to right now believe that this is going to be sitting somewhere.

Got it. So the process -- I mean, it will take maybe a year, it could be 9 months, it could be 18 months, but it's going to take a little time.

I can't speak on behalf of the FCC, but I'm very hopeful that this is going to be done -- it's not going to be sitting, meaning it's going to move through their process as quickly as possible as their process allows. I don't have a reason to believe it's not going to.

Okay. Very, very helpful. And are there any other spectrum bands you can acquire out there that are maybe similar to the one you just did?

Right now, I think we're looking really good with what we've acquired, and I think that gives us the ability to do this public benefit solving a national security problem and 15 megahertz as a spectrum to use. So we're very happy with where we are.

Great. And then maybe one for you, Chris, if you don't mind. Where are you? Do you think with your liquidity position?

No, we've -- for those of you that have been following NextNav, I think we've been pretty consistent with our statements about both our balance sheet and our operating expenses. We finished the second quarter with $86.3 million in cash. And shortly after the close of the quarter and through July 31, we enjoyed the benefit of additional $5 million of a warrant exercise to pro forma for that, you can think about roughly $91 million to work with there. And we don't anticipate any significant changes to our expense base. So net-net, that runs us multiple years into the future. We feel very good about where we sit from a liquidity and funding perspective.

And how much cash did you burn last year or the last 12 months, do you think?

It fluctuates a little bit quarter by quarter, but we've seen in the range of $8 million to $10 million per quarter. And I think in the first 6 months, you can look at our operating cash flow in our 10-Q, and you can see an operating use of cash of approximately $19.3 million.

Very, very good. And I guess, just on the vertical, I know you have Verizon. Is there a chance you can win at AT&T and T-Mobile's customers? And would that be material kind of improvement to the revenue run rate?

I think there's always an opportunity, and we're always looking to grow our customer base with the vertical as well as focus on the spectrum activities that I think Mariam has elaborated on. But of course, there remains growth potential within the -- within our Z-axis only business. Obviously, adding the XY and providing the full complement of services following the ability to have sort of the whole PNT system create significantly greater opportunity because you bring the full package to the table, but we think the Z-axis that we offer. And I think Mariam highlighted, especially the accuracy benefits is a meaningful improvement to anybody's existing XY system.

Guys, we're out of time. I really appreciate a very thorough answering of the questions. So thank you.

Thank for the you opportunity, Tim.