Good morning, everybody. Tim Moran, the communications analyst here at Oppenheimer. My pleasure to be hosting a fireside chat with Anterex. As all of you know, Anterex owns critical spectrum, low band spectrum, which we have effectively run out of. And as all of you know, if you want to do any form of mobile or satellite communications, you need spectrum. Without spectrum, no communications. So it's really, really good to be the company owning really, really scarce assets, and we're going to talk about this in a lot of detail. We're lucky to have both the Chief Regulatory and Communications Officer, Chris Gutman-McCabe, and Elena Marquez, the CFO. I have a whole series of questions, but Elena, I don't know if you want to start with some kind of just regulatory message or other message.

Yeah, no, absolutely. And Tim, thank you very much for having us both. We're very happy to be here. And thank you for setting up the conversation in such a great way. We completely agree with you that being a spectrum holder in the current environment is just absolutely terrific. And I want to start with things that we did control over the last few years, which is an incredible regulatory effort that Chris led that came to culmination in February, where we were able to expand our band capacity from previously 6 megahertz to now 10. And folks like you can completely appreciate what 10 megahertz of low band spectrum means. It's certainly more of a standard band, but also we own spectrum in 900 megahertz band. And it is a very scarce asset currently. And our spectrum is licensed, right? Which makes it quite unique also in this environment. There's not a lot of it left. And with all of the current, just over the last few months, activity on the spectrum acquisition front, right? So, you know, companies like SpaceX acquired spectrum from Echo Star. The most recent transaction was Rocket Lab and Iridium and many others, right? There's just so much validation to the demand for Spectrum, but the supply is fixed. So it's an incredible position to be in for Ontaryx. And as you know, we historically have monetized our Spectrum geography by geography to utilities. So interestingly, we have been very actively messaging the scarcity and the increase in value of Spectrum and its appreciation through public forums. and certainly to our prospective utility customers. And we see that they're really very actively coming to the table with us, you know, and a lot of the discussions with about a dozen different opportunities currently are all about pricing, and a lot of them are renegotiating pricing. But also wanted to highlight really, I think, all of the above themes. I'm sure we will unpack them further throughout this conversation. But one of the things that, you know, even with our current very significant run up in stock price over the last few months, we still believe that there is a significant disconnect between how the market values us and the value of the underlying asset. Again, given all of the public comparables available out there, including the most current and recent auction that just closed, auction 113. But, you know, we'll unpack the evaluation.

Well, I guess while you mention it, just some 10 megahertz of spectrum, what do you estimate you're trading at right now as a megahertz pop and how does that compare?

Yeah, so we have about 85% of our nationwide megahertz pop still remaining after the 11 utilities that we transacted with, which equal about 3 billion megahertz pops. So if we take our market cap and call it 1.8 billion today and divided by the 3 billion megahertz pops, that is only 60 cents versus the auction 113 that just concluded at about $2.50 average nationwide. You know, that would have put us at about seven and a half billion gross asset value. So, you know, we remain very excited about the upside opportunity that exists for us. and can you compare and contrast your spectrum versus that auction spectrum that just the qualities features functionality yeah no i appreciate that prompt tim uh look our spectrum is low band and there's almost none left out there versus at aws3 of course is more of mid-band spectrum that um doesn't have the same uh incredible propagation and penetration qualities as low band spectrum does and again there's just not a lot of it on the shelf and we're excited to be one of the holders.

And maybe just stepping back a minute, you just reported earnings a few days ago. What was the most important message that you were trying to convey on that earnings result?

Yeah, just really a lot of the same. But interestingly, and I know that would be a topic that we go into probably next, is the SpaceX is filing to the FCC with some optionality for fulfilling our potential build-out requirements, not only with terrestrial that we already have in our rules, but also potentially, right, with kind of satellite coverage. So that was very exciting. And that, I think, helps validate the message around great and growing demand for low-band spectrum and its scarcity. And being mentioned as one of the three bands in that filing was certainly very exciting and very validating for us and our message.

And maybe just a step back for people that didn't read the letter. Can you say what SpaceX said in that letter? And yeah, and we can get into it in more detail, yeah?

Chris, do you want to take over?

Sure. And hey, Tim, thank you for having us. Very, very excited to be here. You know, what we love about SpaceX is they put into the public discourse at the FCC and in the broader investment community, what we had clearly been hinting at and contemplating, right? So we had been hinting at broader, a breadth of interest in our spectrum and in low band spectrum, right? And we had also been contemplating, actually, we filed an experimental license with a different directed device company, Link, several months ago. So we've been sort of investigating what it would mean to utilize our spectrum for, you know, satellite coverage for satellite directed device. And what we see in that SpaceX ex parte is what they're trying to do is suggest to the FCC that as you, FCC, look at the satisfaction of build-out requirements, that you consider allowing satellite coverage to be a justification for satisfying the build-out requirements. They asked for sort of at the macro level, a new rulemaking, but then at the micro level, and Elena referenced this, they asked for that concept to be applied to three different bands of spectrum. Two of those bands, one of them is one that NextNav is pursuing a reconfiguration of. The other one is 1.6. Those are both still subject to rulemakings. They also obviously referenced ours, which we found exciting. In order to apply that satellite coverage justification for build-out to ours, it would have to be as part of a waiver sort of after the fact, after an entity acquired our spectrum. And we love that. We love – you heard Elena reference it, and I would say the theme for our earnings call was optionality. And the fact of the matter is we have optionality along a wide range of themes, of issues, right? For this one, if the commission accepts it, and we probably won't see anything formal until potentially after the fact in the form of a waiver, if we have a buyer that wants to pursue that. But there's now potentially optionality in how to satisfy build-out, right? We have optionality in how to monetize our spectrum. We have optionality in how to clear our spectrum. Elena manages a really wonderful balance sheet, pristine balance sheet with no debt. We have plenty of cash on hand. And so we look at the position we're in as being spectacular. We are very thrilled. The SpaceX, you know, I think we said, you know, we read with interest, but then we did a press release that said we were excited. I think we excitedly read with interest what SpaceX filed. Well, again, we supported it.

Getting into that a little bit more, I mean, do you think their goal or are they trying to push that the spectrum should just be flexible, to your point? Should you be able to use it for private networks, for mobile terrestrial networks, for satellite? I mean, I think that's one of the things I'm trying to do.

Sure, that's how we interpret it. And when we received our five by five authorization, we also got sort of hidden in there in one of the footnotes, a flexible use designation, which which then suggests, obviously, that you can use the spectrum for for a range of of of of capabilities of technologies. You know, obviously, after receiving that, we pursued the experimental with LINC. Certainly, I believe SpaceX is suggesting that, you know, bands going forward, particularly these bands, you should be able to utilize them for terrestrial or satellite connectivity and satisfy build-out with satellite coverage.

But it would take further approvals from the FCC to use for satellite-directed device.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and, you know, we just saw AT&T and Verizon go through it with with their block of spectrum. It's not akin to the formal rulemaking we went through to get three by three and five by five. Yes, there would be a process. And to some extent, some of that could be done through the waiver process.

And there'd be no there'd be no reason why they wouldn't approve it. Right. Agreed. Yeah. And, you know, so we all know, well, many of us that have been in the industry a long time know that terrestrial spectrum sub one gigahertz, you get great, great coverage from cell sites, you get great in building penetration. So you get enables really high quality terrestrial mobile usage. Would that also apply for directed device from satellites? Would it have better in building penetration and mid band spectrum? And yeah, I guess that's a key.

I mean, you know, the fact that you, yes, have low band spectrum and however it is utilized, there is that absolute benefit of penetration through walls, through foliage, into parking garages, into urban canyons and things like that. The neat thing about what we're seeing with LEO, sort of the increase of LEO opportunities, low-Earth orbit opportunities to devices, is we're in such the early formative stages. You know, the companies we're talking about are launching satellites kind of as we speak. You know, SpaceX has a continued refreshing of theirs. AST is putting them up. We're going to see Amazon Leo, and they made a commitment to get more up more quickly. We have Rocket Labs out there that has a launch capability along with a desire to have a constellation. So we have Link out there that just had an influx of capital and an integration with SES and OmniSpace. So there's just so much excitement and activity. And it truly is being fueled by by the chairman, by Chairman Carr and the team at the FCC. Right. They've made this a real focus of of their platform. And, you know, we love it. I mean, I just think it's it provides back to that word optionality for us as holders of an incredible spectrum asset.

So with Link, have you started a technical trial yet?

We have. We've had a very successful first range of tests. We were excited. What we did was they happened to have our spectrum in their operational constellation, small constellation, but it was operational and they had our spectrum in it. And so we worked with them. We picked a bunch of locations and a number of devices. And we ran tests across those devices. And, you know, there was not surprising, there was connectivity. And there was, so we certainly look at that test as very successful. And, you know, we'll work with them to decide if, you know, what the next steps are. We're not locked into them. They're not locked into us. It was a wonderful symbiotic relationship. They have a great team over there. They have a great technology. So we're excited where it is.

Well, and Chris, just selfishly because I follow like five other satellite companies. So were you testing more like just like texting? Were you testing web browsing or voice services? What were you actually testing yet?

Yeah, we began with data connectivity, right? So yes, there's a little bit of sort of the sending of a text and also web browsing, things like that. We wanted to get a sense of what connectivity would look like during a Passover to, you know, a router and a phone and a Toughbook computer, things like that. Again, think early stages, and, you know, we are comfortable that this could go a range of different ways. You know, ultimately, Antarx could have a satellite product. Ultimately, our customers could want satellite connectivity for a portion or all of their, you know, their license area. or you know we may end up monetizing our spectrum in one fell swoop to a satellite provider who wants to use it for direct-to-device or for terrestrial so and you know absolutely and chris we probably should have started out with this at the beginning but you know maybe just stepping back um sub one gigahertz spectrum um like how how much how much is out there now roughly like being used for mobile networks, you know, you have the 10 megahertz.

What are the choices that are out there? I mean, we know next to that, but they get approval and get a 10 by five. But more importantly, are there any other bands of sub one gigahertz that we can see that can be freed up in the next few years by the FCC or by others? Or where long term can we get more sub one gigahertz spectrum?

Yeah, so I'm going to start with your last point. And I want to reiterate what Elena said because she was spot on, right? And this is beachfront property, right? A lot of people use the analogy of real estate for spectrum, and it makes sense. Spectrum is more expensive in, you know, NFL cities, right? It is more expensive in, you know, areas that are more populous. And then it's particularly more expensive if it's low band. It's more valuable for the reasons, Tim, that you referenced and Elena referenced. And so as we look at low band opportunities now, there are two, right? And there are well more than two entities interested, which is what we love. This is the core of supply and demand. It is the absolute illustration of supply and demand. So there's a block at 800, and there's our block at 900. There are others that are potentially in play. Tim, I know you cover, and you referenced NextNav. Below 1 gigahertz, you know, there are tiny little bits and pieces of 600 megahertz, but T-Mobile is sort of buying that up. AT&T just purchased some of it. So I don't think we're even going to see those little pockets for much longer. So it's basically, you know, two opportunities. And as we look at our opportunity, we see a host of potential users of that spectrum.

But, Chris, isn't there some spectrum like in the 600 range being used for television right now that maybe that could be auctioned off at some point?

Yeah, there would be, you know, and I know, Tim, you've been covering TMT for a while, like I have. There's a lot of air between here and there, a lot of time between here and there. It would require, and in fact, the last one was part of actually legislation, so that, you know, there was legislation to repurpose the broadcast spectrum a while back at 600. Might some station owners want to participate in that type of a proceeding again, that type of auction? Maybe. You would have to get to some form of scale, then you would have to aggregate them together, and then you would have to have an auction. So there's a possibility that that could happen. I don't think it's a probability near term, but there certainly is a possibility, you know.

That's the only one I'm aware of that's even remotely possible. But even if we look at the C-band, to your point, you know, it's still a four or five year process, right? And we've been talking about it for two or three years. I don't even hear much conversation about, you know, that broadcast TV spectrum, the 600 yet. Right.

But, you know, clearly, but is there any other pockets of sub one gigahertz that you're aware of? Yeah, no. I mean, you know, and as we look at it, that's that's what makes our position so magical. Right. Is is we we have known from the beginning the value of our asset when it was three by three. We certainly know the value of our asset as it is five by five. We know the opportunities in front of us. We know the scarcity. We're going to be really good stewards of that asset for our shareholders. And, you know, we're excited to see what comes about over the next six months. The SpaceX letter was viewed with excitement. It's just an illustration of, you know, what's out there.

So, Elena, why do you think SpaceX put this letter out and why now? And it's almost like front running themselves. I mean, I guess it's the chicken or the egg. They can't buy the spectrum without, you know, having the rights to use the spectrum.

Yeah. I mean, I think I think we call it testing waters. It's interesting, you know, just kind of using the public data available. SpaceX, it seems, at their first earnings call specifically said that they were not looking to invest a lot in low-band spectrum. But then, interestingly, they follow up with this filing. So, you know, again, it's nothing but great things for us as spectrum holders. But also really coming back to touching on what's available versus how much is needed. If you think about it, again, as far as what's licensed and available from the regulatory perspective, right, it's 10 megahertz of enterics and then 14 megahertz of the 800 megahertz from grain management. And those are not significant, right? If you put in perspective how much low band spectrum carriers have to run their terrestrial networks, which is, you know, what is it, 40, 50, 60 megahertz of low band spectrum, again, just reiterating the scarcity and the fact that, you know, I believe that there's going to be a great monetization opportunity for all the low band spectrum that's available out there because I think the need for it is going to be really great.

So, Elena, you guys right now have 10 megahertz. Obviously, it's five by five, five down, five up. I mean, could that ever be repurposed to be like 10 down if you ever wanted to?

It's separated by a tranche of spectrum utilized. In fact, NextNav, their opportunity is in between our uplink and our downlink. So our capability is FDD, frequency separation. One is uplink, one is downlink.

Well, and just to play devil's advocate, let's say the spectrum was combined with NextNav by somebody ultimately. I mean, could they reconfigure some of that upstream downstream bands also?

Yeah, yeah. I mean, everything with the right capital and the right technology approach, right? You would have to – it would be a one-off. you'd have to go get it standardized. You would have to drive an ecosystem. You know, those are things that make it unique. But depending upon who the buyer is and the scale they have, certainly everything technologically, well, not everything. I mean, anytime you think something is not technologically possible, wait two years and in the wireless space, someone figures it out.

Or let Elon Musk attack the problem.

Exactly. If a guy can land a rocket on a boat in the middle of an ocean, then I'm pretty confident they could tackle it. But, yeah, everything is possible with that caveat that, you know, effort, ecosystem, standards, things like that.

So, Wayne, is this impacting how you're thinking about the highest and best use of the spectrum? And I guess even specifically, obviously, for the electric utilities, they get massive amounts of utility out of this spectrum, you know, if they use it right. And for a whole bunch of reasons, that industry really needs to upgrade. But, I mean, will this cause you maybe to say, look, electric utility, Mr. Electric, you've got to pay a lot more for this spectrum because we've got, like, four other people that want it, you know, not to put words in your mouth. But how are those conversations going?

That is exactly right, Tim. You're absolutely picking up on the themes here. Yeah, we're talking to about a dozen of utilities very actively, and majority of those conversations are around renegotiating pricing given the current environment, right, the demand for spectrum, but also the most recent comps that support the value of it and the continued appreciation of the spectrum. So that's exactly right. You know, we really love the position we're in with having still our utility market that we can absolutely go after and having potential larger players out there, you know, that could potentially take the spectrum as one deal. And what we also absolutely appreciate currently is that, you know, we have a very healthy balance sheet, no debt. We have one hundred and sixteen million dollars in cash as of the end of the quarter. And, you know, that allows us to really be patient and make all the right decisions for the company and the shareholders as far as what is the best monetization opportunity for the spectrum.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I mean, but also you're in a later you're in a bit of a dilemma. You know, like you can probably enter in some leases now, but is it the smartest thing to do in front of, you know, potentially other ways to use the spectrum?

Yeah, no, these are all of the absolutely great dilemmas and a rich problem to have, as we call it currently. This comes up for us daily. You know, our chief revenue officer, Kim Kerr, that we just brought on board in May. She's only been here for a couple of months, but oh boy, has she been really busy with, you know, addressing, bringing the proposals to the customers, revising them. We have just very lively internal discussions on pricing multiple times a week for these deals. And oftentimes the discussions are continuing to negotiate up and not taking, you know, a deal that's just not good enough, right, to continue punching holes. So and when I say punching holes, punching holes in the map, you know, as you know, we we have about 85 percent of the nationwide megahertz pops still to monetize. But that 85 percent keeps going up in value with each passing transaction that we see in the market. So these are all the very great problems for us to have. And we can be happier with the position we're in.

Yeah, yeah. It's super exciting dilemma if we are faced with that dilemma.

Well, you are faced with it. I mean, Amazon also had a filing that said they don't have enough spectrum for D2D. They would like to get more. Obviously, they bought Global Star, I think, almost entirely for their spectrum at this point. And even Global Star, they were in partnership with Apple. So there's a lot of complexity out there, to say the least.

Yeah, absolutely. So this is becoming, you know, our story is becoming the scarcity story. And I think the market keeps continuing to help validate the value and the scarcity story. So, again, can't be happy.

So hypothetically, you know, it seems like that was kind of a good example. I think Amazon with Global Star with Apple, you know, they're going to figure out, I think, how to share that spectrum and capacity, you know, in some form. They must be pretty optimistic about it. Let's say someone were to buy all your spectrum. Is there a way to work with your existing leaseholders of the spectrum, covering 15% of the country, do you think, where the partners can kind of work together and everyone gets what they need out of the spectrum?

Yeah, I mean, part of it depends upon, Tim, what the spectrum is used for and what those current, you know, licensees and customers want, right? So if it's a satellite-directed device, my sense is, you know, we have customers that would love that capability to be over top their existing deployment and build out. But if it's, if it's a terrestrial network that one of the satellite companies or someone else wants to build, that's perfect. They just sit right next. It's LTE to LTE, ultimately 5G to 5G. So there are, you know, the reality is everyone who owns and or licenses or utilizes Spectrum has a spectrum neighbor and you know the rules establish uh the relationship between those two even our customer base we have a whole bunch of spectrum neighbors within our customers and they they work it out you know the same way back to the old uh you know tim folks your age and my age remember the roaming days right where you were you you had your home carrier but boy if you traveled you were you were visiting someone else very quickly and so they might it can still happen internationally if you're not careful yeah but yeah that's that's all 100 uh doable with our

existing you know you brought up you brought up a really good point i mean if you're an electric utility you know in a lot of these areas are monitoring things that are in extremely remote areas yeah um i i mean maybe satellite is the best way to connect a lot of these really and frankly a lot of locations period i mean you can get complete coverage immediately without having to build out any terrestrial infrastructure if you're going to use the directed device i mean have you have you thought about that and have you ever that that was a an absolute underpinning of the investigation with link right was was you know um both uh you know and as we referenced the link relationship was designed to wake up the satellite community

to the existence of our spectrum, you know, sort of check that box, but also very much to work with Link to investigate what a product might look like, right? What, you know, and is it, could it be primary for certain, you know, enterprise customers? The answer is, I think, obviously, yes. Could it be secondary with, you know, with a fabric overlay over top of a customer's footprint or the country as a whole? I think the answer is yes to that as well. So there are a lot of paths forward for us with regard to satellite capability that sort of feed and enhance and support whatever path we choose for the spectrum asset itself.

And how do the enterprise customers feel about what you just said? Yeah. Have you had conversations with them yet?

Yeah, I mean, absolutely. And some of them are excited for us to productize that if that's the path we go down to, you know, to give them an additional opportunity for coverage or resiliency. So, yeah, so definitely there's excitement there. You know, I think our future customer base, I think they're probably waking up to the fact that they have competition for our spectrum now. And so from a shareholder perspective, that's a wonderful thing, right?

So I know we didn't talk about it too much, and I apologize. We don't have too much time left, but can you just remind us, the electric utilities, how much the ones that have deployed some of the spectrum, what benefits are they seeing out of it?

What new use cases are they using it for? yeah are they finding value with it yeah yeah so um you know most of them have are well on their way to you know to to deployment of the network several of them are fully deployed they are loading the network we are seeing a whole range of use cases we um there's a big trade show for the utility sector called distribute tech at the most recent one we had a nice healthy booth and in it, we had about four dozen use cases. So we had, you know, about four dozen companies in our booth displaying what they're doing with our spectrum. So think, you know, devices that give you a good sense of how the network is performing, help you with predictive maintenance. One of the neatest ones that we find exciting because, you know, we went through a long test process with Schweitzer engineering labs is called falling conductor protection. It actually depowers or de-energizes a broken line before it hits the ground. So you think of the value of that to wildfire mitigation. That is worth tens of billions. Yes. Exactly. And you can't do that if you don't have high capacity, low latency network coverage that you can prioritize. Will that actually prevent fires?

I mean, is it that quick?

It's that quick. You have 1.2 to 1.4 seconds from when a line breaks to when it hits the ground. And it has worked in the lab and in the field. It is deployed and it has worked in the lab and in the field. I just love hearing use cases like that. Any other cool use cases? I mean, there are a whole bunch of ones that are designed to segment off a power outage and stop it from spiraling out of control. There are, you know, sort of intelligent, some of them are called actually intelliruptors, right? And so there are a whole bunch of products designed to enhance performance, to predict maintenance, to prevent outages. And then you just have the traditional, you know, bucket truck connectivity to voice devices, to tough books, to grab schematics, to get a sense of, you know, what they're about to face when they, you know, climb a pole. So there's a lot of safety, security. The use cases, it's kind of if you build it, they will come. And there is wireless connectivity throughout a utility's operations. What they're doing now is just moving it over to their own private network. They get to do the belt and suspenders from an access perspective, from a cybersecurity perspective. So, you know, this to me is – it's been a long time coming. The utilities, a lot of them are looking at the comms component as their third grid, transmission, distribution, and now communications. And as you think of the reality that they are facing, it screams for data, right? They have more intense, more frequent, more damaging weather patterns, more intense, more state-sponsored cyber incursions, greater and greater demand for electricity and electricity generation, more distributed renewable power. I mean, you can go on and on, and all of it says that they have to modernize, and this is a core component of that modernization.

And is a federal government – well, just stepping back a second, we kind of have a lot of contacts with the federal government on data center builds, frankly, in AI, and they're all in supporting the industry as much as they possibly can. And the most critical inputs are, frankly, spectrum and power. Is the federal government supportive of electric utilities just trying to modernize and upgrade?

Yes, at the federal level. And the reality is it really does come down for most utilities to their local regulator, to their commission, right? And so their public utility commission will say yes or no to investments, to whether or not something can find its way onto your bill. And, you know, that we do a lot of work with NARUC and with individual commissions, educating them on the value to the consumer of modernizing their communications capability. So we do see, I mean, obviously, we've all read about the cost increase for, you know, for our electricity, right, for our utility bills. So every utility is cognizant of that, but they still need to invest. They know it, they're regulated.

Well, this could potentially lower their expenses quite a bit and improve utilization and improve the quality, right, and on and on.

Yeah, you think of the value of not having an outage, right, and or not having a fire and or not having a cyber attack, and you could just go down the list.

And let alone, right, that spectrum is typically a capital investment for them, and they're able to get a return on it. And typically, utilities appreciate that over-OPEC spend on the carriers. That's another important factor that made us successful specifically in the utility industry and why, you know, has been a great market for us.

So, last question for both of you. You first, Elena. Do you think SpaceX wants to build out a hybrid satellite terrestrial network in the United States? What's your best guess?

I think the answer is yes, because they specifically said it, right? I think they explicitly said it. And I think this most recent filing, you know, validates their interest in low-band spectrum, certainly. But, you know, I think I think aside from SpaceX, there are many other players, as you mentioned, still Amazon with Global Star and many others. Right. Rocket Lab just acquired Iridium. This is just an incredible market. Well, we have ASTS.

There's we have Link. There are others. And I guess Chris, if someone is going to build out a fourth wireless network in the United States, can you do it without sub one gigahertz spectrum? I don't think so.

I don't think so. And to your earlier question, I'm going to say what I often say. I completely and totally agree with Elena, and she's spot on. So, yeah, you can't build out. I mean, you can try. I would argue that the financials don't align and the performance doesn't align. So if you truly want to be a fourth provider and or displace numbers one, two, and three, you know, you got it.

And Chris, I mean, is, you know, everyone's been fiscated historically that you need 10 megahertz down load. I mean, with technology, does it matter as much if it's five megahertz down versus 10? You know, what's your answer to that?

I think, and I think Elena references, and this goes back to someone, Tim, I know who you'll remember, but Neville Ray at T-Mobile. I think anyone who's building a network needs the layer cake, right? And they need a fair amount of low band spectrum. And it's not just one tiny block, right? It's not, you know, and it's not just our five by five and it's not just the others that are out there, right? You can't build it with the cellular A and B prime tiny blocks. So there's, yeah.

Yeah, I love, love, love, love Neville.

Yep, yep.

It was great. Funny, I just ran into his IR person when he was there at the airport last night, Nils. Yeah, I remember Nils. And we were talking about Neville last night. So it's a small world. So, well, I'm apologizing, Natasha, for me that I only got to about half her questions, but we're out of time.

We'll have a longer term conversation. Yes, thank you. And if we left our audience with something today, I think it would be that, you know, we see great optionality for how we can monetize the spectrum. We see great public comparables that validate the continued appreciation of spectrum. and we're just in a really great position both with our current market that we're addressing, which is utilities and these potential opportunities to monetize the spectrum all at once. Can't be more.

Yeah, that was well said. Well, I think you started with that and ended with that. So there we go. Yeah, exactly. All right, thanks guys. Have a great rest of the summer and weekend. Appreciate it.