Thanks for joining us today. We released our shareholder letter shortly after the market closed today, and it's available on our website. We'll be referring to it on the call. Joining me on the call today are Rick Baldridge, our Vice Chairman; Kevin Harkenrider, our Chief Operating Officer; Shawn Duffy, our Chief Financial Officer; Robert Blair, our General Counsel; Paul Froelich, Corporate Development; and Peter Lopez, Investor Relations. So I'll let Robert provide our safe harbor, first.

Thanks, Mark. As you know, this discussion will contain forward-looking statements. This is a reminder that factors could cause actual results to differ materially. Additional information concerning these factors is contained in our SEC filings, including our most recent reports on Form 10-K and Form 10-Q. Copies are available from the SEC or from our website. Back to you, Mark.

Okay. Thanks. Our results for the first quarter were consistent with the outlook that we described in our fiscal year 2022 fourth quarter year-end call in May. Several factors, including seasonality delays and certifying some of the new information security products and some transient supply chain issues affected our sequential topline. An improved revenue mix across our service networks and lower R&D spend in the quarter heavily offset below revenue, as well as our growing ViaSat-3 ground infrastructure. Operating expenses that are in preparation for this fall's launch result in only a slight sequential decline in adjusted EBITDA. It's worth noting that consolidated service revenue and Satellite Services segment revenue both achieved new records in the quarter, partially offset by the impact of product revenue from some of the factors I had just described. We expect our first quarter EBITDA to be the low point of the fiscal year with good sequential growth from here throughout fiscal year 2023, driven largely by scheduled in-flight connectivity installations into activations, significant government backlog, and strong government systems orders in the first quarter and so far in the second quarter. We are expecting to grow our fleet of active in-flight aircraft by about 500 over the remainder of this fiscal year on both new and retrofit aircraft for both new and existing customers. ViaSat-3 programs are making good progress as the first satellite enters final assembly and mechanical environmental testing, and the second payload is now at Boeing for spacecraft integration. Launch and in-service scheduled targets for the first flight have been holding from last quarter. We also wanted to add a little color on the point in the letter regarding the $62 million payment we collected just after the close of the first quarter from Acacia Communications. The payment is for Acacia's use of our intellectual property, which includes contractual and statutory interest. We had previously won a jury verdict ordering Acacia to pay for its use of our technology, and had subsequently obtained verdict insurance at an economical premium, so that we could be certain to receive other payments. That was prior to ultimately also winning a public court decision that upheld that verdict. While we didn't expect to receive the payment quite as soon, it was factored into our outlook for the year. In addition, the funds will help offset the pre-launch year-over-year ground infrastructure expenses that lead up to the ViaSat-3 launch and support additional discretionary investments in the significant growth opportunities we are targeting in both the fixed and mobile business areas. So with that as a little bit of background, we'll open it up for questions.

We will now take the first question from Landon Park with Morgan Stanley.

Great. Thanks very much for taking the questions. Good afternoon, everyone.

Hi, Landon.

Thanks. I'm wondering if we can start on the government side of the business. There's obviously been some news reports about potential strategic drop-ins for part of that business. I'm just wondering if you can update us on your views there in terms of willingness to part with portions of that business, and maybe also just provide some disclosure around what is the right way to think about the size of the major pieces of that business, and if there's any margin differentials within the different parts of that business? So I'll start with that and then I just have one follow-up.

Okay. So first to start with, we don't comment on speculation or rumors about what we may or may not do around the business. I can give you the answers to the other parts of your question that are around what the makeup of the business is and the relative size. So there's roughly three main components to it. One is Tactical Data Links, and that's primarily business around what's called Link-16. So that's been a long-time and steadily growing part of the business. Think of it as being maybe a third of that business of the total government business. There's another piece which is information security based and cybersecurity based. That's a little less than a third of the business. And then there's one more piece which is satellite oriented. That includes both technology products that we sell and satellite services. The fastest growing part of the business has been the satellite services business, which has the most synergy with the rest of our satellite services business. That kind of describes the details.

Are there any margin differentials between the different portions of the business that you would highlight?

No. In general, the services businesses tend to have the highest margins, but the businesses as a whole, it's not enormously disparate in terms of the margin characteristics of those businesses.

Okay. And I understand that you don't want to comment on press reports, but maybe can you just refresh us on your strategic view in terms of how you think about potential optionality for that business and your willingness to surface value, if you don't feel like – I don't know if you think you're getting full credit for the value of that business today, but how are you thinking about that?

Well, the main way we tend to think about all of our businesses is really in the way that they provide synergy with each other. We don't really like having just a collection of disparate businesses. And so far, that's paid off well for us. Clearly, the defense business is the one that's probably got the greatest amount of synergy with the overall direction of the company. It is the satellite part and the satellite services part. But the main thing in the way that we've done well in order to grow, instead of as we have over a long period of time, is that we've been pretty good at being able to determine the relative growth opportunities of our different areas. Then put the most emphasis on those with the greatest amount of growth. And that's – I think if you want to think about how we think strategically and how that drives the tactics, that's probably the most fundamental underlying factor in the way we deal with our businesses.

And how would you say that the encryption portion of the business figures into the long-term strategic view that you have for the company as a whole?

Well, just on the encryption part, what we've tended to think about is encryption as an overall component of cybersecurity. There's a lot evolving in the cybersecurity space, in the cybersecurity segment. We believe that there's going to be more spillover on the cybersecurity side into commercial markets. And so that's an example of one of the areas where we're looking at synergies. I guess the way I put it is we wouldn't have the collection of businesses that we do if we didn't see synergy opportunities across them. The only thing I would say is that the degree of significance may vary over time and with circumstances, I think it will tend to respond to that and sometimes it's not so much that there's less opportunity in a given area; sometimes there's just way more opportunity in other areas. I think those are the things that we've done a good job of managing and that's what we're constantly trying to assess.

Okay. That's all very helpful, Mark. And just one last one for me, just switching gears to Inmarsat. I might have missed in the release, but can you give us your latest timeline in terms of closing expectations and just maybe how you're thinking about the EU review that was recently announced along with the other CMA and DOJ reviews that are ongoing?

Well, so I think we've made steady progress in a few of the milestones that we had before us based on the actions and activities that we need to do. We're entering into a period where now we need some responses from the government that they need to draw some conclusions or inferences from that. We have a little bit less control over that, but overall our target is still – we haven't learned anything that would say that we should deviate from the target that we had. Basically, we still have to wait to get more information over the next few months and so we're going to have to factor that in, but right now, we're still aiming kind of where we were probably. I think we're closing in on nine months. So it's probably going to be more biased towards the back end of that than it would be towards the front end.

Does the prior, I guess, idea, was to close by the end of the calendar, or is that still within the realm of possibilities?

That's a way to put it. It’s within the realm of – yes, it’s within the realm of possibility. Now it's hard for us to anticipate, especially on the regulatory side, how the responses will come back from the agencies given the information that we provided. So we will get a lot more information over the next two or three months, and it's possible that we can still close by the end of the year. It's possible that will extend out to the 18 months or it's conceivable to go beyond. We will learn a lot more over the next few weeks to a month or two.

And the EU review was that expected and anticipated or was there any surprise in that?

Yes. It was expected because most of the activity that we have in the sector covers both the EU and the UK, so that's not surprising.

Great. Well, thanks very much for taking the questions.

Thank you, Landon.

Your next question comes from the line of Philip Cusick with JPMorgan Chase.

Phil, you're on mute, if you were trying to talk. Maybe we should take a question from somebody else and come back to Phil.

The next question comes from Chris Quilty with Quilty Analytics.

Thanks, Mark. I wanted to follow up on the – I think you said you expect to add about 500 aircraft into your 500 incremental orders going into the year. How much visibility do you have into that number and does that include Southwest?

Yes. The 500 includes – as I mentioned, it includes both new planes and retrofit for both new and existing customers. And that would include new orders with Southwest in particular; we have new aircraft that will deliver equipment to every line. So they'll take them as new. I think that's a pretty reasonable target. There are factors that could drive it up or down from there. So that's kind of a pretty reasonable estimate.

Got it. And given there's capacity shortages internationally and here in the U.S., it's a pretty saturated market in terms of airlines that have already picked solutions, though we're seeing some switching. When can you reasonably start to target more international airlines given the timing of your second satellite coming online?

Okay. First of all, roughly ballpark, it's probably 30,000-ish aircraft, that's kind of a rough estimate of aircraft. So probably all in, we're in the 15% to 20% penetration of existing aircraft that people think are going to 40,000-ish aircraft by the mid-to-late 30s. So we think there's still a lot of growth in the market as a whole. We've been mostly successful in the U.S. market and in some international traffic to and from the U.S. And that's where most of the installs are coming in this current fiscal year. We've done well in international in the places where we have coverage. That's really been the main factor in determining our success. Recently, we've announced more transatlantic international. So I think that airlines are looking at the deployment on ViaSat-3. They see the progress that they are making. I think that's really kind of – I think those kind of two factors. Factor one is getting the coverage on the international basis and the places where we've had international coverage, we've done well. The other one is that airlines tend to see good inside connectivity as a competitive differentiator. In the U.S., it's most prevalent, and it's really been a bigger factor. I think that's kind of been a factor on the major long-haul international airlines, intercontinental flights. There’s still a lot of opportunity among more regional airlines, and that'll become more and more important as you see the penetration grow. I think those are the things that we've got our eye on as the overall penetration in the commercial impact market expands.

And do you have, or will you have an antenna product for those regional aircraft?

Yes. Short answer is yes. Okay. I think that the airlines' views of what the purpose is for outfitting regional aircraft is evolving. As I see, having inside connectivity is sort of an integral product to their entire fleet and all their services, including on connecting flights and on these shorter flights. So I think that their view of what's needed is evolving, and I think we'll be well-equipped to deal with that. And there are – I'd say we are seeing more interest in outfitting regional jets with and more expansive view of what that means too as well, like a view cutting off the regional jets kind of going forward is probably different from how we might have looked at it two or three or four years ago.

Great. And if I can – one final question. Last week, EchoStar talked about losing stubs directly to Starlink in part because of latency, and they're introducing a hybrid cellular satellite solution to try to address that. And of course, we also had the acquisition announcement with Eutelsat and OneWeb, and again, in part of Eutelsat trying to get a latency solution. Do you still feel that a GEO-only solution for consumer or IFC market is sufficient? Or are you seeing an increasing need to do something with…?

So I think our view hasn't really changed that much. Just to say, one of the unique things about satellite is we do think that there's a trade-off between bandwidth and speed on the one hand and latency on the other that we think we can manufacture bandwidth really efficiently from GEO and aim it into places where there's demand and have the flexibility to move it around with that demand, especially in mobility. The farther out you go from the earth along with latency. There's this trade-off where you just have to hit the right mix for each particular vertical market segment. One of the things we've said is we think that hybrid solutions are a good way to deal with that trade-off. We can mix in lower latency options, whether those be satellite or terrestrial options, wired or wireless for terrestrial options, to try to hit the sweet spot of each of those vertical markets in the geographic areas that we're trying to serve. We've done work on that. Right now, we think especially with just the booming growth in streaming and more and more video entertainment hours switching from broadcast to streaming. I think that's a lot of what we see is going on and satellite industry is kind of a big pivot to being able to support data. Some of that's going to be through high throughput or high capacity GEO satellite, there might be – from the latency perspective on MEO or LEO. What we've been really focused on is that bandwidth component. We think that streaming is really driving substantial growth and demand. That's kind of 30%-ish year-over-year on a first subscriber basis. So we're really focused on being able to address that. We think that we'd like to be able to address low latency as kind of the next most important thing behind that. Well, the other thing that we've been really interested in is hybrid solutions, including multi-orbit. We've been working with several non-geosynchronous operators or prospective operators to be able to do that. We don't think that we necessarily need to own a non-geosynchronous constellation to be able to do hybrid solutions – hybrid multi-orbit solutions. I do think that just to elaborate a little bit more, there's some sense that only geosynchronous operators are saying that multi-orbit makes sense, but the non-geosynchronous operators don't think that there's a need for GEO and all that, that non-geosynchronous is just going to obsolete geosynchronous. One of the things that's interesting about the OneWeb and Eutelsat deal is that you've got a non-geosynchronous operator saying multi-orbit is the right answer. This might be the first, most explicit case of that, but you've also got SES that's investing in both NEO and GEO satellites. You've got Eutelsat that's a significant GEO operator that's also doing both orbits. We think that it's indicative that multi-orbit makes sense from either direction. That’s how we see it as well. But the other point just that the OneWeb and Eutelsat sort of highlights is one of the things that we've been looking at when we try to do this is to get as much commonality in the network infrastructure as we can. In choosing to acquire Inmarsat, one of the good things is their broadband network is Ka-band, just like ours is. Especially in the mobility space where you've already got a need for tracking antennas, you can use phased array antennas as one of the things that we've been working on demonstrating there as well. It's a lot simpler to do them in the same operating bands, as opposed to doing it in two different bands. That’s an example of one of the things that we're looking to do when we do hybrids between GEO and non-GEO is try to get some of those same cost efficiencies and the ability to work with the infrastructure from both sides in a simpler, more unified way. Those are kind of the main things that we've been thinking. Things are still evolving in the space, but we still are interested in multi-orbit to the – and again, I want to emphasize this to the extent that our customers are and that delivers more value to them and to their users.

Great. Thanks for the detailed answer.

Welcome.

Your next question comes from the line of Ric Prentiss with Raymond James.

Thanks. Good afternoon, everyone.

Hi, Ric.

A couple of questions. One, housekeeping one on the legal settlement. The $62 million, I assume that was a revenue. It sounded like you might have done some kind of payment to lock it in. What should we think the EBITDA effect of that legal settlement was?

Hey, Ric. This is Shawn. So yes, you're right. A good amount of it is going to come in the revenue line, but we do have some costs that are going to offset that, some of the insurance costs and some legal costs. So I would think of it as probably net around 50-ish that should be EBITDA contributing.

In the second quarter.

In the second quarter. Yes, second quarter.

Yes.

Sure. Okay. And then Mark, kind of strategic thinking. We saw that the FCC voted 4-0 recently to have an effort on reviewing 'the Space Race'. What do you think the FCC is looking to do and what would you like to see the outcome of that be? And then I have one final follow-up.

I think that – on the one hand, I think that the FCC is anticipating that the options of doing things in space are increasing. What they've said, and what would make sense is to try to get ahead of that to think about what regulations that they may have that could turn out to inhibit that or be a bottleneck and then try to address those in the context of preserving access to space. That's a good thing. I think that's wise. What we're interested in some – there's some elements of structures and space that are really interesting for the kinds of things that we do. We think it's good to be considering that. I think that – when you ask the – what I would like to see, I think that a lot of the risk in space comes from large numbers of relatively large spacecraft that represent a lot of mass, a lot of cross-sectional area. That is really being dominated by these large mega constellations that are really communication-oriented. It's very difficult to see that you think about the notion that academics, other researchers, and quite a few organizations are orienting around, which is the notion of carrying capacity, which is how much stuff in space is sustainable, how much is too much, how do you measure that. That's really likely to be driven by these mega constellations. What we'd like to see is that they don't look past the issue with the mega constellations to focus on something that's not likely to represent as much of a risk to congestion in the space environment as some of the issues that we're already dealing with.

Okay. And one more follow-up on the government side. Help us understand on the Tactical Link 16 side. What kind of synergies are you looking at there? What kind of opportunities between your different business segments do the Tactical Link 16 kind of offer?

So one of the – a couple things that are going on that are – one of the biggest long-term themes in defense, communications, and actually overall intelligence and battle management is different names for it. One of the main names is, what we call, JADC2 or Joint All-Domain Command & Control or communications. What that is intended to do is to synthesize several disparate communications links and intelligence sources into a seamless comprehensible whole. When you think about that, there are definitely things that you can do with terrestrial networks, Link-16 being an important one for that in the way you combine that with space. That's one of the avenues that we've been looking at because we're familiar with the space and terrestrial parts of that. I think we have quite a bit to contribute to that, and we've been pretty successful in participating in it. One of the other areas that got significant synergy opportunities is the notion of Link-16 from space. That's one of the areas that we've been pretty successful as well. And as well the notion we think of space as a relay; there are other applications for space relay that we've been successful with as well. There's definitely synergy opportunities there. I think just to go back to what I said before in response to Landon’s question, really the issue for us is just trying to assess those different synergy opportunities, which ones have the greatest growth opportunities, where can we play, where can we be the most successful, and just make sure that we're focused on that. Those are the two main threads when it comes to the Tactical Data Links and kind of the satellite services, space services, mobility businesses that we're growing.

Okay. And final one for me, and then sure, Phil wants to get back in. The space industry has been trying for a long time to consolidate. All of a sudden, we're seeing a bunch of proposed mergers, ViaSat, Inmarsat, Eutelsat, OneWeb, rumors of SES and Intelsat. What do you think the industry is looking at now that they're trying to solve for? How do those differing potential permutations affect how you view your opportunity?

Okay. First, it's a good picture question. The one thing I want to point out when people talk about consolidation, a lot of times what they mean is the growth is slowing and we want to take advantages of cost synergies. We see it as the age of satellite as a broadcast mechanism is sort of winding down. But the age of satellite as a data transmission medium is really just getting started. That's how we look at it. From our perspective, we took two companies, us and Inmarsat that were never really in the broadcast business, were really focused on data, and we’re trying to combine them in a way that creates more opportunities for growth. That was the thesis for what we're trying to do. I think there's another theme among the large legacy operators, which is how they move pivot from broadcast to data. The other combinations that are being – that are either happening or being speculated on are really kind of around executing that, using maybe the broadcast business to charge up the data business. We think that the data business is so different from the broadcast business in almost every way. The analogy we always use is if you look at companies that were preeminent in using terrestrial broadcast frequencies, those companies are the ones that have been effective in the terrestrial data business, which is primarily the global cellular business. We just think they're really, really different that we've got good skills in that, we've got good growth. We think Inmarsat has a great customer base, good assets that we can leverage. That's kind of our thoughts on it. The theories behind some of the other combinations are a little bit different than that.

That really helps. Thanks, Mark.

Thanks, Ric.

Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Koontz with Needham & Company.

Thanks for the question. I wanted to ask your updated view of how we should think about the ViaSat-3 kind of revenue ramp here of next year. How long until you can fully monetize that capacity? What percentage is kind of spoken for today with your current business plans? And secondly, is there going to be any cannibalistic effect on your current business from a lower price, lower cost per bit platform? Thank you.

Okay. Yes. To review kind of what we've done with both ViaSat-1 and ViaSat-2, we think things will play out similarly on ViaSat-3. With one and two, we grew predominantly at the beginning on the residential base because that was the one that we could address the fastest. A lot of times what you've seen is if new operators are trying to get into the data space, they also tried to scale around the residential space. What we did with one and two was grow the mobility business around that and some of the government business. Now coming to ViaSat-3, the mobility businesses for us have more scale than they did when we did one and two, so we can scale those by expanding them a little bit using our existing business as a platform for that, by providing more services to some of our existing customers, by making some of the services that we'll do for existing customers, as we talked about before, competitive differentiation in areas being able to do streaming videos is a really attractive feature for in-flight communications. We will get more contribution early on from the mobility businesses with ViaSat-3 than we did with one or two. We also see big opportunities in the fixed and residential business as well. To the point you talk about sort of deterioration – the way we framed this, we didn't put it in this current letter, but do better in past shareholder presentations. Our main focus has been productivity of bandwidth. If we can get a lot more bandwidth for the same amount of capital investment, our strategy has been to share that with our customers. What we can do is give existing customers more bandwidth for roughly the same amount of money or come up with different price tiers, but the theme will be more bandwidth value per dollar. As long as our productivity improvements are greater than what we shared with our customers, then it's like we both benefit from that. That's the theme – that increased bandwidth value has enabled us to grow our customer base each time we launch a new satellite with better economics. We see the same things happening this time. Another thing we've been able to do consistently is to have the satellite full, that we've sold all the bandwidth within like two to three years. But what we tend to do is we follow up by constantly evolving that user base towards more and more economically valuable applications, which helps to drive our margins and our revenue. That's what's enabled us to grow the revenue and the margins on the existing satellites for the last 10 or 11 years that we've been doing this. We see the same things happening this time.

That's helpful. That makes a lot of sense. And it sounds like a lot of the terminals you've shipped, at least for some of the recent past, are upgradeable to support ViaSat-3.

Yes. Given that we've known what the architecture is, that's what we've been aiming to do. Each time what we've been able to do is make the existing terminal set usable on the new satellites, but the new terminal sets have additional features or capabilities that make them more useful or economical. A lot of that comes – one of the things I think is underappreciated in this is, what we're doing is mixing many different types of service-level agreements and value propositions on the satellite. To do that efficiently, you need to be able to schedule it, like, how do I fit together all these disparate types of services on these satellites, so that we get very high efficiency of use? The peak to average demands, especially in the mobility space can be a factor of 10 easily between high peak areas and low peak areas. We build into the network and the latest generation of terminals, more capabilities of that schedule really, really efficiently. Those are some of the things that drive our ability to increase margins and revenues even after we've filled up the satellite.

That's really helpful, Mark. Thank you.

Thanks, Ryan.

Your next question comes from the line of Mike Crawford from B. Riley.

Thank you. Just to go back to the Acacia. Does that mean that Cisco – now Acacia has a downstream license or do their customers like momentum that use their DSP – did you hear the first part of my question?

I think so.

So Acacia has downstream customers like momentum that use DSP. Do they need a license or is that incorporated in this agreement?

So just to be clear, Mike, there's no agreement. This was the result of a verdict, so they paid a judgment. Those damages are for their use of our technology under an agreement that they did not pay us under. They were ordered to pay us for the use of the technology through 2018. That's what that verdict is related to. A license would have been provided under that agreement had they paid? They didn't. They were ordered to pay. That's what the verdict covers. Does that answer your question?

Well, partially. So that's what I was getting at. Now you're paid up to 2018, but there's another four years past the bridge plus others using that DSP. So is there an expectation you might be able to get some more out of this or is this issue settled in your opinion?

Yes. We have two pending lawsuits against Acacia. They were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. They are still stayed and will probably be restarted in the next month or so. One of them relates to the same technology that was issued – that was at issue in the first case from the period after the end of 2018 to the present and the other one relates to additional technology. Those cases are still pending, and I'm not going to speculate on or comment on pending litigation and what might happen with those. But those will be restarted here probably within – certainly in this current quarter, hopefully within the next month or so.

Excellent, great. That's kind of what I thought. And then just switching gears, with the Cluster failure on this Anik F2 satellite that powers some of your Northwest U.S. residential subscribers. I understand that satellite is going to move to an inclined orbit and rather end sooner than expected end of life. What's the risk to your U.S. subscribers on that satellite? There's going to be service avoidance, particularly since we don't appear to have an official launch date or window for ViaSat-3. Although, you do say that you hope to have that launched by the end of December.

Yes. Anik F2 has been a good satellite for us for longer than its expected life. Just to put things in perspective, it's well under 1% of our satellite capacity so that we've been able to make constant improvements. We constantly make improvements on the existing satellites that sort of make up for the variance in bandwidth. In the case of individual customers who have terminals that aimed at that satellite, we'll provide an upgrade path for those customers if we need to move them to a different satellite.

Okay. Was my understanding like, say my father in Picabo, Idaho, that was the only satellite that he could hit from Viasat.

No, no, that's not. WildBlue as an example, WildBlue overlaps Anik F2, and we may have other resources as well that Viasat-2 can provide. Yes, the whole coverage too. Thanks.

Okay. And then final question is you talked about these robust tactical data link orders in this quarter. Does that include Charles Wave waveforms?

No. So Charles Wave is a different waveform than Link 16, and it's got a different application, different use. It's more for personal communications than machine-to-machine. There are some machine-to-machine parts of it, but it's a different application. It didn't lump it in with the Link 16.

Right. And given that that's super high margin revenue, I think mostly royalty revenue for you – you need to characterize what's going on with Charles Wave right now.

Okay. Yes. Charles Wave, just to recap, is a subsidiary; we own a little more than half of that subsidiary. One of their biggest businesses is they developed a waveform under – the government wanted a library – a license waveform, and their waveform was one of the most popular in that library. A fair amount of their revenue is licensed revenue for either modules or products that use that waveform. That revenue stream would continue on for quite a few years. I think we're relatively early in the process of deploying the radios that use that waveform, and there are multiple companies building radio products that use the Charles Wave waveform.

Okay. Thank you, Mark.

Thanks, Mike.

Mike, I just wanted to clarify real quick. I think I might have misspoke on when I mentioned the Acacia case. I said different technology. I think it's the same technology, different Acacia products that are at issue. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Okay. Thanks, Robert. I think that’s all the questions that we have for today. To summarize, we believe this is the low point in terms of quarterly financial performance, and we expect solid sequential organic growth throughout the rest of the year. We've got good revenue visibility and high communications. Good government systems are towards and we expect those transient bottlenecks that were more of a factor in the fourth quarter and the first quarter to be resolved and overall support our year-over-year and longer term guidance. We're expecting the ViaSat-3 Americas launch should be coming up shortly after our next earnings call, and we're making good progress on the Inmarsat integration. We think those are both really great catalysts for continued strong growth. For all the rest of our team, thanks for joining us this afternoon. Please don't hesitate to contact Peter Lopez or anybody in our team if you've got other questions on our results or other topics that we discussed today. With that, I will hand it back to the operator.

This concludes today’s call. You may now disconnect.