NextNav at Oppenheimer Conference: Strategic GPS Backup Plan

On Wednesday, 13 August 2025, NextNav (NASDAQ:NN) presented at the Oppenheimer 28th Annual Technology, Internet & Communications Conference, unveiling a strategic plan to enhance GPS reliability with terrestrial backup solutions. The company aims to leverage its 900 MHz spectrum assets to partner with 5G operators, circumventing taxpayer funding. While promising, the plan faces FCC hurdles and opposition from toll operators, casting uncertainty over its execution.

Key Takeaways

• NextNav proposes a terrestrial GPS backup using its 900 MHz spectrum, partnering with 5G networks.
• The company has filed a petition with the FCC for spectrum rebanding, facing opposition from toll operators.
• NextNav’s solution promises significant cost savings and improved accuracy in urban areas.
• The Brattle Group estimates a $14.6 billion insurance value for the proposed GPS backup.
• NextNav aims to commercialize its technology by early next year, with or without FCC approval.

Operational Updates

NextNav is focusing on developing a terrestrial GPS backup system by utilizing its lower 900 MHz spectrum. The company plans to partner with 5G network operators, offering a cost-effective solution by integrating with existing and future 5G capabilities. This approach is designed to address GPS vulnerabilities without requiring taxpayer funding.

FCC Process and Spectrum Rebanding

• NextNav has filed a petition with the FCC to optimize the 900 MHz spectrum for 5G and PNT services.
• The FCC’s decision is pending, with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking expected, though timing remains uncertain.
• Opposition from toll operators exists, but NextNav’s technical studies suggest minimal interference with current operations.

Technical Capabilities and PNT Architecture

• NextNav’s PNT architecture is embedded in 5G, requiring only software solutions to provide positioning and timing data.
• The system aims for single-digit meter accuracy in urban areas, addressing GPS limitations.
• The PNT service is estimated to use 2% to 5% of 5G network capacity, with minimal handset upgrades needed.

Economic Value and Valuation

• The Brattle Group projects a $14.6 billion insurance value for NextNav’s GPS backup solution.
• While NextNav refrains from speculating on spectrum valuation, recent low-band spectrum transactions suggest potential value.

Commercialization and Partnerships

• NextNav seeks partnerships with 5G operators to build out its spectrum, considering options like revenue sharing and spectrum sales.
• Carriers could market enhanced PNT services, improving positioning and timing accuracy for commercial applications.

Future Outlook

• NextNav plans to complete the 5G upgrade of its trial network by early next year to commercialize its technology.
• In case of FCC denial, NextNav intends to utilize its spectrum with alternative strategies like geographic exclusion zones.

For those interested in more details, the full transcript of the conference call is available below.

Full transcript - Oppenheimer 28th Annual Technology, Internet & Communications Conference:

Miriam, NextNav: Great. Good morning, and thank you, Tim, and Oppenheimer for the opportunity to present, the great stuff we’re doing over here at NextNav, which is solving a national security issue by strengthening the national positioning, navigation, and timing, which I will abbreviate to PNT during this presentation. So if we can move on to the next slide, please. Just at a high level, let’s talk about our investment highlights. We have great technology in commercial networks, and we’re evolving it to be a next generation PNT solution that is embedded in five g.

We have valuable spectrum assets. We’ll talk about them a little bit more later, which have great propagation characteristics to enable this PNT and also broadband five g. We have a great management team, board and shareholders. Management and board are previous telco spectrum technology, evangelist commercializing innovation, and we work with we also have leaders in our national security and location services. We have great customers and partners.

It’s not a full list, but it includes AT and T, Verizon, and NASA. We have a robust balance sheet, and we have great liquidity to fund our operations. Let’s move on to the next slide. So let’s talk about the problem statement about why terrestrial GPS complement and backup is needed. Many of you use GPS on a daily basis.

Besides using it for navigation, GPS also is used in our telecommunications, power grids, water supply, financial transaction, and many other critical infrastructure. The problem statement is the satellite based systems, which GPS is one, they have, coverage limitations in urban canyons and indoors, And, also, they’re very vulnerable to spoofing and jamming either by rogue actors or unintentional interference. And, also, they’re susceptible to, disruptions such as when natural phenomenon like solar flares happen. To the right of the screen, this is a lot of the quotes that we’ve picked about national security leading experts, DOD experts that talk about how this is a major problem for our country and how a single single point of failure is an issue. Also, how it you can cheap very cheaply.

This is a DOD quote from Tom Rondeau. You can, with $300, jam GPS off the shelf equipment. So the problem statement is real. It’s there, and we would like to provide solution a be a part of the solution for it by providing a terrestrial GPS and complement and backup, which is going to address the satellite vulnerabilities. Let’s move on to the next slide.

So our PNT vision is that we’re going to leverage our spectrum assets in the lower 900 megahertz band. We’re going build a PNT network that’s embedded in five gs NR aligned with three GBP global standards in devices commercially, leveraging economies of scale. Our goal is to create a future proof complement and back up to GPS that is wide scale and also is available indoor and in urban canyons. Let’s go on to the next slide. Our solution is really very simple.

The the problem statement is that we need a backup, a backup that is a system of systems. We are part of the solution, and that part is a terrestrial component. The issue with with why this hasn’t been done before is because building a terrestrial network that is wide scale and covers a terrestrial footprint is is extremely costly to compete with a free service, which is GPS. So what we’re proposing is that we’re going to use our lower 900 megahertz licenses. We’re gonna partner with a five g network operator to then use the spectrum for five g, but take a sliver off of the top of it to provide the PNT, which is the terrestrial backup and complement to GPS.

And we do all of this without taxpayer funding, so we don’t need any funding from the government. Let’s move on to the next slide. Let’s talk about our spectrum a little bit. The lower 900 MHz and you see to the left is a map of The United States. We hold the rights to licenses covering over 96% of The US population.

We have the rights to approximately 4,000,000,000 megahertz pops in the lower 900 megahertz. What and we’ll talk about what we’re doing to optimize the band plan and optimize the spectrum. But what this optimized band plan is gonna do is gonna attract and retain high value subscribers similar to public safety who need, who are also be served by PNT. The total value of this GPS complement and backup to a Brattle report that we have a slide on is $14,600,000,000, a $14,600,000,000 insurance that we’re providing. And basically, this is all done on amazing low band, very great propagation spectrum.

All spectrum is equal when you go to low band such as 900 megahertz and spectrum below one gigahertz specifically has the ability to go and penetrate walls and serve the urban canyons really well. And in addition to all of this, we’re going to also not only solve the PNT issue, but also be a part of the solution for the PNT issue, but we have 10 megahertz of downlink for broadband data, which is significant bandwidth in low band. Again, not to compare to C band or any of the high band spectrum, which is more capacity spectrum, low band will remain as the only solution for coverage spectrum. Let’s move on to the next slide. So what have we done in this past year and a half, a little over a year?

Currently, the band plan that we have licenses in is in this first chart. It’s called the MLMS spectrum. There’s an a block. There’s a b and a c block. And these were intended to provide multilateration location and monitoring services.

And what we have proposed is the band plan below, and this is what our FCC petition would be to say, let’s optimize the band plan. Let’s create contiguous blocks of 10 megahertz plus a five megahertz uplink for five g such that it will be attractive for a nationwide operator or other partners to build using five g. And we could then enable PNT that is within the five g standards. This is what we have proposed to the FCC to optimize to solve not only a national security concern, but also to put more spectrum, low band spectrum to address the coverage gaps that I think we’ll still face no matter which operator you use today. Let’s move on to the next slide.

Let’s talk about our PNT architecture because you’ve heard me say that this five g is embedded in the PNT is embedded in five g. It really is a signaling that’s part of the three GPP standards that you need to turn on to provide these beacons that we can then multilaterate on to provide positioning and timing. This network will seamlessly when then after this beacon is turned on, we will put our software on top of that and extract the positioning and timing. This seamlessly integrates into the five g networks with just software solutions sitting on top of what Ang carrier deploys today for five g. We will leverage the five g partners’ network facilities so we don’t need to build a network.

They will add spectrum to their towers just like they add any new spectrum, just like they will do that all the time because they’re not gonna be able to not expand their spectrum footprint as population capacity and coverage demand increases. The build out of this network or what’s known as a topology will be just like five gs networks. We don’t need to build additional towers. This will facilitate partnerships with existing providers and enable us to leverage their existing deployment. So to the right is a picture of what the architecture would look like and how we will take this very thin sliver of capacity, so not spectrum.

So they will deploy the 10 plus five like a five g network, and we’ll take a sliver of their capacity, the data, because you turn on the beacon that will get used, and then we’ll have our software extracting this to positioning and timing and navigation ultimately. Let’s go on to the next slide. So this is what I was talking about. The Brattle Group last year did an amazing economic report that quantified the value we bring by having a terrestrial backup to GPS. And, again, this is a critical point with no taxpayer funding.

There’s a lot of solutions out there that for a very long time, some of them for decades have not been able to deploy because, again, the economics to compete with GPS are are not great. So they’ve requested government funding to solve this national security issue. We do this. We provide this $14,600,000,000 of insurance without any taxpayer funding. And the economic report highlights what would it look like if we were to not have GPS.

On the left hand side, a one day outage would have a $1,600,000,000 economic loss. Seven day, 12,000,000,000, thirty day, 58,000,000,000. This is very significant. So we will prevent this economic loss, and we will be a part of the system of systems that enables this insurance plan that we’re providing for critical infrastructure and also consumer use of PNT. Let’s move on to the next slide.

This is this is a lot of activities just to show you what we’ve been doing starting in April 2024. Of course, immediately after our acquisition of a block licenses, we if you saw on that spectrum chart, had the b and c block. We acquired a block with from Telesaurus. Immediately after that, we filed a petition at the FCC that proposes to re band and proposes the optimize to optimize the spectrum for five g. The FCC issued a public notice in the previous administration.

We filed comments. Others also filed in that docket. And then there was an administration change and the new administration came in, particularly Chairman Carr, and he put a lot of focus on solving this problem holistically. And we were mentioned in his, what is called a notice of inquiry by the FCC. And that we, when it came out this year in April, we filed comments.

Again, other industry members filed comments as well as some in opposition, some in support, opposers or people who are in the band and don’t want to remain with the status quo. They don’t want to change. And people who are supporting are primarily public safety, but also a lot of the other filers mentioned how a market based solution is really important. And and they supported the NexNAV petition. Since then, after the NOI, we’ve also filed several very critical studies to show that the existing operations in the band, which are consist consisting of well, the active filers consisting of licensed operations and unlicensed operations, how there will be no impact to unlicensed.

And with licensed tolling operations, the impact and the retuning they would need to do from that shift I showed you on that chart is very minimal. So it’s very feasible. And therefore, we believe that the FCC can move on to the next stage of what is known as a notice of proposed rulemaking, which then seeks comments once more to be able to finally adopt a rulemaking. Our studies are solve the economic problem, solve the technical issues, and we are in a great place and a very, very urgent timeline as is demonstrated in this and how fast things have moved for us. I believe that must be the last slide, if I’m not mistaken.

Yes. And that wraps it up and look forward to Tim’s questions and the audience’s questions.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Great job, Miriam. Thanks a lot for the presentation. Very comprehensive. So what is the next step in the FCC process? Yeah.

And they they’ve given an order granting the rebranding already, I believe. So what’s that take to become, I guess, law or, you know, permanent? Yeah.

Miriam, NextNav: So they’ve they’ve given you an order to approve our assignment application, which included waiving certain rules that doesn’t permit three blocks being held by a single licensee. That was a great great thing, and we’re very thankful to the FCC with all the all the timing and staffing resource issues that they’ve been having. The next process for the petition is really and the NOI is really what’s known as a notice of proposed rulemaking. So they will or NPRM for short. They will issue an NPRM and seek comments again and then study those and then determine what the final rule and report in order would be.

So that’s what we’re looking forward to and we’re advocating very urgently with the FCC to move on to the next one after we’ve demonstrated that there should be no issues and there’s no data demonstrating there’s a problem.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Got it. So the primary issue is would you interfere with existing use cases? And you filed some technical studies. Can you maybe detail, you know, who is in opposition right now and what your technical studies, you know, found?

Miriam, NextNav: Of course. The opposition in the license and, again, spectrum is licensed, meaning people pay for the usage, and then there’s an unlicensed allocation, which is free for use, and license has priority over unlicensed always in every band. In the license category, the toll operators also operate in that band, and they have been opposing NexNAV. And basically, what we have filed is a very comprehensive, detailed, validated, fact based study that show that the tolls can coexist in in that middle segment of the band with us with just very, very minimal retuning. And and if for folks who are available if you’re familiar with spectrum and other spectrum rebandings, a lot of the times when you impact an operation and they have to move, they have to take out equipment and put in new equipment.

This is not the case in this band. This is really a software change to really shift because they are able to operate in the entire band down below. So that’s one study we did with respect to the license operators. Then we also have provided a unlicensed study. And these folks, Tim, that you asked are folks like they’re not this is not a Wi Fi band that you use, and all of us are using Wi Fi right now.

This is more of an IoT band type application. So you’re talking about very small bits of data that go from a smart meter or ecobee in your home reading your thermostat or these kinds of operations that are very you know, they don’t operate the whole day. They just send bits out, and then they they respond back. These folks will not have any impact because the existing licenses in the band already allow for a certain operation. And that operation, we’re not changing that in any way that impacts the unlicensed operations.

These folks can continue with their whatever equipment that they have in the IoT space. They can stay in the band. We’re not asking for them to relocate. And and the technical study shows that the energy that we would have put out in our existing licenses is not changing when we go to the total energy of five gs. In fact, in part of the band, we’re reducing the energy that we’re we’ve been permitted to operate on because handsets require very low energy.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Very good. So have you actually performed trials yet, you know, in certain locations that and retuned, you know, for example, the toll equipment so that you know, to prove this theory out?

Miriam, NextNav: We’ve worked with labs. We’ve worked with with measurements. And, basically, that is that is a very key and important part. You take a toll reader and transponder. You take it to the lab.

You measure. You simulate the outdoor environment. We’ve also proposed to put a network up. We already have an existing, by the way, network, and that network is in proximity to all of these operations and is transmitting. We haven’t heard a single complaint of interference, but we’re changing that to five gs and we will take this out on the field as well and show it and demonstrate it.

But right now, the lab measurements and the paper analysis are enough to move to the next step, is an NPRM, and there is no field study required of this stuff. The lack of data by the opposition, I think just attests to that. Because if there was a problem and we were wrong, they’d come out with tons of data showing why it’s wrong, and that’s nonexistent.

Tim, Oppenheimer: And how long would it take you to kinda upgrade your trial network to five g and, you know, how long of of a proof period do you think, you know, would be good to kinda show that they’re you know, in real life, there is no interference? I know it’s not required, but it seems like it would help the story. But

Miriam, NextNav: Yeah. Yeah. It really is not required for interference. For commercialization of the technology, we definitely have to have this up and that’s the primary goal while we have the live network up. Our current network, it operates really well and we’re evolving that to next generation to be based on five gs.

We had a milestone earlier this year that actually did that demonstrate that at the existing power levels on the field. Now what we’re doing is going to the five gs power levels, and our goal is to finalize that by early next year to be able to commercialize the technology. It is not for interference basis. We do not believe a field test is required for interference basis. That is our position right now.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Got it. Got it. And very understood your position. But you think have you gotten any thought feedback from the FCC? Do they agree with your position?

Are they ready, do think to move forward with an NPRM, or would they kind of require more of a technical trial or commercial trial?

Miriam, NextNav: I think the FCC would not come out and agree or disagree with anyone. Right? Their process includes collecting comments, feedback from the industry to then make a decision on how to move forward. And that decision sometimes, you know, there’ll be people who will be unhappy about it. And they’ll make a decision.

They’ll definitely weigh the public interest as they have outlined. So that is a goal of the FCC. And they’ll demonstrate they’ll evaluate the impact and make a decision to go to the NPRM. They don’t tell you ahead of time of their decision and what they’re doing. But so far, every meeting that we’ve had and this is all public that’s on the docket, procedure is all public.

Every meeting that we’ve had, we have had extremely positive exchanges with the FCC in terms of understanding our data, in terms of explaining what we have provided, and they’ve been very good meetings with very good questions.

Tim, Oppenheimer: And, when did you initially file the application for the rebranding? Yeah. How long has the process taken so far? Just remind me.

Miriam, NextNav: So we filed the petition April.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Right.

Miriam, NextNav: The PN, the public notice came out in August and concluded sometime in the end of the year. And then the NOI came out March. Those are extremely speedy movement for the FCC. And the NOI came into the March. They’re looking at the comments that were filed within those notice of inquiry to then evaluate what their decision would be going to the NPRM.

Our position is we should go to an NPRM. We should do it as fast as possible to solve this national security problem.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Okay. Any best guess on the timing of the NPRM, or you just can’t predict it from the outside? Yeah.

Miriam, NextNav: It’s gonna be very hard to predict what it’s their timing and their process. And right now, they have they’re there. They’re dealing with very important issues. Chairman Carr put out a a C band NOI. There’s the auction and and the spectrum bill.

There’s a lot on their plate. We like the fact that we’re also been prioritized, and we look forward to them treating us as a priority with all these other priorities that they have. So it’s gonna be their time. It’s gonna be their staff that is working with all of these important issues to determine how they get this to the next stage.

Tim, Oppenheimer: And to be clear, once once they do issue the notice of proposed rulemaking, how long does the comment period usually last and how long before that’s finalized? Yeah.

Miriam, NextNav: I mean, the NOI comment period was thirty days and fifteen days. There’s normally one comment and then one reply comment. I can’t tell what the NPRM comment period is going to be. They have ranges. Sometimes the C band NOI was a three month common period.

I mean, we were a lot quicker and faster common period on our NOI of Chairman Carr. So it’s hard to tell the way different things, but it could be anywhere from third 30 to 15 or longer than that. Thirty and fifteen is very speedy.

Tim, Oppenheimer: So what what you mean is so the public has, like, thirty days or a few months to make comments Yep. Then there are reply comments. So that could be, like, a two or three cycle process or usually, like, two cycle?

Miriam, NextNav: No. It could be it it could it would be more than that. So it’s first a comment period that could be, let’s say, two to three months. Then after that, they have to take the meetings. They have to talk to people.

They have to review. People will go in, advocate for their positions, so they’ll set aside time to discuss those comments. And then they’ll move into this is post NPRM since you asked to determining the writing the report in order. Writing these also takes time by the staff. Right?

They have to they’re comprehensive. The way it works as they say, company a said this, company b said this, entity c said this. Now we do this. It’s very intensive process. So it will take it’s months.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Okay. So we’re the whole process, we don’t know, but it could be another one to two years essentially Okay. From now.

Miriam, NextNav: I would love to I I’d like to I’d like to remind the FCC of the urgency while I can’t comment on their time, but this is an urgent issue. So we’re advocating, and we’ll continue to push that.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Got it. Okay. Good. So it seems like a very, very high likelihood that this is gonna be granted. You know, the FCC has a policy, I believe.

They wanna get as much spectrum into place as possible. They wanna grow the economy. Obviously, this is a a geopolitical issue, on many, many fronts. So it seems highly highly likely that it will be granted. So then the next step is, you you know, what you do to maximize the value of the spectrum, and what do you do to kinda get it built out and get it filled out into Yeah.

So, you know, what what do you think is the best way to build out the PNT once it’s granted?

Miriam, NextNav: So, you said sorry. And you

Tim, Oppenheimer: Oh, sorry. What is What will happen to the spectrum once it’s granted? What do you think is the process, you know, at that point once it’s granted? How how would you build it out, and how would you put it into into use? Yeah.

Miriam, NextNav: How would we put the PNT into use?

Tim, Oppenheimer: Well, the spectrum. How would you build out the spectrum? Yeah.

Miriam, NextNav: I am operator. Right? Which with a, either wireless facilities infrastructure provider. And I wanna make sure, am I cutting out? Because you were cutting out for me.

You can hear me. Right?

Tim, Oppenheimer: Yeah. I can hear you. Yeah. Yeah.

Miriam, NextNav: Okay. By partnering with, you know, most likely a five g operator, but there could be other partnerships. They will build the the network for five g, not for PNT. We will then use that five g network to enable PNT, and it will serve not only as a backup and complement, but also it could have value of commercial use cases. So partnership is our route.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Okay. And can you operate the P and T separate as a separate division within this build out, or was it most likely that the spectrum would get sold here?

Miriam, NextNav: It would be whatever that makes sense for a revenue share, but all options are right now on the table, and we were gonna pick the best option for us.

Tim, Oppenheimer: And does do you need any upgrades to handsets or other equipment to basically be able to use the PNT? And I guess the same thing for the cellular networks.

Miriam, NextNav: Not for the PNT, but for five g, any new spectrum that any operator actually deploys, and they will continue to do this, will have to go into handsets and and radios on towers. So it impacts both of them. It primarily impacts the radio. Some spectrum even need new antennas. We we sit in a very sweet spot.

So it’s it’s it’s within existing spectrum. But when you go up in frequencies, you’re gonna even need a lot more changes. And you’re gonna need a lot more sites for c band. But basically, for low band, you really are deploying on top of what you would have at 700 megahertz or 800 megahertz or 600 megahertz. It’s the same very close propagation characteristics.

So so you swap out the radios or add to the radios or combine radios. You do that on the towers. You also need to put new components in the handset or optimize them. Sometimes it’s very complex, but this time, you know, there’s existing equipment and existing filters that cover this band. So it’s a minimal change to the handset.

This is part of a routine that any operator today does. It goes three GPP standards. They get a band plan. They get the handset manufacturers to include it on a road map, the base station manufacturers to include it on the road map. It is not a complex issue to solve for an operator.

Now if you’re somebody who has very unique spectrum and it’s not doesn’t have any economies of scale and it’s not you’re not the big operators, yeah, sure. These things could be a challenge to get into the ecosystem. Apple is not gonna put your spectrum in because, you know, because it’s they they do volumes. But when you’re partnering with one of the operators, you absolutely for them, it’s a road map discussion.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Right. And do they new radios, do they have to put new antennas in also, or can they use existing ones?

Miriam, NextNav: I believe in this band, some of the operators definitely can use existing antennas. I mean, because of what they have currently on the towers.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Oh, okay. That that’s really that’s really, really that’s really helpful. And would your PNT take up much of the capacity where I guess, you know, the of the the 10 megahertz of downlink? Yeah.

Miriam, NextNav: So the PNT takes about two to 5% of the capacity, not the not the MECHERS. MECHERS is not split. This is a five g network that’s spewing energy, and it has signals that you turn on for this thing or that thing, and you turn it on for PNT in this case. When you turn on PNT, that requires a 2% to 5% capacity that’s not available for the broadband users that are using data voice communications on five g. So that’s the impact to them.

But our software and going back to the next question, because our PNT solution is software based, it doesn’t you know, that’s not a handset tower or any other capacity impact.

Tim, Oppenheimer: You’d have to upgrade there’d have to be incremental software in the handsets and in any IoT devices?

Miriam, NextNav: Just like like today, right now, our z access solution has an app in the background of the handset. So it’s not it’s not Apple, like, saying because when you get the real estate with the phone, it’s all about hardware limitations. If you’re not adding hardware and your app in the background on software, that’s a very different case. Yeah. So currently, our ZX that’s sitting on in in handsets for Verizon, that’s that’s operating in in software.

There’s no impact to the to the handset or the network.

Tim, Oppenheimer: And, you know, I often find in urban areas that the GPS is fairly inaccurate. I yeah. Have you ever compared your accuracy in, like, these urban areas of your PNT versus GPS?

Miriam, NextNav: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, I I wrote an article earlier this year in Forbes when I went to Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. I mean, it was a challenge. It was a big challenge finding places.

So, absolutely, our our we will solve that problem, which is a big commercial problem, not only in cities like Barcelona, but in New York City, you wanna get an Uber. You know, it’s it’s sometimes you’re not able to find the position properly. It is we have we are we have tested it with existing technology, and we will test again with five g technology when those towers are ready to go again early next year, but we’re trying to beat that timeline.

Tim, Oppenheimer: So if one of the three big carriers were to basically partner with you either buy you or license to Spectrum, do you think they’d be able to market a more accurate PNT service to their customers as part of their overall service plans?

Miriam, NextNav: Yeah. Absolutely. They could market a more accurate service. They could leverage the fact that it would be a backup to critical infrastructure. And they could have newer commercial use cases coming out of it because of precision on timing and and the positioning improvement in indoors is is much needed in in a lot of the commercial applications.

Yeah. It’s they could you know, collectively either together or if they buy it by themselves, they could absolutely leverage this.

Tim, Oppenheimer: I I mean, I know it’s hard to but how accurate is your PNT in urban areas? Is it down to centimeters, you know, meters? Yeah.

Miriam, NextNav: This is about you know, think about it as a coverage problem. Right? So what happens with satellite, it hits a building, and you’re not seeing the signal, so you can’t trilaterally. You get no you get positioning off. The 900 megahertz spectrum, it penetrates the buildings.

You see it, and you will be having the single digit accuracy that the GPS provides that in in open space. It doesn’t do it in urban. If you go to open space of GPS, it’s beautiful. You’re seeing all satellites, and you’re seeing is there’s no buildings. So we can do that when there’s buildings because 900 megahertz propagates, you know, indoors, and buildings are not a problem for it as much as a satellite.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Yeah. I mean, I I know surveyors that use I used to be a civil engineer in a prior life that use the GPS system very, very effectively. In in rural areas, I guess, the more satellites you can kind of triangulate to, the more accuracy you can get. So they can get down to, like, centimeter accuracy in rural areas Yeah. With certain equipment.

But urban areas, do you have a sense, like, in New York, is it does that, you know, decline to, you know, maybe, you know, a 100 meters and and you guys can kinda keep that centimeter accuracy?

Miriam, NextNav: Yeah. 100 meters is is not very good accuracy. We would definitely go single digits. So think of a number between one to nine. And then to your point, when the use case is there and a commercial monetization makes sense, you could actually do more to provide centimeter accuracy just like high precision GPS.

Right? It’s broad everywhere, certain accuracy, and then in areas like in agriculture there, they’ve actually deployed more to do centimeter. You don’t wanna do centimeter everywhere because that’s of no use. That’s a waste of resources. You wanna do it where you need it.

So can we do centimeter? Absolutely. But we’re gonna do that based on, you know, what’s the rate of return on on that extra cost.

Tim, Oppenheimer: But the one the one to nine you were referring to, is that feet, centimeters, meters? Yeah.

Miriam, NextNav: Meters. Meters.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Meter. One to nine meters. Okay. Got it.

Miriam, NextNav: Yeah. You wanna be you wanna be below nine for for good accuracy.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Okay. Got it. And that how much coverage do you think will get billed out? I know you’re covering, you know, over 90% of the country. Do you think the carriers will likely build out, you know, the entire country?

Miriam, NextNav: The carriers will could build out the entire country. They normally add a low band propagation spectrum is what gets also deployed in rural areas. Right? Nobody deploys c band or mid band in rural areas. So they could deploy that because it’s of use.

The propagation characteristics make economic sense. So, absolutely, they could deploy this. They’re definitely deployed in the urban areas where there’s a coverage problem, but they can also deploy it in the rural areas and match the footprint of their existing towers for for what they have as low band. T Mobile 600, Verizon, AT and T 700, eight fifty, these have already a footprint that’s nationwide.

Tim, Oppenheimer: And I guess worst case scenario, let’s say the FCC doesn’t grant your spectrum rebranding. What what’s plan b, if if any?

Miriam, NextNav: So, you know, we’re not and people ask this question to me. We’re not like a drug company where there’s a binary outcome for us. Our spectrum is very valuable. It will be put to use, and our technology is also valuable, and it will be put to use. We would like to focus on this because that’s the that’s, in our opinion, the highest return that solves the national security problem.

But and we don’t. We really are confident in this path, but that does not mean that if this path for very unlikely doesn’t pan out that all of a sudden we have a binary outcome. That’s not our case.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Got it. I mean, you could have some potentially geographic exclusion zones or lower power levels, or you might have to spend some money on upgrading, some existing equipment out there. So there’s definitely got it. There are definitely ways to fix this. And so then lastly, on the valuation front, you know, how did they come up with a 14,000,000,000 valuation?

And, you know, how do you think about the valuation of the spectrum?

Miriam, NextNav: Well, the Brattle Group was looking at a GPS loss. That’s different. They did not do spectrum valuation. So they they looked at how much would it be a loss to the economy and where GPS is used. As far as spectrum valuation for us, we have not put out any numbers, and we we actually if if someone’s interested in that, they should look at the recent transactions.

Right? Nobody can put out a number to say, this is what my spectrum’s worth. It’s all about timing. It’s all about the characteristics of the spectrum, and it’s very early for us to put a number on this. But recent transactions of low band, whether it’s 600 megahertz, whether it’s eight fifty megahertz spectrum, whether it’s any other spectrum that is in low band are good indicators for what low band spectrum’s worth.

Tim, Oppenheimer: And what was the average megahertz dollar per megahertz pop on those transactions?

Miriam, NextNav: So there was I mean, 600 megahertz has gone as averages of $2.70 that I that I’ve seen in some of the transactions. Eight fifty is very hard to say. I think anyone who’s looked at that, there’s a value associated with the 600 megahertz is the value associated with what the cash deal was with this as a Grain and T Mobile, But there’s also a return on when the spectrum is sold. So you have to take those, add that, and come up with a number. And then I I don’t wanna put any speculative numbers out there, but it’s a good low band value, I would say.

Those are those those will be two good indicators.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Above a dollar per megahertz pop anyway at the end of the CD?

Miriam, NextNav: I would say it’s I think, ultimately, when with the with the return to T Mobile from the cell of the spectrum, it could very well be above a dollar.

Tim, Oppenheimer: And I guess lastly, you are spending a lot of money on a, you know, monthly, quarterly basis. So is there a way to reduce expenses over the next, you know, couple of years? Or, you know, what what are you kind of, you know, spending, you know, the money on through this process here?

Miriam, NextNav: Yeah. We’re we’re have we’re really a small and mighty team, and we operate very efficiently. We have an existing live network that’s monitored twenty four seven. It’s a terrestrial network that’s deployed in The US. We have a commercial product that saves lives why by 911 callers on certain handsets of Verizon.

We work with FirstNet. So we’re we’re not a just, you know, this FCC process, which is very important to us, it’s not that. There’s a lot going on in the company. So the towers, the live network, the commercial products, the SLAs that we have, and we do this with very efficiently. So the significant cost that we will do have reduces, one, no taxpayer dollars and no need to raise billions of dollars to deploy a five g network.

I think that’s the best way to look at it. Right now, we’re operating very efficiently.

Tim, Oppenheimer: Great job, Maryam. Really appreciate the time, and, good luck with the whole process here. We’ll talk soon.

Miriam, NextNav: Thank you, Tim. It’s always a pleasure talking to you. Thank you so much.

Tim, Oppenheimer: You too. Bye bye.

Miriam, NextNav: Bye.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.