Is The SpaceX Asteroid About To Impact The TelCo & Cable Dinosaurs?
Authored by Simon Duff via BondVigilantes.com,
SpaceX’s IPO was a gargantuan event by any measure: US$75 billion proceeds raised, over US$2 trillion enterprise value, and an almost US$29 trillion total addressable market to feast on. Few other companies can rival its industrial span and potential seismic impact on consumers and competitors. SpaceX’s valuation is driven by its sci-fi AI segment replete with space-based data centres and moon bases. However, its more immediate impact maybe felt in the more down to earth world of telecom.
SpaceX’s cash cow is the Connectivity segment where it operates a constellation of 9,600 low earth orbit (“LEO”) satellites under the Starlink brand.
These provide broadband and in-fill mobile voice & data services to consumers in predominantly remote areas where terrestrial broadband and mobile networks are patchy or absent.
In addition, Starlink offers broadband services to ships and aircraft where terrestrial networks are entirely absent.
In 2025, the Connectivity unit generated US$3 billion free cash flow (EBITDA less capex) from almost 9 million broadband and over 6 million mobile global subscribers and from its corporate contracts with airlines and ship operators.
By way of comparison, the 5 largest US telecom & cable players generated almost US$111bn free cash flow (EBITDA less capex) and had approximately 95m broadband subscribers and 275m mobile postpaid subscribers.
Looking at those stats you would be forgiven for thinking that US telecom & cable operators don’t have all that much to worry about. The problem is that this is just the beginning for controlling shareholder and CEO Musk who has proved himself a visionary with Olympian levels of ambition and matching access to capital.
Using the latest and largest Starship rockets, Musk plans to launch 10,000 next generation V3 satellites from late 2026. Each of these satellites will have 1 terabit of capacity, which is 10x the capacity of the current V2 satellites. This ramped capacity will boost current median download speeds (225Mbps) to levels on a par with fibre and cable terrestrial alternatives. It will also allow pricing to come down (vs the current US$66 average cost per month). True, there are issues around the need for “line of sight” from the dish to the satellite in dense urban areas and practical difficulties around installation in multi dwelling unit (MDU) housing blocks. But these are portions of the market and hence a break rather than a block on roll out and uptake.
Obviously, the incumbent operators will not sit there like lemons waiting to be squeezed. Instead they can try to lock in their bases via converged broadband and mobile bundles, often at a discount (as both AT&T and Verizon’s recent offers implied). Or they can simply cut their standalone broadband pricing. Either way, the risk is broadband subscriber losses, or revenue per subscriber decline, or a combination of both. And this would be in a market that no longer benefits from immigration or housing build tailwinds that historically increased the total available economic pie in the US. Most exposed to this risk are the US’s dominant broadband providers: the cable operators. Both Comcast and Charter equity have fallen approx. 30% & 70% in the last year, respectively, with the pace of decline picking up notably as the SpaceX IPO bandwagon rolled into town.
However, does Musk stop there?
If we can think of an incumbent bundled defensive play then we are pretty darned sure that Musk can too. So how would he counter the incumbents’ counter? In short, by going mobile. At present, the party line from the telecom operators is that Starlink’s “direct to device” (D2D) service is a pure complementary in-fill service to supplement mobile operators’ existing coverage and nothing more. However, their behaviour suggests otherwise. All three players (Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile) have been clear that they will not offer Starlink a “virtual network” agreement enabling Musk to re-badge and re-sell their mobile service.
Similarly, all three were swift to announce a D2D JV that would enable them to present a united front to Starlink on future negotiations.
Assuming the US mobile players hold this line and are allowed to do so by regulators, then Starlink has two options if it’s serious about offering mobile beyond remote areas: build or buy a terrestrial network. To build its own mobile network Starlink would need spectrum and terrestrial infrastructure (towers, fibre backhaul, network radios). Starlink already has access to 65 Mhz of terrestrial spectrum (different from the spectrum it uses to offer broadband) that was acquired from Echostar. Although dwarfed by the incumbents’ spectrum holdings, Starlink’s network would be relatively empty and upcoming auctions offer the chance to supplement these holdings. Furthermore, Echostar (a 3% SpaceX shareholder) could play a complementary role as either an acquisition target or partner that brings with it a range of network related assets/agreements that could facilitate a Starlink mobile network roll out. Not least of which is a multi-year AT&T national roaming deal that AT&T has been tight-lipped on confirming or denying a change of control break clause to prevent Starlink exploiting this valuable contract.
And Echostar is not the only option. When Musk was recently asked if he could consider buying Verizon he said that “it was not out of the question”. To be clear, Verizon’s market capitalisation is less than 10% of SpaceX’s and also brings with it valuable FCF (YE25: US$20bn). Lastly, we don’t think it is any co-incidence that the rumour mill has been spinning with regard to German incumbent Deutsche Telekom buying out its 54% owned subsidiary, T-Mobile USA. If Musk is going to be on a shopping spree you probably want to own 100% of what he might want to buy and T-Mobile USA offers the best mobile network, deepest mobile spectrum portfolio and the least “redundant” broadband exposure of all the US players. Unfortunately AT&T is probably overly endowed in this latter area with 38m fibre homes passed and hence unlikely to be of interest to SpaceX. All in all, we see the potential for a single mobile player being acquired as cold comfort to the US telcos relative to the potential step change in the competitive dynamic across the broader ecosystem.
And who is best insulated from all this potential disruption?
From an industrial perspective, towers look well positioned.
If the US goes to four networks, demand for space on the towers will increase whilst, if SpaceX acquires an incumbent, tower demand should at least remain steady no matter how squeezed the incumbent operators’ margins become.
From a geographical perspective, a combination of Europe’s lower pricing from years of fierce competition & regulation, SpaceX’s lack of terrestrial spectrum, and Europe’s higher urban and MDU density make it a much harder market to attack.
Ironically, European telcos that have long played second fiddle to their US counterparts on competitive dynamics, growth rates and FCF generation might now heave a sigh of relief and actually be thankful for the harsh regulation and competitive dynamics they previously railed against.
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
