True

$ASTS

Bank of America - reiterates $85 PT
Deutsche Bank - raises PT to $81
Roth - raises PT to $82.50
B Riley - raises PT to $95
Cantor Fitzgerald - raises PT to $80

$ASTS $50 congrats spacemob. We are just starting though so buckle in!

Spacemob, please don’t sell so cheaply to Wall Street. Hold $ASTS!

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Space Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seek Comment on Filings of SpaceX and T-Mobile Requesting to Establish Supplemental Coverage from Space Application for Authority for Modification of the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System to Add a Direct to Cellular System ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) GN Docket No. 23-135; ICFS File Nos. SAT- MOD-20230207-00021, SAT-AMD-20240322- 00061 Call Sign S3069 ECHOSTAR CORPORATION’S APPLICATION FOR REVIEW EchoStar Corporation (“EchoStar”) respectfully seeks Commission review of the Space Bureau’s decision to grant SpaceX’s waiver of the aggregate out-of-band interference limits for supplemental coverage from space (“SCS”).1 Instead of finding that harmful interference would be unlikely at the higher power levels proposed by SpaceX, the Bureau failed to make any decision about the likelihood of harmful interference, granted the waiver, and put the burden on EchoStar to protect itself. That decision was not reasoned, because the Bureau failed to show that the Commission’s concerns underlying Section 25.202(k)(1) had changed, been eliminated, or rendered unlikely. It was also erroneous because the plain text of the Communications Act vests the Commission with the responsibility to “prevent interference” before it happens.2 Addressing interference after it already happens does not meet that mark.

2 burden to the Commission, not EchoStar. Given all this, the waiver grant could not have plausibly served the public interest. The Commission should reverse the Bureau. QUESTION PRESENTED In March 2024, the Commission adopted the SCS Order, which, among other things, set an aggregate out-of-band of band interference limit for supplemental coverage from space services.3 The Commission described that limit as “necessary” to protect wireless operators from harmful interference, and proponents of weaker limits provided “no evidence” supporting their claims.4 Despite that, less than a year later, the Space Bureau adopted the Waiver Order, waiving this limit for SpaceX without deciding that harmful interference would be unlikely.5 Did this decision improperly conflict with the SCS Order, Section 303(f) of the Communications Act, and the good cause standard for waivers in Section 1.3 of the Commission’s rules?6 BACKGROUND The SCS Order crafted a regulatory framework for SCS service, including licensing and service rules to prevent harmful interference. One of those rules is Section 25.202(k)(1), setting the aggregate out-of-band interference limit for the service at -120 dBW/m2/MHz.7 The

8 agency by the statute.”35 The Communications Act tasks the Commission with making “such regulations not inconsistent with law as it may deem necessary to prevent interference between stations[.]”36 The Commission’s SCS Order did that for SCS by adopting the aggregate out-of- band interference limit in Section 25.202(k)(1) that was “necessary” to protect adjacent-band wireless networks from harmful interference.37 Despite the Commission’s prior finding that out-of-band interference concerns warrant a rule limiting aggregate emissions, the Bureau waived Section 25.202(k)(1) as requested by SpaceX.38 In doing so, the Bureau failed to determine that the harmful interference concerns described in the SCS Order that led to the adoption of Section 25.202(k)(1) had been eliminated. Instead, all the Bureau said was that “SpaceX has provided engineering analyses in support of its claim that harmful interference in adjacent bands is unlikely” and that “T-Mobile, an adjacent band terrestrial operator . . . presents its own technical analyses in which it concludes that the waiver poses a low likelihood of harmful interference.”39 That is as far as it went. The Bureau never endorsed the conclusions of either analysis, nor did it reject the technical claims of AT&T, Verizon, and EchoStar raised in the records for both the SCS Order and the Waiver Order. AT&T demonstrated that it would suffer a devastating 18% reduction in throughput.40 But the Waiver Order allowed SpaceX to operate at higher power levels regardless. This failure to rule

9 out harmful interference conflicts with the SCS Order’s technical reasons for adopting Section 25.202(k)(1). The Bureau tried to cover this hole in its decisionmaking by conditioning SpaceX’s authorization on a requirement to not cause harmful interference and to address any complaints of harmful interference from adjacent band users.41 But this condition contravenes the Communications Act’s mandate to make rules that “prevent interference between stations[.]”42 As the Supreme Court has held, the word “prevent” means “to render (an intended, possible, or likely action or event) impractical or impossible by anticipatory action.”43 In other words, “prevent” means to stop something before it happens. Accordingly, the Commission’s statutory responsibility is to make rules that stop harmful interference at its inception, just like Section 25.202(k)(1) is supposed to do. But unlike an aggregate power limit, the condition in the Waiver Order allows SpaceX and T-Mobile to interfere with adjacent band users like EchoStar up until EchoStar detects and reports the interference. Because this non-anticipatory measure only kicks in after EchoStar suffers from harmful interference, it does not satisfy the prevention required by the plain text of the Communications Act. In any event, the Bureau knows that it is immensely difficult for carriers to detect a particular source of interference. In reality, the condition forces EchoStar to take up this burden just to keep its basic rights as a licensee. Yet Congress placed the burden to prevent harmful interference on the Commission and those causing it, not the victim operators.44

Nice to see Echostar push back on the FCC's "arbitrary and capricious" decision to grant the SpaceX request for a waiver of the OOBE limit. $ASTS 🥊
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/documen...

After a long slumber Barclays updates their price target for $ASTS to $38.

This Week: Connecting First Responders with FirstNet President Scott Agnew - The Week with Roger Analysts Don Kellogg and Roger Entner are joined by Scott Agnew, President of AT&TFirstNet, to discuss their ongoing commitment to public safety and...

FirstNet has reached an agreement with @ast-science.com $ASTS 🤝💍!!! Minute 9 or so. Only thing we need now is the official PR.
the-week-with-roger.captivate.fm/episode/this...

Google owns 8,943,486 $ASTS shares. That’s more than AT&T and Verizon.

And Google has signed a Satellite Connectivity Services Agreement on October 18, 2024 with ASTS.

$ASTS updated chart by Nomadbets

$ASTS. “Subscription fees may decline to around $16 per month by 2035”

Spacemob was just hoping for $1-3 per month. $16 would be incredible!

$ASTS. Check out this Goldman Sach report…

Working on 40 Block 2 Bluebirds with parts ordered for 50.
Exercised launch option for 50-60 satellites!
Working on more non-dilutive funding such as pre-payments and Export / Import bank funding OVER $500M! yippee!

$ASTS valuation projections

Scotia Bank $ASTS Update

AT&T, FirstNet, and $ASTS are coming!

Verizon completes its first satellite to cellular enabled video call with AST SpaceMobile BlueBird 2 MIDLAND, Texas, Feb. 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Verizon and AST have yet again pushed the boundaries of what can be done with mobile devices by...

Verizon and $ASTS make video call!

👀 $ASTS

Why Europe’s satellite policies must support a new era of connectivity We now have the technology to ensure people can stay connected no matter where they are — but we need the EU’s backing for it to become ubiquitous

$ASTS article from Politico EU

www.politico.eu/sponsored-co...

New $ASTS STAs for more gateways!

Late comer T Rowe decided to go all in in Q4.

T Rowe Purchased 2.82 million $ASTS shares and now holds a total of 2.91 million shares.

Keep adding more #SpaceMob

Dogs are always good.

The merger between satellite and cellular industries: not (yet) a marriage made in heaven? Almost one year ago, at the Mobile World Congress, the Global System for Mobile Communications Association and Global Satellite Operators Association announced their cooperation to foster innovatio…

A great read regarding the different approaches to D2D. I believe $ASTS is taking the best approach.

Screenshot of @spacnpanman Xitter post comparing the SpaceX and $ASTS valuation over many years.

I periodically post high quality $ASTS content from Xitter as a service to those who have rightfully abandoned that platform. I'm doing my best to lure a special 🐈 over here but still WIP. In any case, this chart is great. I'm a skeptic of the SpaceX private value however...

Vanguard added 4,955,941 more $ASTS shares in Q4.

They own a huge total of 14,987,351 shares!

AT&T owns 2.7% of $ASTS!

6,260,440 shares.

Screen shot from Xitter where Palmer Luckey (CEO of Anduril) claims to be an investor in $ASTS.

Markit data showing the estimated net short position in $ASTS by day. Current short position is ~ 51M shares. The convertible debt added about 7-8 million shares which were scooped up by eager investors who recognize the long term value.

For anyone wondering why $ASTS had such a strong move higher today I say there are several reasons. 1, chart breakout last week, 2. TMobile promotion of D2D service at high $/month, and 3 & 4 in the screen shots below. Anduril + $ASTS is a great fit. Short interest is high post conv debt offering.