Good morning, everyone. It's Tim Horan, the cloud and communications analyst here at Oppenheimer. My pleasure to be hosting on our second day of our Tech and Communications Conference, the NextNav management team. We have both the CEO and CFO. Mariam Sorond joined in November and quickly doubled the stock price. Christian has been with the company since before they became public. With that, Mariam, I don't know if you have any, or Christian, you know, any opening regulatory or comments you need to make. You know, if not, Mariam, maybe we just talk about a little bit of kind of your background and you know, why you joined the company. I know you have extensive technical background, and you know spectrum extremely well, so it seems like a perfect complement, but some more color there would be great. Yeah, absolutely. First of all, thank you, Tim, for having us in this fireside chat, really appreciate the opportunity. Disclaimer would be all related to forward-looking statements and typical statements that come with that. So with that, just my background comes from basically commercializing technology and making sure that spectrum is repurposed and rebanded and put to use for telecom operators. I've done it with several companies in the past, starting at Nextel, then a company called ICO, then Dish Network. I was the chief wireless architect working over there on basically starting from incubation of all the different pieces of spectrum that was acquired, whether in auction or through transactions, and basically putting together a spectrum position that allowed for Dish to become the fourth wireless operator. Also, I've worked on the 5G technologies extensively, starting at the Open RAN days, and basically commercialized a lot of the new technologies. As it relates to NextNav, here we have an incredible opportunity to solve a national security problem, which is a backup and complement to GPS, and while solving that national security problem, we will unleash or have the opportunity to have 15 MHz of nationwide 5G broadband spectrum for use for operators, while leveraging a signaling capability in there to make sure that PNT is served. We submitted this to the FCC on April 16th, and recently there was a PN issued. We're very excited about this and solving such a huge problem for our nation. Also- Great. Oh, sorry. So while we're on the topic, and I want to start back from the beginning on, you know, going into positioning navigation and timing, why that's important, and then, you know, get into a lot more details on, the basically spectrum swap you're looking to do. But, you know, at a high level, I know you sit on some boards that are very important for spectrum, the NTIA Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee and the FCC Technological Advisory Council, so you have a lot of insight into the public policy of the U.S. regarding spectrum, and obviously regarding PNT. But maybe just, you know, starting on the spectrum front, because I think it's very important. You know, just at a high level, what's the FCC's goals and the NTIA's goals regarding, you know, spectrum and wireless, broadly speaking? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I've served on the CSMAC since 2014, and then, more recently, the FCC TAC, and also been involved with multiple spectrum initiatives, from the technology perspective. Also included in almost all the most recent auctions and how bands, plans were created, and often, a speaker or an advisor in this context for spectrum technology and as it forms the policy for the nation. Basically, I think, you know, the FCC is from the PN that they put out, the public notice, they're taking this proposal very seriously. I think this commission has been challenged in the sense of not having auction authority, so they've lost auction authority due to some background reasons. Basically, the opportunity to put 15 MHz of spectrum to broadband use while not having auction authority is an incredible opportunity for them. So I think their perspective might be to look at that aspect and also to look at the national security crisis. This has become a focus for federal agencies, not just, you know, the FCC and the NTIA, who care about this, but also the Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security. We've been working with a lot of these agencies over the years, and basically, there's no question right now that the U.S. needs a complement and a backup to GPS. I think it's the solution that basically that we have presented that I think is a compelling solution, and it's being taken very seriously across multiple agencies. Notably, we just got awarded from the Department of Transportation, a grant, it's the highest dollar value grant, among nine companies that this was given to, and the Department of Transportation in the past has identified us as a PNT leader. So we know the technology really well, and obviously, I've done a lot of the spectrum work, to know that this opportunity is incredible. So I do believe that the FCC and NTIA and all the related agencies are looking at this carefully and closely. So can you elaborate a little bit more, why do we need another PNT network when GPS is working, you know, so well? And are you more accurate? I know you also have some vertical positioning technology that's quite unique, and that seems to be extremely accurate, and obviously, GPS can't do that. But yeah, just elaborate on that a little bit more. ... GPS is an incredible technology, by the way. It's everywhere. It's not just in how we use maps and navigation and positioning, right? It's in our critical infrastructure, it's in our financial transactions, banking, transportation, agriculture. The positioning and also the timing reference is a critical aspect in our daily lives and our economy. That's how significant and important GPS is, but it's single-sourced, and it's provided by satellites. So what that means is that satellites, basically, you know, are very weak when the signal gets to the Earth level, and so they can't penetrate walls, so we don't have indoor positioning and timing from GPS. We also, if anyone's tried to get a cab in New York or Uber, you know how that works in urban canyons. It's just inherent to satellites. So GPS is incredible, but it needs a complement in the sense of having indoor, and unleashes a lot of use cases and also, you know, really addressing the urban canyon situation. So, the backup comes from the fact that satellites are very vulnerable. Basically, the recent events worldwide, whether it's what's happening in the Ukraine or in the Middle East, have demonstrated that how GPS could be used by adversaries to really cripple things. For example, you know, spoofing and jamming. When satellite signals are this weak when they get here, it's very easy to jam. You can't jam a cellular signal. So that's why a terrestrial backup is what makes sense, because another satellite backup will have the same vulnerabilities. Also, the fact that satellites can be really taken out very easily, right? They fly all over the Earth. There's been threats, from, from Russia in the news. There's been a lot of, both journal and post articles highlighting this, if anyone's interested to look at it, on, on all of these threats. In fact, you know, the jamming also, and the spoofing has been picking up a lot. So there's the very heightened awareness of these vulnerabilities of GPS. The one country in the world that does have a terrestrial backup to basically address satellite-related positioning vulnerabilities is China. And we don't have it. So it's very critical for us to do this in order for us to address all of these vulnerabilities, and also the fact that it provides other use cases. So you touched upon the vertical position. So GPS is incredible in providing horizontal position, or what we call the XY-axis, so where you are on Earth, your coordinates, you know, this is all really provided by GPS. Vertical positioning, meaning which level of a floor you are on or how high up you are, is today primarily provided by what is a barometric pressure sensor in handsets. And so based on that, we take that and extract that data, and we could say what floor you are. The one of the critical applications this serves is for E911 calls. If you're in a building and you call 911, and the responder needs to know which floor you're at, the accuracy provided by barometric pressure sensors really needed, needs some calibration. So what we've done is we've deployed this nationwide, close to nationwide network of basically sensors that take weather information and calibrate that signal to be able to give you floor-level accuracy. And that's defined by the FCC as plus and minus three meters, 'cause if you're off by that, then you could miss a floor. That is a commercial product. It's being used in the Verizon network and among other use cases today in other operators that we have. That's also highlighting the vertical position necessity that basically it's very hard for satellites, right, to provide. Sure. So what are T-Mobile and AT&T using for vertical positioning? Because I think it's a requirement for them to have vertical positioning now. So there is definitely FCC mandates, and there's upcoming dates associated with them. Currently, handsets like Apple and Android handsets do have a barometric pressure sensor. Any handset that provides or has a barometric pressure sensor gives you vertical positioning. There's a debate out there, whether that's floor level or not. We do something additional to the handset, so that's what many of these phones rely on. There's also handsets that are not as accurate, so we go a level beyond that to get that accuracy to even sometimes ±2 meters, but that's what they rely on, the sensor in the phone. How accurate is that versus your ±2 meters, the phone sensor? Yeah. I think I'll leave that to comment for, you know... There's the CTIA and various other operators are engaged in, in- Okay ... assessing that. I can speak to our own solution. That can get as good as ±2. But I think other handsets or what's happening, there's definitely in the works, there's existing reports that could point to that data. Okay, great. Can you maybe just elaborate on just what your secret sauce is or your intellectual property for PNT? I obviously know you have the spectrum, which is critical, but, you know, why else are you better than everyone else at doing PNT? Well, first of all, there's no terrestrial positioning provided solution out there by anyone... So we're the only ones who have a spectrum asset and have the capability to use that spectrum to provide a beacon, and right now we're doing that as part of the 5G waveform to be able to fit into ecosystems. I don't think there's anyone else with a solution like that. Are there positioning and navigation and timing solutions? Absolutely, there are. They're satellite-based, there are things that take LTE signals, there are other ones, but this is a very unique solution that is able to, number one, be able to be a backup to an actual system that is highly as accurate as GPS. GPS is very accurate, right? So, one, it needs to be as accurate as GPS for backup, and it has a vertical, so it has X, Y, and Z, and also the timing signal. I think we're a leader, and also the fact that we have the spectrum asset to be able to do this is very unique right now. I guess in urban areas, you're probably more accurate than GPS. Is that accurate? I mean, I think that in urban areas, because of the urban canyon problem that satellites have, right, because of the buildings- Sure ... and the shadowing, then a terrestrial base, inherently, just when you have a signal coming from a tower and Earth versus something from the sky, it's gonna be stronger. Okay. Therefore, it's better in calculating- Right ... the position. Do you have any patents or many patents or other intellectual property protecting this? We do. There's a lot of patents that we've had over the years. I mean, obviously, NextNav has been a leader in the PNT industry across all of our solutions, and more recently, we have filed patents that are related to how we use the spectrum in the 900-MHz spectrum, leveraging 5G signals. Great. Actually a lot to talk about. Can you just maybe talk about what the business model looks like for PNT, and are there new applications, you know, you can enable? But, you know, I guess, you know, what generates the incremental revenue to support the network? So first, I mean, we have to take this a step at a time. Right now, there's a public notice out by the FCC. That public notice unleashes the ability to use the 15 MHz of spectrum. As we've stated publicly, that will be built by a wireless carrier, right? Wireless carriers today are continuously adding spectrum because capacity demand is increasing, and especially something like low band, especially something as compelling as this spectrum width in low band. Oftentimes people kind of think this is not enough spectrum. I just really wanna remind everyone that you can't compare apples and oranges when you talk about mid-band, and you talk about millimeter wave region. Those come with higher spectrum depths. Below 1 GHz, or the sweet spot that we're in right now, which is the 700 MHz to 1 GHz, and then we've gone down to 600, obviously MHz, that does not have this kind... that much of a spectrum depth availability. It's, first of all, it's just, what? 350 MHz. Second, it's a lot of use. It was the original cellular bands. So this is an incredible amount of spectrum. So we believe that the operators would be interested in this kind of a depth for low band. So they will be spending the CapEx to build this 5G network, and we will just take that signal and use it. Now, that business model could look, have various, actually options to it, for example, leasing, for example, revenue sharing, for example, you know, whatever that's in our shareholder interest in order to be able to, use this spectrum. We're not there yet. It's really premature to talk about what that is. We still have to go through the FCC proceeding. We need to get the spectrum and the report and order done, and I think along with it will come the carrier interest of what the model actually looks like, on what are these options, and we're gonna be very listening- Well, I was implying a little bit more on PNT, like if we- Right ... if someone builds out a new PNT network, how do they get revenue from that? And what, how much revenue can they get? Absolutely, I'll address it, but I just wanted to say- Sure ... that the spectrum asset itself has a revenue, right? For example, in a leasing model, it has revenue. For example, you know, obviously there's growth potential here with the acquisition of it or the leasing of it, or the spectrum itself could have a revenue share model, meaning, for example, a 5G operator says, "You know, I don't wanna lease it, I don't wanna buy it, but I'll share revenues." But those are 5G revenues, they're not PNT revenue. So I wanna highlight there's a revenue associated with it. Yeah, of course. Of course. Yeah, yeah. That is significant. So then, PNT itself has a large addressable market today. I mean, there's NIST reports that talk about this value, and there's a huge addressable market. Basically, you know, one, let's talk about the backup of it. If we lose GPS, it costs our economy $1 billion a day. Second, there's actually, the markets that we would look in are in $ billions of total addressable market that we would look at that have an opportunity for revenue. So there is a revenue opportunity there. It's just that this is the first step, that's the second step. Yeah, you know, I understand that. I was just saying, ultimately, I know there's two different buckets. It's the PNT bucket, and really it's using the spectrum as a normal usage of mobile or private, you know, wireless networks. But you think it's still, for PNT, $ billions addressable market ultimately? Yeah. Is that paid for? Yeah. ... I don't wanna so there's, there's numbers out there that says it's a $1 trillion economy, just, just to let you know, right? Right. But our TAM, so GPS positioning itself is a very large addressable market. Okay. And who pays for that? Sorry? And who would pay for that? Like, I guess for PNT, like, where do the revenues come from out of PNT directly? Is that paid for by the government? Is it paid for specific applications? It could be all of the above. Okay. The government could pay for it, on backup and complement. There could be military use for it. There could be civilian use for it, and there's also the use cases that give you vertical position. Obviously, right now we have a positioning revenue-generating Z-axis, right? So vertical location has its own revenue. XY has its own revenue. Right. I think there's future use cases with respect to multiple, you know, sort of, navigation and aerial navigation that is being looked at, so there's various use cases in it. Okay, great. So just switching gears onto the spectrum, I think you own, well, initially you owned roughly 8 MHz on average. I mean, I know it varies quite a bit, and you just acquired or are acquiring an additional 4 MHz, so you'll have 12, and then you have a proposal to do some swapping with the FCC to get 15 nationwide. Is that reasonably accurate? Correct. We have about 3.5 billion MHz-POP with our spectrum holdings today, the existing 8 MHz and the newly acquired 4 MHz licenses. We also have the rights to some terminated licenses that I'm not counting as part of the 3.5 billion MHz-POPs, or doesn't get counted in when we talk about 8 + 4 or 12 MHz in some markets. So that's what we hold right now, and then we're proposing a swap that's in the public benefit to the FCC for a single 15 MHz nationwide license. That would be 10 MHz down, 5 up? Currently, that's how we've configured the band, right, but we would- that's a process. You go through the FCC, right? You have to look at the comments. You have to look at operator interest. You have to look at, you know, what makes sense, but we believe that this is a really good shot to basically start the dialogue and discussion to, to be able to then form what goes into the NPRM. Got it, and are you vacating any of your spectrum to clean up the spectrum or, you know, to swap? Like, I guess the question is, the spectrum you're gonna be getting, what's it being used for now? Are there any impediments to the swap technologically or usage-wise, yeah? Well, we don't, we don't see any major problems, right? Every time you do a spectrum repurposing... So obviously, we have existing licenses. We want these to be moved around a little bit to make it such that it's attractive for 5G broadband. We want the rules, which are very outdated, a command and control rules, to be updated, to reflect what today's industry needs. And every time you do that, you obviously have to look at the stakeholders in the band. This band has other stakeholders in it, which is why the purpose of a public notice is to get the stakeholders to comment. We obviously have reached out to the stakeholders. We've had dialogue with the stakeholders, whether it's the federal agency use of it or whether it's the LMS use of it that's site-based, and the multiple entities over there and, or whether it's the unlicensed use. So we've reached out, and, and I think the PN process will help even further, you know, sort of, this, these findings, where people would say what the impact to them is. But currently, based on our initial analysis, we don't see a problem that can't be worked out, but we obviously have to go through a process. Okay, got it. So those are the three uses right now. There's some unlicensed LMS and federal use. Amateur radio as well. Amateur radio. And, if they move to another band, does that require any hardware upgrades on their part? I don't anticipate anyone needing to move to another band at this point. Okay, great. And so then they don't really need any hardware upgrades either at... yeah, in any form or fashion. Well, it's within the band, meaning there's the 900 and 902 and 928 MHz, right? Yeah. There could be that some licenses need to retune the frequencies because now there'll be no overlap. It will be retuning, but it will be within the band. They not outside of this region. Okay, so they don't want, they won't need new radios? We don't know if there will be any new radios needed. Sometimes radios have the ability to be retuned because they see the whole band, right? And then you could, you could move something from here to there. Okay. Sometimes radios are needed to be upgraded. We wouldn't know that at this stage, but we will get smarter on this after the PN process. Okay, got it. And if some of the radios have to be upgraded, would you guys pay for that, or would... You know, who pays for that? I think it's very premature to discuss that before we even know if. Okay ... if there is a problem. So first, you have to identify a problem, right? I mean, if you don't... You know, if you get interfered with or you think you're gonna interfere with someone, you come out and you comment, you look at the data. Then you look at, does it need a swap? Does it need a retuning? And then you talk about, okay, who's responsible for paying for this. Okay, got it. Got it. And then, so I firmly believe the FCC is gonna approve this, and I didn't wanna waste too much time on it. I know there's a process that'll probably take another year, and you've discussed the process, you know, pretty or very in a lot of detail. But when you have the 15 MHz, you know, obviously from the FCC's point of view, this it's gonna improve PNT, it's also gonna improve our mobile probably mobile networks. But do you think the spectrum and this PNT, does it make more sense to end up in a private network situation, like Anterix is doing for electric utilities, or would it be more valuable, you know, with public companies like Verizon or T-Mobile? So, actually we want the spectrum to be used for 5G broadband. Okay. So it's not a utilities-based or IoT-based spectrum, okay? So it's not that. Now, with that said, an operator could decide to run private networks if they wanted to in their network- Right ... or serve the utilities market if they wanted to. But we envision that valuable spectrum and low band that has this kind of a depth, its primary purpose is gonna be for 5G broadband. Okay. Got it, got it. And is there any issue around doing PNT and broadband on the same spectrum band? Is there any interference at all? Not at all, because the 5G, as it's defined in the 3GPP standards, has an existing, within the standards, an existing framework for what is known as a PRS or positioning reference signal. So you don't need any modifications or any enhancements to an existing 5G radio, it's a matter of turning the signaling on, and then our software, which is just purely software-based, you take that data, and you calculate the P and the T, and then ultimately what gets used for the N. Which is why, you know, we changed our technology direction earlier this year, to be able to not have any modifications, such that when a 5G operator deploys this just for 5G broadband, then PNT is automatically available through the standards. And so basically, it's just software at that point? After that, it's purely software. It's like our vertical position, right? We take the data from the existing network operators or the handset that's existing within standards-based, no modification, and then our software calculates the vertical location. It'll be very similar to that. Now, the turning on the PRS is about, as we have estimated, it's about 2%-5% of capacity of a 5G network, which would get used to turn on. It's an estimate for that signal. Okay, got it. And the signal being much better than anyone else can get, I mean, would any particular carrier be forced to open it up to the other carriers, or would they have a competitive advantage on PNT that... Would the government be okay with that? I know, like, AT&T's got a first responder network, which is somewhat of a competitive advantage, you know, than their peers. Yeah, I guess, would any one carrier owning this be allowed? We have to go through the FCC process to see how, first of all, the FCC thinks around this, and then also what the ultimate partner that we have will think around this. I think that's more of a business model question. Nothing in the technology or anything prevents having this widely used. Got it. Got it. And then, I mean, how expensive or complex would it be for the carriers to build out 900? I know they have 800, built out 700, 600. It would be a relatively, you know, new band for them. Would it be worth the expense and the complexity for the amount of capacity they're getting? Well, exactly. That's why it's very important to look at spectrum depth, right? Right. Sometimes carriers will not spend, 'cause it's a radio, and a new radio, and it's a new antenna. They're not gonna most likely spend something for 3 + 3 MHz of spectrum and low band, okay? And I wanna be clear, I'm just talking low band. When you get to mid-band, when you get to C-band, when you get to millimeter wave, you're talking about hundreds of MHz or 500 MHz over that, right? Sure. With low band, we're talking about certain depths. Most spectrum, that was the auctions and the blocks, came in 5 + 5 MHz of spectrum. So carriers bought 5 + 5 MHz of spectrum, and they deployed it. The 700 MHz band, the 800 MHz band, 600 MHz band, they were 5 + 5 blocks. In some cases, sure, a carrier went after a 10 + 10. Very rarely, that's not even available in 700 or 800, MHz, but in 600 MHz, very rarely a 20 MHz block. So, so that's where, where it makes sense. So low-band spectrum, this is the kind of depths we've looked at, 5 + 5, 10 + 10. So, and another statistics that would help you is that we looked at across the, the four major MNOs. They have about average 25 MHz of downlink spectrum, 25 MHz. A 10 MHz downlink would be a 40% increase to their existing. That's significant, right? So that's talking about a depth that makes sense to spend the CapEx, but sometimes it doesn't make sense to spend the CapEx. In this case, it does make sense. If you're increasing your low band by 40%, then yeah, it's very likely that you would go spend it. Now, what that dollar amount is, it varies. Every operator is gonna be different. Every operator is gonna have a different spend. There could be an operator who's already deploying radios, and they'll just add one to it. One operator may have to wait a little bit longer to deploy radios. Everything is very operator-based. Got it. And I know, like, for example, AT&T is deploying, you know, O-RAN nationwide. I think it's more mid-band, but you would know a lot better than me. You know, a lot of that has MIMO in it with a lot of radios. I know this band is very separate, but do you have a rough idea of how complex that is? You know, how much would it be? Do they need new antennas and just new radios? You know, any thoughts around that would be helpful. So I think any new spectrum needs a new radio. The question is how easy that radio is. 900 MHz has existing equipment. You don't have to... And there's a lot of overlap with 3GPP bands. So that's very important, 'cause you don't have to go and spec out a new PA or a power amplifier. Antennas typically sometimes cover wide ranges of bands. But I mean, if it would be, let's say, a radio, and in some operator cases, it may be a new antenna, I think that that's what you're looking at with this band. But it's really great that it's existing in the ecosystems. And I'll highlight, like, 600 MHz, when it came out, it wasn't, right? 600 MHz was needed new power amplifiers, new filters, the device ecosystem, especially when it gets larger, and equipment, it was challenging. But this 900 MHz is not, because there's existing bands around it. Your 10 MHz, is that all contiguous? How important is that? I think contiguous spectrum in uplink and downlink is really important. Fragmented band plans are very hard. And basically, yes, it's contiguous. Our current 8 MHz in the downlink is contiguous, and our proposed swap proposal in the entirety is all contiguous spectrum. So the 25 MHz, a carrier has on average, I mean, how much of that would be contiguous 10 MHz? Like, do they... I know this is just rough, but do they just have one existing 10 MHz contiguous- It- downlink out of that 25? ... geography. It's very geography-based, right? Yeah. Typically, what happens is, just to make sure, and I think I said this, 25 MHz of downlink spectrum, right? Okay. 10 MHz of... So 25 MHz, there's markets that a carrier only has a 5 MHz downlink, and there's a market that a carrier could have 10, 15, or very rarely, a 20 MHz, and that's only in the cases of the spectrum that allowed it. For example, the 700 MHz band doesn't allow for a 20 MHz carrier. The other spectrum Band 13s or whatever that came about, Band 14s, these don't allow for 20 of spectrum. So in the case of 600 MHz, for example, where that existed and uniquely existed, there could be a market that somebody did acquire a 20-plus, 20 MHz spectrum. So it varies by geography. That's why I'm giving an average number. Yeah. So, you know, spectrum auctions have gone from $0.50- $5 range. You probably average around $1.50 over the years. Is there a particular auction or spectrum band that you think this spectrum is most comparable to? I think looking at spectrum below 1 GHz, so between 600 MHz and 1 GHz, whether that was an auction or whether that was a transaction, is gonna be relevant in this analysis. Now, with that said, you know, everything has to be considered on what were the assumptions, what happened. Like, for example, if there's a spectrum on a transaction that the major carriers are not gonna participate in the auction, that spectrum's gonna go cheaper, right? Because you don't have major carriers participating in the auction. And so you have to take a look at, you know, what's between 600 MHz and 1 GHz, what are these transactions of, and then come up with what the range is. Is it $1? Is it $2? I mean, obviously, the last transactions went up as high... on average, by the way. So there could be $3-$4 spectrum, right? But we're talking about average. Sure. On average, there was a $2.71 that happened, and transaction happened in 600 MHz. So, you know, you, you look at what was the transaction, what were the assumptions behind it, so to then be able to deduce, "Okay, how much is this?" Obviously, timing is important, you know, and the assumptions are important. We think this is a great timing for our spectrum, and we think our spectrum doesn't have many of the, some of the issues that other spectrum may have encountered, so this is, it's really good and golden spectrum. You know, are we out of time? Sorry, I should, I should be on top of this. Let me just double-check. Oh, no, we have... Oh, great. I think I have five more minutes. If you guys have the time, I have the questions. Sure. All right, great. Great, great. Let me just double-check to see if there's any questions from the audience, because I don't do a great job monitoring that, but I ask you this stuff. So I know I asked you this in the past, but, are there any other... I mean, it was a great transaction buying the 4 MHz. I think, what are you spending, $50 million for it? Yes. Yeah, it seemed like a great deal. And that really enabled you to do all the swapping and re-engineering of the spectrum, correct? Yeah, I mean, that spectrum didn't make sense to be in the hands of anyone else except for us, 'cause we can put this together. Okay. Also, spectrum that's lying fallow right now, that's not gonna have a lot of interest. So we're repurposing and rebanding it so it becomes this kind of spectrum, this 5G purpose. I think, what I wanted to highlight, and I touched upon this, I really do think that the public notice that the FCC put out last week is a very positive, extremely thorough, and thoughtful PN that the FCC has done. I've been in over 20 spectrum proceedings. This is, this is a great public notice. I think it shows a lot of work by the commission. I think we appreciate it, and I think that they're taking this very seriously. So I just wanted to highlight that we're very super excited about that public notice. ... And when do you think the notice of proposed rulemaking will come out? I mean, I know it's, there's a lot of steps that we have to go through, but and you know, if things go reasonably well, when do you actually have control of the spectrum? I think that's in the hands of the FCC. Sure. But I think that, you know, obviously, we just got a public notice that shows a very serious intent to move this forward, so I have no reason to doubt the fact that the commission is gonna take, you know—obviously, they have to go through the process of waiting for the comments that are due September 5th and 20th. They have to study these comments. When you ask a lot of questions, which we think were great to ask such questions, you have to also study these questions to be able to go to the NPRM phase. You have to address them. You have to have meetings with folks to do that. So we'd like to, you know, you know, thank the FCC and also understand that their process takes them the... It is what the process is, but we have no reason to right now believe that this is gonna be sitting somewhere. Okay, got it. So the process, I mean, it'll take maybe a year, it could be nine months, could be 18 months, but it's gonna take a little time. I can't speak on behalf of the FCC. Okay ... but I'm very hopeful that this is gonna be done. It's not gonna be sitting, meaning it's gonna move through their process as quickly as possible as their process allows. I don't have a reason to believe it's not going to. Okay. Very, very helpful. And are there any other spectrum bands you can acquire out there that are, you know, maybe similar to the one you just did? Right now, I think we're looking really good with what we've acquired, and I think that gives us the ability to do this public benefit, solving a national security problem, and 15 MHz of spectrum to use. So we're very happy with where we are. Great, and then maybe one for you, Christian, if you don't mind. Where are you, do you think, with your liquidity, you know, position? You know, so we've, for those of you that have been, you know, following NextNav, I think we've been pretty consistent with our statements about both our balance sheet and our operating expenses. We finished the second quarter with $86.3 million in cash, and shortly after the close of the quarter and through July 31st, we enjoyed the benefit of additional $5 million of a warrant exercise. So pro forma for that, you can think about, you know, roughly $91 million to work with there. And we don't anticipate any significant changes to our expense base. So net-net, you know, that runs us multiple years into the future. We feel very good about where we sit from a liquidity and a funding perspective. How much cash did you burn last year, or the last 12 months, do you think? You know, it fluctuates a little bit quarter- by- quarter. But we've seen, you know, in the range of $8-$10 million per quarter. Okay. I think the first six months, you can look at our operating cash flow in our 10-Q, and you can see an operating use of cash of approximately $19.3 million. Very, very good. I guess, just on the vertical, I know you have Verizon. Is there a chance you can win AT&T and T-Mobile as customers, and, you know, would that be a material kind of improvement to the revenue run rate? I think there's always an opportunity, and we're always looking to grow, you know, to grow our customer base with the vertical, as well as focus on the spectrum activities that I think Mariam has elaborated on. But of course, there remains growth potential within our Z-axis only business. Obviously, adding the XY and providing the full complement of services, following the ability to have sort of the full PNT system, creates a significantly greater opportunity, 'cause you bring the full package to the table. But we think the Z-axis that we offer, and I think Mariam highlighted especially the accuracy benefits, is a meaningful improvement to anybody's existing XY system. Guys, we're out of time. I really appreciate the very thorough answering of the questions, so I thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity.