Hello, and welcome to the NextNav Q3 2024 earnings call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session, and if you would like to ask a question at that time, simply press star one on your telephone keypad. I would now like to turn the conference over to Erica Bartsch. You may begin. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to NextNav Q3 2024 earnings conference call. Participating on today's call are Mariam Sorond, NextNav's Chief Executive Officer, and Chris Gates, NextNav's Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, let me remind everyone that this call will include certain statements that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of words such as may, anticipate, believe, expect, intend, might, plan, possible, potential, aim, strive, predict, project, should, could, would, will, and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements. But the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Such forward-looking statements, which may relate to NextNav's forecast of future results, future prospects, developments, and business strategies, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions, and other important factors, many of which are outside NextNav's control that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements. In particular, such forward-looking statements include the achievement of certain FCC-related milestones and FCC approvals, the ability to realize the broader spectrum capacity, and the advancement of NextNav's terrestrial 3D PNT services, NextNav's position to drive growth in its 3D geolocation business, and expansion of its next-generation terrestrial 3D PNT technologies, the business plans, objectives, expectations, and intentions of NextNav, and NextNav's estimated and future business strategies, competitive position, industry environment, potential growth opportunities, revenue, expenses, and profitability. These statements are based on NextNav's management's current expectations and beliefs, as well as a number of assumptions concerning future events. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made, and NextNav undertakes no commitment to update or revise the forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. For additional information regarding risk factors, see Part 1, Item 1A, Risk Factors, of the company's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and Part 1, Item 1A, Risk Factors, of the NextNav's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, as well as those otherwise described or updated from time to time in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Following our prepared remarks, the company will host an operator-led question-and-answer session. In addition, at the conclusion of today's call, a replay of our discussion will be posted to the company's investor relations website. I'd now like to turn the call over to Ms. Mariam Sorond, Chief Executive Officer of NextNav. Please go ahead. Thank you, Erica. Good afternoon, and thank you, everyone, for joining us today. I would like to begin today's call with an update on the business and our latest steps with the FCC and key stakeholders. I will then turn things over to Chris to provide an update on our financials. It's been an exciting few months for NextNav. We are energized by the early momentum as we advance our strategic vision and address the critical need for a terrestrial complement and backup to GPS. Following the release of the FCC's August 6 public notice, the entire NextNav team has been hard at work. We submitted formal comments on September 5, followed by reply comments on September 20 in support of our petition to reconfigure the lower 900 MHz band. As we shared in our filings, our petition offers a unique opportunity to address a national security problem, specifically the lack of a wide-scale terrestrial PNT backup and complement to GPS. We are confident that the FCC understands the importance and urgency of this need. This was evident in the thorough public notice they issued back in August. We were pleased to see the FCC asking the right questions and placing a specific focus on PNT, validating the national security need, which we highlighted in our own proposal. In response to the public notice, over 1,800 filings were submitted to the FCC. A vast majority, over 1,500, were from amateur operators who typically file on an individual basis. Of the remaining 300 filings, there were no real surprises or showstoppers. We saw support from select stakeholders, including those in the public safety arena who are close to the issue and understand the impact of not having a backup and complement to GPS. For example, both the California and Massachusetts Fire Chiefs Association came out in support, along with Fairfax County, Virginia, one of the largest counties in the U.S. and which is in close proximity to D.C. We also heard from some of the licensed operators who continue to express concerns about the effects of NextNav's NextGen system on their current operations. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, also filed and said that its views were informed by the concerns of the U.S. Department of Transportation. As with any band, licensed operations are critical, and we are committed to coexistence with site-based licensees and to minimizing any impact on these licensees. We see the NTIA being active as a positive sign for a timely resolution and an outcome that makes available much-needed commercial spectrum for 5G broadband. The NTIA filing acknowledges the importance of terrestrial PNT capabilities to backup and complement GPS and calls for additional testing to ensure that the operations of railroads and tolling entities are protected. We agree with the NTIA on both points and have been planning to conduct the necessary technical testing all along. As noted in our reply comments, NextNav previously contacted more than 110 stakeholders, including incumbent tolling entities, railroads, unlicensed users, and amateurs, to understand opposition views from an engineer-to-engineer technical point of view. Our goal was and is to find solutions that minimize potential disruptions to existing licensed operations and leave licensees at least as well off while enabling the benefits of our proposed terrestrial PNT system. Since our outreach, several stakeholders have been responsive and engaged in active dialogue. For example, NextNav is in discussions with the Association of American Railroads, or AAR, and representatives from tolling operators to evaluate the full scope of their operations and address harmful interference concerns. Furthermore, we regard the NTIA's call for testing as a helpful procedural tool to induce incumbents to engage and be responsive. As a reminder, the FCC has broad authority to revise its rules and modify licenses when it determines that doing so would promote the public interest. As we move forward, we are committed to continuing engineer-to-engineer dialogue with the appropriate stakeholders in support of our petition. We believe that collaborative analysis is essential to achieving an outcome that best serves the public interest and addresses a national security problem. As we expected and is typical, a portion of filings were from unlicensed stakeholders in opposition. As a reminder, NextNav is already a spectrum license holder in the 900 MHz band, though it was clear that many opposition commenters were unaware of this fact. For the unlicensed community, their assertions appear to exaggerate the potential effects on unlicensed use from our NextGen system. Unlicensed users already operate in the lower 900 MHz band and coexist with many other users in the band. This is precisely because unlicensed technologies are designed and built to coexist with both unlicensed and licensed users operating in the band. It is also important to point out that those in opposition failed to put forth viable alternative solutions that meet the pressing need for a wide-scale terrestrial PNT service that can be broadly adopted. Even those who oppose our petition acknowledge that a terrestrial complement and backup to a satellite-based PNT service is critically important to safeguarding U.S. national security, public safety, and our economy. Failure to identify terrestrial PNT solutions with the same technical sophistication and business logic as NextNav's solution only serves to further highlight the lack of another wide-scale PNT service solution available that can both operate in consumer devices and serve government entities. As a result, there could not be a more critical time to address the important need for a terrestrial complement and backup to GPS. As noted by retired Rear Admiral David Simpson in his recent white paper published by Virginia Tech on PNT resiliency, a day without accurate and available PNT services is a scenario the U.S. cannot afford, and the country needs to identify a terrestrial complement and backup to GPS. Today, NextNav offers the only concrete opportunity to enable a wide-scale terrestrial PNT service, one that has a clear path to availability in consumer devices such as cell phones with no cost to taxpayers. This is why we believe we have a compelling proposal and feel confident about our path forward. Since the completion of the comment period in September, the team has remained focused on execution. Leveraging feedback garnered during the comment period, we are actively engaged in engineer-to-engineer dialogue with the appropriate stakeholders. This includes ongoing conversations with the toll companies, railroads, and other licensed incumbents. In late October, we also filed a detailed economic analysis conducted by the Brattle Group. The filing details how NextNav's proposal would prevent hundreds of millions of dollars in losses in the event of a global GPS outage. Based on an initial assessment, the Brattle Group found that a one-day global GPS outage could cost the American economy $1.6 billion, while our proposal could prevent a loss of $663 million for a one-day outage. For a 30-day outage, the loss could be as large as $58.2 billion, but our proposal could prevent nearly $31.9 billion of that loss. Given the probability of a potential outage event in the U.S., NextNav's proposal is the equivalent of offering the American economy a $10.8 billion insurance policy to protect against GPS outages, plus additional benefits of $3.8 billion from increased resiliency. Taken together, the total quantified value of a GPS backup is $14.6 billion based on the Brattle Group's analysis. This is a powerful impact, and we believe our proposal offers an enormous public benefit. We were also pleased to see that in late October, the Flex Association filed in support of the FCC considering NextNav's proposal. FLEX represents U.S. rideshare and delivery platforms, including companies such as Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash. The association's filing emphasized the crucial role NextNav's enhanced geolocation technology could play in boosting the app-based rideshare and delivery industry community's annual contribution of over $212 billion to the U.S. economy. This activity, coupled with continued dialogue with the appropriate stakeholders, leaves us energized as we chart our path forward. Concurrently, the FCC is moving forward, reviewing and summarizing the over 1,800 filed comments. The next key milestone could be an NPRM or notice of proposed rulemaking. However, there's also the possibility that the FCC will ask for additional data or pose additional questions prior to issuing an NPRM. This is all standard procedure and something we are prepared for should it arise. As a reminder, we do not anticipate that the FCC will adopt an NPRM in 2024. Finally, with Former President Trump re-elected to the presidency last week, we would remind everyone that this is a bipartisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats care about national security and public safety. From the beginning, our advocacy has been designed to be bipartisan. We have been talking to all commissioners' offices at the FCC and majority and minority members and staffers in the Senate and the House. We look forward to continuing our work with the current FCC commissioners, leadership, and staff, including Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, through the remainder of their terms. We also continue our discussions with the senior sitting Republican Commissioner, Brendan Carr, and we expect to engage with the additional leadership and staff once appointed in 2025. Moving forward, we feel confident in our ability to work closely with the relevant government agencies to address the critical need for a terrestrial complement and backup to GPS. In closing, this is an exciting time for our business. We believe that few challenges are more pressing than incorporating greater resiliency into life-saving and mission-critical terrestrial PNT technologies and more spectrum to make wireless broadband services more accessible for consumers. Though there is more work ahead, our team is ready to advance our mission and work closely with stakeholders. We look forward to ongoing engagement with the FCC and keeping our investors updated on our progress. With that, let me turn things over to Chris for a discussion of our financials. Chris. Thanks, Mariam, and a good afternoon, everyone. NextNav's revenue in the third quarter was $1.6 million, a $0.6 million increase from $1.0 million in the prior year period. For the nine-month period, revenue was $3.8 million, a $1.1 million increase from $2.7 million in 2023. The increase in both the three and nine-month periods was driven by an increase in service revenue from technology and services contracts with government and commercial customers. Operating expenses for the third quarter were $15.5 million, down approximately $0.1 million versus the same period last year. Operating expenses included $1.3 million in depreciation and amortization and $3.3 million in equity compensation, compared to $1.3 million in depreciation and amortization and $4.4 million in equity compensation in the third quarter of 2023. In the nine-month period, operating expenses were $49.1 million, as compared to $46.3 million in 2023. Excluding stock-based compensation expense and depreciation and amortization, operating expenses were $34 million in the first nine months and $30.1 million in the prior year period. Net loss for the third quarter was $13.6 million, which included a $2.5 million gain associated with a change in the fair value of warrants and liability associated with the Telesaurus asset purchase agreement. This is compared to a net loss of $23.2 million in the third quarter of 2023, which included a loss of $6.7 million associated with a change in the fair value of warrant liability. For the nine-month period, net loss was $69.6 million, including a $17.3 million loss associated with a change in the fair value of warrant liability net of a gain associated with a change in liability associated with the Telesaurus asset purchase agreement, compared to a net loss of $55.3 million in the first nine months of 2023, including $9.8 million associated with a change in the fair value of warrant liability. Turning to our balance sheet, we finished the quarter with $86.8 million in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments. This is a result of our continued disciplined use of our cash, and we enjoyed the benefit of $6.9 million in proceeds from additional warrant exercises in the quarter. At September 30th, we had $53 million in debt net of unamortized discount attributed to transaction costs and the issuance of warrants, with a gross value of $70 million. As we've mentioned in the past, we continue to carefully manage our use of capital, taking a disciplined approach to any spend. Overall, it's been another productive quarter for NextNav. We believe our vision offers an innovative spectrum solution in the lower 900 MHz band, and we are excited for what lies ahead. With that, I will turn the call back to the operator for questions. Operator? Thank you. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, simply press star one again. One moment, please, for your first question. Your first question comes from the line of Mike Crawford with B. Riley. Your line is open. Thank you. And it's good to hear that you're in active discussions with people that have commented on your petition. You did mention railroads, toll lane operators. Anything of note to convey regarding discussions with others like Edison Electric Institute or the NTIA? Thank you, Mike, for the question. So, as I mentioned, we've contacted over 110 stakeholders in the past, and these would include the tolls, railroads, unlicensed users, amateurs, to understand their opposition views. And we're going to, moving forward, we're committed to continuing this dialogue with them. What’s very key for us is to make sure, excuse me, that the conversations are fact-based, that we have engineer-to-engineer dialogue, and that we move forward with the progress as we anticipate. Okay, Mariam, and thank you. Thoughts on, just to take one position, like the NTIA recommends the FCC grants a short-term experimental license so you can test field test operations. Is that something that you see happening in the near future or not? So, generally speaking, we actually regard the NTIA’s call for testing as a very helpful procedural tool, right, to induce incumbents to engage and be responsive. Now, for us, we’ve done testing in the past, and we’re moving forward to a phase of collaborative analysis that includes this engineer-to-engineer dialogue, and it could also include testing. Okay. Thank you. And then it's also great to see all the comments in favor of terrestrial PNT, especially for urban areas where signals from space are hard to reach. But there's also movement to create more resilient LEO space-based PNT, in fact, with four companies picked by the Space Force to potentially put up satellites in that regard. And I think that would be complementary to your service, but are you talking to L3Harris or Suranis or any of those companies that are involved in that effort to provide some more resilience from space? So, we're actually in agreement with the DOT's view that the complementary action plan, their complementary action plan, that is a system of systems, which means that a system of systems of backup and complement really could have a satellite element, but it must also include a ground-based terrestrial network. So far, we're the only viable wide-scale terrestrial PNT proposal that is on the table, but the vision of the system of systems is the more comprehensive solution for a backup and complement. We talk to many industry stakeholders, our support, our opposition, and the broader partnership opportunities. Okay. Thank you, and then the last question for me is, given the administration change where maybe Commissioner Carr becomes, well, there's a change to him. In these change situations, is there any kind of precedence whether the outgoing commissioner would put forth an NPRM, or is this something we would need to wait for the actual transition before we should start actively anticipating potential NPRM action in 2025? So, Mike, you're correct, so recent news coverage post-election, it does include predictions that Brendan Carr is likely to be named the next FCC chair. Ultimately, President-elect Trump will name a new FCC commissioner once he is in office in 2025. We will continue our work with Chairwoman Rosenworcel, and then we will continue the work also with Brendan Carr, who's a senior sitting Republican commissioner. As we've said in the past, we don't anticipate an NPRM in 2025, but we are not going to, in 2024, I apologize for that, but we're not going to speculate on timing for the current or future administration on an NPRM. Okay. That makes sense. Thank you very much. Sure. The next question is from Tim Horan with Oppenheimer. Your line is open. Thanks, guys. The reason you think a terrestrial backup is required, is that for better in-building penetration and/or? I'm sorry. There was static. I need a repeat of that question. Tim's line has disconnected. Okay. Our next question will come from the line of Rosemary Sisson with Odeon Capital. Your line is open. Yes. Thank you. Hello, Mariam and Chris. Just wanted to understand the timeline. Whenever you do, say, whenever you do get the NPRM, what would be the timeline after that? What would be the next set of events to happen in order for you to actually get moving into work through the process? So, the next step of an NPRM could be a Report and Order. The FCC could also, again, just similar with now, also ask for more data and information between the NPRM and the Report and Order. We're not going to speculate on timing of NPRM or after that when the Report and Order is going to be at this point. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And you. And your next question is from Tim Horan with Oppenheimer. Your line is open. Sorry, guys. That was the first that's ever happened to me, and I decided to use a wireline phone. The reason you think terrestrial base is required, is that for in-building penetration vertical or just backup in case satellites are out or all the above? Sure. It's all of the above, and so just to state that comprehensively, in order to overcome the vulnerabilities of the satellite, which satellites themselves have vulnerabilities, but also spoofing and jamming as it occurs in GPS today, you actually need a terrestrial network that is more resilient in that perspective, but also, it can serve as a complement because satellite signals, whether they're LEOs, MEOs, or GEOs, they don't penetrate indoors. Got it. Got it, and just out of curiosity, is the spoofing and jamming easier or harder to do for LEO versus GEO? Jamming is very easy to do with weak signals. Satellites, whether in the LEO space or above, are continuing to going to be weak signals. That's why they don't cover indoor and urban canyons. The weaker signal, the easier to jam. Cell phones are on towers and close proximity to us. They're much stronger signals and not easy to jam. They're so spread out, and they're over a smaller coverage area per tower than satellites are. Very helpful. Can you just remind us? Has Brendan Carr made any comments on your proposal publicly or any thoughts on what he's thinking? To my knowledge, he has not made any public comments on our proposal. Now, definitely, there have been comments on a focus on national security from the FCC commissioners recently. Got it. Lastly, any updated thoughts on the highest and best use of the spectrum? Have you studied maybe other things it can be used for? I guess the LEOs are looking to do direct-to-device or direct-to-cell phone type service. Could the spectrum be used for that, or they're also looking to do IoT, or do you still think being part of one of the big three mobile operators might be the best use? So, our focus continues to be to solve the national security, economic, and public safety need, which is a complement and backup to GPS. And concurrent to that, it would unleash 50 MHz of spectrum into 5G broadband use, especially at a current time where spectrum pipeline is mostly empty. So, we continue and will remain focused on that objective. Very helpful. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Jaime Perez with RF Lafferty. Your line is open. Hey, everybody. Thanks for taking my question. In a proposal, you plan to swap the band. I mean, what does that entail? Equipment, software? Can you describe what exactly that you have to do to swap the band? So, it's not really a swap. It's a tweaking to update the rules and a little bit of movement on the spectrum to make it actually viable for 5G broadband. And every time that you have tweaked rules to spectrum, you would need to look at developing new infrastructure. So, that's radios that go on towers, right? You need to have your devices include that spectrum. This is the case with any new spectrum that goes into 5G. The radios on the towers, also the handsets need to accommodate for that spectrum. And of course, infrastructure for 5G is these days consistent of both hardware and software. All right. Now, will NextNav roll that out, or would you find a carrier to roll that out? As we've mentioned also in prior calls, we remain focused on working with a partner, and we've mentioned that the likely partner could be an existing MNO, but obviously, we are talking to the entire industry about partnership. All right. My next question is a little bit on a technical side. The license used, for example, the toll collection vehicle, I mean, the power or the RF frequency was about 150 feet for commercial and 15 feet for the passive. I mean, does that really interfere with the change in spectrum since it's pretty much a limited distance? I mean, how does that work? Jaime, sorry. I didn't get the first part. What are you referring to that's 150 feet? Can you repeat that? I think from the filing, yeah, the signal from the vehicle identification and toll collection was about 15 yards or 150 feet. I forgot what the actual number is. I mean, does that interfere, let's say, long distance with the spectrum? You mean, do the tolls interfere with 5G? Right. The tolling and the bicycle. Yeah. We have not come across any interference from tolls to our systems. All right. So, toll companies are in licensed spectrum, and basically, so are licenses are licensed spectrum, and there is not an overlap currently. Not overlap. All right. And some of the amateur operators, I mean, isn't it otherwise a Part 97 or Part 15 requires them to not cause interference to the primary user, which is you guys, NextNav? Is that true? I mean, I think that's part of the argument of. Well, yes. Both amateurs and Part 15 need to operate per the Part 15 rules on an interference basis. And amateurs, I don't recall which part they were in the FCC, but they have, I anticipate, similar sort of regime. Right. Now, as far as the stakeholders, according to your filings, you had a pretty good chart. It's the federal government. Is that the military use followed by non-military use? So, would the military use be the primary users? I mean, how does that work in the hierarchy of spectrum users? Within the federal government, so the federal use of the spectrum is the primary use of the spectrum. There's also an ISM use, which is industrial, scientific, and medical use that is also the primary use. Those are typically all transmitters and non-receiving. So then after that, it is the licensees, which include both the site-based licensees and the geographic licensees. Then it's the unlicensed and amateurs. As far as how the federal government hierarchy is, I mean, the federal use of this band so far from what we have seen has been used by the Department of Energy. And we're continuously talking to understand more about the operations, but so far, we have not seen any comments. Now, digging a little bit further, so because what I'm reading is basically your customers will be the federal level because of the Department of Defense energy mandate for PNT solutions. Is that correct? Is that how best characterize it? So, you mean our complement and backup to GPS use will be by the federal agencies? Correct Yes, it could be. It absolutely could be. So it definitely could be a use case for them. All right. Okay. And then you updated the Executive Order 13905, and it's probably too early to mention. I mean, as far as, I mean, he's named some of his cabinet members, some of them are pretty hawkish as far as military use. You think we could see an escalation of this executive order as he enters into the office because Trump is pretty hawkish on some of the military usage, even for using it internally. I mean, can you describe any more? I think the need for a backup and complement to GPS is a completely bipartisan issue. Both Democrats and Republicans care about national security and public safety. And from the beginning, our advocacy has been designed to also be very bipartisan. So I think the executive order was also Executive Order 13905 was very bipartisan. It came in one administration and followed through by the next administration. All right. That's all the questions I have. Thanks for taking my questions. Of course. This concludes the question and answer session. I'll turn the call to Mariam for closing remarks. So, thank you all for joining us today. I am very pleased with the progress we've made to date and feel confident in our path forward. And as I have said many times, we're working hard to advance our strategic vision and address the critical need for a terrestrial complement and backup to GPS. We look forward to the opportunities ahead and will share additional updates on our next quarterly call. Thank you, everyone. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for joining. You may now disconnect.