Welcome to the Eutelsat third quarter and nine months 2024 and Q25 revenues call. My name is Alan, and I'll be your coordinator for today's event. Please note this call is being recorded, and for the duration, your lines will be on listen only. However, you will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end. This can be done by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you require assistance at any time, please press star zero, and you'll be connected to an operator. I'll now hand you over to your host, Christophe Caudrelier, to begin today's conference. Thank you.
Hello everyone. Welcome, and thank you for joining us today for Eutelsat Q3 2024-2025 revenues presentation. I'm Christophe Caudrelier, Group CFO, and I'm joined today by Joanna Darlington, Chief Communication and Investor Relations Officer. On today's agenda, we will cover recent highlights, Q3 performance, and outlook and financial objectives. Let's start with the highlights. Q3 revenues of the four operating verticals, i.e., excluding other revenues, stood at EUR 300.6 million. They were down 2.2% on a like-for-like basis. Revenues of the four operating verticals for the first nine months were up 1.8% on a like-for-like basis. Connectivity applications continue to see double-digit growth on the back of LEO-enabled solutions. With all this, we confirm all our full-year 2024-2025 financial objectives. Let's turn specifically to the Q3 performance. First, as a reminder, all commentary is on a like-for-like basis, i.e., at constant currency and parameter.
Total revenues for the third quarter stood at EUR 300 million, down 1.9% on a like-for-like basis. They reflected, first, a EUR 7 million positive currency effect, and second, a EUR 1 million negative swing in other revenues, mainly from hedging. Excluding other revenues, revenues of the four operating verticals were down 2.2% on a like-for-like basis. Let's look at revenues in more detail. Video, representing 50% of revenues, stood at EUR 152 million, a decline of 6.4%. Fixed connectivity revenues, representing 20% of the group total, rose 1% to EUR 60 million. Government services, 17% of revenues, stood at EUR 50 million, a rise of 10.2%. Mobile connectivity revenues, representing 13% of the group total, stood at EUR 40 million, down 2.7%. I will come back to this. Let's start with video. Q3 video revenues, amounting to EUR 152 million, down 6.4% year-on-year, are in line with the broader market trend.
On a quarter-quarter basis, revenues were down 4.8%, reflecting the linearization of revenue recognition on certain contracts in Q2. On the commercial front, Eutelsat renewed a video capacity agreement with its longstanding partner, Arabsat, in the MENA region. Eutelsat also expanded its services for professional video, committing significant new resources at the flagship Hotbird Constellation at 13° east. Elsewhere, Eutelsat renewed its partnership with UAE-based content distribution specialists, BHS, for satellite contribution services across the Middle East and North Africa, extending capacity lease on Eutelsat 21B and Eutelsat 70B. Let's move and have a word on Russia. Eutelsat is implementing EU Regulation 269/2014 concerning the denial of resources to Russian entities, which, since March 2024, is being applied to selected media groups by the French regulator, Arcom.
Following the recent removal of two channels, STS and Canal 5, belonging to JSC National Media Group, Eutelsat is in the process of removing further channels controlled by this company, as well as those controlled by VGTRK from Eutelsat capacity. At this stage, the impact on the group's revenue of the removal of these channels is being estimated at around EUR 16 million on an annualized basis, and a similar amount at the EBITDA level, prior to any mitigation measures. Due to the timing, this action has a very limited impact on Eutelsat's objectives for fiscal year 2024-2025. As a reminder, Eutelsat's financial objectives exclude the impact of sanctions imposed on Russian customers by external authorities. Moving to connectivity, Q3 fixed connectivity revenues stood at EUR 59.7 million, up 0.8% year-on-year.
They mainly reflected, on the one hand, the continued growth of LEO-enabled connectivity solutions, and, on the other, the more challenging conditions for GEO-enabled consumer broadband in Europe, and notably the cessation of revenue recognition from a specific customer on the Connect VHTS satellite. Quarter on quarter, revenues were down 7.3%, reflecting a one-off impact from catch-up revenues from a LEO customer in Q2, as well as the above-mentioned cessation of revenue recognition from a GEO customer. On the commercial front, the transfer of Eutelsat Connect capacity to the African market has been completed. Take-up of the additional capacity has been dynamic, notably with a multi-year partnership with Orange for connectivity in Africa and the Middle East. Elsewhere, Eutelsat and InterSat.
A new multi-year agreement for KU capacity on Eutelsat 7C for the delivery of fixed data services over Central and Eastern Africa, and renewed their existing capacity contracts on Eutelsat 70B. The two companies are in discussions aimed at adding LEO capacity for East Africa. Q3 government services revenues stood at EUR 49.5 million, up 10.2% year-on-year. This mainly reflected the growth of LEO-enabled solutions revenues, as well as increased demand from non-U.S. governments. Quarter on quarter, revenues were down 4.2%, notably due to slowdown in GEO activities. The Spring 2025 renewal campaign with U.S. Department of Defense resulted in an estimated renewal rate of less than 50%, below the high rates of previous quarters. It reflects the change in the new presidential administration's geographic prioritization for the Defense Department, with the additional context of efforts to cut government spending overall.
In particular, it embarks a non-renewal of a single sizable contract. Excluding this one-off, the renewal rate would have been close to 70%. Q3 mobile connectivity revenues stood at EUR 39.7 million, down 2.7% year-on-year, reflecting lower GEO revenues, partly offset by growing demand for LEO-based solutions. Quarter on quarter, revenues were up 14.3%, underpinned by ramp-up on LEO. On the commercial front, Eutelsat confirmed the traction of LEO-enabled services for commercial and business aviation, with over 100 certified antenna installations already completed, out of a backlog close to 1,000 aircraft, and the first aircraft now in service. In addition to its GEO offering, Eutelsat is delivering multi-orbit connectivity through key partners such as Intelsat, Hughes, Panasonic, and Gogo. Air Canada became the first airline to deploy the multi-orbit GEO LEO service through Intelsat.
Separately, Eutelsat signed a multi-year, multi-million dollar extension of its capacity agreement with Panasonic on Eutelsat 10B, and the deployment of Connect VHTS capacity for the mobility market is also progressing well, notably with a new multi-year, multi-million dollar agreement with Turksat for KA Band services. Both showcase the ongoing pertinence of a state-of-the-art GEO capacity to deliver high-quality, cost-effective, in-flight connectivity services. Moving now to the backlog. The backlog at the end of March stood at EUR 3.6 billion versus EUR 3.9 billion a year ago, and EUR 3.7 billion at the end of December 2024, reflecting its natural erosion, especially in the video segment in the absence of major renewals. It was equivalent to three times fiscal year 2024 revenues, with connectivity representing 57% of total. Let's now turn to the outlook.
On the back of the performance of the first nine months, we confirm our objectives for the full year 2024-2025 of operating vertical revenues around the same level as fiscal year 2024, and adjusted EBITDA margin slightly below the level of fiscal year 2024. Elsewhere, gross capital expenditure in fiscal year 2024-2025 remains expected in a range between EUR 500 million and EUR 600 million. Eutelsat also continues to target leverage of around three times in the medium term and continues to work actively on the financing plan in line with its strategic roadmap and its leverage objective. With that, I would like to thank you for your attention, and together with Joanna, we are now ready to take your questions and to answer your questions.
Thank you. If you'd like to ask a question or make a contribution on today's call, please press star one on your telephone keypad.
To withdraw your question, please press star two . You will be advised when to ask your question. We will take our first question from Roshan Ranjit, Deutsche Bank. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Oh, evening, everyone. Thanks for the questions. I've got three, please. On the government renewal rate, where you say less than 50%, it's possible to get a sense of, is there a scope for further resizing? You mentioned this single sizable contract. Are there other types of contracts of that nature within your base? And just to confirm that, U.S. government revenues is around 60-65% of overall government revenues of the group, please. Secondly, within video, you're flagging the EUR 16 million annualized impact from Russia.
Again, is that assuming all Russian channels are removed from your base, or is there a scope for that number to potentially be higher if you have to switch off further channels? Lastly, last quarter, you mentioned you were working on a financing plan. I did not see an update in the release today. I assume that is still something which you are working on, but anything you could say on that front and any progress would be very helpful. Thank you.
Okay. Thanks, Roshan. For your question, starting with the first one on the renewal rate on the government. I guess your question was related to the percentage that the U.S. government was representing in the total. The proportion of the U.S. government is decreasing, and it is, I would say, roughly between 50-60%.
The reason why it's decreasing is also because, with the development of the LEO activity, we also have a lot of appetite from other governments, and we see a significant increase of our business with governments other than the U.S. government. On the U.S. government side, I mean, we don't see any dramatic change of the business. Again, for this quarter or for the spring session, it's really related to one specific contract with the U.S. government. I mean, as we see, I mean, with the change in the presidential, the U.S. president's strategy and the cost-cutting plan, I mean, we see some changes, but no major impact on our business.
Sorry. Yeah, just to add one thing. I mean, in terms of timing, those renegotiations took place just at the time or just after the start of the new U.S. administration.
There was, as you know, right at the beginning of the administration, a lot of pressure on departments to cut costs. We think that the unusually low renewal rate was, if you like, partly a knee-jerk reaction to that impetus. I think your other question, and it is why we single this out, I mean, it is that there is one contract that was not renewed that represents around half of the delta between the type of renewal rate we would normally see and the renewal rate that we just reported. To answer your question, Roshan, no, it is unusual. I mean, generally, the renewals tend to be made up of smaller contracts, and it is unusual to have one that is that chunky and has that big an impact.
On your second question related to Russia, no, I mean, the channels that we are removing or will be removing from our satellites are not all the channels or not all the business with Russia. It's a few tens of channels that we are removing, and they are really related to two specific groups that are in the list of Arcom. It takes us also some time to identify all the channels that are belonging to those two groups, to those two media groups. That's the reason why it takes a bit of time too, because we need to really identify those channels that are really belonging to those two companies.
Yeah, just to add, in case it's not clear, up till now, the sanctions that we've complied with have been on specific channels, and those have been identified by Arcom.
The reason behind taking them down is because of the content, the nature of the content of those channels. I would say that Arcom has now, since March, so in the past couple of weeks, it's now expanded the scope of how it imposes sanctions, and it's expanded it to cover not just specific channels because of the content, but actually companies, content producers who are part of a list of companies in Russia where the French government has decided to freeze or deprive them of assets, if you like. It is more complicated because instead of Arcom just sending us a list and saying, "Right, you need to bring down this, this, and this," what they're saying is you have to stop broadcasting the content which is provided to our customers, which are still Tricolor and NTV Plus, which are provided by these companies.
We have to identify those ourselves, and that's what's taking longer. We expect it to be completed by, I would say, the end of June.
On the financing plan, coming back, as we mentioned in February for our H1 results, we continue to work actively on the financing plan in order to take into consideration and to cover our strategic roadmap as well as our medium-term target of a leverage ratio around three times. In this context, as we speak, we are in active discussions, I would say, with potential capital providers, and we are assessing various solutions. This is what I can say at this point, as we mentioned back in February, and we will come back to the market as soon as we have a settled, clear action plan.
That's very helpful, guys. Thank you.
If I could just follow up on the first question, the renewal rate that will impact your fiscal year 2026 numbers, is that the right way to think about it in terms of the timing and the lag effect?
It will impact from Q4 of this year, and then, yes, it will impact into full year 2026.
Great. Thank you.
It has been embedded also for the full year 2024, 2025 at this point, so it does not change anything in our guidance.
Yeah. I mean, I think the other point to make is, as Christophe said, that the proportion of the U.S. DOD within our government services revenues is obviously proportionately a lot less than it has been in recent years.
Got it. Thank you.
We will take our next question from Stephane Beyazian, ODDO BHF, your line is open. Please go ahead. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I've got three, if that's possible. The first one is regarding the financing plan, and I fully understand that you're not in a position to say too much for sure about it, but let me try to push my luck a little bit there. I'd like to understand how much credit export can be a solution there. I guess my question is, how much theoretically do you think you can cover of your future investment plans thanks to credit export, either at the French level or at the European level? Do you feel you have a strong case to be in a position to obtain these credit exports? My second question is regarding the order book that is down. I mean, you just mentioned that you're getting a lot of interest from other governments than the U.S. government.
Are you currently in discussion, indeed, with some governments about future contracts, and do you think that they can be quite sizable? Anything you could say about that? Finally, it's a question I asked already, and I'd be very interested to have an answer, but do you have an idea of how much of the current OneWeb order book is not yet activated and therefore contributing to the revenues? Thank you.
Okay. Thanks, Stephane. On the first question related to ECAs, I mean, we are already working very actively on ECAs. As you know, we have communicated that we had contracted with Airbus for an additional batch of 100 satellites. Clearly, we are in the process to—we are discussing with the ECA agencies in order to be able to include those in the scheme. I need to mention that we already have some ECAs.
I mean, at the OneWeb level, we already have ECA contracts and financing with India Exim Bank on one side. How much do we think that we can—this is really depending on the future investment and on those investments. All in all, I would think that, I mean, we can plan between 50% and 70%, I would say 50-70% of the investment being part of the ECA financing plan. Yes, we believe that we have a strong case with this. It will obviously depend on several factors. First of all, I mean, who are the providers of the industry for those future investments, being on the satellite side, but also on the launchers? Clearly, this needs to be taken into consideration.
Overall, for both, again, satellites and launchers, because we've already done it, we think that we have a very strong case for the ECA financing. We are just, in our discussion with the different agencies, I mean, we really are in the heart of this program. Moving to the government question, I mean, we have, I would say, a lot of discussion with different governments. I mean, as you clearly know, with the current geopolitics, there are many interests from many countries, I mean, starting with the European countries, but not only. I mean, I would say many non-aligned or countries seeking for alternative solutions or non-American, non-Chinese solutions for this type of service. Clearly, there are a lot of interests.
Having said that, it's clear that it will take some time, and it will—I mean, we are in processes that need to go through a lot of administrations and approvals. Definitely, again, we are really confident that the market is significantly increasing for the many reasons that you know, but it will be a progressive increase, and it will take a bit of time to really convert into real business. As we see, I mean, we already have some significant contracts. As I just mentioned before, I mean, we were a few years ago, or even not so long ago, U.S. governments represented the vast majority of our government business. Today, we have a significant increase of other governments into this. Joanna, you want to add something?
The last question is related to the OneWeb order book and how much of this has been activated. I mean, the question is, I would say, I mean, obviously, this is going not to be—it's then the monthly revenues, but I would say around between EUR 170 million and EUR 200 million that have been from the current order book that it's translated into monthly revenues. Thank you. That's very helpful. Just a quick follow-up regarding credit export. Obviously, IRIS2 is also, I guess, even if that's at the European level, that would also be eligible to credit export, I would guess. At the European level in terms of financing. You mean our investment into IRIS2, right? Yes. I mean, yeah, it's a different scheme, but it would be eligible.
But could be—I mean, again, depending on the provider, it would either be, I would say, regular ECA or strategic operations. In both cases, they are very similar.
That's all very clear. Thank you very much.
We will take our next question from Ben Rickett. New Street Research, your line is open. Please go ahead.
Hi, Christophe and Joanna. Thanks for the questions. I have two. The first one, just to follow up on that ECA discussion. Do you think ECA financing, is that sufficient, do you think? Or are you also looking to raise equity capital, for example? If so, how much equity capital do you think you would need to raise? Second question, just around IRIS2. I think there's still quite a lot of skepticism around the commercial revenue projections for IRIS2, the EUR 6.5 billion.
Do you think there's any prospect of the European Union committing more of the revenues for that project so that you're less reliant on commercial revenues? Thank you.
Okay. So clearly, for the first question then, clearly, ECA are not going to be sufficient to cover the needs. I mean, for many reasons. First, because of the capacity. And secondly, because it won't solve, as we said, I mean, our medium-term target is to go back to a leverage ratio around three times. And clearly, ECA are accounted as debt, definitely. If it's only ECA, I mean, this would solve the issue of liquidity and the capacity of financing our investment needs. Obviously, in that case, I'm not sure that we would have a strong case with the ECA because the structure of the balance sheet of the company wouldn't be sufficient.
ECA is one part of the financing plan, for sure, but it is not the sole part. In our financing plan, we are clearly looking, as I mentioned, for capital investors. It is too early, I think, for me to disclose any type of range or amount in what we are seeking for, as you know, reinforcement of our balance sheet structure. I can say that it is a significant amount. On the second question, IRIS2, just to maybe come back quickly on what is IRIS2 and how it is managed. I mean, it is a multi-orbit constellation. Within this multi-orbit constellation, there is a dedicated European payload, which is not what the operators are going to sell. Next to this, I would say, a specific payload for the European community.
There is a commercial payload, of which the LEO one will be for Eutelsat to commercialize and to manage. Having said that, do we have significant prospect? I mean, we are talking—first of all, we are talking of—I remind you that IRIS² is due in 2030. It is quite a long time away from now. For us, IRIS² would be the commercial side that will replace the current generation of our satellites. It would be the continuation of, one, the current business and continuation growth of the current business that will be covered by IRIS². Having said that, do we have a potential also to cover some of this capacity through European requirements, I mean, being requirements or needs from the European states? I would say certainly yes.
It's not a commitment from the different states of Europe as of today in the IRIS² project. There are obviously, as I said before, a lot of discussions with different governments, European, but also non-European governments. There is quite a lot of—there is a lot of appetite for this. We are confident to develop the government business, including with IRIS² and before IRIS².
Thank you. That's really helpful. If the demand does not emerge for that commercial capacity, do you think the European Union would be prepared to commit some of that revenue?
I think it's far too early to discuss that. I mean, as Christophe said, we have a EUR 1 billion backlog on OneWeb.
The LEO proportion of IRIS² will basically equate to the continuation of OneWeb, which means that in any case, when it gets launched, which is not till the early part of the next decade, it will, in effect, already be de-risked by the business which is already on OneWeb. Yeah, I mean, I think it's far too early to talk about what the—if the demand isn't what it is, that the EU will commit further at this point. I mean, I would also remind you, if you look at NovaSpace or if you look at any other of the agencies that forecast growth in our sector, I mean, the growth in demand for non-geostationary capacity is huge. There's absolutely no reason for us to suppose that the demand won't be there.
I mean, if people did not think demand for LEO was there, then we would not be building OneWeb, Kuiper would not be building, or Amazon would not be building Kuiper, and you would not have other low-orbit constellations. That is clearly where the demand is for the sector.
Okay. Understood. Thank you both.
We will take our next question from Alexander Peterc, Bernstein, your line is open. Please go ahead.
Yes. Good afternoon to both of you, and thank you very much for taking my question. I would have a few. The first one is, can you or are you willing to provide additional details or any color on the reasons behind the change in Eutelsat leadership? That will be my first one, and then I have a couple of follow-ups. Thank you.
Nothing real to comment on this one, Alexander.
The only thing I can say is it's clear that we are in a situation where we are now, Eutelsat is facing a different challenge. I mean, compared to, we went through the telecom pivot first, then we had all the PMI or the OneWeb integration and the development of the start of the development of the LEO business. We are now moving a bit in terms of our environment, and clearly, we now need to go for a significant financing. It's a new era that is opening. I mean, Eva has been with us for a bit, three and a half years now, and she brought a lot of things to the company. I mean, she really brought into life the telecom pivot, and she also developed the merge and the integration with OneWeb. This is, I think, the only thing I can comment.
I don't know if, Joe, you want to add something?
No, I don't think there's anything we can add, to be honest. I mean, you've seen a lot of speculation amongst yourselves as well as the press on what might be the reasons for that change, but we have no comment to make.
Okay. That's helpful nonetheless. Thank you very much. My second question is related to the government vertical. I'd like to understand what will be the midterm effects of the geopolitical decoupling between the U.S. and Europe. You've mentioned that demand from the U.S. DOD is lower, and that's partly reflecting these changes. I don't know if you agree with that, but it seems that that's a little bit the case. At the same time, you have a pivot towards more business in Europe being the only non-U.S.-controlled LEO alternative for European governments.
That is probably a tailwind, and I'd like to know how this will play out. Should we now expect more growth as a rule, as a portion of total at least?
I think, as we said, the DOD is far lower than it used to be. As you know, there was a point five years ago when it was 70-80%. Now it is much lower. I think it is difficult. As we said earlier, this specific renewal coincided just with the start of the new administration and just when DOD was at full speed, and there are lots of people kind of looking around to cut costs. It is difficult to see how it will pan out.
We think it might be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction and that future campaigns may go back to a more normal rate. At the moment, obviously, in a lot of industries that are affected by the actions of the new U.S. administration, it's a bit difficult to know. Not much visibility on that. I think I would say two things though. I mean, the first is obviously, as you know and as we've communicated before, obviously, there's a lot of interest coming from Europe, and that will take a bit of time to materialize. We certainly, and I think other operators have said the same thing, we certainly think that interest is there. It's not only European. I mean, we've seen a lot of interest, funnily enough, from Canada, from Canadian institutions as well for different reasons but related to the same core.
I mean, we've mentioned in the past, we've got quite a big contract with Taiwan because they do not want to be reliant on a U.S. operator. I think all of that remains. Of course, the other thing, I think more broadly, which is positive, is that what is going on now, what has gone on with Ukraine, and now what is going on in the political sphere is really showing that satellite capacity and space have become a much more strategic, or I would say a central strategic part of the toolkit when it comes to sovereignty and defense. I mean, yes, the specific actions of the U.S. are a bit difficult to kind of fathom in the short term, but I think, generally speaking, we are still very confident about the government business.
Just as a follow-up to that, isn't it the case that there's also a migration to LEO services in government, and therefore the U.S. will naturally pivot to exclusively Starlink, I suppose, for the time being, whereas Europeans will go to you? Is that what's going to happen? I mean, how quick is the migration to LEO for government services? I mean, like everything, I mean, there's definitely a migration to LEO. I mean, I don't think that's specific to government. I think even with U.S. companies, it's not certain that anybody wants to be dependent on a monopoly. I think that holds. I mean, all of these people, particularly in government where you need a high level of security, in some cases, guaranteed minimum service levels, then it's quite possible that they will use several providers for backup.
Yeah, I mean, I don't think that I would say anything specific about government migrating to LEO. There are still government things like troop welfare and other, there are still other applications which can still be served by GEO.
Okay. Thank you. And then just the last point on IRIS². Can you give us an idea how much of the total LEO capacity that will be built is going to be sellable commercial capacity for you and how much is going to stay with the EU? As a part of that question, I understand that SES has access to the LEO IRIS² capacity as well. They say they will commercialize 10% of it, if I'm not wrong.
Is there any reciprocation with your access to their LEO IRIS² part of the capacities that have any interest to you at all, or do you see no point in it? Thanks.
First, to answer your question, Alexander, there are two different capacities, and the European capacity is quite small, actually, in terms of because of the business cases, the applications. The vast majority of the capacity is a commercial capacity, and it is a capacity that is bigger than the current available capacity with our current constellation. One. Second, yes, you are right. SES has access to part or a small part of the LEO capacity, as well as we could have access to a small part of the MEO capacity. I mean, it is a bit early at this point to really position ourselves whether we are going to use or not the MEO capacity.
I mean, really, our focus is to be a multi-orbit provider, essentially combining LEO and GEO. Anyway, MEO would be, if it was to happen, it would be a very small part of the business.
Okay. That is very clear. Thank you very much. That was all I had. Thank you.
We will take our final question from Wolfgang Felix. Sarria, your line is open. Please go ahead.
Yes. Hi. Thank you. I'll make it short then. I was going to ask you, your Department of Defense sort of remaining contracts making up, I understand, now approximately 50-60% of your government services division. What is the average duration on these contracts from here on? I have absolutely no idea. Would it be one year, three years, five years? Could you just tell me one more time the Russia timing?
Why does it have no effect on 2025 or 2025, 2026? And my third question would be, what is your GEO constellation capacity utilization right now? Is there any way that I can calculate that? And my fourth and final question, can you tell us a bit more about your LEO business right now, i.e., OneWeb, and what is roughly, I guess, revenue in the various segments for the third quarter? Thank you.
Maybe just we answer on Russia first. The reason why it has no very limited impact, there is a small impact. As you know, we have already removed two channels from our satellites. These impacts, I mean, are negligible compared to our business, and this is the reason why we say there's no significant impact for this year. Yeah.
We are only talking of a couple of months or three months for the remaining part of the year because our fiscal year will end at the end of June. It is only a couple of months or three months impact. Second, the full year impact, when we mentioned the EUR 16 million full year impact, I mean, then we are talking also of further channels that should be removed. As Joanna mentioned before, there is a process of identifying the channels that are really impacted by the sanctions. This is why it takes a bit more time to do so. As such, the expected impact for this fiscal year 2025 is nil or very limited.
Okay. Thank you.
On the U.S. DOD, I mean, the contracts vary in length, but a lot of them, so there are two renewal seasons. There is the fall and the spring. I mean, typically, without going into a lot of detail, I mean, typically, the way it works with the procurement is that they sign a kind of a five-year framework agreement. Within that framework agreement, they have the possibility to renew or they confirm on an annual basis. In fact, the only thing that we take into the backlog, for example, for those contracts is a year. I mean, I think probably it would be easier if we took that question offline. Similarly, for your questions about can we speak about OneWeb? Yes. I mean, specifically on figures, we do not break out OneWeb. We do not report OneWeb separately from the group.
If you want to go into more, I mean, if you want to have a more detailed chat about OneWeb, I suggest I'll ping you after this call, and then we can do that offline if that's okay with you.
Oh, fantastic. Yes, absolutely. I think the GEO capacity utilization, I'm also happy to take that offline.
No, I mean, GEO capacity, it varies. We do not provide a fill rate. It varies. We do not provide the fill rate because it's not actually a very helpful indicator because it's more the value than the volume. It just depends. There are video satellites where the capacity utilization is still very high, so probably above 75-80%.
There are some GEO connectivity satellites where the utilization rate is, or some of the older satellites, I would say, the utilization rate is lower. I mean, if you take something like Quantum, the utilization rate is very high. Some of the older connectivity would be lower than that, maybe 50%.
All right. Okay. That is it for me for today. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Wolfgang.
That is all the time we have for question and answer session for today. I will now hand you back to your host for closing remarks.
Okay. Thank you very much for your attention. We will meet next time for our full year results at the beginning of August. With that, we wish you a very nice evening and talk to you very soon. Thank you. Bye-bye.
Thank you for joining today's call. You may now disconnect.