Good morning. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Should you need assistance during the call, please press star, then zero, and an operator will assist you offline. Following the presentation, the call will be open for questions. If you would like to ask a question, please press star, then one, and you will be placed in the question queue. If you are in the question queue and you would like to withdraw your question, you can do so by pressing star, then two. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference call over to our host, Brett Feldman, Senior Vice President, Finance and Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Hi, thank you. Good morning and welcome to our call to discuss our transaction with EchoStar. I'm Brett Feldman, Head of Investor Relations for AT&T. Joining me on the call today are John Stankey, our Chairman and CEO, and Pascal Desroches, our CFO. Before we begin, I need to call your attention to our safe harbor statement. It says that some of our comments today may be forward-looking. As such, they are subject to risks and uncertainties described in AT&T's SEC filings. Results may differ materially. Additional information is available on our Investor Relations website. With that, I will turn the call over to John Stankey. Go ahead, John.
Thanks, Brett. I appreciate you all joining us today on short notice, and I apologize if we're interrupting anyone's summer vacation plans, but we felt it was an important step to get you all together to provide some additional context about our transaction with EchoStar and answer as many questions as we can. I'll start by saying that we're very excited about our plans to acquire a substantial amount of mid and low-band spectrum from EchoStar while also supporting their transition to a hybrid mobile network operator. Today's announcement aligns perfectly with the long-term strategy and goals we outlined for you at our Analysts and Investor Day last December. Like our agreement to acquire fiber assets from Lumen, this is an opportunistic and preemptive asset acquisition that will drive attractive and sustainable shareholder returns.
With this transaction, we position AT&T to fully control and run our set of plays into the next decade. This move solidifies AT&T as the leader in advanced high-performance connectivity across 5G and fiber and provides us with a collection of scaled assets that uniquely allows us to play offense nationwide. We'll be in a position to broaden and accelerate our converged customer strategy in short order with negligible capital deployment. We'll work with the SEC to ensure that this spectrum is deployed on a timeline that serves the public interest. This transaction is good for our customers and will benefit Americans across the country, putting fallow and undeveloped spectrum into service quickly, improving network performance, and cost-effectively adding capacity at lower marginal costs than planned network densification.
The most important aspect of this transaction is that we'll offer consumers and businesses more choice when selecting internet and wireless services the way they prefer, together. This includes areas where we intend to offer AT&T fiber in the future. By expanding and deepening our spectrum portfolio in these areas, we can quickly grow our base of Internet Air customers in the near term and migrate them to fiber over time. The addition of these licenses also enhances our opportunity to transition customers from legacy copper-based phone and internet services to next-generation connectivity such as Internet Air and AT&T Phone Advanced in areas that we will not reach with fiber.
When you combine these wireless enhancements with our fiber network, which is the largest and fastest growing in the U.S., we're even better positioned to meet the critical connectivity needs for consumers, businesses, and first responders today and well into the future. Additionally, we'll have a network that's better equipped to support use cases driven by emerging technologies. This next generation of connectivity will require networks with even greater capacity as data demand grows. We expect to be at the forefront of enabling emerging AI and IoT use cases such as AI-native devices, autonomous vehicles, and advanced robotics. A key reason we're comfortable committing this capital is because of smart policy introduced by the current administration and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, that's enabling our industry to advance the nation's high-speed connectivity infrastructure and restore America's global lead in wireless technology.
This includes thoughtful spectrum policy, beneficial pro-investment provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and policies that help make it easier to transition outdated legacy wireline infrastructure to future-oriented 21st-century connectivity that people want. I've said this before, but I believe public policy around connectivity is about as good as I can remember in terms of aligning incentives to invest with outcomes that are good for consumers. These actions will ultimately help provide more Americans with better, more reliable, and more available advanced connectivity. This transaction amplifies my confidence in the future of AT&T and my willingness to invest to capitalize on that opportunity. The compounding benefits of the strategic actions we've taken over the past five years are only beginning to play out.
We have a unique and growing set of connectivity assets that will improve the high-quality services we already provide, allow us to innovate for future use cases, and that will be very difficult for others to replicate. With that, I'll turn it over to Pascal. Pascal?
Thanks, John. I just want to add a few points, and then I'll turn the call back to Brett so we can take your question. As John outlined, the key message to our shareholders is that we expect this transaction to drive an attractive return through the combination of revenue growth and efficiencies. Specifically, we expect it will drive incremental service revenue and EBITDA within the first 24 months following deal close, with accretion to adjusted EPS and free cash flow expected in year three when the anticipated growth in EBITDA will more than offset the incremental interest expense and capital investments that we will incur as a result of the transaction. A key reason why we are able to pursue this opportunity is because of the actions we have taken to strengthen our balance sheet over the past several years.
We've previously shared with you that we felt the 2.5x net debt to adjusted EBITDA range was the right target because of the flexibility it provides. This flexibility allows us to make the necessary investments in the business to drive growth and, at the same time, deliver attractive returns to shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases. Additionally, the 2.5x net debt to adjusted EBITDA range allows us to take advantage of strategic opportunities which deliver attractive returns to our shareholders, such as this transaction. While the acquisition of these spectrum licenses will increase our net debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio to the 3x range following the close, we are confident in our ability to return to our leverage target in the 2.5x range within approximately three years.
Given the strength of our 5G and fiber networks and the expected growth in revenues and profits from this transaction, we are confident we can accomplish this while continuing to return capital to shareholders. This is why we are reiterating our capital return plans, which include $20 billion of capacity for share repurchases during 2025 through 2027. We also expect to maintain our capital return program during 2028 and 2029 at comparable levels while reducing our net leverage ratio. More than halfway through the year, we continue to execute well, and we are reiterating all of our full-year 2025 financial guidance. As detailed in our press release, we are also reiterating key elements of the long-term financial outlook we provided with our second quarter 2025 earnings report. Upon the close of our pending transactions with EchoStar, Lumen, and UScellular, we plan on updating our long-term financial outlook.
In closing, we are excited about what this transaction with EchoStar means for our company, our customers, and our future. That does it for our remarks. Back to you, Brett.
All right. Thank you, Pascal. Operator, we are ready to take our first question.
We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, press star, then one. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. To withdraw your question, please press star, then two. At this time, we will pause to assemble our roster. The first question today comes from Benjamin Swinburne from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Thanks. Good morning. Hope everyone's well. I guess two questions. One, I'd love to hear you guys talk a little bit more about the incremental service revenue and EBITDA you think you can generate as a result of closing this transaction. It sounds like fixed wireless might be something that you're incrementally more enthused about with this acquisition coming on. Could you talk about how quickly the team can light this spectrum up on the network once the deal closes? Thanks so much.
Sure. Good morning, Ben. I would tell you whether or not we're enthused or not really isn't how I'd characterize it. We view fixed wireless as a continued great opportunity for us for the right customer segments. As I said previously, there's a lot of businesses out there where it's a great fit, especially for a converged offer. It's effectively a mobile business that needs some kind of a scaled fixed solution. Given their usage characteristics, this is really, really good. There are also segments in the consumer space that make a lot of sense. This opens up just a bigger footprint in places where we maybe had to be a little bit more cautious.
The other part that really drives some opportunity in the near term is, we've given you specific guidance of what we intend to do over our fiber footprint, but that runs over a number of years. We realize we've got an opportunity to precede a lot of those areas and get very aggressive on converged connectivity and then catch the usage dynamic out four years in an accretive way. We think we want to take advantage of that where we can to make sure we maintain and also grow relationships with customers that we have. Third, we expect to do better on catching legacy customers in places where we're never going to be building any of our fiber. We know there are a fair number of places to do that.
We think we've got a better product than what we've seen in places where we've gone and been more aggressive about transitioning customers off legacy services onto fixed wireless solutions. We have very satisfied customers. The product performs very well. We can do it at the right place to get a good converged offer in place for them. We think that's another place that we actually have incremental opportunities to go and push further. Those are the easy ones for us to kind of look at on current data and understand what we think we can ultimately pick up incrementally.
The other ones that ultimately, over time, I think will play out is if we engineer this network properly, given the asset base we have, we think we're going to have a very compelling offer that plays well into the AI space for, as I said in my remarks, a variety of connected devices, as well as other things that are driven off the handset that ultimately, historically, we've been able to find ways to monetize that better performing capability. In terms of where we think we can go, the mid-band spectrum is obviously virtually no lift at all for us. The vast majority of our infrastructure that's out there will be prepared to receive it. You get into largely software configuration issues to deploy it.
I believe EchoStar disclosed in their filing this morning that there is an option for us to lease that during the pendency of the transaction. I'm not going to break any news on that. It obviously requires approval from authorities that we can execute that lease. If, in fact, that approval is granted, we could turn that up even before the transaction was closed. At a minimum, once the transaction is closed, we can be very quick in getting the mid-band spectrum in place. My sense is, in talking with regulators, they're interested in seeing fallow spectrum move into service as quickly as possible. I think we're probably aligned on our objectives and maybe what the regulatory objectives are because that's a good thing for consumers and good things for competitiveness of the nation's infrastructure. The low-band spectrum obviously is something that requires more work.
We don't currently manifest 600 MHz in our network, but we have a plan if we elect to go down that path that we can consolidate radios on other low-band spectrum that we have. We're getting to a point in our infrastructure right now where some of that infrastructure that we have out there is end-of-service life. It's been up there for a while. As part of our normal capital refresh cycles, we know we have to replace radios. If we can do that and ultimately pick up this additional band, and we have, as we said, or I said in the remarks, a reasonable timeframe to do that and do it in the context of what's in the public interest, then we'll be able to be pretty efficient about how we go about doing that.
The incremental capital won't be that significant, but it will take a little bit of time to get that done and work it through the network.
Thanks, John.
We'll take the next question, Operator.
The next question comes from John Hodulick from UBS. Please go ahead.
Great. Thank you. And congrats on the transaction. John, getting back to your comments on the 600 MHz, I was a little surprised seeing that in the list there because, as you said, you don't have a presence in the 600 MHz band. I mean, just any thoughts on what that could do to your network or how you expect that, you know, access to that spectrum to change, whether it's capacity or quality levels? There's other bands that EchoStar has that, like the 700 MHz, that would have fit sort of better with what you guys already have. Were there other options within the sort of portfolio that EchoStar has that you looked at that you decided not to pursue? The 600 MHz just sort of stands out as a little bit different. Like, as you said, it's sort of dominated by T-Mobile. Any thoughts there?
Lastly, just anything additionally about the cost, especially, again, the 600 MHz. I think it's going to require, you know, you sort of referred to the network modernization plan with all the new Ericsson gear. Are there economies that you can point to based on where you are in that deployment that can help you, that can aid you in rolling out this new 600 MHz? Thanks.
I don't really want to set a new precedent of three questions per slot, John, but I'm going to go ahead and indulge you this time. We are in a really great position on low-band spectrum in our business today. We have a great relationship with the FirstNet Authority that has given us something that I think we've managed to turn into a very unique set of capabilities. As you know, we run the largest network in the United States. Part of that is by virtue of the fact that we have a great coverage layer given our low-band assets. I can tell you, historically, I have never regretted owning low-band spectrum over the course of my career.
Part of why I have the confidence to go and do this transaction in a way that worked for the counterparty is because I don't think I'll regret owning low-band spectrum over time if that ultimately proves to be the right place for us to go. I feel really good we can drive great value out of it. I do believe, in my view, what will become important over the long haul is engineered uplink. Low-band spectrum and reach for those is going to be really, really important. We start with a strong position. This can only make it stronger. As you have those workloads that require upstream bandwidth that reach deeper into buildings and further out in the network, this only gives us more engineering flexibility to move through it.
That's how I think about it if we ultimately decide that's the highest and best use for how we deploy. We have a lot of flexibility given the density of our network and our existing low-band holdings to do this the right way moving forward. I feel really comfortable about that. When I said in my comments that this transaction allows me to set the rules and make the decisions that AT&T wants to make for itself, this is part of that dynamic. You should assume we've looked at everything that EchoStar has to offer. They're a counterparty. They have their needs and wants. We're a counterparty. We have our needs and wants. I try to be disciplined around what we do. To your point, everything comes with a cost. We want to make sure we have economic returns on the cost.
You should conclude that based on the other assets they have and what they want and what the value of them is and what we think the value is returned to our network in terms of deployment costs and what kind of payloads we can carry, that these were the right assets for us at this time. It doesn't mean something doesn't change down the road if circumstances change, but based on where the counterparty is, this is what could get done. I'm really proud about what got done. It wasn't easy to get here. I'm really happy that we're first out of the shoot on this and kind of setting the terms in a way that we think is really strong and capable for AT&T moving forward. That was really important to me and is part of the justification for paying the price that we have. We're in control.
As I said, we can move spectrum into the network very quickly. The question that I answered for Ben, that time to revenue when you put it up since there's no capital to deploy is different than a typical spectrum deployment when a new air interface is being put out. We get the spectrum. We can start generating revenues immediately. We don't need to wait for devices to be seeded. We don't have to hang radios on towers. We don't have to deploy capital to do that. That's part of the economic equation here. Finally, on your question about the modernization, I don't really expect that our current modernization that we're doing for Open RAN is going to necessarily directly correlate to the 600 MHz deployment.
I expect by the time that we have equipment that allows us to do those types of things, we will be mostly through that effort. However, we will have opened up interfaces in the network by that point in time. It certainly provides us some optionality on how we source radios and what we think about moving forward as we buy new equipment. I don't know that the touches and the physical work that we're doing as part of that modernization is necessarily going to lower the labor cost deployment of what we ultimately do to put 600 MHz in the network.
Got it. Thanks, John.
Thanks, Operator. We'll take the next question.
The next question comes from Michael Rollins with Citi. Please go ahead.
Thanks. Good morning and congratulations on the transaction. I'm so curious how this transaction may influence your wholesale strategy going forward, whether it's the relationship you've announced now with EchoStar, as well as maybe looking at new wholesale partners with the additional capacity you have that may even include the cable MVNOs. Then just secondarily to this, a few years ago, I believe you announced a transaction with EchoStar or DISH at the time for at least $5 billion of wholesale revenue. Is that agreement still in place post this transaction? Maybe you can give us an update on how that portion of that business has been proceeding. Thanks.
Good morning, Michael. I don't think it really changes my point of view on wholesale. As I've shared previously, I think any network operator historically always wants a mix of traffic on their network. Typically, in high fixed-cost businesses like ours, when you have that mix, that's the optimal profitability equation. Having a percentage of traffic on our network that's wholesale in nature, I think, is important to us going forward. We're excited about the relationship with DISH moving forward, supporting their Boost brand. One of the things that I traditionally look at is I really like wholesale business when it extends us to someplace where we're not or where we're not particularly effective. Boost is a good example. I think they do a much better job of getting the segments of the economy that we're not as good at distributing into.
They're accretive in many ways because customers that they bring on that we ultimately receive wholesale revenues for, we may have never seen at retail. That's a win-win if you can get that kind of a mix. I'm interested in any opportunity like that moving forward. As you know, we have a meaningful and sizable wholesale business with other MVNOs. Certainly, having more capacity in places allows us to be more competitive for some of that business and maybe increase on the margin what we're able to do in places, especially for those that segment and divide their wholesale business among more than one carrier. I think it's good for the business. I don't know that it's going to be a step function shift. To answer your question, when I think about cable under that construct, I don't really think about cable necessarily being an accretive partner per se.
I suppose there are places where that could occur, but I'm doing pretty well right now in picking up customers and share from cable. I'm doing it at retail. I'd like to continue doing that at retail because that's probably the best equation for me. Maybe at some point in time, if in the future we weren't as effective as we're being right now in running that play and winning converged customers and having delighted individuals that buy both products from us, I'd do it differently. Right now, I think I feel like I'm in a pretty good place around that and then pursuing maybe a little bit different direction. What you should assume is this relationship that we have with Echo and that we announced is a subsumption of our existing agreement with them for wholesale, that this will be the new construct.
Assuming we can get the approvals and everything done moving forward, this is how they will operate and what they will do. That will continue to grow in revenues just like it has been growing and maybe even grow faster because I think it's a better arrangement for them. Ultimately, if they're successful in the market, I expect to have the fruits of that labor ultimately accruing to the wholesale volumes and traffic that we pick up from them.
Thanks, Mike. Operator, we'll go to the next question.
The next question comes from Michael Funk with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Thank you all for doing the call this morning. John, first for you, you mentioned earlier the new spectrum allows you to lean in a bit more fixed wireless maybe than you have in the past. Can you expand on that or how it might change your marketing strategy, whether pricing, packaging, otherwise, and how you intend to lean in? Pascal, I apologize. You cut out a bit when mentioning returning to the 2.5 leverage target, the timeframe. If you can just repeat what you said about timing for returning to the target.
Sure. Good morning, Mike. I don't know that I can add a whole lot to you. I wouldn't, I don't, by matter of course, like to publicly pre-disclose pricing and market strategy for a variety of reasons. What I would tell you is we're really pleased with what we've been able to do over the last several quarters. You've been seeing the results. We've obviously shared them with you. You see the momentum growing. We think that we have really good offers in the market that are gaining traction. We think those offers, from the feedback we get from our distribution channels, are well received. I think what we can do to improve is a couple of things. One, as I said earlier, expanding the footprint where those offers are available. This spectrum allows us to do that.
It'll be fewer areas that we have restricted because of either network performance or capacity. Two, we think we can do a little bit better in using some alternate distribution channels for our fixed wireless product, especially in the business market. We largely have been owned and operated in a lot of the volume we've driven right now. We see no reason that we can't actually get a little bit better in that space. The product hunts really well and is very well suited to it in many ways. I think we can go a little bit further there that then matches into our expanded footprint. In terms of where we are on the actual offers in the market, we seem to be doing quite well and have hit a spot that we're very comfortable with. It's accretive in the construct that we have right now.
As I said earlier, maybe we get a little bit more aggressive in some preceding areas as we start to think about what's going on with fiber. Time to revenue, as you know, on a fiber business case can be a really big driver of improving returns. We're just starting to get our muscles around how to do that a little bit. I expect with the Lumen assets, that's going to be a key driver for us as to how we get in place presence and brand recognition in markets where we're going to be with fiber and then come in behind and ultimately clean those up and watch ourselves maybe be a little bit more effective at growing revenues faster at the front end. Pascal, do you want to take the question on the leverage on the 2.5?
Yeah. Just to level that, we expect the transaction to close somewhere around the middle of 2026. We expect it will take us about 36 months. Within 36 months, we expect to get back to the 2.5x range. That will be through a combination of accelerated EBITDA growth plus deleverage debt reduction as a result of strong free cash flows beginning in 2028 and beyond.
Great. Thank you .
Thank you, Mike. We'll go to the next question, Operator.
The next question comes from Peter Supino with Wolfe Research. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good morning. A question about the $23 billion price tag of this deal. I wanted to look at the spectrum values that the prices DISH paid for this spectrum historically. By our look, it seems you're paying about a $7 billion premium to those prices for these assets. That's assigning no value to the changes in the Boost relationship. We wondered if you'd talk a bit about how you saw the value here. As a parallel question, if you could discuss whether the changes in the Boost relationship create any additional value here. Thanks.
Hi, Peter. Yes. The short answer is that we ultimately expect there'll be incremental value that's generated from the Boost relationship moving forward. That's part of the contribution as to why we think this has been a good move for us. It's a full package. We view this as a full package, and they all work together. Some of the accelerated revenues we talked about, the ease to deployment on capital, those things all factor in as to your willingness to pay. I'm well aware that what we're paying is more than what DISH paid for spectrum at auction. That's not a new and startling fact. There are speculators who go in and buy spectrum all the time and hold it for a number of years and then ultimately come back in and sell it for more than what they bought it for.
That's the nature of auctions and what occurs. I will tell you that the price we're paying, if you go back and look at precedent transactions for the types of spectrum that we're picking up, these are well within the range of what we think have been precedent-driven spectrum transactions and ultimately got ourselves comfortable that within that context, it was a win-win construct for both what DISH needed and EchoStar needed to move forward for their business. They had certain requirements to clear to get this done. We are a willing player to meet those requirements to enable them to move forward. As I just said, part of that equation is getting the value of a wholesale relationship as they move forward. Ultimately, when we think about the speed to our market effectiveness, we believe those things ultimately validate the price that we paid for it.
I'm comfortable with where we're at. I'm fully aware that our execution of what we bring forward will need to support that moving forward. As I've said before, there's not a lot of times in my career where I've regretted for want of, you know, putting a few billion dollars in a particular time frame, going and buying spectrum that enabled your business to be better. I would also tell you that I view spectrum as a long-term dynamic of dollar cost averaging. There are moments and times where sometimes you get a transaction that maybe goes a little below market. Sometimes you get one that's at market and sometimes a little above market. The question is, over time, are you paying for that asset similar to what others in the industry are paying and not disadvantaging yourself?
I think historically, as I look back at our portfolio, I think we've navigated this and managed it pretty well.
That's helpful. Thank you.
All right, we'll take the next question, Operator.
The next question comes from Jim Schneider with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Just two quick ones, if I could. One is, as you think about the allocation of this spectrum to both your future core mobile growth as well as fixed wireless growth, can you give us any kind of ballpark estimate of how many fixed wireless subscribers you hope to eventually support with this spectrum on the margin? Maybe secondly, relative to the spectrum deployment, at what point in time would you expect the spectrum to be fully deployed on your network?
Good morning, Jim. No, I can't. We're not going to provide forward guidance on kind of where we are in fixed wireless asset subcounts. I think that's been consistent with where we've been. Obviously, as we move through this, we've given you guidance and reaffirmed what we're doing for the balance of this year. There'll come a time when we're more confident in the approval process and we're getting near that period where it makes sense to come back in and recalibrate forward guidance. We'll do that as that moment approaches and we kind of know exactly what's going to happen in what time frame. Obviously, while I may not give you a subcount, we certainly will give you some guidance on how we think we're going to impact things like service revenue and our EBITDA growth associated with that.
As we move down the path here, you can be comfortable we'll give you a reasonable amount of transparency on that. Your second question on deployment, that's probably going to hinge right now on ultimately where we go. As I told you earlier, mid-band will be very, very quick. We think that's one of the attractive parts of this. We do expect it's going to take a number of years to get the 600 MHz deployed as we go down that path. We expect, you know, we've laid out in our agreement that we know that's going to be the case. We, of course, need to get the FCC support in doing that. That's just part of the deal, given the licenses already have deployment requirements on them.
I can't guarantee anything, but I feel like given that it's the desire of the FCC to get spectrum broadly into service and move it forward on sustainable constructs. Given what they've been concerned about in their own letter writing back to EchoStar, they should be open to something along the lines of a very deliberate path to invest, even if it takes several years to get it done. We'll figure that out through the approval process. Again, as that gets settled in, we'll give you specifics around it.
Thank you.
Thanks, Jim. Operator, we're going to take our last question.
The last question today comes from Sebastiano Petty from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Hi. Congratulations on the deal and thanks for fitting me in. John, I guess just maybe kind of stepping back for a moment. If you look at Gail Slater's approval of U.S. T-Mobile deal, she did make comments about, you know, the aggregation of spectrum amongst the big three. As you look across the landscape and kind of getting across the approval process, obviously very unknown what may occur there. Do you see any perhaps, you know, behavioral remedies or anything from like an MVNO perspective that will, that the DOJ perhaps may kind of opine on, you know, your MVNO practices or broader practices across the ecosystem as it pertains to wholesalers as EchoStar kind of moves further away from being a facilities-based provider and more towards a wholesaler? Just kind of overall views on, you know, maybe getting over the finish line there. Thank you.
First, I don't want to speak for Gail and I don't want to also speak for the consumer of the MVNO construct. This was a negotiated construct that has different characteristics than a straightforward MVNO. I believe it is EchoStar's intent to continue to operate and manage their own core. I believe we've given them very attractive economics around this that make sense for both parties. It's a package, as I said. This is a package of an economic value of spectrum that's changing hands and a wholesale agreement. I don't think it would be wise for a regulator to come in and try to cherry-pick certain things because it will fundamentally change the overall construct of the deal.
We're not necessarily willing to sign off on the deal if that were to occur or somebody were to come in and suggest that they want to stipulate what our commercial arrangement should be. I frankly don't think that's necessary because there is a robust wholesale market that's out there today. People avail themselves of it. We've just recently seen evidence of that where the cable industry has had a longstanding relationship with one provider, chose to build a second relationship with another provider that suited other needs for them. I think the market functions incredibly well.
I believe from a regulatory perspective, Sebastiano, one of the reasons I'm comfortable moving forward on this is when I look at all the data in the industry, when I look at what's actually happening, not theoretical models, when I look at flow share in a given quarter, when I see what's happening in pricing, when I see the intermobile competition dynamics of how customers are choosing in the market, there are demonstrative and meaningful data points that show that these markets are functioning in an incredibly competitive manner. I would also say that those numbers, and when you look at it, it doesn't necessarily represent that the key driver of that dynamic is necessarily, with all due respect, what we're seeing DISH or EchoStar do in the market.
In my view, any rational regulator would look at it and say, this is a circumstance where the FCC has made a decision on these licenses where they're questioning whether or not they're going to do something from a regulatory perspective that puts a lean on the business and its sustainability. I'm only parroting what EchoStar has disclosed in their public filings. You have to come up with a comparison that says not a going concern or possibly doesn't have a way to operate their business and what's the next best outcome. I think keeping them in business on a very attractive wholesale arrangement where they immediately improve their cost per gig and their economics as opposed to owning and operating their own network seems like a pretty good better outcome as opposed to nothing being there at all.
Ultimately, the dynamics of what's occurring in the market support the fact that concentration really isn't an issue. In fact, getting more capacity out into the market is ultimately a good thing for consumers over the long haul. That's about how I think about it. I don't want to pretend that the DOJ won't very carefully examine this and look at all the facts that I've already looked at and come to their conclusions on it. I just think my conclusion is very compelling and will certainly advocate for that through the approval process to try to get this done in the right way.
Thank you, John.
Thanks for the question, Sebastiano. Operator, you can go ahead and close out the call.
The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.