Satellites complement rather than threaten AMT
The threat of satellite internet disrupting cell towers is argued to be overstated, as satellite networks are complementary and target rural areas where physical towers are not economically viable.
The argument
The speakers argued that AMT's management does not view players like Starlink or AST SpaceMobile as direct competitors because satellite technology serves underserved regions (e.g., rural Montana, Sub-Saharan Africa) where AMT does not operate towers. Furthermore, AMT maintains a board seat at ASTS to monitor developments after divesting most of its stake at a gain.
The thesis, stress-tested
✓ What validates it
- ✓ASTS or Starlink failing to capture meaningful urban market share
- ✓AMT maintaining stable churn rates despite satellite network rollouts
▸ Risks discussed
- ▸Rapidly falling costs of satellite data plans making them competitive in suburban areas
- ▸Technological leaps allowing satellites to effectively penetrate dense urban environments
Hear it yourself
"So they currently have nearly a 150,000 tower assets, and these are split all over the world. So you got about 42,000 in North America, 28,000 in Africa and Asia Pacific, 32,000 in Europe and about 47,000 in Latin America. Now the interesting thing about AMT is that they own the specific areas where these towers can be built and no other entity can get the exact same access. So AMT has this massive real estate monopoly that would require competitors to spend, you know, billions of dollars just to get access to the same property, and then they would have to construct towers over, you know, a multi decade time period just to catch up."
05:47
AFFILIATE LINK · ZORTIX MAY EARN A COMMISSION · NEVER A RECOMMENDATION TO TRADE