Thread regarding Verizon Communications Inc. layoffs

@ef Or buy up existing infrastructure. Which is the plan

@ef So destroying a billion dollar rocket and the entire launch facility was a planned sound test? Have you been smoking the same stuff Elon has?

@ct You do realize those explosions were largely planned as part of a sound testing and development program? unlike Verizon which just rolls things en masse without either proper testing or development.

SpaceX has deployed nearly 11,000 satellites (think space cell sites) into orbit in just 7 years time. Contrast that to the approximate 140,000 cell towers in the country that have taken all the carriers 40+ years to build.

I'd say SpaceX would be competent enough to build towers, on the ground.

@BPHere's the full picture on the Upper C-band decision — this is genuinely the biggest spectrum event of the year, and it cuts firmly in the incumbent carriers' favor while boxing SpaceX out of a specific lane.
On July 22, 2026, the FCC voted to adopt final rules — a Report and Order — for auctioning 160 megahertz of the 3.98–4.2 GHz band (Upper C-band) for terrestrial wireless use, establishing a largely harmonized 440-megahertz "super band" from 3.7–4.14 GHz. FCC This isn't new spectrum from nowhere — it's the FCC bolting a fresh slice onto the Lower C-band it auctioned during Trump's first term, so carriers end up with one continuous, unbroken chunk of prime mid-band spectrum. Officials are touting it as a larger swath of licensed, 5G-grade mid-band spectrum than any other industrialized country holds. Tech Times The auction itself is expected in the first half of 2027, with a hard deadline: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act sets a July 4, 2027 completion deadline, FCC so the FCC has no room to slip.
SpaceX got shut out.
The draft rules explicitly rejected requests from SpaceX, SES, and QQ Technology to carve out spectrum for satellite direct-to-device operations, locking the 160 MHz into a framework for terrestrial wireless use only. FCC That's a direct rebuff of SpaceX's push to grab more spectrum for Starlink's phone-to-satellite service. Importantly, it's a delay, not a ki-l shot — SpaceX still has other spectrum paths, since it separately closed on 65 megahertz of exclusive-use nationwide mid-band spectrum from the EchoStar deal (AWS-4, H-block, unpaired AWS-3), fully transferring by November 2027, FCC plus its T-Mobile partnership.
The FCC drew this line
Aviation safety*: Aircraft radio altimeters operate in the 4.2–4.4 GHz range immediately above the Upper C-band, and 5G signals there can interfere with them, Exterrajsc so the agency wants a clean, predictable terrestrial-only band with a buffer, not mixed satellite/terrestrial use that complicates interference math.
The FCC's consistent line has been that satellite D2D services should get spectrum through carrier partnerships or auction wins — not unlicensed set-asides carved out of a terrestrial auction. Exterrajsc In other words: if SpaceX wants more spectrum for Starlink phone service, it should buy it or partner for it like everyone else, not get a special allocation baked into the C-band rules.
Fixed and base stations in non-rural areas can operate at up to 1,640 watts/MHz EIRP, rural base stations up to 3,280 watts/MHz, FCC giving rural buildouts more power headroom.

• There's a real transition-logistics apparatus: a clearinghouse selection committee must convene within 60 days of the order's publication and name a candidate by Dec. 15, Mobile World Live and satellite operators using the band today must file initial transition plans by Nov. 5, 2026. Mobile World Live
• Deployment deadlines are staggered: winning bidders can launch service in the largest markets starting December 2030, and elsewhere from July 2031 FCC — so this is a long runway, not an overnight capacity boost.
  What it means for incumbents in plain terms.AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile get a clear, congressionally-blessed shot at buying a huge, contiguous mid-band spectrum block for their own 5G/6G buildouts — with SpaceX explicitly fenced out of bidding for satellite carve-outs in that same band. That protects the carriers' core terrestrial network economics from satellite encroachment in this particular spectrum, even while those same carriers are simultaneously partnering with Starlink/AST SpaceMobile for the complementary dead-zone-filling use case. It's less "carriers vs. satellite" and more the FCC drawing a boundary: satellite gets its own spectrum lane (EchoStar deal), terrestrial 5G gets its own lane (C-band), and the two don't get to compete for the same auction.

@cq Blowing up rockets doesn’t qualify anyone to build a wireless network from the ground up. Musk will learn really fast how much it actually takes to build and run a network.

I have to laugh at all the experts on here…no forward thinking people..maybe that’s where Verizon went wrong. SpaceX doesn’t need Verizon …but Verizon needs SpaceX….hmmm

@b0 That’s a lot of ifs.

Updated SpaceX Total Debt after Q2: $36.8 billion

@ah Guess who is massively in debt

Verizon
Market Cap: ~$192 billion
Total Debt: ~$165.2 billion (high debt-to-market cap ratio of ~0.86)
Profile: Mature, no-growth legacy telecom carrier burdened by heavy capital expenditures and network infrastructure

SpaceX
Market Cap: ~$950 billion – $1.4 trillion
Total Debt: ~$23 billion (low debt-to-market cap ratio of ~0.02 to 0.03)
Profile: High-growth space and AI infrastructure company

@az They can outbid all of the wireless carriers for all of the spectrum coming in the next Cband auction for much less.

@VP https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/starlink-spectrum-wars-examining-the-fccs-role-in-regulating-the-new-space-age
This means the FCC is moving toward a more active, rules-based approach to satellite spectrum, and that matters for incumbent telecomsbecause it could make satellite-to-phone, backhaul, and rural broadband partnerships more competitive and more tightly regulated. The biggest practical takeaway is that Starlink’s push for more spectrum and clearer sharing rules could pressure incumbents like incumbent telecomsto either partner with satellite players, defend their own spectrum positions, or both AT&T’s main exposure is not that Starlink instantly replaces its network, but that the FCC may become more willing to open or reassign spectrum in ways that reduce the value of “spectrum hoarding” and increase the value of efficient use 1. The article emphasizes that the FCC has been willing to revisit older band frameworks, especially where incumbents are underusing spectrum or where the public-interest case favors new entrants. For AT&T, that means more pressure to show active deployment, efficient use, and a credible public-interest rationale when it holds valuable spectrum rights Verizon faces a similar strategic shift, but with an even stronger need to think about premium coverage and resilience. The article shows the FCC increasingly trying to balance incumbents and new space-based operators through spectrum-sharing, interference limits, and public-interest analysis rather than simply preserving legacy allocations. That makes Verizon’s network strategy more dependent on how well it can combine terrestrial coverage with satellite augmentation in hard-to-reach areas.
If the FCC adopts the kind of standardized rulemaking framework the article recommends, Verizon would likely face less uncertainty in planning partnerships and more clarity on which bands are likely to remain tightly controlled versus open to shared use. The downside is that Verizon could also face more competition if the FCC decides underused bands should be opened to new entrants or shared more aggressively The article suggests a regulatory environment that rewards operational efficiency, not just spectrum ownership The broader competitive message is that Starlink is not just another wireless rival; it is pushing the FCC to redefine what “public interest” and “active use” mean in the satellite era. That creates a potential squeeze on traditional carriers if the FCC uses those standards to challenge legacy spectrum strategies. But it also opens a large opportunity for carriers that can adapt quickly, especially through hybrid terrestrial-satellite offerings For AT&T and Verizon, the likely outcome is less “lose to Starlink” and more “compete through partnerships, spectrum efficiency, and regulatory agility.” The article’s framework suggests the FCC may favor operators that can prove real service gains, coexistence, and efficient use over operators simply sitting on spectrum. That is a favorable environment for carriers that move first and a less favorable one for carriers that rely on exclusivity alone The FCC may become more willing to let satellite and wireless networks share scarce spectrum, and that could reshape the business around incumbent telecoms. The winners are likely to be companies that can prove they use spectrum efficiently and can work with satellite operators rather than fight every allocation. The biggest risk is regulatory pressure on incumbents to justify holdings they are not fully using.

@OP SpaceX leadership is considered a well shaped and intelligent Team...love them or hate them...that being said, they would need to be dr-gged to make such a stupid move. ...no one...No company on the entire planet has the means to burn 300b on vz. yes with the B that is what would cost to buy out everything including the debts....you guys are on some

@ag Sounds like the same prople who said that wireless would never significantly cut into landline.

That guy is regurgitating the 2Q financial earnings for Spacex which already has a few threads in here. You could just read their actual official release. My thoughts? They will have to build out their own terrestrial network to compete on any level with the large 3 and continue buying spectrum. They are massively in debt as a whole right with spending money on AI, Starship rocket development and Starlink. I just don’t see them being a player in the mobile/internet market for a long time unless one of the big 3 decide to cut a deal with them.

Our leadership pumping their chests, particularly our CNO where we just don’t understand the technology ans Elon could never because of spectrum blah blah. He will figure this out at chipset, continue to launch LEO increasing density and worst case he can just buy one of the major telcos - that simple. I would never bet against Elon .
Watch it happen

I would imagine absolutely nothing

And leadership will say what they said about TMO, 20 years ago. “Their business model is unsustainable”. Well they were wrong and they will be wrong again about this.