Paul Jacobs : Yes. There’s a number of initiatives that were underway when I came. And so we’re looking at all those. And obviously, whether or not they can coexist with the existing services, both on the satellite and terrestrial side, those are the kinds of things that we’re looking at.
Michael Crawford : Okay. And then given the fivefold increase in potential — I don’t know how do you say, utilization of spectrum with XCOM IP that ought to be a good — an important differentiator when you’re talking to companies about private networks, but to actually integrate that XCOM IP into a solution that you can go to market with. Is that something that is still maybe like 12 months out? Or is there a time frame on when we might see not just a deal, but a deal, including, let’s call it, XCOM IP.
Paul Jacobs : Yes. So XCOM Labs was working on productizing and working on pilots with customers using the technology. That wasn’t — that was in CBRS spectrum. And one of the reasons for the combination was Globalstar and the licensing of the technology was that people who want to use cellular private networks are interested in mission-critical applications. If they weren’t, they’d use WiFi. So we’ve been using CBRS, but CBRS can come and go also. So it’s extremely differentiating to have the Band 53 asset and that spectrum, which we can guarantee the availability of to a customer who wants a private network for a mission-critical application. So that is underway. Now the timing of the deals, and I saw this in my life at Qualcomm, is that when you’re introducing new technology, the start date is a little hard to predict because it’s when some customer is willing to press a button to go on that new technology.
We’re very happy with how we’ve been proceeding with the customer trials, but we don’t have somebody who has pushed the button to say go. And our desire and expectation is that, that will happen within the next year. But as I said, it’s always difficult to know when people are adopting new technology exactly when the start date is going to be.
Michael Crawford : Okay. And then I just have one final question. Given that your guidance excludes any potential spectrum licensing revenue? Why is there a $15 million range for fourth quarter revenue to what would be $44 million to $59 million.
Paul Jacobs : I’ll let Rebecca answer that.
Rebecca Clary : Yes. Sure, Paul. Thanks for the question, Mike. So the range, as we’ve talked about before, is just due to the variability in our revenue predominantly. We do not have a fixed revenue source. There’s equipment sales timing, there’s seasonality, there’s variable components under our wholesale capacity contract that may in certain quarters as we’ve seen in the past 3 quarters may exceed kind of the core elements of that fee arrangement. And the timing of that, which is milestone completion based or bonus achievement based is just unknown to get very precise but we’ve closed the gap throughout the year, and now it’s at a range that we feel like is appropriate given the balance of the year.
Michael Crawford : Okay. Rebecca, just maybe just to follow on, I mean, even if there were 0 equipment sales, the service revenue would have to drop pretty drastically to get down to just $44 million for the quarter. And what would have to happen for — in that somewhat draconian scenario?
Rebecca Clary : Well, I think you’re probably just looking at a run rate. And yes, I mean, if you take a revenue year-to-date through September, divided by 9×12 that gets you to that answer. But as we’ve said before, there’s variable components, nonrecurring components, let’s say, in the first 9 months and the nature of some of those items aren’t necessarily expected to recur in the fourth quarter, right? And so after you make those kinds of adjustments, it is perceivable that we do see a decline in fourth quarter revenue, right? From the first 9 months. So it’s just allowing for some of that variability that’s inherent in our service revenue.
