$ASTS We need an update from @AbelAvellan himself. I don’t want some X post from the corporate account. What is going on with your company Abel? Why are you so silent? We’ve waited long enough and have been left in the dark multiple times this year when production hit snags. You are the leader and you need to address your shareholders with an update. If that’s too much to ask you shouldn’t have become a public company. You also need a chief marketing officer or someone who can excite investors and/or help restore credibility because it’s gone and there’s now a mountain of capital betting against you via short interest. Hope we have some clarity soon. If we don’t have a shipment this weekend launch isn’t happening until November. If that’s the case we’re well behind the already lowered revised guidance from the August earnings call. That’s material. It would be best to provide an update yourself since nobody answers us when we reach out to your investor relations department. @AST_SpaceMobile @scottwisniews

T-MOBILE FILES RESPONSE TO AST SPACEMOBILE SCS APPLICATION T-Mobile has filed a response to the SCS application and the point they make are spurious at best. Let's break them down 1 by 1 and show how poor they are.... 1) First, the “missing maps” narrative is misleading. AST has already provided extensive technical data, dozens of parameters, and multiple amended filings. This includes the newly released maps in the updated Annex B. What T-Mobile calls “essential” are scenarios AST is still actively optimizing with partners. 2) Coverage shaping for space-based cellular isn’t static like a terrestrial tower. Beam configurations are adaptive, software-defined, and dynamically altered in real time. Expecting final, fixed footprints this early is unrealistic and AST has been clear that its beams will be geo-confined and power-controlled to protect all licensees. 3) AST’s leasing partners (AT&T, Verizon, FirstNet) already know their own licensed footprints. AST aligning its beams to those areas is straightforward engineering, not a mystery. The idea that T-Mobile “can’t assess interference” without a specific map snapshot ignores the flexible, dynamic nature of SCS. 4) T-Mobile claims AST’s beams might “spill over” into other markets at low elevation angles. But this is exactly why AST’s system uses: • elongated beams only when necessary • adaptive power shaping • real-time null-forming • buffer zones • automated beam steering tied to licensed coordinates This isn’t new — AST has explained it repeatedly. 5) On the UE noise figure criticism: AST intentionally uses conservative assumptions. A 9.62 dB NF is not “worse engineering” it’s a safety margin. Over-estimating device noise means AST models worst-case interference, not best case. Ironically, T-Mobile is arguing against a more protective standard. 6) Flagship devices with 6 dB NF don’t weaken AST’s case, they actually make interference even less likely. This is because those devices hear satellite signals more clearly and require less received power. AST modelling conservatively protects all devices, not just the best ones. 7) T-Mobile also ignores the most important fact.... AST’s system only operates in partner-controlled licensed spectrum, under strict leases and FCC oversight. Non-partner carriers won’t see co-channel interference because AST isn’t transmitting in their bands. This is literally the core design of SCS. 🤦‍♂️ 8) The “FCC ignored our filings” line is a distraction. The Bureaus put the application out for comment because AST met the threshold for a complete filing and because space-to-mobile is now a national priority for coverage, rural connectivity, and emergency resilience. 9) It’s also worth noting that AT&T, Verizon, Vodafone, Rakuten, Telefonica, Orange, MTN, and multiple global MNOs have all reviewed AST’s tech and chosen to partner, not oppose. The world’s biggest networks don’t sign on to something that can’t meet interference standards. 10 T-Mobile’s opposition is predictable 🤷‍♂️ SCS fills coverage gaps T-Mobile can’t reach with its current footprint. Opposing the filing is a competitive move, not a technical necessity. The FCC will evaluate based on engineering, not market positioning. 11) AST continues to refine beam targeting, interference protections, and coverage shaping. This is because that’s normal for a first-in-the-world space-based broadband system. The foundation is solid, partners are aligned, and the system is engineered to meet FCC constraints. Bottom line: T-Mobile’s filing doesn’t reveal a fatal flaw — it highlights that AST is building something new, dynamic, and far more sophisticated than terrestrial networks are used to. AST has already shown it’s committed to transparency, partnership, and interference protection throughout the SCS process. $ASTS $TMUS $VOD $T $VZ

New post, a long one. Deep forensic dive on $MSFT, $GOOG, $ORCL, $META, $AMZN with CU Universe stock rankings and the return of the fat pitches AICT Composite Value Map. michaeljburry.substack.com/p…

Think Rocket Lab only operates in low Earth orbit? Think again. When a spacecraft orbits the Moon, touches down on the lunar surface, or charts a course across deep space to Mars, there's a strong chance Rocket Lab technology helped it get there and deliver mission success. Through our launch, spacecraft, solar power, separation systems, software, operations, and robotics solutions, we’re proud to support historic planetary exploration missions across the solar system. 🧵👇