2
AT&T’s Pascal Desroches frames direct-to-device satellite as a complement to terrestrial networks
In sum – what we know:
- Satellite as complement – Desroches positioned D2D satellite as covering only the rural 1% where terrestrial buildout is uneconomical, not as a threat to AT&T’s core broadband base.
- Three-carrier cooperation – AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile pooling scarce, complementary spectrum and sharing infrastructure costs makes satellite coverage cheaper than going it alone.
- Fragmented reality – The unified front masks three different satellite partners and architectures (AST for AT&T/Verizon, Starlink for T-Mobile), making sustained cooperation among rivals uncertain.
AT&T’s CFO laid out the company’s satellite playbook days before Starlink’s parent heads to the public market, and the message was about as un-defensive as it gets. Speaking at the Mizuho Technology Conference, Pascal Desroches framed direct-to-device (D2D) satellite connectivity as a complement to terrestrial networks rather than a threat to them. And, he doubled down on the recent news that the three big carriers were willing to work together for satellite connectivity.
The timing was hard to miss. Moderator Jennifer Fritzsche teased “a big IPO coming on Friday,” to which Desroches replied, “Yes, which one?” — playing dumb about the obvious. That IPO is SpaceX’s, listing on Nasdaq under SPCX on June 12 at a roughly $1.77 trillion valuation, driven largely by Starlink.
He sure didn’t seem all that worried about SpaceX as a disruptor though. What he described is a posture: terrestrial networks handle the 99% of Americans who already have coverage, satellite mops up the rural 1% where building anything else is uneconomical.
Satellite as a complement, not a threat
Asked how he sees the broadband competitive landscape evolving “with satellites, birds in the sky,” Desroches didn’t hedge on the segmentation. Between fiber, cable, fixed wireless, and traditional wireless, he said, the existing infrastructure “probably covers 99% of the U.S. population.” That leaves a remaining 1% in very rural areas where, in his words, the cost to deploy traditional infrastructure “is prohibitive.” Satellite, he argued, is “a great solution” for exactly that gap.
But he was blunt about where satellite isn’t the better product. In urban and suburban markets, he said, the infrastructure already in place “is better.” The cost per bit is cheaper, and those markets are already competitive with well-established players. AT&T’s focus, unsurprisingly, stays on fiber and wireless in the dense areas where most people live and most revenue is generated. Satellite is the extension layer, not the lead offer.
That framing does a lot of quiet work. By capping satellite’s addressable market at the last 1% of the population, Desroches downplays any near-term threat from Starlink to AT&T’s core broadband base. It’s a reassuring story for investors worried about satellite eating into telco margins. Whether the 1% figure holds up is another matter. Rural advocates and mapping critics have argued for years that coverage maps overstate reality, particularly on Native American reservations, across remote agricultural regions, and in mountainous terrain. If the real uncovered share is meaningfully larger than 1%, then so is the slice of the market AT&T is implicitly conceding to satellite — or, more likely in its preferred model, sharing with it.
Three-carrier cooperation
Of course, recently news broke that the big three carriers were working together for satellite connectivity, something that Fritzsche discussed in a little more detail.
He laid out three concrete reasons the cooperation makes sense. First, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile can agree on a common set of technical and service standards for delivering D2D — useful, since fragmented, proprietary approaches would complicate handset support and drive up costs. Second, they can pool spectrum, which Desroches noted is “scarce” and “often complementary.” Each carrier holds different slices across low, mid, and high bands, and individually none may have the ideal mix for ubiquitous satellite coverage. Pooling it yields more complete coverage than any one of them could manage alone. Third, they can share the infrastructure cost of delivering satellite connectivity, which keeps a single operator from carrying the full capex burden in a segment that, by his own framing, only directly monetizes the last 1% of customers.
He pressed the spectrum point again later. There will be “unique spectrum necessary to be able to connect direct to device,” he said, and the spectrum the carriers hold collectively “allows us to do that better than each one of us trying to do that.” The implicit message is that D2D isn’t mainly about buying satellite capacity. It’s about coordinating terrestrial spectrum holdings for reuse in space, which is far easier if the carriers act together.
Desroches framed all of this as a win for everyone. The arrangement is “pretty compelling for us,” he said, and “the consumer wins here” because a unified approach lets the carriers solve coverage pain points at an attractive price. That’s a tidy story, and it’s also a preemptive one. Three dominant national carriers pooling scarce spectrum and sharing infrastructure costs is precisely the kind of arrangement that draws regulatory attention. The FCC and DOJ may welcome coordination that extends rural coverage and improves disaster resilience, but they’ll also scrutinize whether joint governance over D2D spectrum raises barriers to entry for smaller players like Dish. The consumer-benefit language reads, at least in part, as an answer to questions nobody had asked yet.
Seamless network handoff goals
Desroches’ ideal end-state is straightforward. A customer driving from a suburban area into a rural dead zone stays connected, the phone hands off to satellite, and the user doesn’t notice. He compared it to international roaming, where your phone moves onto another carrier automatically — “no different than when you travel internationally.” Over time, he said, AT&T expects to partner with different satellite providers to bridge the coverage where it lacks infrastructure.
Desroches kept his satellite remarks provider-agnostic throughout, never naming Starlink, SpaceX, or AST. The repeated emphasis on “different satellite providers” suggests AT&T wants bargaining flexibility rather than lock-in to a single space vendor. The cooperative framing points toward a model where the established carriers collectively hold the cards — owning the billing, the eSIM, and the customer relationship — while satellite operators sell wholesale capacity into the carrier network rather than serving end users directly under their own brand. That’s a meaningfully different vision from Starlink’s, where the Starlink name sits in front of the customer.
Behind the unified front, the actual alignments are more fragmented than Desroches’ answer implies. AT&T and Verizon both partner with AST SpaceMobile on D2D, and T-Mobile has tied its “Coverage Above and Beyond” plans to Starlink. So all three carriers already have a satellite partner, but they’re three different partners with three different architectures. Getting them to agree on common standards, pool spectrum, and share costs is one thing in a conference Q&A. Sustaining that cooperation among three rivals — especially if Starlink uses its IPO proceeds to scale aggressively and bypass the wholesale model entirely — is a harder thing to pull off. Desroches is playing a long game, as he said more than once. The question is whether the other two carriers, and the satellite operators they each depend on, want to play the same one.
