Understanding the Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T Future DTD Joint Venture
- 51 minutes ago
- 3 min read
May 15, 2026
By Caleb Henry
The three biggest cellular carriers in the U.S. on May 14 announced a partnership to create a joint venture that will handle their satellite direct-to-device needs, marking a shift that could dramatically reshape how DTD services are procured.
The future JV, name still TBD, depends on whether AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon’s “agreement in principle” evolves into a full-fledged company. Language from the press release clearly shows the trio hedging to win over regulators like the FCC and FTC, who will need to be assured the JV won’t be anti-competitive and will deliver benefits to consumers.
Satellite DTD pioneer AST SpaceMobile was quick to praise the announcement, echoing points from the tripartite press release that the team-up will help eliminate dead zones and accelerate technical integration. SpaceX took a different tune, with President Gwynne Shotwell posting on X that “It’s David and Goliath (X3) all over again,” with her bet being on David, aka SpaceX (not that it’s really the little guy anymore).
It is possible the MNOs are hedging, creating a bulwark against a direct-to-consumer market entry by SpaceX via the Starlink Mobile brand, and perhaps even Amazon Leo through its acquisition of GlobalStar. AST SpaceMobile received investments from AT&T and Verizon, along with several international MNOs. It's not hard to see why each DTD company responded the way it did.
While the primary goal appears to be a single buyer of DTD services for the three of them, the companies said each has the right to continue connectivity efforts independently, and that pre-existing carrier-satellite agreements will remain in place. The MNOs said that by working together as a JV “the partners will be able to enhance convenience for their customers, enable competition and foster innovation and growth within the industry.”
Quilty Space is following this development closely and will provide future research on it, but in the meantime, the following is a quick evaluation of that statement.
Could the JV “enhance convenience for their customers?” Probably yes. A single interface for roaming, regardless of which DTD service one uses, sounds convenient for customers. Having half a dozen video subscriptions is less convenient than relying on Netflix alone. Less choice, yes, but more convenient.
Could the JV “enable competition?” Perhaps, but only with a dedicated vision for doing so. Monopsonies aren’t typically known for cultivating competition. It’s usually the opposite. When the DoD forced the consolidation of 50 prime contractors to five beginning in the 1990s, the result was arguably less innovation, higher costs, and slower development cycles. Fast forward to 2026, and the DoW’s acquisition reforms, focused on speed, affordability, and scalability, have unleashed a torrent of new market entrants like Anduril, Castelion, and ShieldAI. If the DTD JV models the modern-day DoW by working with industry to embrace a range of players, it could enable competition the way the MNOs suggest.
Could the JV “foster innovation and growth within the industry?” Same as above. In the satellite industry, heavyweight companies like SES, Eutelsat and Telesat have splashed contracts onto startups (K2 Space, MaiaSpace, and Farcast, respectively), cultivating new entrants in satellite manufacturing, launch and antennas. When the launch industry stagnated in the late 2000s/early 2010s, SES helped raise up SpaceX by placing a contract to use the then-new Falcon 9 rocket. And when satellite manufacturing got stagnant, Intelsat raised up Boeing by buying eight satellites from the company from 2009 to 2013. The MNO JV could do the same by treating DTD service providers like partners and viewing their success as key to a healthy industry. As with the previous point, this can be true, but is not guaranteed to be true. Even the biggest satellite operators had competitors. A monopsony does not.
Hidden motivations? After burying the hatchet from decades of sparring over spectrum, satellite operators and MNOs are currently enjoying a season of peace, but the good times might not last. SpaceX and Amazon, both of which have strong direct-to-consumer channels, have collectively spent $30+ billion on spectrum alone and are targeting revenues in the tens of billions to recoup their DTD investments. Could a properly structured JV ensure the DTD entrants stay in their lane?
Another question: what does this mean for DTD satellite operators, like ASTS, Lynk, and Equatys? It all depends on the corporate culture of the MNO JV. If the JV cultivates an environment where multiple DTD satellite operators thrive, then it's good. If the JV uses its single-buyer power to squeeze satellite operators, it could cause them to struggle. Satellite constellation operators have the benefit of being global or near global, but the U.S. is still an anchor market in most business plans.
