What is the core technology behind Standard Ascension?

Standard Ascension, operating under SAT Group Inc., has developed a patented self-supporting telecommunications tower. Unlike traditional towers that require engineers to climb hundreds of feet for maintenance, this system uses remote programming to demote the antennas or mast to ground level. This 'Safer Mechanism' is designed to eliminate climbing-related injuries and fatalities while reducing the downtime associated with manual maintenance.

How does the company plan to compete with giants like American Tower Corp?

The deck acknowledges a massive scale gap, noting American Tower Corp had 144,000 sites compared to SAT Group's estimated 100 sites in 2017. Their strategy relies on 'First Mover Advantage' with their specific automated technology and a unique regulatory angle: they claim their status as a minority-owned company will help them secure 20% of the U.S. market within five years.

What are the financial expectations for the business?

The financial forecast is aggressive, projecting a jump from $26.6 million in Year 1 sales to $506.9 million by Year 5. They anticipate high profitability, with a PBIT (Profit Before Interest and Taxes) margin reaching 69.9% by Year 5. The deck also mentions a cumulative Net Present Value (NPV) of over $139 million over five years at a 30% discount rate.

Who are the key partners mentioned in the deck?

SAT Group Inc. relies on four key strategic alliances: Fred A. Nudd Corporation for tower manufacturing, PRZ Technologies for automated robot-load cells, SunMan Engineering for prototype and board design, and Moog Inc. for precision motion control. Notably, the deck states that SAT Group will offer 10% equity stakes to both Fred A. Nudd Corp and PRZ Technologies.

What market trends is Standard Ascension capitalizing on?

The deck points to the steady increase in U.S. carrier capital expenditures, which grew from $20.59 billion in 2008 to over $30 billion during the 4G LTE buildout. It specifically highlights the transition toward 5G and the increasing number of tower locations and cell sites as a primary growth driver for their automated infrastructure.

Standard Ascension Pitch Deck: 19-Slide Breakdown

See all 19 slides of the Standard Ascension pitch deck — a Telecom deck — with a slide-by-slide teardown of what the deck does well and where it falls short.

Standard Ascension (SAT Group Inc.) addresses the high-risk, high-cost nature of telecommunications tower maintenance. The deck identifies a critical safety gap, citing 43 fatalities between 2011-2016 (Slide 3), and proposes a patented self-supporting tower that uses remote programming to demote antennas for ground-level work (Slide 7). While the deck boasts impressive financial projections—targeting $506 million in sales by Year 5 (Slide 15)—it relies heavily on strategic alliances, offering equity stakes to manufacturing partners like Fred A. Nudd Corp. and PRZ Technologies (Slide 17). The…

Key takeaways

The problem slide cites 43 fatalities at communication tower worksites between 2011-2016 as a primary driver for innovation (Slide 3).
The solution utilizes self-supporting towers that elevate or demote antennas via remote programming, eliminating the need for engineers to climb (Slide 7).
The company claims a 'minority owned' status will help guarantee at least 20% of the industry in the U.S. within 5 years (Slide 11).
Standard Ascension projects a Year 1 revenue of $26.6 million, scaling to $506.9 million by Year 5 (Slide 15).
The deck lists a specific 'on-board customer' in AT&T, requiring 50 towers (Slide 11).
Strategic alliances are core to the business model, with 10% equity stakes offered to Fred A. Nudd Corp. and PRZ Technologies for manufacturing and automation support (Slide 17).
The competitive analysis compares SAT Group's 100 estimated sites in 2017 against American Tower Corp's 144,000 sites in 2016 (Slide 13).
The technology is stated to be patent protected worldwide, covering both the tower and the process (Slide 9).

Standard Ascension: Automating the Heights of Telecom Infrastructure

Standard Ascension (SAT Group Inc.) presents a pitch deck for a hardware-heavy industrial solution. The company aims to disrupt the telecommunications tower industry by replacing traditional fixed towers with automated, self-supporting structures. The primary value proposition is safety and cost-reduction, targeting the dangerous and expensive practice of manual tower climbing. This teardown examines the 10 slides provided from the 19-slide deck.

Slide 1: Title Slide

The deck opens with a minimalist title slide. It features the name Standard Ascension in red, with Tower Group Inc. in grey below it. At the bottom left, the parent company SAT GROUP Inc. is noted. The subtitle is simply "Investment Pitch Deck." It is a functional, if uninspired, start that establishes the corporate identity without revealing the specific industry niche immediately.

Slide 3: The Problem

Slide 3 identifies four core pain points in the tower maintenance industry: Safety Related Issues , Expensive , Time Consuming , and Unwelcomed Interruptions . The most compelling data point here is the citation of 43 fatalities at communication tower worksites between 2011-16, sourced from WirelessEstimator.com. The slide argues that current practices are costly due to high insurance premiums and engineer salaries, and inefficient because maintenance causes massive downtime for telecom antennas. By framing the problem through the lens of human life and operational expense, the deck sets a high stakes environment for its solution.

Slide 5: Market Size

This slide uses two charts to illustrate the growth of the U.S. wireless tower market from 1984 to a projected 2025. The data shows a steady climb in cell sites and tower locations, specifically noting the transitions through 2G, 3G, 4G, and the 5G estimation. A key figure cited is the U.S. carrier capex, which grew to over $30 billion at the peak of the 4G LTE buildout. The slide lists driving forces such as the advancement of technology and the coverage of rural areas, though it lacks a specific Total Addressable Market (TAM) dollar figure for the maintenance sub-sector they are targeting.

Slide 7: The Solution

The solution slide mirrors the problem slide's structure. It introduces Self-Supporting Towers that eliminate the need for climbing. The mechanism allows for the elevation or demotion of antennas/masts through remote programming. The benefits are listed as a Safer Mechanism , Cost Effective (through lower insurance and negotiated salaries), Time Saving (demoting the mast while the engineer is en route), and No More Interruptions (selective demotion of specific carrier antennas). This is a clear, logical response to the problems stated on Slide 3.

Slide 9: Advantage of SAT Towers

Slide 9 is a visual breakdown of the product's features surrounding a 3D render of the SAT Tower. Key advantages include:

Patented process and product protected worldwide. · Ability to collocate more carriers. · Inaccessibility to thieves. · Removable winch key to authorize personnel access. · Durability and faster installation.

The slide emphasizes that the tower is "indestructible" and "fully automated," positioning it as a premium, secure alternative to existing infrastructure.

Slide 11: SWOT Analysis

The SWOT analysis provides significant insight into the company's current status. Under Strengths , they claim 20 patents in the process of registration and an "on-board customer" in AT&T requiring 50 towers. A major Opportunity mentioned is that SAT Corp will be the only minority-owned company in the region, which they claim will "guarantee us at least 20% of this industry in the United States within next 5 years." The primary Weakness is a "Lack of financial resources," which serves as the justification for the pitch. The Threat is potential copying by companies in Europe and Asia if patents aren't registered globally.

Slide 13: Competitors

The competitive matrix compares SAT Group Inc. against industry titans: American Tower Corp. , Crown Castle Intl. Corp. , and SBA Communications Corp. The comparison is lopsided; while SAT Group estimates 100 sites by year-end 2017, American Tower is listed with 144,000 sites. However, the slide highlights SAT's "Innovative concept" and "Experienced management team" as the differentiator. It also lists SAT's projected revenue at $27m and net income at $7.5m , though these figures seem to be projections rather than historical data, given the "Est. by Y/E 2017" note in the tower site row.

Slide 15: Financial Forecast

This slide presents a 5-year financial outlook. The growth projections are extremely aggressive:

Year 1 Sales: $26,601,100 · Year 5 Sales: $506,946,000 · Year 5 Net Income: $188,647,376 · PBIT % of Sales: Scaling from 56.4% to 69.9%.

The company notes a cumulative NPV of over $139m and mentions they will pay state taxes at 8.35% and corporation tax at 35%. The forecast assumes the launch of a second tower model in Year 2 and a third in Year 3. The "Investor ROI" row shows astronomical figures (1665.1% by Year 5), which may invite skepticism from seasoned investors without a detailed breakdown of the unit economics.

Slide 17: Strategic Alliances

Standard Ascension reveals its operational backbone here. They are not building this alone. They have "cheery-picked" (likely a typo for cherry-picked) partners:

Fred A. Nudd Corporation: Tower manufacturing (offered 10% equity). · PRZ Technologies: Automation and robotics (offered 10% equity). · SunMan Engineering: Product development and PCB design. · Moog Inc.: Precision motion control.

This slide is crucial as it shows the company is leveraging established industrial players to handle the heavy lifting of manufacturing and engineering, though the 20% total equity giveaway to partners is a significant detail for potential investors to consider.

Slide 19: Conclusion

The final slide is a simple "THANK YOU" with the company name and "Strictly Confidential" footer. It lacks a call to action, contact information, or a summary of the investment ask, though these may have been present in the nine slides omitted from this selection.

What Works and What is Missing

What Works: The deck identifies a visceral problem—people dying while climbing towers—and offers a direct mechanical solution. The use of third-party data for fatalities and market size adds credibility. The strategic alliances slide is a strong inclusion for a hardware startup, as it proves they have a path to manufacturing and aren't just a "paper company." The mention of a specific order from AT&T (Slide 11) provides much-needed validation for a pre-scale hardware play.

What is Missing: The most glaring omission in this 10-slide set is a Team Slide . While the SWOT mentions an "Experienced management team," investors need to see names, faces, and specific relevant backgrounds in telecom or robotics. There is also no clear Ask Slide ; we know they need money (per the "Weaknesses" section), but the amount and the intended use of funds are not stated. Finally, the Unit Economics are missing. We see total sales and costs, but we don't know the manufacturing cost versus the sale price of a single tower, which is vital for assessing the 69% profit margins claimed.

Founder Takeaways

Focus on Safety as a Regulatory Lever: Standard Ascension correctly identifies that safety isn't just a moral win; it's a cost-saving lever for customers (insurance, downtime). Founders in industrial sectors should follow this lead by quantifying the cost of "business as usual" risks.

Leverage Minority-Owned Status: The deck explicitly uses the company's minority-owned status as a competitive advantage to win market share. This is a savvy move in industries with diversity spend requirements or government contracts, and founders should not hesitate to highlight such certifications if they provide a tangible path to revenue.

Be Cautious with Equity Alliances: Offering 10% equity to multiple vendors is a significant dilution. While it aligns interests, it can complicate future funding rounds. Founders should ensure that such equity grants are tied to specific performance milestones rather than just "forming an alliance."

Frequently asked questions

What is the core technology behind Standard Ascension?: Standard Ascension, operating under SAT Group Inc., has developed a patented self-supporting telecommunications tower. Unlike traditional towers that require engineers to climb hundreds of feet for maintenance, this system uses remote programming to demote the antennas or mast to ground level. This 'Safer Mechanism' is designed to eliminate climbing-related injuries and fatalities while reducing the downtime associated with manual maintenance.
How does the company plan to compete with giants like American Tower Corp?: The deck acknowledges a massive scale gap, noting American Tower Corp had 144,000 sites compared to SAT Group's estimated 100 sites in 2017. Their strategy relies on 'First Mover Advantage' with their specific automated technology and a unique regulatory angle: they claim their status as a minority-owned company will help them secure 20% of the U.S. market within five years.
What are the financial expectations for the business?: The financial forecast is aggressive, projecting a jump from $26.6 million in Year 1 sales to $506.9 million by Year 5. They anticipate high profitability, with a PBIT (Profit Before Interest and Taxes) margin reaching 69.9% by Year 5. The deck also mentions a cumulative Net Present Value (NPV) of over $139 million over five years at a 30% discount rate.
Who are the key partners mentioned in the deck?: SAT Group Inc. relies on four key strategic alliances: Fred A. Nudd Corporation for tower manufacturing, PRZ Technologies for automated robot-load cells, SunMan Engineering for prototype and board design, and Moog Inc. for precision motion control. Notably, the deck states that SAT Group will offer 10% equity stakes to both Fred A. Nudd Corp and PRZ Technologies.
What market trends is Standard Ascension capitalizing on?: The deck points to the steady increase in U.S. carrier capital expenditures, which grew from $20.59 billion in 2008 to over $30 billion during the 4G LTE buildout. It specifically highlights the transition toward 5G and the increasing number of tower locations and cell sites as a primary growth driver for their automated infrastructure.

Cover slide of the Standard Ascension pitch deck — Standard Ascension pitch deck, slide 1

Standard Ascension pitch deck: the facts

Company: Standard Ascension
Slides: 19
Sector: Telecom

Standard Ascension pitch deck PDF

The full Standard Ascension deck is embedded on this page and can be read slide by slide in the browser — no download or account required. Each slide is covered in the breakdown above.

What the Standard Ascension Towers Group Corp. (Standard Ascension) / SAT Group Inc. pitch deck was used for

This deck is an investment pitch for SAT Group Inc. / Standard Ascension Towers Group Corp., which proposes a patented self-supporting telecommunications tower that can be raised and lowered remotely to avoid engineer climbing and reduce fatalities, insurance costs, and downtime. The Slideshare listing that hosts the deck is dated 2017 and describes a $5.65M investment ask to fund prototype development, equipment, and initial operations, suggesting an early-stage, pre‑revenue hardware infrastructure venture. The deck positions the company as a safety- and cost-focused alternative to traditional cell tower maintenance in the United States and Mexico, targeting large carriers such as AT&T as future partners. No credible external evidence was found that this specific fundraise closed or that the company progressed beyond the proposal stage.

Year: 2017

Raising: $5.65M investment sought to fund prototype development, equipment acquisition, and initial operations related to the Ascension Tower concept, as described in the Slideshare pitch deck.

Use of funds as presented: Prototype development of the self‑supporting automated tower, purchase of necessary equipment, and funding of initial operations prior to broader production and deployment.

What the Standard Ascension Towers Group Corp. (Standard Ascension) / SAT Group Inc. deck got right

Clear and compelling safety problem framing. The deck addresses a well‑documented safety problem in telecom tower maintenance, highlighting fatalities at communication tower worksites and positioning the Ascension Tower as a way to eliminate dangerous climbing by allowing remote raising and lowering of equipment.
Distinctive hardware innovation narrative. The proposed solution—a fully automated, self‑supporting tower capable of remote adjustment—is hardware‑differentiated and presented as patent‑protected, offering a strong narrative of technical innovation compared with traditional static towers.
Defined capital ask and forward‑looking financial planning. The Slideshare description outlines a concrete capital ask of $5.65M with specified uses (prototype, equipment, initial operations) and references five‑year revenue and profitability projections, which demonstrate at least a basic attempt at financial planning and investor alignment.
Focused market targeting on Tier‑1 telecom operators. Targeting major carriers in the United States and Mexico, and naming AT&T as a milestone partner, focuses the go‑to‑market story on large, high‑value customers familiar to infrastructure investors.
Team narrative emphasizing telecom and business expertise. The CEO, Larry Jordan II, is presented as having an MBA in Environmental Sustainability and Social Responsibility, pursuing a PhD in International Business, and having prior experience founding 5 Stems LLC, a telecommunications infrastructure company, which helps position the team as knowledgeable in telecom and corporate strategy.
Linking safety impact to concrete cost savings for customers. The deck connects safety improvements directly to economic benefits—lower insurance premiums, reduced technician costs, and less downtime—which aligns the social impact story with a cost‑saving business case for carriers.

What could have been stronger

Unverified patent and intellectual property claims. The deck emphasizes that the Ascension Tower is a new, patent‑protected design, but the publicly visible materials provide no patent numbers, filing dates, assignee information, or jurisdiction, making it impossible to verify the IP status or scope of protection from the deck alone.
Lack of verifiable commercial traction or carrier commitments. The pitch deck targets major carriers like AT&T and presents partnership with AT&T as a milestone, yet there is no externally verifiable evidence of signed pilots, contracts, or letters of intent, nor are any such agreements documented in the deck text shared.
Opaque financial assumptions and scalability narrative. Although the Slideshare description references financial forecasts and a five‑year revenue and profitability projection, those details are not visible in the excerpted slide text, and there is no independent data supporting the assumed adoption rate, pricing, or margins.
Insufficient technical detail to validate feasibility. The tower is described as fully automated and remotely controllable, but the deck text made available does not explain the engineering approach, safety redundancies, power requirements, or regulatory compliance pathway (e.g., OSHA and FCC), limiting an investor’s ability to assess technical feasibility.
Limited market and competitive analysis presented in the deck. While the problem slides cite WirelessEstimator.com data on fatalities, the deck does not present a systematic market sizing, segmentation, or competitive landscape analysis (e.g., existing self‑supporting tower technologies, automation retrofits), leaving market risk largely unaddressed in the visible content.

How an investor would read this deck

What draws attention

Verify the existence, status, and scope of any patents or patent applications covering the Ascension Tower, including ownership, expiration, and freedom‑to‑operate relative to other self‑supporting tower designs.
Confirm whether Standard Ascension has any binding agreements, pilot projects, or letters of intent with major carriers (e.g., AT&T, Verizon, T‑Mobile) and validate that these relationships extend beyond aspirational milestones in the deck.
Evaluate the safety engineering of the automated raising/lowering mechanism, including failure modes, redundancy systems, and compliance plans with OSHA and FCC regulations.
Assess the credibility and track record of the founding team, particularly Larry Jordan II, in light of federal court filings involving Standard Ascension Towers Group Corp. and any SBA‑related matters.
Scrutinize the financial model and capital efficiency claims: how the $5.65M will be allocated, expected burn rate, and realistic timelines to first commercial deployment and positive cash flow.

Risks that stand out

Technical risk that the automated self‑supporting tower cannot meet reliability and safety standards at commercial scale, potentially leading to costly redesigns or regulatory barriers.
Commercial risk due to lack of verified carrier commitments in a market dominated by established tower companies and infrastructure providers, making adoption by Tier‑1 telecoms uncertain.
Regulatory and safety risk around OSHA and FCC compliance, local permitting, and potential opposition from municipalities or labor groups to automated systems replacing traditional tower crews.
Execution and governance risk given the legal context documented in a federal indictment involving Standard Ascension Towers Group Corp. and its registered agent, which may impact reputation, access to capital, and eligibility for certain programs.
Financial risk that the requested $5.65M may be insufficient to fund full prototype development, testing, certification, and initial deployments for a capital‑intensive hardware infrastructure business, especially if timelines or costs overrun.

Questions this deck invites

Can you provide patent documentation (numbers, office, status) and any prior art searches related to the Ascension Tower’s self‑supporting, fully automated design?
What specific discussions, LOIs, or contracts exist today with named telecom operators in the United States and Mexico, and can you share contactable references at these organizations?
What independent engineering reviews, certifications, or safety audits have been performed on the prototype design, and which regulatory bodies have been engaged (OSHA, FCC, local zoning authorities)?
How do later legal issues involving Standard Ascension Towers Group Corp., as reflected in federal court documents, relate to the current corporate structure and fundraising effort, and what remedial governance steps have been taken?
What are the detailed unit economics for a deployed Ascension Tower (CAPEX per tower, maintenance costs, expected lease or service revenue), and how do they compare to traditional tower economics used by major carriers?

What founders can take from the Standard Ascension Towers Group Corp. (Standard Ascension) / SAT Group Inc. deck

When a pitch centers on a novel hardware design, investors expect concrete, verifiable IP details (patent numbers, filings, and ownership); generic statements about patent protection, as seen here, leave credibility gaps.
Mission‑driven narratives about saving lives and improving worker safety can be compelling, but they must be backed by rigorous engineering and regulatory validation to convert emotional appeal into investable evidence.
Early‑stage infrastructure pitches that name large incumbents (like AT&T) as milestones or aspirational partners should distinguish clearly between target customers, active discussions, and signed agreements to avoid overstating traction.
Hardware‑intensive telecom infrastructure ventures require detailed capital and deployment plans; without visible unit economics and rollout strategy, even strong problem framing may not overcome investor concerns about capital intensity and scalability.
Founders’ personal branding and inspirational quotes can humanize a deck, but any later legal or governance issues—such as those documented in court filings—can retroactively undermine investor confidence if not transparently addressed.
Citing industry safety statistics (like tower worksite fatalities) can powerfully frame the problem, yet investors will seek quantitative evidence that the proposed solution will materially change those metrics under realistic adoption scenarios.

Standard Ascension Towers Group Corp. (Standard Ascension) / SAT Group Inc. pitch deck: common questions

What does Standard Ascension / SAT Group Inc. do according to the pitch deck?

SAT Group Inc. / Standard Ascension presents itself as a telecom infrastructure company developing a **self-supporting, fully automated cell tower** that allows antennas and equipment to be raised and lowered remotely instead of requiring engineers to climb hundreds of feet. The goal is to reduce fatalities, insurance costs, and tower downtime for major carriers in the United States and Mexico.

How much was Standard Ascension trying to raise in this pitch deck, and for what?

According to the Slideshare description of the deck, the company was seeking **$5.65M** to fund development of a prototype, purchase equipment, and launch initial operations related to its Ascension Tower concept. The deck also references milestones such as building prototypes and partnering with AT&T to begin production and deployment.

Who is behind Standard Ascension, and what is Larry Jordan II’s role?

The deck and associated presentation materials attribute the tower design to **Larry Jordan II**, who is described as CEO of SAT Group Inc. and founder of 5 Stems LLC, a telecommunications infrastructure business. A federal indictment identifies "Sir Larry Jordan" as the registered agent of Standard Ascension Towers Group Corp., incorporated in New York on or about December 8, 2015.

What problem is the Ascension Tower trying to solve and how does it claim to solve it?

The Slideshare deck outlines a **hardware-centric, patented tower design** that can be raised and lowered remotely to eliminate dangerous climbing. It claims benefits such as fewer fatalities at communication tower worksites, lower insurance premiums, reduced technician labor costs, shorter maintenance windows, and improved network reliability through less downtime.

Is there any evidence that Standard Ascension successfully raised capital or commercialized its tower technology?

A federal court filing states that **Standard Ascension Towers Group Corp.** was incorporated in New York on or about December 8, 2015, with "Sir Larry Jordan" listed as registered agent, and references interactions with the U.S. Small Business Administration. However, there is no credible public record of venture funding, commercial deployment of the Ascension Tower, or later-stage financial outcomes for the company beyond the 2017 investment pitch materials.

Sources

Funding and outcome facts on this page were researched on 2026-08-22 from the pages below.

Standard Ascension pitch deck slides

Standard Ascension pitch deck slide 1 of 19 — Standard Ascension pitch deck — slide 1 of 19

Standard Ascension pitch deck slide 2 of 19 — Standard Ascension pitch deck — slide 2 of 19

Standard Ascension pitch deck slide 3 of 19 — Standard Ascension pitch deck — slide 3 of 19

Standard Ascension pitch deck slide 4 of 19 — Standard Ascension pitch deck — slide 4 of 19

Standard Ascension pitch deck slide 5 of 19 — Standard Ascension pitch deck — slide 5 of 19

Standard Ascension pitch deck slide 6 of 19 — Standard Ascension pitch deck — slide 6 of 19

What each slide of the Standard Ascension pitch deck says

Slide 2

SAT Group Inc. is engineering a tower to help leading telecommunications companies in United Statcs & Mexico, which are facing safety related maintenance issues, by providing self-supporting towers. SAT GROUP Inc Strictly Confidential N

Slide 3

SAFETY RELATED ISSUES The current practices in the tower installations and maintenance industry are very dangerous, as the engineers have to climb up the tower, which are several hundred feet above ground that results in accidental deaths. According to WirelessEstimator.com, there were 43 fatalities at communication tower worksites between 2011-16. g EXPENSIVI The tower maintenance is currently costly for the telecommunication companies, as it involves hiring engineers ' who are risking their lives at the tower sites and also paying hefty insurance premiums for accidental coverage of " the engineers. I'TME CONSUMING Current tower maintenance practices are very time consuming, since the engi…

Slide 4

PROBLEMS "When forced to choose, I will not trade even a night's sleep for the chance of extra profits." But these corporations are risking the valuable lives of these highly skilled individuals, who try to make honest living.

Slide 5

| [ 1-7 U.S. wireless towers and sites, 1984-2025 U.S. tower projections by type, 2013-2025 500000 160000 450000 | | —— Call sites 1 140,000 | —— Tower location: «00000 ower locations al 350000 ! | gioo00 300000 ] —— Poles 250,000 | 3 80,000 | : 6 9 6 sGest — ast 150000 ] ——— ele 1 50000 1 ° - o 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 SCNT OSn ER RRNARN Exe BREE ENR ER NAR RR RRR RRRRRRAARAAR Belcan The industry has also seen a steady increase in capital expenditures to go along with the tower site expansion. SNL Kagan estimates the total U.S. carrier capex was about $20.59 billion in 2008 and grew to over $30 billion five years later at the peak of the 4G LTE build…

Slide 6

Over the last decade, advancing technology, rising device penetration and ramping data usage have led to increased levels of carrier capital expenditures Ait Dep segs Average Data Usage: $354 25 MB per Month average Data Usage: LAGER genvnth 883 MB per Month Average Data Usage: c $30 8 MB per Month | 32( Hd 4 I] I 2c ITT = AMM 2s Ami SAT GROUP Inc. Strictly Confidential 6

Slide 8

LARRY JORDAN II, CEO Larry earned his Bachelor's degree from Florida Institute of Technology with a minor in Aviation Management. Then he received his MBA in Environmental Sustainability and Social Responsibility and now he will soon be receiving his PHD in International Business. 1 Chair Stems LLC a telecommunication infrastructure company Founder 1 for the Board of Directors for 5 based out of Indiana. Larry possesses comprehensive knowledge of all matters related to the corporate business, as well as the vision required to steer its initiative into the future. Larry understands the core competencies of every business-executive, and addition, his visionary ideas move the company forwa SAT…

Slide text above is read directly from the Standard Ascension deck PDF embedded on this page.

Related fundraising guides (24)

Browse companies alphabetically (1)

Pitch decks from companies starting with S

More pitch deck teardowns (16)

Recently published pitch deck teardowns (12)

Fundraising library · Pitch deck examples · Investor directory · Founder database