Good and Bad for 2025

Here is the reality of the situation.

The Legal Reality of Rights of Way (ROW)

First, carriers generally already have the legal right to deploy small cells in the public ROW. That ship has sailed in most communities. Legally, the town has very little leverage to prevent the deployment of individual small-cell nodes if it denies other options. (Editor’s note- 3-31-2026- Verizon filed a lawsuit against Chilmark)

The Economic Disconnect

Second, carriers have no incentive to pay American Tower to materially upgrade an existing DAS when the FCC caps what municipalities can charge for ROW access at approximately $270 per year. Why subsidize a third-party system and pay rent when you can deploy your own infrastructure at a fraction of the cost?

The Inevitable Outcome

Third, residents understandably don’t want each carrier installing its own small cells on poles throughout town. However, that is exactly where this heads when there is no neutral, cost-effective alternative. If a macro tower is off the table, the “next best” option for carriers is densification through small cells or more DAS nodes—creating the very visual clutter the town hopes to avoid.

The Uncomfortable Solution

There is a solution that solves the coverage issue while minimizing infrastructure: Allow one or more properly sited macro towers.

This approach offers distinct advantages over a “small cell sprawl” scenario:

• Fewer total structures
• Better overall coverage
• Lower long-term cost
• Less visual clutter overall

The Bottom Line

This is not a technical problem. It’s a land-use and expectations problem. Until the expectation (better service) aligns with the land-use reality (choosing between macro towers or a high volume of small cells), this remains a no-win situation.

The letter asserts that the Federal Communications Commission’s investigation into EchoStar Corporation (DISH’s parent company) and subsequent agreements to sell spectrum licenses to AT&T and SpaceX have “frustrated the principal purpose” of the site lease and “completely destroyed its value.” DISH concludes that its obligations under the lease are therefore excused under the doctrines of force majeure or frustration of purpose.

At this time, Steel in the Air has seen only this single letter, but we have heard that others have received similar versions, including public and private tower companies. Given the professional tone and formality of the communication, coupled with other alleged DISH attempts to lessen its debt, it may signal a coordinated strategy that could expand nationwide as DISH restructures its 5G network and decommissions sites.

Please note that nothing in the following article is intended to be legal advice. If you have questions about the legal impact of the letter, please contact your local attorney.

What DISH Is Claiming

DISH argues that the FCC’s scrutiny forced EchoStar to enter into pending sales of its 3.45 GHz, 600 MHz, AWS-4, and H-Block spectrum licenses, making it impossible for DISH Wireless to continue operating its Boost Mobile network.

In reality, the spectrum sale transactions have only been signed—not yet closed—and there is no FCC order preventing DISH from performing under its leases. This distinction matters: the FCC didn’t seize spectrum or revoke licenses; EchoStar chose to sell.

In short, this letter seeks to transform a business decision into a legal excuse to walk away from contractual obligations.

Why the Letter Appears Legally Deficient

• It cites no specific lease clause allowing suspension or termination.
• It fails to provide a termination date, cure period, or proof of notice compliance.
• The FCC’s actions affect EchoStar, not DISH Wireless’s legal right to occupy property.
• Force majeure and frustration of purpose generally don’t apply to self-created economic hardship or voluntary restructuring.

For these reasons, we suspect that this letter may constitute an anticipatory breach, rather than a lawful termination. Please contact your attorney if you have questions on the legal sufficiency of the letter and its impact on your lease.

Signs of a Larger-Scale Effort?

A recent Wireless Estimator investigation lends weight to the idea that DISH/EchoStar’s tactics may extend beyond leaseholders.

According to the outlet, multiple contractors report being told to accept steep “discounts” on already-completed work or face long payment delays. One contractor described the choice bluntly:
“You either take half or wait indefinitely.”
Another said DISH “approved invoices months ago but now wants a 50 percent haircut,” characterizing the process as “retroactive renegotiation.”

Wireless Estimator, Oct 2025

This pattern—pressuring contractors to accept less than what’s owed while claiming “excused” performance in lease relationships—suggests this may be part of a coordinated cash-preservation strategy. Whether motivated by genuine liquidity concerns or corporate restructuring, the effect is the same: DISH and EchoStar are shifting the burden onto counterparties—contractors, vendors, and landlords alike.

Potential Attempt to Avoid Equipment Removal Costs

In reviewing the letter’s language, Steel in the Air believes DISH may also be laying the groundwork to avoid paying for the cost of equipment removal and site restoration.

The October 10 letter declares that all of DISH’s “obligations are excused”—a phrase that could be interpreted to include removal and restoration duties that are present in many leases. We suspect that the Open RAN hardware installed on many DISH rooftop and tower sites between 2021 and 2024 has little to no resale value and may cost tens of thousands of dollars per site to remove.

By framing all obligations as “excused,” we worry that DISH may be attempting to avoid costly removal work under the same pretext as its rent obligations. Coupled with reports that contractors are being forced to accept 50 percent payments for completed work, this points to a larger corporate effort to limit cash outflow and shift expenses onto landlords and service providers.

Landlords should explicitly preserve their right to restoration and removal costs in all correspondence with DISH and thoroughly document the current site conditions.

Recommended Steps for Landlords

If you receive a similar letter from DISH Wireless:

1. Do not acknowledge termination. Continue invoicing rent if required by your lease and document any missed payments.
2. Submit reimbursement requests ASAP. If your lease requires DISH to reimburse you for electricity or taxes, you should submit the requests as specified in the lease.
3. Review your lease agreement requirements regarding the removal of equipment and the restoration of the site.
4. Send a formal “Reservation of Rights and Demand for Clarification.” State that:
   • The lease remains in effect;
   • DISH’s obligations are not excused, including
     1. the duty to pay rent, and
     2. reimburse for utilities and taxes (if required by the lease)
     3. any duty to remove equipment and restore the site; and
   • You require identification of the specific clause or FCC order they rely on.
5. Document the site (photos, current condition) and retain all correspondence
6. Watch for broader signs of distress —missed payments, vendor lawsuits, or internal reorganizations for DISH Wireless.

Steel in the Air’s Assessment

This “excuse” letter may be part of a broader mailout- or it may be a test case—a calculated move by DISH Wireless to gauge landlord response before attempting similar actions more broadly. Coupled with contractor payment disputes, we question whether this is indicative that DISH is pursuing leverage-based negotiations rather than legitimate legal defenses.

Until DISH formally terminates in accordance with its lease—and satisfies all payment, restoration, and notice requirements—we believe your lease remains fully enforceable.

A Personal Note

Frankly, if these isolated incidents are indicative of broader behavior, it’s hard to reconcile this conduct. EchoStar recently entered into agreements to sell spectrum assets valued at roughly $40 billion. Against that backdrop, it is difficult to understand how a company that built its network through the dedication of landowners, contractors, and vendors could now send out these misleading and legally insufficient letters to the very people who enabled its success.

How Steel in the Air Can Help

We assist property owners, municipalities, and management firms nationwide in:

• Reviewing your DISH lease for reimbursement or removal obligations;
• Coordinating with your counsel to pursue default or damages notices; and
• Monitoring EchoStar’s corporate and financial actions that could affect recovery prospects.

Please note that while I am an attorney, I am licensed only in Florida and do not provide legal advice. If you have specific legal questions about your lease agreement or a letter you have received, please contact your local counsel. Nothing in this article is intended to provide legal advice.

If DISH contacts you to attempt to renegotiate any of the DISH obligations in your lease, please contact us immediately.

It was a compelling vision, and companies like Vapor.io jumped in early, promising a distributed network of micro data centers tied to towers. But the reality hasn’t matched the hype. Capital costs were high, demand was inconsistent, and many sites just weren’t well suited for this type of infrastructure. 5G didn’t lead to the explosion of data use as the carriers hoped. By our own rough estimate, there may be only 30 to 50 true edge data centers at tower sites in the U.S. today. The rest of the industry has quietly shifted to a more targeted approach.

Why Tower Sites Look Good on Paper

It’s not hard to see why tower sites initially seemed like natural homes for edge deployments. Their locations are often close to the end users who need low-latency connections. Many already have fiber backhaul in place. They’re powered, fenced, and built to handle telecom gear. And in some jurisdictions, they come with zoning or permitting advantages that make them easier to work with than a greenfield build.

But three factors have proven to be the real gatekeepers: space, power and fiber capacity. Without enough of each, edge computing simply isn’t viable. That’s why much of the edge discussion has historically stalled—many tower sites can’t deliver the space and the kind of power or bandwidth required for high-density compute. The industry was hopeful that smaller edge facilities could fit in smaller compounds- but there simply isn’t the need.

The good news is that this is changing, at least in part. The ongoing push to upgrade wireless backhaul means more cell sites are being fed with 10G fiber, which opens the door to supporting heavier workloads. And certain sites—especially larger broadcast tower parcels—already have substantial power infrastructure in place. For those rare locations, the barriers are lower, and the economics start to look more attractive.

ATC’s High Bar

Recently, American Tower spelled out what they consider the minimum requirements for a viable edge site: at least 2.5 acres, flat land, outside a floodplain, with access to fiber and sufficient power. That’s not a typo—2.5 acres. Most cell tower sites are less than a quarter of an acre. ATC’s definition points to something much larger than the micro-edge facilities many in the industry had envisioned. It’s more in line with what I would call a metro-edge or aggregation sites.

From what I can tell, ATC is using its successful Raleigh facility as the model here. It’s a proven concept, but it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach. Very few tower sites meet these physical criteria, and when you layer on the need for a strong business case in the surrounding market, the number gets even smaller.

A Market Measured in Single Digits

The more important question isn’t just how many sites meet these physical standards, but how many do so and are located in urban or metro-adjacent areas where low-latency demand is highest. If you apply both filters—site suitability and location demand—the pool may shrink to 500 to 1,000 of all U.S. towers.

Many of those qualifying sites are in the hands of tower companies that own legacy broadcast tower portfolios, which often include larger parcels and heavier utility service. For everyone else, the acreage and location combination are rare.

And here’s another wrinkle: in many cases, what’s stopping an edge provider or MNO from simply building their own facility instead of leasing from a tower company? If they already own land and have utilities in place, the economics may tilt toward building from scratch. Leasing space at a tower site only makes sense if the location offers something uniquely valuable, such as prime urban real estate, ready-to-use secure infrastructure, speed to market, or a synergy with existing wireless equipment.

How Tower Companies Are Planning Ahead

Some tower companies are thinking long term. They’re adding lease language that reserves the right to use the property for alternative purposes, like edge compute or battery storage. This gives them the option to act quickly if the right customer and economics come along, without having to renegotiate with the landowner.

In rare cases, we’re also starting to see tower buyers factor the possibility of edge or battery deployments into their due diligence and financial modeling of potential acquisitions. But those are exceptions—usually involving unique sites that have the right size, location, infrastructure, and market demand all in one package.

What It Means for Ground Leases

For most landowners, the potential for edge data centers or battery storage won’t change much in today’s lease negotiations. Given how novel this all is, until edge compute or battery power storage is installed at the site, it won’t factor into a tower owner’s consideration when renewing a lease.

There are rare situations where it matters—typically large parcels in urban markets or sites already on the shortlist for near-term deployment. But for the vast majority of sites, these future possibilities are just that: possibilities.

Closing Thoughts

Even the more bullish voices in the industry, like Marc Ganzi of DigitalBridge, see this as a long-term play—a decade-long transition from today’s centralized AI models to micro-edge AI at the tower site. Space, location, power, and fiber will dictate which sites are viable, and while upgrades are happening, the addressable market will remain small for the foreseeable future but could accelerate over time.

ATC’s high bar shows that this is a selective, high-value opportunity. The winners will be the portfolios that combine site suitability, available power, fiber capacity, and market demand—whether the eventual play is racks of AI inference servers or megawatts of battery backup. For everyone else, edge will remain more of a “someday” opportunity than a current revenue stream.

A Network Built for Compliance?

Dish acquired its mobile spectrum holdings through FCC auctions and as part of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger. While the FCC imposed buildout deadlines and spectrum hoarding rules, Dish appears to have met just the minimum thresholds necessary to retain these licenses. They deployed 24,000 sites, but some analysts believe that only 10,000 of those sites actually provide Dish service to Dish subscribers. A good portion of Dish’s network traffic is handled over AT&T or T-Mobile’s networks via their MVNO. (Mobile virtual network operator agreement)

From a technical standpoint, Dish deployed a 5G network using open RAN and cloud-native infrastructure—innovative on paper, but we believe that it has been poorly marketed and thinly built. The Boost Mobile and Boost Infinite brands failed to gain serious market share, and subscriber churn remains high. The lack of marketing befitting of a national provider raises the question of whether Dish’s network has functioned more as a placeholder to meet FCC milestones rather than as a foundation for a sustainable, competitive business.

What Happens When Spectrum Restrictions Expire?

Many of Dish’s major spectrum holdings—such as the 600 MHz, AWS-4, and the 800 MHz Sprint divestiture—were locked up under use-it-or-lose-it or non-transfer clauses until 2025 or later. Those restrictions are now approaching expiration:

• 600 MHz: FCC buildout deadline in June 2025; cannot be sold until then.
• AWS-4: Requires 70% population coverage by March 2025.
• 800 MHz: DOJ-imposed resale restrictions lift in 2025 as part of the Sprint merger.

Assuming Dish meets the bare minimum coverage requirements—which it appears to be targeting, the company could be in a position to sell spectrum valued in the tens of billions of dollars starting next year. Buyers could include Verizon, AT&T, or even private equity groups looking to resell or lease the spectrum themselves. The FCC will have to approve these transfers which by no means is guaranteed. But once Dish starts selling spectrum, one has to wonder what value do they offer to their customers?

The Risk to Dish-Backed Tower and Rooftop Leases

For landowners and tower owners with Dish Wireless leases, this shift has significant implications:

1. Decommissioning Risk Rises
   If Dish sells its spectrum and exits the wireless business, its need for physical infrastructure will diminish rapidly. Any sites that were built only to meet regulatory milestones—not to support meaningful commercial traffic—could be shut down. Public reports and tower company earnings calls indicate a pullback in new-site build activity and retail expansion. We have observed little new-site-build activity for DISH in the last 6-9 months.
2. Lease Valuation Will Decline
   Leases tied to Dish are generally viewed as second-tier assets compared to Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile. With Dish’s long-term viability in question, third-party lease buyout firms and infrastructure investors are applying a higher discount rate to any Dish leases or avoid them altogether. A lease valued at $500,000 in today’s dollars with T-Mobile might only fetch one quarter of that or less if it’s with Dish.
3.  Infrastructure Redundancy
   If Dish sells spectrum to an incumbent carrier, that buyer likely already has nearby infrastructure in place. In those cases, the Dish site becomes redundant—offering little incentive for the buyer to continue the lease unless it serves a strategic densification purpose. Especially given Dish’s unique Open-RAN network and custom built equipment.

What Should Landowners and Leaseholders Do?

If you currently lease to Dish Wireless or are approached for a Dish Wireless or Boost cell tower lease, we recommend:

• Continue Entering leases with Dish. By no means are we saying do not enter Dish or Boost leases. Revenue is revenue. Just be aware that the rent may not last.
• Don’t count your chickens… If you are a landowner that relies upon the rent, I would recommend making plans that do not depend upon Dish’s rent.
•  Restrict the Equipment Rights for Dish. On the off chance that Dish ends up selling to a company or entity that wishes to operate the wireless network rather than turn off the sites, you do not want the new entity to have liberal rights to expand the equipment.
• Making Sure that Dish Must Remove Equipment if they terminate the lease. You don’t want to be stuck with Dish equipment. (Look up Metricom for a history lesson on why).
•  Being skeptical of lease buyout offers from firms discounting Dish leases. While it may seem that your best option is to sell a lease before it becomes worthless, the reality is that the value that buyout companies are paying likely may be less than what you would receive before the lease is terminated. And once you give up rights to the Dish lease, the buyer can then replace them in the future with another wireless carrier with no additional revenue to you.
• Make sure to stay on top of your reimbursements – for both taxes and utilities.  If Dish ends up going bankrupt, they may be hard to collect.
• Consulting experts (like Steel in the Air) before selling or renegotiating a Dish or Boost lease.

Conclusion: Be Vigilant in the Face of Transition

Dish’s wireless ambitions may eventually come to an end—not with a bang, but with a quiet transfer of spectrum assets to other carriers. For landowners, this raises real concerns about the long-term security and value of Dish-related leases. Now more than ever, it’s important to have a partner who understands the shifting wireless landscape and can help you navigate it. While there may not be much you can do affirmatively to keep a DISH lease, you can make bad decisions

At Steel in the Air, we’ve tracked Dish’s spectrum and deployment strategy for nearly a decade. We hope we are wrong about Dish. Either way, if you have questions about how this affects your lease—or whether your site is at risk—reach out to us for a free consultation.

This article reflects the opinions and analysis of Steel in the Air, Inc. based on publicly available information and industry expertise. It is not intended to assert any unlawful or unethical conduct by Dish Network or its affiliates.

One of the most frequent questions we get from leaseholders is “Why do they want to buy my lease?” If you’re curious about this topic, I highly recommend reading a recent article by Eric Overman, CEO of Telecom Infrastructure Partners (TIP). It’s a deep dive into what he calls the “Third Wave” of telecom infrastructure — specifically the global rise of cell tower lease buyout companies and their evolving relationship with mobile network operators (MNOs) and tower companies.

The piece does a good job explaining the history and mechanics of the lease buyout industry, particularly how some lease buyout companies like TIP position themselves as “financial partners” to landowners, promising large upfront payouts in exchange for long-term lease rights. Overman’s article is well written and offers insight into the aggregator mindset.

That said, there’s one big point where I disagree: the idea that “in a rational world, 100% of landowners should sell.” That may be rational for a lease aggregator like TIP — but not necessarily for you.

Lease Aggregators Don’t Always Offer Maximum Value

Companies like TIP often pitch lease buyouts as a win-win — stable, bond-like returns for them and upfront capital for you. But here’s the catch: they tend to work closely with wireless carriers, often agreeing to lease terms that favor the MNO. As a result, their offers may be lower than those from aggressive aggregators who push back on rent reductions or restrictive clauses.

So, while their business model may be “carrier-friendly,” that doesn’t always translate into “landowner-friendly.” If you’re going to part with a high-performing asset like a cell tower lease, you should know you’re getting the best possible price — not just an offer that works for the MNO and the lease aggregator.

Undervalued Leases Close to Expiration? Proceed with Caution

Landowners with leases nearing expiration or currently below market rent need to be especially careful. These situations represent an opportunity — not for you, but for the lease buyout company. If you sell now, the lease buyout company typically gets the right to negotiate a favorable lease amendment — and collect significantly higher rent going forward. That’s additional rent or a higher purchase price you could have realized yourself. Instead, you’re accepting a discounted lump sum today and giving away a more valuable asset tomorrow. This is one of the most common ways landowners inadvertently leave money on the table.

Watch Out for Expanded Easements and Overreach

One of the more troubling trends we’ve seen — and that isn’t often discussed — is how aggregators structure these deals. Many don’t just want to buy your lease. They want more: general easements, expanded rights, and future control over your property or rooftop. And they don’t pay significantly more for it. For a small increase in present value, you may be handing over the future telecom potential of your property — especially as 5G densification, small cells, and private networks become more valuable. That’s long-term upside you’ll never see again.

Control, Flexibility, and Future Use

TIP positions itself as a “passive financial counterparty,” but their agreements can be anything but passive. Selling your lease often limits your flexibility, especially after TIP agrees to carrier-friendly provisions. Want to redevelop the property? Lease rooftop space to another provider? You may find out in the future that you gave up that right — or at the very least, you’ll need permission from a third party who’s now in the driver’s seat. Over our 20 years in business, guess how many lease buyouts we have seen unwound? (ONE!)

The Bottom Line

Selling a cell tower lease isn’t inherently bad — in fact, in some situations, it makes perfect sense. But don’t sell just because a cell tower lease buyout company like TIP tells you it’s the logical thing to do. That logic serves their portfolio strategy — but may not serve your best interest.

If you’re considering a telecom lease buyout, make sure you understand the full value of what you’re selling, how the offer compares to others, and what rights you’re signing away — not just now, but for decades to come.

Want help evaluating your options? That’s what we do. At Steel in the Air, we work solely for landowners. We do not work for lease aggregators or tower companies — we work solely in your best interests. Please call us or contact us. We will gladly walk you through your specific situation and advise as best we can – even if it doesn’t result in us earning a dime.

Hasn’t Verizon Sold Towers Before?

Yes, Verizon or related entities previously sold portfolios of towers to public tower companies. These include:

Why is Verizon Considering Selling Its Cell Towers Now?

Wireless carriers sell portfolios of towers for a few reasons. First, a wireless carrier may sell their towers to fund future development. Towers are considered non-core assets for wireless carriers. Second, in this case, Verizon is aware of the high valuations on cell tower assets and has decided that this is a good time to sell these non-core assets. Interestingly, 2023 would have been a better year, as towers valuations peaked in the middle of the year.

How Much Are Verizon’s Towers Worth?

Various analysts have offered estimates of the value of Verizon’s tower assets, ranging from $500,000 per tower to $1,400,000 per tower. The truth is that only Verizon and the advisor really know. When a large portfolio of carrier-owned towers like this is sold, the advisor puts together a confidential information memorandum (CIM) that includes the specific details of the towers. Of these, some details are more critical than others. For a extensive view of how towers are valued, please see our page on Cell Tower Valuation.

Long story short, there are a few key factors that will influence the value of Verizon’s remaining tower assets. These include:

1. Number of tenants. The more subtenants there are on a tower, the higher the revenue and tower cash flow. The higher the tower’s cash flow, the higher the tower’s valuation.
2. Location of Competing Towers. Are these towers built to accommodate multiple wireless providers, and are they in locations where other wireless carriers are likely to sublease?
3. The Sale/Leaseback Terms. Most carrier tower portfolio sales include a sale and leaseback agreement. The sale/leaseback defines how much Verizon will pay to remain as a tenant on the towers in the future and under what terms. The sale/leaseback lease rate and terms have a significant impact on tower valuation, especially in a carrier sale transaction like this. Will Verizon pay a higher lease rate, which would also generate a higher per tower price? Will Verizon expect to pay for future equipment modifications, or will they look to never have to sign another amendment?

How Much Do You Think the Towers Are Worth?

Without the specific confidential information above, it is hard to reliably place a value on the Verizon tower portfolio. But offhand, we would anticipate that the towers are worth somewhere between $1,000,000 and $1,200,000 per tower. At our estimate of 5,600 towers, that would equate to a market value of $5.6 Billion to $6.7 Billion.

Who is the Likely Buyer?

The Big 3 tower companies have historically almost always purchased these portfolios.  (American Tower, Crown Castle, and SBA Communications.) Right now, though, it may be hard for those companies to be competitive on offers for this specific portfolio. The public tower companies may be limited in how much they can offer as their stocks are trading at or near their 5-year lows. In contrast, infrastructure funds and private tower companies have completed more tower portfolio acquisitions over the past year. These buyers have consistently bid higher amounts in our competitive bidding offerings. The issue for these sets of buyers is that few of the private buyers have the team and infrastructure in place to acquire and manage a portfolio this large.  Vertical Bridge may be a potential buyer and several infrastructure funds have looked to make larger investments in the sector, although they may need a management team to acquire a portfolio this large.

I Have a Ground Lease Under a Verizon Tower. How Will the Sale Impact Me?

As this is a sale of towers from a wireless carrier to a tower company, it is unlikely that there will be much impact on landowners who have Verizon tower ground leases. The checks may continue to come from Verizon, or the tower company may take over the payments. Your existing lease will remain in place, and the terms and conditions will be the same. Verizon will continue to use these towers and may even commit to remaining on the towers for a long time under the sale/leaseback.  A tower company may do a slightly better job of marketing the towers for use by other wireless providers, which may increase your rent if you have a revenue share.

The only negative side of a potential sale is that you may have to deal with a tower company in the future regarding lease issues instead of Verizon. Tower companies tend to be more aggressive when dealing with landowners than carriers and can be harder to contact and resolve issues with. Additionally, tower companies tend to be more assertive when trying to renegotiate cell tower leases or extend cell tower leases with landowners.  Ultimately, though, Verizon selling its cell towers is generally advantageous to landowners.

What Should I Do Next?

Our guidance is to wait until a sale is announced and consummated. At that time, the buyer may send out estoppels or other requests. We would recommend not signing anything until you have had your attorney review the request. In the past, some tower companies have tried to send out estoppels that amend the terms of the lease or change its interpretation after buying a carrier portfolio. (An estoppel is intended to confirm existing lease terms, not add new ones.) If you have questions regarding your situation or lease, please contact us.

Questions About Verizon’s Potential Sale of Its Towers – CONTACT US.

Introduction

The telecommunications landscape is buzzing with discussions of a potential acquisition of U.S. Cellular by industry giants T-Mobile and Verizon. This strategic move could significantly impact the rural telecommunications sector, where U.S. Cellular has been a major player. This post delves into what the acquisition means for cell tower landowners and tower companies.

Background on the Parties Involved

• T-Mobile has expanded its footprint significantly throughout rural areas over the last 5 years, creating an overlap in most US Cellular markets.
• Verizon remains the largest U.S. cellphone carrier, focusing on maintaining its market dominance and expanding its technological edge.
• U.S. Cellular commands a market value of approximately $3 billion and is the 5^th largest operator in the US, with a substantial portfolio of spectrum assets and ownership of over 4,400 cell towers.

Implications of the Acquisition

1. Market Dynamics
   • The acquisition could reshape the competitive environment within the telecommunications industry, potentially reducing the number of service providers and consolidating control over rural markets.
   • The deal faces potential hurdles from regulatory bodies concerned with antitrust laws, given the reduced competition and possible market monopolization, especially in rural areas.
   • As the maps above show, T-Mobile and Verizon both have coverage over most of the US Cellular markets.
2. Impact on Spectrum and Network Coverage
   • U.S. Cellular’ s spectrum assets are beneficial for both T-Mobile and Verizon, potentially enhancing their capabilities to provide extensive rural coverage and support for both fixed wireless and mobile communications.
   • This acquisition could improve network infrastructure in underserved areas, albeit by reducing the number of competitors in those areas.
3. Effects on Cell Tower Landowners and Tower Companies
   • Lease Terminations: The consolidation will lead to the termination of U.S. Cellular ground leases for towers that lack additional wireless tenants, and collocation leases on towers where overlap occurs with T-Mobile or Verizon’s existing sites.
   • Lease Rate Adjustments: To the extent that leases are not terminated, T-Mobile and Verizon’s lease optimization companies will attempt to use the threat of termination to negotiate lower lease rates.  They may also try to renegotiate leases that they plan on terminating so that they can reduce the remaining rent and try to eliminate any obligation they have regarding removing the equipment or tower.
   • Cell Tower Lease Buyout Impacts: The value of buyouts for leases involving U.S. Cellular could decrease significantly.
   • Tower Usage and Capacity: The demand for tower usage might fluctuate, especially in rural areas where U.S. Cellular is predominant, potentially affecting the deployment strategies of remaining carriers.
4. Future of Infrastructure Investments
   • If US Cellular ceases to exist, that’s one less carrier to collocate on cell towers. That will lower the lease-up for towers overall.
   • Certain tower locations may lose their strategic value if they primarily serve U.S. Cellular, influencing both operational decisions and the financial valuation of these assets.

Strategic Considerations for Stakeholders

• Landowners and tower owners should not make hasty decisions, as it will likely take at least one year before any transfer of spectrum/subscribers to T-Mobile or Verizon has been approved by regulators.
• Be careful of any attempts to renegotiate tower leases or ground leases, especially those where T-Mobile or Verizon agents attempt to claim that the acquisition of US Cellular sites will allow T-Mobile or Verizon to terminate their leases.
• The deal is by no means done. Thus, we will continue to monitor what happens going forward.

The potential acquisition of U.S. Cellular by T-Mobile and Verizon could significantly impact the telecommunications landscape, especially affecting cell tower landowners and tower companies. Stakeholders should stay informed and proactive to navigate the potential changes effectively.

If you are unsure what to do about your towers or your US Cellular leases, contact us. We can’t promise that we can stop your lease from being terminated, but we can provide actionable and helpful advice about your options.