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.

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.

In this case, the threat is somewhat comical.  “The sale of your tower to certain parties may result in AT&T sending a non-renewal notice regarding our lease.”  How is that a threat?   If a tower owner has already sold the tower to a third party, why would they care whether AT&T sends a non-renewal notice?  Perhaps AT&T’s thought is that if the seller needs to get an estoppel from AT&T regarding its lease to present to the buyer, that AT&T’s can thwart the sale of the tower by instead sending a notice of non-renewal?

In our experience, most buyers don’t really care whether a notice of non-renewal is sent, provided that there is enough term remaining before they can choose not to renew or if the tower is located in an area with zoning regulations that prohibit construction of new towers near existing towers.

The other comical part is that AT&T (through its’ financial supplier) is asking for lease information about each tower so that the financial supplier can process the information and make an offer.  Of course, AT&T then also has information about other subleases that the tower owner has on your tower which can be used against the tower owner in future lease negotiations.

If you are inclined to sell your tower, reach out to us and we can give you a free back of the napkin estimate of the value of the tower.  We won’t use your information against you and we won’t threaten you with sending laughable notice’s of non-renewal in order to get you to sell.  If you aren’t interested in selling but feel like you need some help in addressing these threats from AT&T, please call us to discuss your situation further.

Recently, we noticed that American Tower was calling its landowners to convince them to call American Tower if they noticed a new tower being proposed or constructed near the tower owned by American Tower on their property. We questioned how effective this would be, as we suspect most of the relocation towers are being built in areas where there is no zoning, so the landowners wouldn’t know about it until a new tower was actually being built, at which point it would be too late.

We were recently shown a copy of a letter that American Tower sent its vendors in the last week that indicates American Tower believes the practice of building towers in close proximity to existing towers is “unnecessary, short-sighted, and reckless.” American Tower further suggests that this practice “harms existing landlords, needlessly clutters otherwise peaceful neighborhoods (ask the neighbors of any existing American Tower about needless clutter), wastes precious resources, and does nothing to improve the coverage, capacity, or quality of today’s stressed wireless networks.” In a further appeal to governmental entities, American Tower further states that “it could even delay the badly needed deployment of next-generation wireless technologies.” American Tower fails to state the real reason they object to these efforts – that it removes AT&T or Verizon or T-Mobile, or more than one, from an existing American Tower site, thereby significantly reducing revenue and reducing same tower operating margin even more.

American Tower then indicates in the letter that its vendors must sign an amendment to their Master Contractor Agreement with American Tower that states the vendor will not “participate in the development of any new towers that are within a half mile of an existing ATC site.” Failure to sign the amendment by June 15, 2018 will result “in an immediate change in your vendor approval status, up to and including removal of the ability to be hired for work directly by ATC and the ability to access any ATC site on behalf of others.” (Bold emphasis added by us) In short, if you don’t sign, you can’t work for us and you can’t visit our sites while doing work for anyone else.

We have to question whether there wasn’t a less heavy-handed method of addressing the problem that didn’t alienate contractors and force them to consider whether they really care to work for American Tower at all. First, the universal half mile restriction is unreasonable. It is completely possible that a wireless carrier would want to build a tower within a ½ mile of an American Tower site for reasons that have nothing to do with relocation. Furthermore, the language of the amendment includes all American Tower sites including managed sites, which means a vendor would not be able to participate in the development of any tower near sites that American Tower manages, which includes thousands of vacant rooftops that have no wireless carriers using them. Secondly, the decision by American Tower to bar vendors that don’t sign from accessing American Tower sites on behalf of other parties seems vindictive and ultimately divisive. While American Tower suggests in the letter that they try to act in an “ethical and professional manner in each of the 16 countries where we operate,” we question whether this restriction is more vindictive than professional. Are they also going to restrict companies that aren’t their vendors from accessing American Tower sites if they find they worked on competing towers? Would this extend to all vendors?

While we understand that reasonable people can disagree on the need for the amendment to the Master Contractor Agreement given the circumstances, we have to believe there was a better way to handle this matter. The short time frame for response given and the threatening tone of the letter suggests a disdain for all contractors who do work for American Tower, regardless of their intentions or involvement in actual relocation. This letter seems focused on penalizing all contractors and exacting revenge on the carriers who are considering relocation. This letter also completely fails to acknowledge American Tower’s own role in this matter in their unwillingness to negotiate lease amendments with AT&T and Verizon that would encourage them to stay on the towers as opposed to resorting to moving their equipment to adjacent towers.

We agree that tower companies need to protect their assets and that building new towers near existing towers doesn’t make a lot of sense, but this particular approach seems rash and not fully baked. It alienates contractors and ultimately won’t have that much of an impact on the build-to-relo tower companies. Fortunately, there is no shortage of work these days for contractors, so we wouldn’t be surprised if some of them just choose not to sign this agreement. One has to wonder what will happen after the first time American Tower rejects contractors that are hired by a carrier to perform modification work on that carrier’s site at an ATC tower.

just happens to match that of Md7’s offices.

The letter is the same as many other letters that are going out predominantly to private tower owners and municipal tower owners indicating that AT&T may extend or terminate the lease at the end of the current term and that AT&T is implementing a new program to “evaluate terms and conditions of all leases coming up for renewal, explore advance renegotiation options and consider alternative site locations.” (emphasis added)   AT&T further requests that the tower owner:

It appears that Md7 and AT&T have decided to remove any indication that Md7 is involved here altogether (except for the address).  Is that because the renegotiation efforts have been unsuccessful otherwise or is AT&T just looking to ratchet up the heat on tower owners to remove the opportunity for rent increases due to possible FirstNet modifications?  How many times can a company threaten to terminate a lease but not actually terminate it before owners just completely ignore the requests?   AT&T knows and based upon the fact that they keep sending the letters, there must be some tower owners that accept the revised terms with each round of letters.

A municipal client, who has multiple public safety towers upon which Verizon is colocated, received a call and letter from a Verizon representative asking for reduced lease rate terms and escalation. The letter is on Verizon letterhead and does not make clear the relationship between Accenture and Verizon but refers to the Accenture employee or contractor as a “Verizon Representative.” However, in the email from this representative, the signature block is for Accenture.  We surmise this means that Verizon is using Accenture instead of Black Dot or Md7 to renegotiate its leases. This is disappointing because Verizon has historically chosen not to stoop to these types of misleading negotiation tactics. And lest you think it is because of the ever more competitive wireless industry – Verizon still generates a very healthy 45.7% wireless profit margin.

The letter states:

As discussed during your recent call with ________, a Verizon representative, we are currently reviewing our real estate portfolio to assess market rates and trends. To remain competitive and provide the best value to our customers, we propose to modify our site lease terms, based on our knowledge of the market and our analysis of each site as follows:

 

It further goes on to state (and this is the funny part):

Additionally, for all sites identified in this document, payment of rent shall include the following equipment rights:

• 30,000 square inches wind load surface area at the RAD center (if available);
• 10’ tip to tip RAD, if available. If not, space available up to 10’;
• All you can build fixed fee amendments for the contract duration within the allotted tip to tip vertical and 30,000 square inches wind load surface area;
• 16 cables;
• No additional rent or fees for any additions or modifications to equipment throughout the contract term as long as the equipment rights identified above are not exceeded.

If we can’t reach an agreement, we will remove you from our relocation list as we continue to evaluate our real estate portfolio.

As always, there is the implicit threat of termination – although carefully couched in language that doesn’t constitute an anticipatory breach. So in essence, Verizon wants 30,000 square inches of equipment space in their 10′ RAD center along with 16 cables. So no matter how much capacity this reduces on the tower or how much a tower owner would have to pay to structurally upgrade the tower to accommodate it, Verizon expects not to pay any additional fees. Generally, this is ludicrous and no tower owner should ever agree to this loading, regardless of whether they end up negotiating more favorable rent terms, in order to ensure the longevity of the lease. We aren’t suggesting that Verizon may not eventually relocate some cell sites, just that it won’t be that common and will be reserved for situations where they can save enough money by moving to justify the substantial expense of doing so.

In this case, our municipal tower owner will be telling Verizon that they can keep their name on the relocation list. There is no chance on any of them that Verizon will end up moving. If you receive one of these Verizon/Accenture letters or calls threatening to renegotiate your lease or relocate the tower, please contact us.

One of our client’s called us yesterday to let us know that they had been beleaguered by a tower company rep who was perhaps too anxious and aggressive regarding a lease extension for a lease that wasn’t set to expire for another 8 years.   This particular client has a Mona Lisa tower- a phrase American Tower used previously to refer to 4-6 carrier towers.   In other words, it wasn’t going anywhere.   For some reason, the tower company rep felt that being aggressive and making all kinds of threats to move the tower and to cease discussions would make the landowner agree to the proposed terms.

The landowner received a survey from the tower company- a generic one that asked about how the landowner felt about the tower company and whether lease payments were coming on time.   The landowner filled out the survey and added comments at the bottom that he didn’t appreciate the rep’s aggressive nature and angry demeanor.   Within a few days, the agent called him and apologized and the negotiations took a decidedly more friendly turn.    Perhaps that was because our client’s tower is a very valuable tower.   Perhaps not.  Either way, if you are having a problem with your tower company rep and their negotiating tactics, fill out a survey or let the company know directly.   While the rep will and should continue to make threats about moving the tower, they should be able to do it in a less aggressive and cordial manner.  Both parties should remember that these negotiations are not personal, they are just business.  Treat the discussion as a business discussion, remove the personal aspect, and if you need help determining the business terms, consider contacting us.

If you receive a similar request from Sprint, LCC, or Lendlease or another cell tower lease optimization company, please contact us.  We can help you evaluate the proposal and determine whether it is probable that Sprint would move in the event you choose not to accept their proposed rent reduction.