Crown Castle Seeks $3.5B as DISH Abandons Network Build

HOUSTON, TX – January 12, 2026 – The ambitious, multi-year effort by DISH Wireless to establish itself as a fourth national wireless carrier in the United States has culminated in a high-stakes legal and financial fallout. Infrastructure giant Crown Castle Inc. announced today it has terminated its wireless infrastructure agreement with DISH after the company defaulted on its payment obligations. Crown Castle is now seeking to recover more than $3.5 billion in remaining payments from its former partner.

The move marks a dramatic end to a partnership that was once a cornerstone of DISH's strategy to build a nationwide 5G network from the ground up. In a sharply worded statement, Crown Castle accused DISH of refusing to pay the American businesses it used to construct its network after making a strategic pivot to sell its valuable spectrum licenses for over $40 billion.

“Crown Castle and many other American businesses helped DISH and its parent company, EchoStar, build its wireless communications network with the expectation that it would provide a meaningful service to Americans and help the U.S. continue to lead in wireless,” the company stated. “We will do everything we can to enforce our rights under our agreement with DISH and keep DISH to its word.”

The Anatomy of a Default

The dispute follows a significant strategic shift by DISH's parent company, EchoStar. In the summer of 2025, EchoStar announced blockbuster deals to sell large swaths of its public spectrum licenses—the airwaves essential for wireless communication—to established players AT&T and SpaceX. This decision signaled a retreat from its costly and complex plan to operate its own facilities-based network.

Following that announcement, DISH notified Crown Castle and other partners in September 2025 that it was discontinuing its network business. According to Crown Castle, DISH asserted that certain actions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) relieved it of the need to honor its remaining contractual obligations. While DISH initially continued to make payments, it recently failed to do so, triggering the default and contract termination.

The now-terminated agreement, a Master Lease Agreement (MLA) signed in November 2020, was a critical component of DISH's build-out. It provided DISH with access to lease space on up to 20,000 of Crown Castle’s approximately 40,000 U.S. cell towers, along with fiber services. Such long-term agreements are typically structured with “take-or-pay” provisions that obligate the tenant to make minimum payments over the contract term, protecting the infrastructure provider's significant upfront capital investment.

A Battle of Legal Interpretations

The core of the conflict is expected to center on DISH's justification for its actions. DISH has argued that pressure from the FCC to meet stringent network build-out deadlines or risk forfeiting its licenses effectively “forced” it to sell its spectrum. This argument suggests DISH may invoke a force majeure clause, claiming that unforeseeable regulatory actions made its contracts, including the one with Crown Castle, impossible to fulfill as the tower space became “unusable” for its original purpose.

Crown Castle vehemently rejects this interpretation. The company frames the spectrum sale not as a forced event, but as a “voluntary decision” by EchoStar that generated over $40 billion. “DISH is refusing to pay the American workers and businesses it used to build its network and meet the minimum FCC coverage requirements necessary to retain its spectrum licenses — an American public resource. Now those same spectrum licenses are being sold for more than $40 billion,” Crown Castle's statement reads.

This legal strategy from DISH is not unique to this case. In a similar lawsuit, American Tower sued DISH for approximately $210 million after it also attempted to exit its tower contracts following the spectrum sales. DISH's defense in that case mirrors its justification here, indicating a broader strategy to shed financial liabilities tied to its abandoned network.

The legal battle will likely scrutinize whether the FCC's regulatory pressure, which included granting DISH build-out extensions as recently as late 2024, meets the high legal standard for a force majeure event that would excuse a multi-billion dollar contractual obligation.

The Ripple Effect Across the Wireless Landscape

For its part, Crown Castle has sought to reassure investors, stating it does not anticipate the dispute to impact its full-year 2025 financial results. However, the $3.5 billion it seeks represents significant future revenue that is now at risk. The long-term financial impact will depend heavily on the outcome of the legal proceedings and Crown Castle's ability to re-lease the vacated tower capacity.

There may be a silver lining, as the very companies purchasing DISH's spectrum will need infrastructure to deploy it. AT&T, which is acquiring a significant portion of the spectrum for a reported $23 billion, and SpaceX could emerge as potential new tenants for the space DISH once occupied. This could mitigate long-term revenue loss for Crown Castle, though re-tenanting thousands of sites is a complex process.

The dispute also casts a shadow over the FCC's long-standing efforts to foster a fourth national wireless competitor to challenge the dominance of AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. For years, the FCC used build-out deadlines to prevent companies like DISH from “warehousing” valuable spectrum. While DISH's exit strengthens AT&T's 5G position, it effectively removes a key potential competitor from the market, raising questions about the future of market competition.

This high-profile default is sending shockwaves through the telecom infrastructure industry. Tower companies and their investors are now forced to re-evaluate the risks associated with backing new or unproven network entrants. Future infrastructure agreements will likely feature more stringent contractual language, stronger financial guarantees, and clearer definitions of what constitutes a contract-nullifying event, potentially raising the barrier to entry for the next company with ambitions to disrupt the wireless market.