T-Mobile plans to implement a $5 monthly rate hike per subscriber starting April 2, 2025 — a move projected to boost its annual revenue by $7.75 billion. However, for some rural UScellular customers, that higher price may come with a bigger cost: the loss of coverage altogether, according to an industry coalition. The timing of the increase comes just as the five-year commitment not to raise rates, made during T-Mobile’s 2020 merger with Sprint, expires.
A broad coalition of industry groups, public interest organizations, and a national labor union is urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take a hard look at the proposed multibillion-dollar acquisition of UScellular by T-Mobile, warning that the deal could harm rural connectivity, suppress competition, and undermine decades of federally subsidized infrastructure development.
In a detailed filing submitted to the FCC, the coalition—comprising the Rural Wireless Association (RWA), EchoStar, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), Public Knowledge, New America’s Open Technology Institute, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)—expressed serious doubts about the merger’s claimed public interest benefits. Instead, the group contends that the deal poses significant risks to rural communities, wireless competition, labor markets, and spectrum equity.
Tower shutdowns could leave rural areas in the dark
At the center of the coalition’s argument is the concern that the merger would result in widespread shutdowns of UScellular towers—particularly in rural areas—where operations have been sustained in part by nearly $100 million in annual support from the federal Universal Service Fund (USF). Once acquired, the coalition fears that T-Mobile will determine that these towers are not financially viable without continued subsidies and move swiftly to shut them down.
The result? Rural Americans could find themselves in a wireless coverage vacuum, disconnected from essential services such as emergency response, education, and telehealth. The coalition warns that the shutdown of USF-funded cell sites would effectively waste taxpayer dollars that have already been invested in the deployment and maintenance of 5G infrastructure in hard-to-reach areas.
The RWA has called for a formal audit by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) into how UScellular has spent its legacy high-cost support, citing requirements that this funding be directed exclusively toward 5G buildouts starting in 2023.
A pattern of post-merger price hikes
The coalition also cited T-Mobile’s history of cost-cutting following major acquisitions. Notably, the company recently announced a $5 per-line monthly rate hike to take effect April 2, 2025—coinciding almost exactly with the five-year expiration of its promise not to raise rates following its 2020 merger with Sprint.
This timing is no coincidence, the coalition argues, and signals what may lie ahead if the FCC approves the UScellular acquisition. With fewer competitors in the market, the incentive to maintain low prices diminishes. The exit of UScellular could further reduce competitive pressure in rural and mid-sized markets, opening the door to increased prices and diminished service options.
Spectrum consolidation threatens market entry and rural 5G
Another key concern raised by the coalition is the concentration of spectrum in the hands of the three national carriers—Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. The proposed transaction would transfer significant licensed spectrum holdings from UScellular to T-Mobile, further tightening the grip of the big three on this finite and essential resource.
According to data cited in the filing, T-Mobile’s dominance in mid-band spectrum—supercharged by its acquisition of Sprint—has already made it harder for new entrants and regional carriers to gain a foothold in the market. The coalition argues that the merger would exacerbate this trend and stifle efforts to expand 5G availability in rural areas.
EchoStar emphasized that this consolidation of spectrum would limit options for MVNOs and independent carriers looking to grow. The organization also highlighted the need for the FCC to review all of UScellular’s ongoing divestitures—including pending transactions with Verizon and AT&T—in a single, consolidated proceeding to fully understand their cumulative market impact.
Labor market concentration and worker Impacts
On the labor front, the Communications Workers of America raised red flags about the potential for job losses and deteriorating working conditions. Following the Sprint merger, T-Mobile shuttered roughly 30 percent of its retail stores, resulting in more than 21,000 lost jobs, according to estimates referenced in the filing.
The proposed acquisition of UScellular would likely lead to similar consolidation in local labor markets, particularly in states where both companies have overlapping operations. This consolidation could translate to fewer jobs, slower wage growth, and reduced bargaining power for workers in an industry already marked by high turnover and low unionization rates.
CWA also provided a detailed account of T-Mobile’s past violations of labor rights, including unlawful surveillance of union activity, refusal to negotiate with union representatives, and the creation of internal programs designed to undermine worker organizing. The union urged the FCC to weigh these patterns when considering the broader impact of the transaction.
Consumer lock-in and handset locking
Public Knowledge and New America’s Open Technology Institute focused their comments on device portability and the anti-competitive impact of handset locking. Without regulatory safeguards, the groups warned, T-Mobile could delay or restrict handset unlocking for former UScellular customers—effectively locking them into service and limiting their ability to switch providers.
To promote competition and protect consumer choice, the coalition has called on the FCC to impose handset unlocking requirements on T-Mobile as a condition of any transaction approval, echoing similar measures previously adopted in the T-Mobile–Mint Mobile transaction.
A highly concentrated market—and no room for error
The Computer & Communications Industry Association added an economic lens to the opposition, citing a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) score of 3596 for the relevant wireless markets—double the threshold for a market to be considered “highly concentrated” under current federal guidelines. In an environment where the FCC has been unable to hold new spectrum auctions, the coalition contends that now is not the time to further consolidate power among the dominant players.
The group emphasized that UScellular’s exit would eliminate a competitor that has helped maintain pricing discipline in several markets, while providing a crucial roaming partner for smaller carriers. The downstream effect, they argue, will be higher prices, degraded competition, and an even more difficult path forward for regional and rural operators.
Beyond opposing the T-Mobile–UScellular deal on its own merits, the coalition urged the FCC to evaluate all of UScellular’s recent spectrum transactions together, including its $1 billion sales to Verizon and AT&T. An isolated, piecemeal review, they argue, would obscure the broader implications of UScellular’s complete exit from the wireless market—and hinder the Commission’s ability to protect public and consumer interests.
