NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association and the Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA) are jointly pressing the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that contractors, tower owners, and other infrastructure partners are paid for work already performed before the agency approves EchoStar’s pending spectrum assignment applications.
Two letters, one message to the FCC
Although submitted as two separate letters, the filings represent a coordinated effort by the wireless infrastructure industry to prevent EchoStar and its subsidiary, DISH Wireless, from using the FCC’s license transfer process to evade contractual obligations while monetizing spectrum assets worth billions of dollars.
Industry groups warn against “spectrum first, pay later”
In its January 6 filing, NATE explicitly endorsed WIA’s letter, aligning the contractor trade group with infrastructure owners in urging the Commission to condition approval of the spectrum transactions in FCC Dockets 25-302 and 25-303. Both organizations argue that allowing EchoStar to complete the spectrum assignments without safeguards would unjustly enrich the company at the expense of the firms and workers that built and maintained its network.
Contractors push back on DISH’s FCC excuse argument
The letters were prompted by written communications from DISH Wireless asserting that FCC actions excuse performance under existing contracts—an argument NATE and WIA say is unsupported by Commission precedent and would have devastating consequences for the infrastructure ecosystem. They warn that if contractors and tower owners are left unpaid, future participation in FCC-backed deployment efforts will be chilled, raising costs, increasing litigation, and ultimately slowing broadband deployment.
From theory to reality: lawsuits and payment defaults emerge
The industry’s concerns are no longer theoretical. As Wireless Estimator recently reported, Crown Castle has sued DISH to enforce its master services agreement, alleging payment defaults totaling approximately $3.5 billion. DISH has denied breaching the agreement, arguing instead that the dispute centers on contract interpretation. That litigation escalated further this week when Crown Castle publicly announced that it had terminated its agreement with DISH, citing payment defaults.
Smaller tower owners feel the pressure first
Beyond the largest tower owners, smaller infrastructure companies are also being affected. Wireless Estimator has confirmed that at least one smaller U.S. tower owner has not been paid for several months on dozens of DISH-leased sites and has issued a formal notice of default, with the outstanding balance now in the mid-six figures. Unlike Crown Castle or American Tower, such companies lack the balance sheets to absorb prolonged nonpayment while disputes play out.
FCC urged to act without adjudicating contracts
NATE and WIA argue that the FCC need not—and should not—resolve individual contract disputes. Still, it does have a clear public-interest obligation to prevent license transfers from being used as a shield against lawful commitments. They urge the Commission to require EchoStar to demonstrate that its relevant subsidiaries are fully funded and capable of meeting their infrastructure commitments, or to impose conditions, such as escrow mechanisms, to protect unpaid partners.
EchoStar’s jurisdiction argument raises alarm
EchoStar, in an opposition filing, has argued that once the spectrum assignments are approved, it will fall outside FCC jurisdiction and that payment disputes should be resolved privately or in court. NATE and WIA counter that this position underscores the urgency of Commission action now, before approval effectively places assets beyond reach.
For contractors, tower owners, and other infrastructure partners, the issue goes beyond any single transaction. As NATE warns, if long-term contracts can be nullified through corporate restructuring and license transfers, the entire wireless infrastructure funding model is at risk—an outcome that would reverberate through future 5G, 6G, and rural deployment efforts.
A defining test for the FCC’s public-interest role
The FCC’s handling of the EchoStar applications will be closely watched as a test of whether infrastructure partners who built the network in good faith will be protected—or left bearing the cost of a carrier’s strategic exit.
