FCC Urged to Merge Big UScellular Reviews

The FCC’s High-Stakes Review: How UScellular’s Potential Sale Could Reshape America’s 5G Landscape
The proposed sale of UScellular’s customer base and spectrum assets to the “Big Three” U.S. wireless carriers—AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon—has ignited fierce debate among regulators, rural providers, and consumer watchdogs. At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: Could consolidating yet another regional player into telecom giants undermine competition, particularly in underserved rural markets? The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) now faces mounting pressure to treat these separate deals as a single transaction, scrutinizing their cumulative impact on pricing, coverage, and innovation. With billions in spectrum rights and 4.5 million subscribers at stake, the outcome could redefine the 5G era—for better or worse.

The Case for a Consolidated FCC Review

Consumer advocacy groups like Public Knowledge and the Benton Institute argue that reviewing UScellular’s spectrum divestitures piecemeal would let carriers exploit regulatory loopholes. For instance, AT&T’s parallel request for a waiver of spectrum caps in the 3.45 GHz band—filed separately from its UScellular negotiations—could artificially inflate its market share if assessed in isolation. “This is a classic ‘divide and conquer’ tactic,” notes a New America Open Technology Institute briefing. By evaluating all pending deals holistically, the FCC could prevent carriers from circumventing antitrust safeguards.
Rural carriers add that fragmented approvals risk creating “spectrum deserts.” UScellular currently leases airwaves to smaller operators in regions where the Big Three have little infrastructure. If those frequencies are absorbed by national carriers prioritizing urban upgrades, towns like Gila Bend, Arizona (population 1,900), might face higher prices or stalled 5G rollouts. FCC data shows rural areas already lag in mid-band spectrum access—a gap that could widen without intervention.

Labor and Market Concentration: The T-Mobile Wildcard

T-Mobile’s $4.4 billion bid for UScellular’s operations has drawn particular fire. The Communications Workers of America (CWA) warns the deal would give T-Mobile—already the largest U.S. carrier by subscriber count—a “stranglehold” in labor markets. Internal CWA reports cite T-Mobile’s history of union suppression, including alleged retaliation against retail workers organizing in Maine. Acquiring UScellular’s 4,000+ stores could expand those practices while eliminating a rare unionized competitor.
Market analysts highlight another red flag: T-Mobile’s post-merger spectrum hoard. After swallowing Sprint in 2020, T-Mobile controls nearly 50% of all licensed mid-band spectrum—the “goldilocks” frequencies crucial for 5G speed and coverage. Adding UScellular’s holdings might breach the FCC’s informal 33% cap in multiple regions. “This isn’t growth; it’s monopoly-building,” argues Free Press Research Director Derek Turner. Past mergers show such consolidation often leads to price hikes—T-Mobile’s recent $5/month mid-contract increase for legacy plans hints at the trend.

Rural Connectivity or Corporate Welfare?

Proponents, including UScellular CEO Laurent Therivel, frame the sales as a lifeline for rural America. In FCC filings, Therivel notes his company lacks scale to fund nationwide 5G upgrades, claiming partnerships with giants will “accelerate broadband deployment where it’s needed most.” Verizon and AT&T echo this, pledging to repurpose UScellular’s spectrum for fixed wireless home internet—a service the Biden administration prioritizes in its $42.5 billion BEAD program.
Skeptics counter that promises ring hollow. The Rural Wireless Association points to Verizon’s 2023 retreat from Iowa’s FarmNet program, which left grain elevators without reliable signals during harvest. Similarly, AT&T’s “FirstNet” emergency network—built with taxpayer subsidies—still has dead zones across Appalachia. “Carriers cherry-pick profitable exurbs while calling it ‘rural investment,’” says former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. Without strict buildout requirements, UScellular’s spectrum might simply stockpile in urban cores.

The Path Forward: Transparency or Rubber Stamp?

As the FCC’s review enters its sixth month, procedural tensions flare. T-Mobile and UScellular recently urged “expedited approval,” citing investor uncertainty. But FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel emphasizes deliberate analysis, noting the agency’s 2023 overhaul of merger guidelines—which now explicitly weigh labor impacts and regional market power.
State attorneys general could prove pivotal. A bipartisan coalition from Vermont to Texas has demanded the FCC release all carrier-submitted data publicly, rejecting claims of “competitive confidentiality.” Their motion cites the 2011 AT&T/T-Mobile merger debacle, where hidden documents later revealed planned service cuts. Transparency, they argue, is the antidote to backroom deals.
The clock ticks toward a 2025 deadline for federal broadband funding allocations. If the FCC greenlights these deals without safeguards, rural providers fear being priced out of spectrum auctions altogether. Conversely, blocking sales entirely might strand UScellular’s aging infrastructure. The middle path—conditional approvals with enforceable coverage mandates—could satisfy neither side but serve the public best.
In this high-stakes telecom chess match, the FCC holds not just the gavel, but the blueprint for America’s digital future. One thing’s clear: The age of carrier self-regulation is over. Whether that leads to fairer markets or gridlock depends on how boldly regulators wield their power. For millions on the wrong side of the digital divide, the stakes couldn’t be higher.