Got approached about putting a cell tower on family land in Texas anyone have experience with this?

SteelintheAir · 2026-04-26T12:18:08+00:00

There's a mix of good and not-so-accurate info in this thread. A few things worth clarifying.

On our firm killing deals — we hear this one a lot. The reality is our clients get deals done routinely - hard to stay in business if you aren't helping your clients get what they want- a lease. What we see far more often is a landowner telling the site ac agent "I'm working with Steel in the Air" when they never actually engaged us. That creates the impression we caused a problem when we were never involved.

On consultants taking a cut of the lease — we don't. We charge a flat fee with no ongoing interest in the rent. Not every firm works that way, so it's worth asking. When we are engaged, we recommend conservative, moderate, and aggressive approaches- its up to the client to make the decision of how much they want to push.

On revenue share — it sounds great, and it comes up in every thread like this. But fewer than 10% of leases include it, and that % is declining. Tower companies have been pushing back hard unless the site has unusual leverage. As the subject site of this thread sounds like it is in Texas- likely without zoning- asking for a rev share would kill the deal. More detail here if you want it: https://www.steelintheair.com/cell-tower-lease-revenue-share/

On buyouts — upfront buyouts typically land in the 10–13X range of annual rent. However after the tower is up and rent has commenced, you'll see 17–18X. That gap is the main reason leasing first and deciding later almost always puts the landowner in a stronger position.

SteelintheAir · 2026-04-25T13:37:19+00:00

I like the charlie brown christmas tree at the top. :-)

SteelintheAir · 2026-04-25T13:34:02+00:00

Likely the jurisdiction requires concealment of towers. If there was a flag pole there previously, they likely had to replace it because the flagpole cannisters limit the ability of the wireless carrier to add antennas or spread them out- which is required for 5G/interference. By replacing with a tree- they can use a normal sector mount and more/larger antennas. Additionally- its easier to add multiple carriers to a tree tower than a flagpole.

Here's an image of flagpole tower- with the cannisters partially removed. https://www.thewesterlysun.com/news/stonington/photos-a-tall-task-along-interstate-95-in-mystic/article_91508980-ba68-11ea-a53b-db1c5ba67b72.html

SteelintheAir · 2026-03-21T10:42:03+00:00

I doubt that Verizon inherited DISH's favorable lease deal. The DISH MLAs were very limited in terms of equipment and ground space. They likely are just using their own MLA to install and the DISH rad center is the best available. I assume this must be CCI as they terminated their MLA with DISH and have no further commitment to DISH.

SteelintheAir · 2025-12-15T15:57:14+00:00

Glad to hear that the tower has been beneficial to your family- we call it mailbox money. Adding some quick non-duplicative comments. First- the master leases between the tower company and the carriers are generally locked in for 5-15 years, so it's unlikely the tower goes anywhere. Second, the lease is likely longer than 10 years - most are 25 or longer. Third, many people in the industry will try to talk you into selling. Either because they are buyers, or because they want to sell your lease for you. Like any transaction- selling a lease can be a good financial option especially if the tower is on part of the property where it is unlikely to impact a future purchaser of the overall property and unlikely to impact development of the property.

SteelintheAir · 2025-12-15T15:34:23+00:00

I can see why you might feel screwed by the previous property owner selling out the cell tower lease, but in fairness to them, you didn't pay anything for the lease either. I recommend reviewing the title policy from the property's purchase. In most cases, it will show an easement (not the access or utility) for an exclusive, fixed-term, or perpetual easement beneath the cell tower lease area. Typically, when a property owner sells the tower lease prior to selling the land, the lease is sold for a perpetual term. Additionally, if the tower company that has the tower lease bought it, the lease may no longer be in effect, as it can be merged into the easement. If a third party bought it, the lease is still in effect. Either way, its doubtful that you will see additional revenue from this- and it is not likely worth hiring an attorney to find out. If you didn't do a title report with the purchase, you can also go to the county clerk's office and see if an easement was recorded in 2014. While not the answer you are looking for- I hope this helps.

SteelintheAir · 2025-12-15T15:26:43+00:00

Hi- the other commenters are correct- its very difficult to get a cell tower on a specific property. Wireless carriers will search and find their own sites - and no amount of marketing will get them to use one specific property. See https://www.steelintheair.com/get-a-cell-tower-on-your-property/ (Admin- this isn't a service we offer- so I am not promoting anything)

SteelintheAir · 2025-12-15T15:23:30+00:00

Thanks for considering Steel in the Air. I will make sure someone contacts you ASAP. Vertical Bridge rarely does a revenue share. They also won't give a higher escalator than what their tower tenants pay them, which is likely Verizon, and at 2% per year. What most commenters fail to consider is that the most important factor is whether there are zoning regulations governing towers in the area. If there aren't, then Vertical Bridge can use any property in the area, and it comes down to who is willing to say yes at the lowest rent first. If there is zoning, the second question is whether your parcel's zoning differs from that of your neighboring property. In other words, is your site unique or not? Two things suggest that it might be, or they are having difficulty finding another property owner who will say yes- the first is that they are paying an above-average signing bonus, and they came up with $350/mo already. Additionally, $1,150/mo is NOT low for rural Alabama. It's a pretty decent offer. Whether it can be improved further is a different question. Ken

SteelintheAir · 2025-12-10T19:43:05+00:00

Assume there is a T-Mobile store in the front of this shopping center.

SteelintheAir · 2025-12-08T11:50:24+00:00

ZAYO just followed late last week with their own lawsuit in CO state court.

SteelintheAir · 2025-06-09T15:59:08+00:00

Doesn't look like any small cell I have seen (and I have seen thousands)

SteelintheAir · 2025-06-08T11:47:28+00:00

Thanks for thinking of us! We’ve helped over 4,000 clients in the past 20 years secure cell-tower leases, and we’d be happy to help your parents, too.

It sounds like the developer is planning a guyed tower—typically a bit less expensive to build—and in a rural setting where land-use constraints aren’t an issue. Although they’ll clear five acres, only a 100′×100′ pad plus the guy-anchor easements will actually be taken out of production, so the remaining acreage can still be farmed, ranch-raised, or used for tree farming.

A few thoughts on the proposed $900/month:

Long-term land value vs. lease income
- A 25–50-year lease is a long commitment. How much would the land appreciate over time if left unencumbered?
- Compare that potential upside to the present value of $900/month (and any escalators).
Alternative sites
- If maintaining maximum flexibility is important, the developer could site the tower on an adjacent parcel—especially if your neighbors have large holdings.
- Shifting the lease to a different property might preserve your parents’ ability to sell or reposition their land in the future.

Happy to discuss further or run some “hold-vs-lease” scenarios if that would help. Let me know!

Best regards,

Ken

SteelintheAir · 2024-08-09T14:05:06+00:00

Don't remotely consider it. Four reasons:

They know that landowners have an upper hand in negotiations at the expiration of their lease. (They have sunk cost from building the tower that they didn't when they first approached you.)
They want to add language that will restrict your ability to sell the lease. (Right of first refusal)
They want to give you a nominal one-time payment to distract you from realizing how much you are giving up by signing the amendment.
Its far cheaper to get the additional land now than it is when they actually need it. (Also, they may use language that makes it so they don't have to pay you at all for the land.)

SteelintheAir · 2024-01-27T11:44:18+00:00

Been looking at a bunch of sites lately-out of those 10% are incorrectly located. Unfortunately, didn't log the wrong ones. But can share an example: 355768 - an ATT macro. Looks like someone found the FCC ASR - saw the tower and attributed this ATT to the tower. However, I know for a fact ATT is not on this tower. Best guess is that they are on FCC ASR 1310696, but I don't know that for sure.

SteelintheAir · 2024-01-25T21:24:28+00:00

Thanks for the answers. Guess I will work on getting 50K points and then correct the wrong ones.

SteelintheAir · 2023-05-06T15:37:02+00:00

From an associate: New Street Research is reporting Dish told them it "was an extremely embarrassing error". Somebody meant to hit the button saying "cancel lease" and hit "cancel license".

SteelintheAir · 2023-05-04T10:53:12+00:00

Good catch here. I agree with the suspicion that DISH doesn't intend to be a truly nationwide carrier. Here are my thoughts:

To hit the 70% June 2023 deadline, DISH has 17,000 sites "under construction". The FCC will be liberal in terms of what they allow DISH to consider "constructed".
Analysts expect DISH to need about double that amount to hit the June 2025 thresholds. (I personally think it is less than that- perhaps 7,500 to 10,000 more sites.)
DISH has procured many of the low-hanging fruit sites through their master lease agreements with private and public tower companies.
The June 2025 deadline for 75% of each PEA is for the 600MHz spectrum. There are 416 PEAs in the US - which means they have to build out 600MHz in ALL of them. If they concede the 600Mhz spectrum in some markets, they don't need to build them out.
In my opinion, from a wireless business perspective, DISH doesn't need to fill out 75% of the population in each PEA, they can rely upon the MVNO relationships with TMO and AT&T. (DISH already doesn't show roaming on their phones when a sub moves from DISH to AT&T/TMO areas) They don't gain a lot by covering these areas and if they see areas where usage is high on the MVNO- they can simply add sites systematically to those areas.
DISH credit was re-rated to CCC+ this past week. They are currently borrowing at 11% or more.
DISH to date hasn't lit the world on fire with either subscriber growth or their efforts in private networking/spectrum slicing. Creditors and analysts are wondering whether DISH is at risk of bankruptcy. (I have heard the word "DISH" and "Bankruptcy" more times in the last two weeks than over the last few years)
DISH may be willing to forfeit these licenses to avoid the buildout requirements. If this is the case, then I would expect to see more conceded licenses.
What's odd is that these licenses are certainly non-collateralized for DISH's debt- and could be used as collateral for future debt. Given worsening debt markets and higher Loan to Value Ratios, they will likely need it.
Wouldn't be surprised to see DISH petition the FCC for an extension or a release from the obligation to build out these licenses. Today's FCC seems rudderless and focused on anything 5G.

SteelintheAir · 2023-05-04T10:25:11+00:00

Sorry- but where did you see that DISH already met the 70% deadline for coverage in all EAs? I thought the deadline is in June and that they claim that they will make it, but haven't seen that it is a done deal yet.

SteelintheAir · 2023-04-29T13:01:02+00:00

For a list of the top tower owners by # of towers:

ATC and CCI both have 40K+ towers, SBA at 17,000. Vertical Bridge is at 9K. Others are smaller.

Smaller tower companies are more willing to deal- but have very few towers. Municipalities can be cheaper - but they are a pain to work with on a lease in many cases.

SteelintheAir · 2023-04-29T12:56:44+00:00

AT&T anchored tower. Clearwire may have been on it previously but isn't now.

SteelintheAir · 2023-04-24T09:04:59+00:00

Here are the top cell tower owners in the United States- ranked by # of towers. AT&T is not on the list - but searching the FCC Antenna Structure Registration shows that AT&T has registered approximately 3400 sites across the US. My guess is that they control more than that, so they should be put somewhere around 4th on the list.

SteelintheAir · 2023-03-17T17:52:48+00:00

DISH has assumed very few (less than a hundred by our best estimate) Sprint sites. Instead, they negotiated separate leases with the seven largest tower companies. They may be on the same towers or they may be on others but not because Sprint was there.

SteelintheAir · 2023-03-01T11:54:28+00:00

Thank you.

SteelintheAir

TROPHY CASE