Thank you, Chuck, and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us today as we discuss our third quarter 2026 results.

With me on the call this afternoon are Chris Hillabrant, Crown Castle's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Sunit Patel, Crown Castle's Chief Financial Officer. To aid the discussion, we have posted supplemental materials in the Investors section of our website at crowncastle.com that will be referenced throughout the call.

This conference call will contain forward-looking statements, which are subject to certain risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, and actual results may vary materially from those expected. Information about potential factors which could affect our results is available in the press release and the Risk Factors sections of the company's SEC filings.

Our statements are made as of today, October 21st, 2026, and we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. In addition, today's call includes discussions of certain non-GAAP financial measures.

Tables reconciling these non-GAAP financial measures are available in the supplemental information package in the Investors section of the company's website at crowncastle.com. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.

Thank you, Hamilton, and good afternoon, everyone. As I reflect on my first year at Crown Castle as CEO, I am pleased with the meaningful progress we have made to sharpen our strategic focus, simplify the business, and build a strong foundation for future growth.

Over the past year, we have taken several significant steps towards becoming a best-in-class US tower operator, in addition to completing the sale of our small cell and fiber businesses. First, at the beginning of the year, we took decisive actions to align our cost structure with the current business model while preserving our ability to support customers, deliver best-in-class efficiency, and enable future growth.

These actions resulted in $65 million of annualized run rate operating cost savings. Second, we launched an enterprise-wide transformation program to create a more efficient and scalable operating model that supports our long-term growth objectives.

Our transformation program spans the entire business and includes initiatives such as modernizing our systems, optimizing our facilities footprint, and reducing corporate non-labor costs. This year, we launched a new project management system, improving the application-to-air process, and a new field services system, enhancing our asset information and utilization data.

We are also on track to exit our transition services agreement related to the previous sale of our fiber and small cell businesses, which we believe will allow us to further simplify our corporate functions. Third, we continue to scale our ground lease buyout program while meeting or exceeding our target returns.

In 2026, we expect to purchase more than 400 ground leases, more than double the number completed in 2025. We believe acquiring land under our towers improves our margin and increases operational control of our assets, allowing us to deliver more value to the customer while meeting their needs more rapidly.

Finally, we are also making progress strengthening our customer relationships and driving customer engagement. We resolved a longstanding commercial issue in the quarter with one of our largest customers that advances our strategic relationship and positions us for future growth opportunities.

We acquired a residual economic interest on a subset of our tower sites and extended the customer's lease terms for those sites. We believe this agreement creates value for both parties by simplifying the economics, increasing predictability, and limiting long-term churn risk.

We believe this progress positions Crown Castle to capitalize on an increasingly supportive long-term backdrop for wireless communications infrastructure. Mobile data demand, one of the clearest indicators of demand for our infrastructure, continues to grow at a healthy pace and is showing no signs of stopping with the emergence of AI-enabled applications, physical AI, and the acceleration of data-only wireless devices.

We are also seeing continued investment in spectrum by our customers and others in the wireless industry. Over the past year, carriers and other wireless operators have committed significant capital to acquire spectrum assets, including AT&T's acquisition of 3.45 GHz and 600 MHz spectrum, Verizon's acquisition of AWS-3 licenses, and SpaceX's acquisition of AWS-4, H Block, and 800 MHz spectrum.

These transactions demonstrate the commitments of the wireless industry to aggressively invest and to secure spectrum resources needed to support future terrestrial wireless network growth. Notably, as part of its 800 MHz spectrum acquisition, SpaceX said it aims to, quote, "become the first network operator to deploy both satellite and terrestrial spectrum."

We believe SpaceX's mobile network ambitions could provide an additional catalyst in two ways: first, to invest directly by leasing towers to build their previously announced terrestrial network; and second, as a catalyst for network operators to achieve investment in their mobile networks to enhance performance and coverage against new entrants in the wireless marketplace. Looking ahead, we expect the FCC to auction approximately 800 MHz of spectrum, consistent with Chairman Carr's efforts to advance spectrum policy and maintain US leadership in telecommunications.

This includes approximately 160 MHz of upper C-band spectrum expected to be auctioned by July 2027. Historically, new spectrum deployment has been an important driver of network investment, and we believe the industry spectrum pipeline remains supportive of long-term infrastructure demand.

We continue to see momentum in edge compute infrastructure as demand for storage and compute continues to accelerate, while many large data center deployments face multiyear construction and power delivery delays. Crown Castle now has 100-plus edge sites deployed and several concurrent trials underway.

While initial results appear promising, we continue to evaluate whether these edge solutions will scale. Crown Castle is positioned well to serve this demand in a capital-efficient manner through its nationwide network of tower sites, each with existing power and broadband connectivity, and can provide select distributed move-in ready locations.

Our talented and dedicated teammates continue to play a critical role in our progress transforming the business, and we are seeing rising levels of engagement with our clear and focused strategy. We are committed to investing in their continued development through additional training, individual development plans, and training in the cost-effective use of AI.

In conclusion, over the past year, we have taken decisive steps to simplify the business, strengthen our operating model, and build the right leadership team. This progress allowed us to increase our full year 2026 guidance and positions us to capitalize on the sector tailwinds and opportunities.

We believe our pure-play US tower strategy, investment-grade balance sheet, and capital allocation framework positions Crown Castle to maximize long-term shareholder value. With that, I'll turn it over to Sunit to walk us through the details of the quarter.

Thank you, Chris, and good afternoon, everyone. We continue to execute on our strategy towards becoming a best-in-class US tower operator in the third quarter, positioning us to increase our full year 2026 guidance.

Starting on page 3, third quarter organic growth, excluding the impact of Sprint cancellations and Dish terminations, was 3.5% or $35 million. Third quarter organic growth increases to 3.8% if Dish revenues are excluded from prior year site rental billings.

This growth was more than offset at site rental revenues by $5 million of Sprint cancellations, $61 million of Dish terminations, and a $17 million decrease in non-cash straight-line revenues and amortization of prepaid rent. Third quarter services margin was $15 million, which we expect to increase in the fourth quarter.

Turning to page 4, we are increasing our full year 2026 outlook by $20 million for site rental revenues, $25 million for adjusted EBITDA, and $5 million for AFFO to reflect, first, a $20 million increase in straight-line revenues related to contractual term extensions as a result of the agreement Chris highlighted earlier; and second, a $5 million decrease in site rental cost of operations as we continue to drive efficiencies and increase our ground lease buyout activity. Excluding the impacts of the transaction, full year 2026 adjusted EBITDA and AFFO are each increasing $5 million.

I would like to take a moment to further highlight our progress on driving cost savings. Since issuing our original full year 2026 guidance in February, if you set aside the increases to our revenue and the decrease from our services contribution, we have increased full year 2026 adjusted EBITDA by $20 million from run rate cost savings or approximately 50 basis points as a percent of our site rental revenues.

On top of these improvements, we still expect to expand margins by more than 200 basis points by 2030 relative to 2026. Turning to page 5, full year 2026 organic growth, excluding the impact of Sprint cancellations and Dish terminations, remains unchanged at $135 million or 3.4% at the midpoint.

Full year 2026 organic growth increases to 3.6% at the midpoint if Dish revenues are excluded from prior year site rental billings. We continue to expect 2026 to mark the low point for organic growth.

Our full year 2026 organic growth outlook includes $60 to $70 million in core leasing activity, and based on our current view of the leasing pipeline, we expect to finish the year towards the bottom end of the range. Now, I'd like to provide additional detail on the customer agreement we completed in the third quarter.

We paid $275 million to acquire a residual economic interest in a subset of towers originally acquired many years ago, extend the customer's lease term for those sites, and limit long-term churn across this portion of our portfolio. By acquiring this residual economic interest, we expect to increase site rental billings by nearly $4 million in the fourth quarter or $16 million on an annualized basis, and decrease amortization of prepaid rent by $2 million or $8 million on an annualized basis.

We're not changing our full year 2026 guidance ranges for site rental billings, amortization of prepaid rent, and interest expense, as these fourth quarter impacts are captured within the existing ranges. On an annualized basis, we expect the impact of the transaction to be approximately $4 million accretive to AFFO, excluding the impact of prepaid rent amortization.

We expect the term extension will result in an additional $20 million of straight-line revenues in the fourth quarter. Turning to the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with 97% fixed rate debt with a weighted average maturity of seven years and leverage at 6.5 times net debt to last quarter annualized adjusted EBITDA.

Net debt to last quarter annualized adjusted EBITDA decreases to 6.3 times when including the impact from the incremental straight-line revenues related to the term extensions commencing in the fourth quarter. Lastly, we're increasing our outlook for discretionary capex by $40 million to $240 million to reflect the higher volume of ground lease buyouts we expect to complete in 2026.

Discretionary capex, net of anticipated prepaid rent additions of $40 million at the midpoint, is expected to be $200 million at the midpoint. To wrap up, the actions we've taken this year to improve efficiency and strengthen the business support our increased 2026 full year guidance.

We also remain on track to deliver $2.1 billion of AFFO at the midpoint across the second half of 2026 and first half of 2027. We believe our investment-grade balance sheet, disciplined capital allocation framework, and focus on becoming a best-in-class US tower operator positions us well to generate attractive long-term shareholder returns.

With that, operator, I'd like to open the line for questions.

Thanks, everybody. Good afternoon.

Hey, Rick.

Hey. A couple questions.

First, as we always say follow the spectrum, really not the capex. One of the most interesting things, obviously, you've touched on it a little bit in the last couple of weeks, was Dish selling spectrum to SpaceX, the 800 MHz spectrum.

A couple questions in regards to that. We've heard some to maybe all of the towers out there that Dish rented might already include radios and antennas or some equipment for the 800 MHz frequency that SpaceX is buying.

Can you help us understand, is that something you understand that might actually already be on your towers?

Rick, the answer is there is some equipment that is on the sites. What specifically the radio types and bands are, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, but that is correct that the equipment is up there from when Dish abandoned it.

Okay. Obviously it's also the old Nextel stuff, our understanding is also it's still in the handsets for a lot of handsets that are out there, so that's also good to have.

Does it feel like to you that that is in the chipsets and a lot of the devices?

The 800 MHz spectrum, again, I couldn't comment specifically on what the carriers have out there. Obviously, I think more importantly, as you and I both know, 800 MHz does solve one of the critical challenges for an eventual SpaceX deployment, which is you need low-band to get into buildings, you need low-band to be able to provide breadth of coverage.

It's obviously a huge milestone in their acquisition of that spectrum.

Makes sense. A little confusing process, obviously, with the escrow setup at the FCC with EchoStar selling spectrum to AT&T.

Can you update us as far as we've been hearing some chatter when we were in DC for the Wireless History Foundation dinner a couple weeks ago that the tower industry might be getting closer to figuring out who's going to get how much out of the escrow? Maybe an update on what are you hearing from MLAs with satellite companies, any progress?

Okay. Let's handle the Dish one first.

Here's a quick update. The current proceedings in the bankruptcy court have been placed on pause while the parties attempt to negotiate a settlement in a court-ordered mediation.

There's no specific update to report on the progress of that yet, but as we communicated, I think, on prior earnings calls, the fact that this has now moved into a bankruptcy process will likely result in an accelerated timeline comparative to a traditional court proceedings. I think that's a good news story, and the parties will remain in this mediation through early November.

Then, sorry, your second question was just around

Update on any MLA and progress from satellite companies, whether it's SpaceX, Amazon, or anyone else,

just

how are we doing there?

I don't think I want to get into customer-specific detail, but you can assume that we're talking to all parties.

Okay. Last one for me, a lot of all these interrelated questions.

The equipment that was abandoned by Dish on the towers, if somebody wanted to buy that for pennies on the dollar or take ownership of that, what's the process? Would they come to you guys and different tower companies?

Do they need to go to the bankruptcy court? Do they need to go to Dish?

If somebody wanted to say, hey, there's some equipment up there that's interesting to me, what's that process look like?

I think it's probably a question best left to the lawyers in terms of what that is. From our perspective, Dish has abandoned the equipment.

They walked away from it. We've given them every opportunity to claim that equipment and take it off our towers, which they have elected not to do and have effectively abandoned it.

In terms of how that would work contractually, I think that would be something I'd have to refer out to the lawyers.

I guess Shakespeare wasn't right about the first thing we do about the lawyers, but anyway. Thanks, everybody.

We love our lawyers, Rick. Thank you for the questions.

Great. Thanks for taking my questions.

Available Infrastructure is a company that has identified you as their vendor for deploying edge data centers. Can you elaborate on what you see as the potential growth for this relationship?

Let me start by saying we're excited to partner with Available Infrastructure. As they are building a nationwide network of edge neocloud data centers.

While edge data centers are not new to CCI, we look at this as an exciting niche space, and we look forward to seeing how it evolves over time. More broadly, I guess we've had this trial now for a number of months.

As you heard me announce earlier, we've now eclipsed 100 sites deployed. Part of what we're looking at is to learn from these trials and understand both the demand profile from potential customers, but also just gaining an inventory of what we actually have and what we can actually market to our customers.

As we've gone through this process, we've identified we have something like 5,000 existing structures or shelters that are already existing that are out at our sites today in various levels of condition, but in many cases able to take customers to move in right away. We've been researching power, and I think you've heard us talk about before, the sweet spot for us is between, say, a 0.2 to 0.5 megawatt installation, utilizing the existing power on sites for customers to be able to utilize it.

Some customers have come back to us and have asked and inquired whether we would be able to bring additional power out to the sites. Just as a sampling, across 25 sites that we just recently completed, what we found out was across those 25 sites, there would be a opportunity to bring up to 100 megawatts in aggregate across those 25 sites.

This is power that could be delivered in approximately 9 to 11 months with very limited capital required from Crown. I think from an optionality perspective, it opens up the possibility of providing even greater service to our customers.

Again, until we've finalized on how we can scale this profitably, I would still characterize this as a trial phase where we're still learning a lot. This update I'm providing with you now is indicative of what we're learning along the way and how this might emerge as a business opportunity over time.

Great, that's helpful color. You've also suggested that you've hit an inflection point on organic growth.

When we think about the cadence into 2027, can you break down where you anticipate an acceleration or deceleration between the components of core leasing, the escalator, as Sprint churn fades, and normal course churn?

Let me just start by saying we reiterate that we believe 2026 is the low point for organic growth in our business and across the industry. The reasons why we believe that are the following: one is the MLAs that we have in place that gives us visibility to that future contracted activity.

We announced in this past quarter we resolved this longstanding customer issue, which both strengthens our relationship and clears a path for future growth opportunities with the customer. The recent spectrum transactions, albeit somewhat delayed in the AT&T acquisition of 600 MHz, Verizon's acquisition of AWS-3, and now SpaceX with the 800 MHz, these are all positive catalysts for towers.

Then longer term, we've talked about the opportunity of 6G and the fact that the FCC and administration has made it a priority to earmark 800 MHz of spectrum, and more importantly, stating 6G is a battle to be won and is a kind of matter of life and death for the country to win that battle versus others, and starting that spectrum acceleration auction in July 2027. Then the edge infrastructure ecosystem that is now starting to emerge, combined with the underlying factor that mobile data demand continues to grow and is even expected to double over the next five years, and the powering of AI inference that's driving a higher percentage uplink traffic, all of these are activities of why we believe that 2026 is a low-water mark for growth.

Obviously, that has to be borne out into '27 and beyond, but these are positive tailwinds for the industry and for Crown as we look towards our future growth, without me speaking specifically towards our '27 guidance, which I'm not prepared to share today.

Keep in mind, now we've had some of the satellite players also declare their interest in a terrestrial network, I think that's a positive also.

Great, thank you very much for the color.

Thank you, Brendan.

Great. Hi.

Thank you for the questions this evening. First, going back to the 800 MHz and SpaceX comments.

If they wanted to deploy that nationwide, can you give some approximation for number of tower sites for minimum level of service with 800? Then your thoughts on the timing of a build of that scale, given any kind of labor constraints, equipment purchasing, just when you think about the framing for timing and potential contribution to Crown Castle if they do deploy the 800?

I have one more follow-up.

Yeah. Michael, I think it's a tough question to answer because it really depends on the strategy in which SpaceX decides to go to market.

If part of their goal is to move as quickly as possible across a terrestrial network, that would lead them towards maximizing the number of colocations on existing towers and rooftops that exist today, and they'd have to accept the heights of what's available in the rad centers. If, on the other hand, they decided to go alone and to build thousands and millions and billions of microcells, that might take quite a bit longer based on the scale of not only identifying the land available, but also the time, cost, and effort of bringing backhaul to every site and power to every site.

That's a very good question. It really depends on what SpaceX decides to do in their network design.

I think what we would offer to them is the fact that we've got approximately 40,000 sites. In many cases, we do have prior installations that have already been through the zoning and permitting process, so that it could help them, along with others in the industry, of getting to market faster and getting that 800 MHz deployed.

One one indication, it took Dish four years. As Chris pointed out, some of that is already up, it'd probably be if they wanted to, depending on the ambitions, you could do it on a much more compressed timeline, depending on how many sites they want to get to, but they can move quickly if they want to.

Yeah. If they had a 2029 timeline, just ballparking for wireless service, utilizing Dish sites is obviously easiest line of sight to get there versus doing the microcell strategy.

This is the industry cheat code that exists in that Dish just built this network. I know the people that built that network, many of which were former colleagues at T-Mobile.

They're very good, smart deployment people. They move very, very fast.

Companies like Crown leaned in very aggressively to help them and staffed up in the services side to actually help enable that. That does represent a huge time-to-market advantage if they go down that route.

In the end, it's going to depend on what route, is speed of essence or is some other model more appropriate for them. I think you have to wait to hear from them, but I think on our side, we stand ready and available, and obviously, as one of the lead providers of tower space to Dish, obviously have the scale to really help accelerate that.

Great, thank you. One more, if I could.

How are you thinking about the 600 MHz contributing to leasing activity and in timing, whether that's going to be a four or five-year normal maintenance activity from AT&T, or if you expect that will be new equipment, shorter duration for deployment?

I think if I'm being honest here, I think it's, first, the approval of 600 MHz of the transaction, obviously, took additional time as they went through the FCC approval process. Now, I think the customer is very much in the throes of doing the design engineering and selection of their OEM vendor, which would provide the equipment for them to put up.

It's probably been a little bit slower of a rollout than we anticipated. That said, 600 MHz is the equivalent of beachfront property is the way that I describe this.

Its propagation is such that it helps to drive in-building coverage in urban and suburban areas, it extends coverage in the rural areas, and the customer just paid $23 billion for this spectrum. It's highly valuable.

I would think that they would look to deploy this as quickly as possible given the value in the overall spectrum portfolio of what they've just acquired. Again, with the handset manufacturers having already built these frequencies in for other customers, it's something that they can actually put to good use very, very quickly.

Great. Appreciate the time.

Thank you, guys.

You bet.

Hey, thanks for taking my questions. First, Chris, you noted that you're supporting over 100 edge sites.

What would that number have been a quarter or two or three ago? What portion of that 100 are supporting GPU deployments versus other use cases?

Let me start with the second part. I can't tell you exactly what is in those, that these have been build-outs that have continued to accelerate through the course of the year.

Starting at the beginning of the year, I think we were effectively at zero or very few sites, we've been able to build that number in that period of time. Again, the key learnings for us has been understanding what the requirements are of edge data customers that is different than our traditional tower customers, and making sure that we're able to provide them with that timely basis information to help them accelerate their deployment.

It's been a pretty much a steady build. I think it peaked, really peaked into the third quarter, it's built up steam.

Again, the key for us is, is this something that's scalable so that we're not just talking 100 sites, but that we're talking hundreds or even thousands of sites over time is when it really starts to make sense for us as a new line of business.

Nick, I'd add, it's small in the scheme of our overall revenues, but it's a good sign. I would say, compared to the beginning of the year, we are talking to more players.

I think just doing some more research on our sites and power availability and supply lines, as Chris was saying, it looks like on certain subsets of sites, we can provide a bigger power footprint, which I think gets more in the sweet spot of what edge needs are. Again, it's still early days and we'll have more to talk about this in subsequent quarters.

Okay. That's good to hear.

Thank you. Then maybe one on the leasing outlook.

You noted it's going to come in at the low end of the expected range, probably a little bit of a change from prior comments that leasing would be back-end loaded. Is that driven by leasing getting pushed into 2027 for some reason, or are you seeing a shift in the underlying trajectory, or is something else going on?

Anything you can share there would be great.

Just more broadly, I think we're seeing interest from many different customers, including our traditional mobile network operator customers and these edge data center operators. In order to finish the year above the low end of the range that we guided to, we would have to see these opportunities materialize earlier than we currently anticipate, it's more of a timing issue.

It's more a shift. I would say the excitement around what people want to do is probably built up, but it's a timing shift as opposed to a trajectory shift.

Thank you both.

You bet.

Hi, thank you. Elon yesterday said that he expects AI agents to drive orders of magnitude growth in bandwidth demand.

I'm curious as we think of the extent that AI agents are driving higher uplink traffic, how much can the carriers accommodate with their existing equipment and potential software upgrades? Then to that point, have you had conversations with customers looking to upgrade equipment related to higher uplink traffic so far?

Thanks.

Maybe put this in context and share, at a recent analyst conference where we sat with the three CTOs of the operators, and what they described was a very interesting and exciting future around AI and the impacts on the carrier networks, predominantly that it would take the current network profile of where, say, 90% of the total mobile traffic data load is on the downlink and only 10% is on the uplink, that longer term, that would move closer to a 50/50 between the downlink and the uplink, meaning that you have people in the field ingesting data through video, through voice, through text, whereby they would be ingesting that data and uploading it in order to gain real-time information. The implications of that are twofold.

One of which is, to your point, there's some rearchitecting of the network both in terms of capacity and then the configuration of how to balance that traffic load up and down. Two is, it starts to talk to latency, and does that become a bigger issue?

As you think about the edge of data compute, is something where over time, as those applications evolve, that the need to have very fast response times lends itself towards the potential for future growth in the edge data centers. Those are the two implications that we've heard directly from customers in terms of the difference in the customer profile.

The broader context of the data growth, again, the latest data that I saw published was a doubling of total data payload over the next five years. This was the CAGR that was implied.

I think it's going to be a big growth driver. As he was pointing out, I think it also means that fiber infrastructure into towers, I think he also talked about the implications for a need for a lot more edge compute and storage.

These are all things that should be good drivers for our business. To your point, I don't think it's just a software upgrade.

If you just have raw growth in bits and it takes power to move bits, it might need upgrade of equipment over time.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thanks, and good afternoon. Two different topics, if I could.

First, going back to the customer dispute, can you provide just a little bit more background? You said it was longstanding.

What was unique about that dispute versus the normal types of relationships that you have with your large carrier customers? The payment that you made, is that related to the deferred purchase price associated with some of the carrier sale-leasebacks, where there's a certain amount of money that gets deferred into the future?

Or is there just I know you've mentioned some of the benefit you expect to leasing dollars, but any other context that you can provide there would be super helpful. Then just separately, back to the topic of Dish, can you share how many of your 40,000 locations did Dish get to with their infrastructure before they hit the stop button?

Thanks.

Let me start with the second one first. I think the easy answer on the Dish was they had 12,000-plus installed sites with the ability to go up to 20,000 over time as they developed their network.

Then in terms of, again, not so much a dispute, but just more of a longstanding customer issue. I would characterize it as just part of the normal back-and-forth that tower companies and their customers have over time.

It was something that by resolving it opens up the door for additional growth. That was the key for us as a catalyst in getting this sorted.

Yes, and a couple of additional things. You asked if we were purchasing futures.

This wasn't that at all. This is more to do with the fact that this residual economic interest is they were getting benefits from some of the revenues.

This just was a simplification. There was a win-win for both of us.

I think for them, it simplifies things for them on their side. For us, it was accretive transaction for us if you look at it on a multiple basis.

Also, it came with a term extension and an agreement to limit churn on a longer-term basis. I would say, if you look at it in terms of from a balance sheet perspective, yeah, it's $275 million, of which $158 million we put on other intangible assets, and then the other $118 million is just other current activities.

That's the value of the contractual term extension and limiting the churn. That's what it was.

It didn't really have anything to do with any purchase options or anything like that.

Appreciate all that detail. If I could just follow up with one other then on that.

Given what you described on the churn side, does this make the case stronger that annual churn, ex the Sprint decommissioning side of it, could stay below 1% per year?

As we've stated our churn is 50 to 100 basis points, 50 probably call it. It impacts churn, but as I said, it's for a small is a subset of the towers, not big enough to kind of impact our long-term guidance we've talked about with respect to churn.

Certainly beneficial.

Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for the question.

I just have two. First, I was just wondering if you could comment on some of the lower network services activity in the quarter and if you expect that to kind of return back to more of a normal cadence after this quarter.

On service? Services,

yeah.

Look, if you look at our guidance for the service business this year, it's $85 million. If you look at what we reported in the third quarter, that implies we'll see a nice pickup in the fourth quarter, a nice increase in the fourth quarter.

It returns to more of a normal cadence, probably not at the levels we might have guided to, but yeah, in that close enough in that vicinity, at least in the fourth quarter.

Great, thanks. I was just wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the operational efficiencies in the quarter and some of the kind of key drivers of the 200 bps of margin expansion over the next few years, any change in terms of key things that could help you there?

Chris talked about a couple of systems implementations we've done. We've got more of those coming up next year and the year after that.

Then we also talked about exiting our transition services agreement, that will lead to further simplification in future periods. I think we've been consistent about saying our margin will improve 200-plus basis points between here and 2030, but the fact is we made more progress on this year and still sticking to that guidance, which I think should say on the margin we're doing better than what we had indicated at the beginning of the year.

Particularly the GLBO as a driver of our business. We identified at the start of the year that we had a gap to what our key competitors had in terms of owning land underneath our towers, and embarked on a strategic program to accelerate those activities, which we've effectively doubled, more than doubled year-over-year, and continues to be a large driver of the efficiency and cost savings that we're investing in today.

Great. Thank you very much.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the questions.

I'll keep it to as well, but I'll keep them simple. First, on services, I know you maybe alluded to the expected downtick that we actually ended up seeing in the third quarter.

Is there any indication of broader, softer leasing from carriers ahead of next year's upper C-band auctions? Then secondly, on the edge data centers, can you speak to whether there's a general type or size of customer you're speaking to for these trials, and if there are any sort of specific use cases they're typically trying to solve for?

Thanks.

In terms of the services, you heard me refer earlier to the fact of that 600 MHz had been pushed out. This was something that when we led in the guide to would have a uptick in 4Q, is now that the transaction has been completed and applications are starting to flow, is that is the largest individual component from the services perspective.

In terms of the edge data centers, again, the traditional installation has been in a sub-1 megawatt, in a 0.2 to 0.5. It's providing edge data compute at the cell site in the existing structures that we have, supporting use cases of kind of both a combination of capacity supply in a high-demand data center environment, combined with folks that need the low latency that's provided by the fact of our cell sites being as close to the edge as they are.

Those are the primary installation types that we're seeing in that space.

A couple of things. Remember, I think we've said that the service business has always been lumpy for us in any given quarter.

We've talked about that in the past. From a long-term trend perspective, no, and I think we talked about this earlier, we've seen a time shift, but the interest level in general continues to be pretty strong and active, and maybe helped by the change in the competitive environment a little.

Thank you. You bet.

Hey, guys. Thanks so much for taking the questions, appreciate it.

I guess the first, if I could, would be the language around what SpaceX seems to be trying to do seems to be very prospective. Like it's going to maybe, probably, eventually, someday build a network.

Your services business has been very much about planning and permitting and those sorts of things. Usually, when companies are planning on building something, they kind of come to you guys first and then they buy the spectrum.

They don't buy the spectrum first and then figure out how to use it later. Could you guys weigh in on that a little bit on how you really think what's actually happening there?

Then the second question, if I could, please, would be regarding the upper C-band auction. We all know the auction is going to happen next year, but that the deployment is going to be delayed because of the potential interference with the FAA altimeter issues.

When do you think that that would actually begin? It's probably not going to begin at the last minute in 2030, 2031.

It's probably going to begin sooner rather than later. If you could give us a sense as to the conversations you're having on that topic, it would be hugely helpful.

Thank you.

Sure. Thanks for the question.

Let's start with the SpaceX, and I think you raise a great point for those of us that have spent their careers designing, building, operating networks, of which I spent more than half my career doing for Verizon predecessor and T-Mobile, is you realize how complex these things are, how long it takes, and what I think Crown brings to the table is a strong pedigree of experience in helping customers get on air quickly from the time an application comes in to the time that we give them an NTP to get up on air. If SpaceX is serious, as it sounds like they are, in building a terrestrial network, I think we are a great partner for them in being able to help take a concept and turning it into reality of how to navigate through building a terrestrial network, which is, again, very very different, obviously, than building a satellite network, as we'd be the first to admit.

That's something that we believe we can add value to. Again, based on our portfolio and the fact of the partnership that we had with Dish initially, that we have the majority of our sites in top 100 markets where the vast majority of POPs are located, this is something that we can help to solve for, I think, in a significant way.

We stand ready when and if that time comes. Then more broadly on your comments on the upper C-band.

There's always been this issue where spectrum goes to market in auction, it takes the time that it takes to do an auction, then the aftermath of that is the spectrum clearing before it can be put into use. What I think I've shared in the past is where there's a will, there's a way.

If you think back to when the original C-band spectrum was being put into place and there was issues with potential adjacent channel interference with the altimeters, is that the industry found a way to work around that and to accelerate those activities. I don't know that you can put an exact date on when it is.

There's typically a deadline by which the FCC sets for having the spectrum cleared, but oftentimes, that's not the actual date that the spectrum is cleared and put into service. I believe it's one of these things where stay tuned to the space, but I would not anticipate that it takes that long.

There is a desperate need to put additional spectrum to work based on the data growth that we've talked about before, and therefore, again, where there's a will, there's a way to find a way to clear it and get it up on towers as quickly as possible.

I really appreciate those comments. I just wanted to be crystal clear that when you say that you stand ready to be a partner, that the reality is that SpaceX really hasn't reached out to do anything, and that we're kind of waiting to find out what the plan is.

Is that what you're saying?

I'll just reiterate what I said earlier, which is we won't discuss individual customer discussions, and you can assume that we're talking to all of them.

Great. All right, then.

I really appreciate it. Thank you.

You bet.

Great, thank you so much. Just wanted to get back to the discussion about the dispute you had with the customer.

Is there any reserve that we need to factor in as a reversal as we forecast ahead, maybe a cash component that you are expecting to receive? Is this an extension of an existing portfolio, or addition of a new lease from the key customer?

Any color in terms of how long that lease is and if it has a normal escalator would be helpful.

It's a extension of an existing portfolio. There are no reserves or anything in the future.

I think it's sort of like what I described it. We are paying $275 million to acquire a residual economic interest on the revenue side, and that's what it is.

In addition to that, they extended the term of the contract for this particular set of towers, if you like, and agreed to limit churn on a longer-term basis. I think those are the critical value components of this transaction.

Is it a typical five-year extension with a 3% escalator? I

can't talk to the specific extension, but yeah.

Thank you.

You get some sense of it from the straight-line revenue treatment, but yeah, can't give you more specifics than that, sorry.