As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2007

Registration No. 333-139793

 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

 

 

Amendment No. 1

to

Form S-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT

UNDER

THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

 

 

 

 

MetroPCS Communications, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copies to:

 

 

 

 

Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public:

As soon as practicable after the registration statement becomes effective.

 

If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), check the following box.  o

 

If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, please check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  o

 

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  o

 

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  o

 

 

 

 

CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this Registration Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act, or until the Registration Statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.

 

 

SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED FEBRUARY 13, 2007

 

PROSPECTUS

 

Shares

 

 

MetroPCS Communications, Inc.

 

Common Stock

 

 

This is our initial public offering. We are offering           shares of our common stock and the selling stockholders identified in this prospectus are offering an additional           shares of our common stock. We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of our common stock by the selling stockholders. We currently expect the initial public offering price for our stock will be between $      and $      per share.

 

Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our common stock. We have applied to list our common stock on the      under the symbol     .

 

Investing in our common stock involves risks. See “Risk Factors” beginning on page 13.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities or passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of this prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

 

The underwriters expect to deliver the shares against payment in New York, New York on or about          , 2007.

 

The underwriters have a 30-day option to purchase up to           additional shares of common stock from the selling stockholders to cover over-allotments, if any. We will not receive any proceeds from the exercise of the over-allotment option.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The date of this prospectus is          , 2007.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

You should rely only on the information contained in this prospectus, any free writing prospectus prepared by us or the information to which we have referred you. We have not, and the underwriters have not, authorized anyone to provide you with different information. This prospectus may only be used where it is legal to sell these securities and this prospectus is not an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy shares in any jurisdiction where an offer or sale of shares would be unlawful. The information in this prospectus and any free writing prospectus prepared by us may be accurate only as of their respective dates.

 

PROSPECTUS SUMMARY

	•	Our fixed price calling plans, which provide unlimited usage within a local calling area with no long-term contracts;

	•	Our focus on densely populated markets, which provides significant operational efficiencies;

	•	Our leadership position as one of the lowest cost providers of wireless telephone services in the United States;

	•	Our spectrum portfolio, which covers 9 of the top 12 and 14 of the top 25 most populous metropolitan areas in the United States; and

	•	Our advanced CDMA network, which is designed to provide the capacity necessary to satisfy the usage requirements of our customers.

	•	Target the underserved customer segments in our markets;

	•	Offer affordable, fixed price unlimited calling plans with no long-term service contract;

	•	Remain one of the lowest cost wireless telephone service providers in the United States; and

	•	Expand into new attractive markets.

	•	Our limited operating history;

	•	Competition from other wireline and wireless providers, many of whom have substantially greater resources than us;

	•	Our significant current debt levels of approximately $2.6 billion as of December 31, 2006, the terms of which may restrict our operational flexibility;

	•	Our need to supplement the proceeds from this offering with significant excess cash flows to meet the requirements for the build-out and launch of our Auction 66 Markets; and

	•	Increased costs which could result from higher customer churn, delays in technological developments or our inability to successfully manage our growth.

Common stock offered by MetroPCS		shares
Common stock offered by the selling stockholders		shares
Common stock to be outstanding after this offering		shares
Use of proceeds		We estimate that the net proceeds to us from this offering after expenses will be approximately $           million, assuming an initial public offering price of $      per share, the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus. We intend to use the net proceeds from this offering primarily to build-out our network and launch our services in certain of our recently acquired Auction 66 Markets as well as for general corporate purposes. See “Use of Proceeds.”
		We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of shares of common stock by the selling stockholders.

Proposed symbol

Risk Factors		See “Risk Factors” beginning on page 13 for a discussion of some of the factors you should consider carefully before deciding to invest in our common stock.

																		Nine Months Ended
		Year Ended December 31,																September 30,
		2002				2003				2004				2005				2005				2006
		(In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)
Statement of Operations Data:
Revenues:
Service revenues		$	102,293			$	369,851			$	616,401			$	872,100			$	631,209			$	916,179
Equipment revenues			27,048				81,258				131,849				166,328				118,990				177,592
Total revenues			129,341				451,109				748,250				1,038,428				750,199				1,093,771
Operating expenses:
Cost of service (excluding depreciation and amortization disclosed separately below)			63,567				122,211				200,806				283,212				201,940				313,510
Cost of equipment			106,508				150,832				222,766				300,871				210,529				330,898
Selling, general and administrative expenses (excluding depreciation and amortization disclosed separately below)			55,161				94,073				131,510				162,476				116,206				171,921
Depreciation and amortization			21,472				42,428				62,201				87,895				61,895				96,187
(Gain) loss on disposal of assets			(279,659	)			392				3,209				(218,203	)			(218,292	)			10,763
Total operating expenses			(32,951	)			409,936				620,492				616,251				372,278				923,279
Income from operations			162,292				41,173				127,758				422,177				377,921				170,492
Other expense (income):
Interest expense			6,720				11,115				19,030				58,033				40,867				67,408
Accretion of put option in majority-owned subsidiary			—				—				8				252				187				564
Interest and other income			(964	)			(996	)			(2,472	)			(8,658	)			(4,876	)			(15,106	)
Loss (gain) on extinguishment of debt			703				(603	)			(698	)			46,448				46,448				(244	)
Total other expense			6,459				9,516				15,868				96,075				82,626				52,622
Income before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle			155,833				31,657				111,890				326,102				295,295				117,870
Provision for income taxes			(25,528	)			(16,179	)			(47,000	)			(127,425	)			(115,460	)			(47,245	)
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle			130,305				15,478				64,890				198,677				179,835				70,625
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax			—				(120	)			—				—				—				—
Net income			130,305				15,358				64,890				198,677				179,835				70,625
Accrued dividends on Series D Preferred Stock			(10,619	)			(18,493	)			(21,006	)			(21,006	)			(15,711	)			(15,711	)
Accrued dividends on Series E Preferred Stock			—				—				—				(1,019	)			(263	)			(2,244	)
Accretion on Series D Preferred Stock			(473	)			(473	)			(473	)			(473	)			(355	)			(355	)
Accretion on Series E Preferred Stock			—				—				—				(114	)			(30	)			(254	)
Net income (loss) applicable to Common Stock		$	119,213			$	(3,608	)		$	43,411			$	176,065			$	163,476			$	52,061
Basic net income (loss) per common share(1):
Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle		$	2.16			$	(0.10	)		$	0.55			$	2.12			$	2.02			$	0.57
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax			—				(0.00	)			—				—				—				—
Basic net income (loss) per common share		$	2.16			$	(0.10	)		$	0.55			$	2.12			$	2.02			$	0.57
Diluted net income (loss) per common share(1):
Income (loss) before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle		$	1.56			$	(0.10	)		$	0.46			$	1.87			$	1.74			$	0.56
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax			—				(0.00	)			—				—				—				—
Diluted net income (loss) per common share		$	1.56			$	(0.10	)		$	0.46			$	1.87			$	1.74			$	0.56
Weighted average shares(1):
Basic			36,236,434				36,443,962				42,240,684				45,117,465				43,517,417				51,890,687
Diluted			50,072,699				36,443,962				50,211,229				51,203,530				50,417,637				53,158,789

																		Nine Months Ended
		Year Ended December 31,																September 30,
		2002				2003				2004				2005				2005				2006
		(Dollars, Customers and POPs in Thousands)
Other Financial Data:
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities		$	(50,672	)		$	112,605			$	150,379			$	283,216			$	247,015			$	284,688
Net cash used in investment activities			(88,311	)			(306,868	)			(190,881	)			(905,228	)			(789,109	)			(489,255	)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities			157,039				201,951				(5,433	)			712,244				564,777				208,123
Consolidated Operating Data:
Licensed POPs (at period end)(2)			22,584				22,584				28,430				64,222				41,247				65,346
Covered POPs (at period end)(2)			16,964				17,662				21,083				23,908				21,168				35,980
Customers (at period end)			513				977				1,399				1,925				1,740				2,616
Adjusted EBITDA (Deficit)(3)		$	(94,376	)		$	89,566			$	203,597			$	294,465			$	224,826			$	285,192
Adjusted EBITDA as a percentage of service revenues(4)			NM				24.2	%			33.0	%			33.8	%			35.6	%			31.1	%
Capital Expenditures		$	227,350			$	117,731			$	250,830			$	266,499			$	204,450			$	453,864
Core Markets Operating Data(5):
Licensed POPs (at period end)(2)			22,584				22,584				24,686				25,433				25,320				25,769
Covered POPs (at period end)(2)			16,964				17,662				21,083				21,263				21,168				22,194
Customers (at period end)			513				977				1,399				1,872				1,740				2,174
Adjusted EBITDA (Deficit)(6)		$	(94,376	)		$	89,566			$	203,597			$	316,555			$	233,491			$	364,585
Adjusted EBITDA as a percentage of service revenues(4)			NM				24.2	%			33.0	%			36.4	%			37.0	%			43.9	%
Capital Expenditures		$	227,350			$	117,731			$	250,830			$	171,783			$	157,153			$	187,922
Expansion Markets Operating Data(5):
Licensed POPs (at period end)(2)			—				—				3,744				38,789				15,927				39,577
Covered POPs (at period end)(2)			—				—				—				2,645				—				13,786
Customers (at period end)			—				—				—				53				—				442
Adjusted EBITDA (Deficit)(6)			—				—				—			$	(22,090	)		$	(8,665	)		$	(79,393	)
Capital Expenditures			—				—				—			$	90,871			$	44,893			$	256,531

																		Nine Months Ended
		Year Ended December 31,																September 30,
		2002				2003				2004				2005				2005				2006
Average monthly churn(7)(8)			4.4	%			4.6	%			4.9	%			5.1	%			5.0	%			4.7	%
Average revenue per user (ARPU)(9)(10)		$	39.23			$	37.49			$	41.13			$	42.40			$	42.34			$	42.91
Cost per gross addition (CPGA)(8)(9)(11)		$	157.02			$	100.46			$	103.78			$	102.70			$	101.46			$	116.56
Cost per user (CPU)(9)(12)		$	37.68			$	18.21			$	18.95			$	19.57			$	19.15			$	19.65

		As of September 30, 2006
		Actual				As Adjusted(13)
		(In Thousands)
Balance Sheet Data:
Cash, cash equivalents & short-term investments		$	345,811
Property and equipment, net			1,207,982
Total assets			2,626,174
Long-term debt (including current maturities)			1,102,594
Series D Cumulative Convertible Redeemable Participating Preferred Stock			437,955
Series E Cumulative Convertible Redeemable Participating Preferred Stock			50,294
Stockholders’ equity			427,689

(1)		See Notes 17 and 10 to the annual and interim consolidated financial statements, respectively, included elsewhere in this prospectus for an explanation of the calculation of basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share. The calculation of basic and diluted net income per common share for the year ended December 31, 2002 is not included in Note 17 to the annual consolidated financial statements.
(2)		Licensed POPs represent the aggregate number of persons that reside within the areas covered by our or Royal Street’s licenses. Covered POPs represent the estimated number of POPs in our markets that reside within the areas covered by our network.
(3)		Our senior secured credit facility calculates consolidated Adjusted EBITDA as: consolidated net income plus depreciation and amortization; gain (loss) on disposal of assets; non-cash expenses; gain (loss) on extinguishment of debt; provision for income taxes; interest expense; and certain expenses of MetroPCS Communications, Inc. minus interest and other income and non-cash items increasing consolidated net income.

		We consider Adjusted EBITDA, as defined above, to be an important indicator to investors because it provides information related to our ability to provide cash flows to meet future debt service, capital expenditures and working capital requirements and fund future growth. We present this discussion of Adjusted EBITDA because covenants in our senior secured credit facility contain ratios based on this measure. If our Adjusted EBITDA were to decline below certain levels, covenants in our senior secured credit facility that are based on Adjusted EBITDA, including our maximum senior secured leverage ratio covenant, may be violated and could cause, among other things, an inability to incur further indebtedness and in certain circumstances a default or mandatory prepayment under our senior secured credit facility. Our maximum senior secured leverage ratio is required to be less than 4.5 to 1.0 based on Adjusted EBITDA plus the impact of certain new markets. In addition, consolidated Adjusted EBITDA is also utilized, among other measures, to determine management’s compensation levels. See “Executive Compensation.” Adjusted EBITDA is not a measure calculated in accordance with GAAP and should not be considered a substitute for operating income (loss), net income (loss), or any other measure of financial performance reported in accordance with GAAP. In addition, Adjusted EBITDA should not be construed as an alternative to, or more meaningful, than cash flows from operating activities, as determined in accordance with GAAP. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

		The following table shows the calculation of consolidated Adjusted EBITDA, as defined in our senior secured credit facility, for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2006.

		Year Ended December 31,																Nine Months Ended September 30,
		2002				2003				2004				2005				2005				2006
		(In Thousands)
Calculation of Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA (Deficit):
Net income		$	130,305			$	15,358			$	64,890			$	198,677			$	179,835			$	70,625
Adjustments:
Depreciation and amortization			21,472				42,428				62,201				87,895				61,895				96,187
(Gain) loss on disposal of assets			(279,659	)			392				3,209				(218,203	)			(218,292	)			10,763
Non-cash compensation expense(a)			1,519				5,573				10,429				2,596				3,302				7,750
Interest expense			6,720				11,115				19,030				58,033				40,867				67,408
Accretion of put option in majority-owned subsidiary(a)			—				—				8				252				187				564
Interest and other income			(964	)			(996	)			(2,472	)			(8,658	)			(4,876	)			(15,106	)
Loss (gain) on extinguishment of debt			703				(603	)			(698	)			46,448				46,448				(244	)
Provision for income taxes			25,528				16,179				47,000				127,425				115,460				47,245
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax(a)			—				120				—				—				—				—
Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA (Deficit)		$	(94,376	)		$	89,566			$	203,597			$	294,465			$	224,826			$	285,192

(a)		Represents a non-cash expense, as defined by our senior secured credit facility.

																		Nine Months Ended
		Year Ended December 31,																September 30,
		2002				2003				2004				2005				2005				2006
		(In Thousands)
Reconciliation of Net Cash (Used In) Provided By Operating Activities to Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA (Deficit):
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities		$	(50,672	)		$	112,605			$	150,379			$	283,216			$	247,015			$	302,638
Adjustments:
Interest expense			6,720				11,115				19,030				58,033				40,867				67,408
Non-cash interest expense			(2,833	)			(3,073	)			(2,889	)			(4,285	)			(3,766	)			(3,702	)
Interest and other income			(964	)			(996	)			(2,472	)			(8,658	)			(4,876	)			(15,106	)
Provision for uncollectible accounts receivable			(359	)			(110	)			(125	)			(129	)			38				(64	)
Deferred rent expense			(2,886	)			(2,803	)			(3,466	)			(4,407	)			(3,091	)			(5,365	)
Cost of abandoned cell sites			(1,449	)			(824	)			(1,021	)			(725	)			(251	)			(2,069	)
Accretion of asset retirement obligation			—				(127	)			(253	)			(423	)			(103	)			(469	)
Loss (gain) on sale of investments			—				—				(576	)			190				(49	)			1,875
Provision for income taxes			25,528				16,179				47,000				127,425				115,460				47,245
Deferred income taxes			(6,616	)			(18,716	)			(44,441	)			(125,055	)			(113,580	)			(41,792	)
Changes in working capital			(60,845	)			(23,684	)			42,431				(30,717	)			(52,838	)			(65,407	)
Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA (Deficit)		$	(94,376	)		$	89,566			$	203,597			$	294,465			$	224,826			$	285,192

(4)		Adjusted EBITDA as a percentage of service revenues is calculated by dividing Adjusted EBITDA by total service revenues.
(5)		Core Markets include Atlanta, Miami, Sacramento and San Francisco. Expansion Markets include Dallas/Ft. Worth, Detroit, Tampa/Sarasota/Orlando and Los Angeles. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

(6)		Core and Expansion Markets Adjusted EBITDA is presented in accordance with SFAS No. 131 as it is the primary financial measure utilized by management to facilitate evaluation of our ability to meet future debt service, capital expenditures and working capital requirements and to fund future growth. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Operating Segments.”

(7)		Average monthly churn represents (a) the number of customers who have been disconnected from our system during the measurement period less the number of customers who have reactivated service, divided by (b) the sum of the average monthly number of customers during such period. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Performance Measures.” A customer’s handset is disabled if the customer has failed to make payment by the due date and is disconnected from our system if the customer fails to make payment within 30 days thereafter. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Customer Recognition and Disconnect Policies.”
(8)		In the first quarter of 2006, based upon a change in the allowable return period from 7 days to 30 days, we revised our definition of gross additions to exclude customers that discontinue service in the first 30 days of service as churn. This revision has the effect of reducing deactivations and gross additions, commencing March 23, 2006, and reduces churn and increases CPGA. Churn computed under the original 7 day allowable return period would have been 5.2% for the nine months ended September 30, 2006.
(9)		Average revenue per user, or ARPU, cost per gross addition, or CPGA, and cost per user, or CPU, are non-GAAP financial measures utilized by our management to evaluate our operating performance. We believe these measures are important in understanding the performance of our operations from period to period, and although every company in the wireless industry does not define each of these measures in precisely the same way, we believe that these measures (which are common in the wireless industry) facilitate operating performance comparisons with other companies in the wireless industry.
(10)		ARPU — Average revenue per user, or ARPU, represents (a) service revenues less activation revenues, E-911, Federal Universal Service Fund, or FUSF, and vendor’s compensation charges for the measurement period, divided by (b) the sum of the average monthly number of customers during such period. We utilize ARPU to evaluate our per-customer service revenue realization and to assist in forecasting our future service revenues. ARPU is calculated exclusive of activation revenues, as these amounts are a component of our costs of acquiring new customers and are included in our calculation of CPGA. ARPU is also calculated exclusive of

		E-911, FUSF and vendor’s compensation charges, as these are generally pass through charges that we collect from our customers and remit to the appropriate government agencies.

																		Nine Months Ended
		Year Ended December 31,																September 30,
		2002				2003				2004				2005				2005				2006
		(In Thousands, Except Average Number of Customers and ARPU)
Calculation of ARPU:
Service revenues		$	102,293			$	369,851			$	616,401			$	872,100			$	631,209			$	916,179
Less:
Activation revenues			(3,018	)			(14,410	)			(7,874	)			(6,808	)			(4,988	)			(6,026	)
E-911, FUSF and vendor’s compensation charges			—				(6,527	)			(12,522	)			(26,221	)			(18,875	)			(29,222	)
Net service revenues		$	99,275			$	348,914			$	596,005			$	839,071			$	607,346			$	880,931
Divided by:
Average number of customers			210,881				775,605				1,207,521				1,649,208				1,593,848				2,281,261
ARPU		$	39.23			$	37.49			$	41.13			$	42.40			$	42.34			$	42.91

(11)		CPGA — Cost per gross addition, or CPGA, is determined by dividing (a) selling expenses plus the total cost of equipment associated with transactions with new customers less activation revenues and equipment revenues associated with transactions with new customers during the measurement period by (b) gross customer additions during such period. We utilize CPGA to assess the efficiency of our distribution strategy, validate the initial capital invested in our customers and determine the number of months to recover our customer acquisition costs. This measure also allows us to compare our average acquisition costs per new customer to those of other wireless broadband PCS providers. Activation revenues and equipment revenues related to new customers are deducted from selling expenses in this calculation as they represent amounts paid by customers at the time their service is activated that reduce our acquisition cost of those customers. Additionally, equipment costs associated with existing customers, net of related revenues, are excluded as this measure is intended to reflect only the acquisition costs related to new customers. The following table reconciles total costs used in the calculation of CPGA to selling expenses, which we consider to be the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure to CPGA:

																		Nine Months Ended
		Year Ended December 31,																September 30,
		2002				2003				2004				2005				2005				2006
		(In Thousands, Except Gross Customer Additions and CPGA)
Calculation of CPGA:
Selling expenses		$	26,228			$	44,006			$	52,605			$	62,396			$	43,863			$	72,796
Less:
Activation revenues			(3,018	)			(14,410	)			(7,874	)			(6,809	)			(4,988	)			(6,026	)
Less:
Equipment revenues			(27,048	)			(81,258	)			(131,849	)			(166,328	)			(118,990	)			(177,592	)
Add:
Equipment revenue not associated with new customers			482				13,228				54,323				77,011				55,324				80,571
Add:
Cost of equipment			106,508				150,832				222,766				300,871				210,529				330,898
Less:
Equipment costs not associated with new customers			(4,850	)			(22,549	)			(72,200	)			(109,803	)			(77,910	)			(108,292	)
Gross addition expenses		$	98,302			$	89,849			$	117,771			$	157,338			$	107,828			$	192,355
Divided by:
Gross customer additions			626,050				894,348				1,134,762				1,532,071				1,062,772				1,650,282
CPGA		$	157.02			$	100.46			$	103.78			$	102.70			$	101.46			$	116.56

(12)		CPU — Cost per user, or CPU, is cost of service and general and administrative costs (excluding applicable non-cash compensation expense included in cost of service and general and administrative expense) plus net loss on equipment transactions unrelated to initial customer acquisition (which includes the gain or loss on sale of handsets to existing customers and costs associated with handset replacements and repairs (other than warranty costs which are the responsibility of the handset manufacturers)), divided by the sum of the average monthly number of customers during such period. CPU does not include any depreciation and amortization expense. Management uses CPU as a tool to evaluate the non-selling cash expenses associated with ongoing business operations on a per customer basis, to track changes in these non-selling cash costs over time, and to help evaluate how changes in our business operations affect non-selling cash costs per customer. In addition, CPU provides management with a useful measure to compare our non-selling cash costs per customer with those of other wireless providers. We believe investors use CPU primarily as a tool to track changes in our non-selling cash costs over time and to compare our non-selling cash costs to those of other wireless providers. Other wireless carriers may calculate this measure differently. The following table reconciles total costs used in the calculation of CPU to cost of service, which we consider to be the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure to CPU:

																		Nine Months Ended
		Year Ended December 31,																September 30,
		2002				2003				2004				2005				2005				2006
		(In Thousands, Except Average Number of Customers and CPU)
Calculation of CPU:
Cost of service		$	63,567			$	122,211			$	200,806			$	283,212			$	201,940			$	313,510
Add:
General and administrative expense			28,933				50,067				78,905				100,080				72,343				99,125
Add:
Net loss on equipment transactions unrelated to initial customer acquisition			4,368				9,320				17,877				32,791				22,586				27,721
Less:
Non-cash compensation expense included in cost of service and general and administrative expense			(1,519	)			(5,573	)			(10,429	)			(2,596	)			(3,302	)			(7,750	)
Less:
E-911, FUSF and vendor’s compensation revenues			—				(6,527	)			(12,522	)			(26,221	)			(18,875	)			(29,222	)
Total costs used in the calculation of CPU		$	95,349			$	169,498			$	274,637			$	387,266			$	274,692			$	403,384
Divided by:
Average number of customers			210,881				775,605				1,207,521				1,649,208				1,593,848				2,281,261
CPU		$	37.68			$	18.21			$	18.95			$	19.57			$	19.15			$	19.65

(13)		As adjusted to give effect to the following, as if they had occurred on September 30, 2006: (a) the completion of the senior notes offering and receipt of the net proceeds from the sale of the senior notes; (b) the entry into our senior secured credit facility and the borrowing of $1.6 billion thereunder; (c) the purchase of the Auction 66 licenses; (d) the application of the net proceeds from the sale of the senior notes and our net borrowings under the senior secured credit facility to repay all amounts owed under our existing first and second lien credit agreements and bridge credit facilities; and (e) the consummation of this offering at a price equal to the mid-point of the range.

 

An investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the specific risk factors set forth below, as well as the other information set forth elsewhere in this prospectus, before purchasing our common stock. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected by any or all of these risks. As a result, the trading price of our common stock may decline, and you might lose part or all of your investment.

 

Risks Related to Our Business

 

Our business strategy may not succeed in the long term.

 

A major element of our business strategy is to offer consumers a service that allows them to make unlimited local calls and, depending on the service plan selected, long distance calls, from within our service area and to receive unlimited calls from any area for a flat monthly rate without entering into a long-term service contract. This is a relatively new approach to marketing wireless services and it may not prove to be successful in the long term or deployable in geographic areas we have acquired but not launched or geographic areas we may acquire in the future. Some companies that have offered this type of service in the past have not been successful. From time to time, we evaluate our service offerings and the demands of our target customers and may amend, change, discontinue or adjust our service offerings or trial new service offerings as a result. These service offerings may not be successful or prove to be profitable.

 

We have limited operating history and have launched service in a limited number of metropolitan areas. Accordingly, our performance to date may not be indicative of our future results or our performance in future markets we launch.

 

We began offering service in the first quarter of 2002, and we had no revenues before that time. Consequently, we have a limited operating and financial history upon which to evaluate our financial performance, business plan execution and ability to succeed in the future. You should consider our prospects in light of the risks, expenses and difficulties we may encounter, including those frequently encountered by new companies competing in rapidly evolving and highly competitive markets. If we are unable to execute our plans and grow our business, our financial results will be adversely affected. Our business strategy involves expanding into new geographic areas beyond our Core Markets and these geographic areas may present competitive challenges different from those encountered in our Core Markets. Our financial performance in new geographic areas, including our Expansion Markets and Auction 66 Markets, may not be as positive as our Core Markets.

 

We face intense competition from other wireless and wireline communications providers, which could adversely affect our operating results and hinder our ability to grow.

 

We compete directly in each of our markets with (i) other facilities-based wireless providers, such as Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile and their prepaid affiliates or brands, (ii) non-facilities based mobile virtual network operators, or MVNOs, such as Virgin Mobile USA and Amp’d Mobile, (iii) incumbent local exchange carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, as a mobile alternative to traditional landline service and (iv) competitive local exchange carriers or Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol, or VoIP, service providers, such as Vonage, Time Warner, Comcast, McLeod USA, Clearwire and XO Communications, as a mobile alternative to wired service. We also may face competition from providers of an emerging technology known as Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access, or WiMax, which is capable of supporting wireless transmissions suitable for mobility applications. Also, certain mobile satellite providers recently have received authority to offer ancillary terrestrial service. Many major cable television service providers, including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications and Bright House Networks, also have indicated their intention to offer suites of service, including wireless service, often referred to as the “Quadruple Play,” and are actively pursuing the acquisition of spectrum or leasing access to spectrum to

implement those plans. These cable companies formed a joint venture along with Sprint Nextel called SpectrumCo LLC, or SpectrumCo, which bid on and acquired 20 MHz of advanced wireless service spectrum, or AWS, in a number of major metropolitan areas throughout the United States, including all of the major metropolitan areas which comprise our Core, Expansion and Auction 66 Markets. In addition, Sprint Nextel recently announced that it is evaluating whether to offer an unlimited local calling plan under its Boost brand. Other national wireless carriers also may decide in the future to offer unlimited wireless service offerings. Many of our current and prospective competitors are, or are affiliated with, major companies that have substantially greater financial, technical, personnel and marketing resources than we have (including spectrum holdings, brands and intellectual property) and larger market share than we have, which may affect our ability to compete successfully. These competitors often have greater name and brand recognition and established relationships with a larger base of current and potential customers and, accordingly, we may not be able to compete successfully. In some markets, we also compete with local or regional carriers, such as Leap Wireless International and Sure West Wireless, some of whom have or may develop unlimited fixed-rate service plans similar to ours.

 

We expect that increased competition will result in more competitive pricing, slower growth and increased churn of our customer base. Our ability to compete will depend, in part, on our ability to anticipate and respond to various competitive factors and to keep our costs low. The competitive pressures of the wireless telecommunications industry have caused, and may continue to cause, other carriers to offer service plans with increasingly large bundles of minutes of use at increasingly lower prices and rate plans with unlimited nights and weekends. These competitive plans could adversely affect our ability to maintain our pricing and market penetration and maintain and grow our customer base.

 

We may face additional competition from new entrants in the wireless marketplace, many of whom may have significantly more resources than we do.

 

Certain new entrants with significant financial resources participated in Auction 66 and were designated as the high bidder on spectrum rights in geographic areas served by us. For example, SpectrumCo acquired 20 MHz of spectrum in all of the metropolitan areas which comprise our Core, Expansion and Auction 66 Markets. In addition, Leap Wireless offers unlimited fixed-rate service plans similar to ours and acquired spectrum which overlaps some of the metropolitan areas we serve or plan to serve. These licenses could be used to provide services directly competitive with our services.

 

The auction and licensing of new spectrum, including the spectrum recently auctioned by the FCC in Auction 66, may result in new competitors and/or allow existing competitors to acquire additional spectrum, which could allow them to offer services that we may not technologically or cost effectively be able to offer with the licenses we hold or to which we have access. The FCC has already designated an additional 60 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band which may be used to offer services competitive with the services we offer or plan to offer. Furthermore, the FCC may pursue policies designed to make available additional spectrum for the provision of wireless services in each of our metropolitan areas, which may increase the number of wireless competitors and enhance the ability of our wireless competitors to offer additional plans and services that we may be unable to successfully compete against.

 

Some of our competitors have technological or operating capabilities that we may not be able to successfully compete with in our existing markets or any new markets we may launch.

 

Some of the carriers we compete against provide wireless services using cellular frequencies in the 800 MHz band. These frequencies enjoy propagation advantages over the PCS frequencies we use, which may cause us to have to spend more capital than our competitors in certain areas to cover the same area. In addition, the FCC plans to auction additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band which will have similar characteristics to the 800 MHz cellular frequencies. Many of the wireless carriers against whom we compete have service area footprints substantially larger than our footprint. In addition, certain of our competitors are

able to offer their customers roaming services over larger geographic areas and at rates lower than the rates we can offer. Our ability to replicate these roaming service offerings at rates which will make us, or allow us to be, competitive is uncertain at this time.

 

Certain carriers we compete against, or may compete against in the future, are multi-faceted telecommunications service providers which, in addition to providing wireless services, are affiliated with companies that provide local wireline, long distance, satellite television, Internet, media, content, cable television and/or other services. These carriers are capable of bundling their wireless services with other telecommunications services and other services in a package of services that we may not be able to duplicate at competitive prices.

 

We also compete with companies that use other communications technologies, including paging and digital two-way paging, enhanced specialized mobile radio and domestic and global mobile satellite service. These technologies may have certain advantages over the technology we use and may ultimately be more attractive to our existing and potential customers. We may compete in the future with companies that offer new technologies and market other services that we do not offer or may not be able to offer. Some of our competitors do or may offer these other services together with their wireless communications service, which may make their services more attractive to customers. Energy companies and utility companies are also expanding their services to offer communications services.

 

In addition, we compete with companies that take advantage of the unlicensed spectrum that the FCC is increasingly allocating for use. Certain technical standards are being prepared, including Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access, or WiMax, which may allow carriers to offer services competitive with ours in the unlicensed spectrum. The users of this unlicensed spectrum do not have the exclusive use of licensed spectrum, but they also are not subject to the same regulatory requirements that we are and, therefore, may have certain advantages over us.

 

We may face increased competition from other unlimited fixed rate plan competitors in our existing and new markets.

 

We currently overlap with Leap Wireless and Sure West Wireless, who are unlimited fixed-rate plan wireless carriers providing service in the Sacramento, Modesto and Merced, California basic trading areas. In Auction 66, the FCC auctioned 90 MHz of spectrum in each geographic area of the United States including the areas in which we currently hold or have access to licenses. Leap Wireless also acquired licenses in or has been announced as the high bidder in Auction 66 in some of the same geographic areas in which we currently hold or have access to licenses or in which we were granted licenses as a result of Auction 66. In addition to Leap Wireless, other licensees who have PCS spectrum or acquired spectrum in Auction 66 also may decide to offer unlimited wireless service offerings. In addition, Sprint Nextel recently announced that it is evaluating whether to offer an unlimited local calling plan under its Boost brand. Other national wireless carriers may also decide in the future to offer unlimited wireless service offerings. In addition, we may not be able to launch unlimited service plans ahead of our competition in our new markets. As a result, we may experience lower growth in such areas, may experience higher churn, and may incur higher costs to acquire customers which may materially and adversely affect our financial performance in the future.

 

A patent infringement suit has been filed against us by Leap Wireless International, Inc., which could have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations.

 

On June 14, 2006, Leap Wireless International, Inc. and Cricket Communications, Inc., or collectively Leap, filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Civil Action No. 2-06CV-240-TJW and amended on June 16, 2006, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,813,497 “Method for Providing Wireless Communication Services and Network and System for Delivering of Same,” or the ’497 Patent, issued to Leap. The complaint seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages for our alleged infringement and alleged continued infringement of such patent.

If Leap is successful in its claim for injunctive relief, we could be enjoined from operating our business in the manner we operate currently, which could require us to redesign our current networks, to expend additional capital to change certain of our technologies and operating practices, or could prevent us from offering some or all of our services using some or all of our existing systems. In addition, if Leap is successful in its claim for monetary damage, we could be forced to pay Leap substantial damages for past infringement and/or ongoing royalties on a portion of our revenues, which could materially adversely impact our financial performance. If Leap prevails in its action, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, the actions may consume valuable management time, may be very costly to defend and may distract management attention away from our business.

 

The Department of Justice has informally requested information regarding our use of the PCS spectrum we acquired in the Dallas/Ft. Worth and Detroit Expansion Markets.

 

We acquired the PCS spectrum for the Dallas/Ft. Worth and Detroit Expansion Markets in connection with a consent decree entered into between Cingular Wireless, AT&T Wireless, and the United States Department of Justice, or the DOJ. When we acquired the spectrum, we had certain expectations which were communicated to the DOJ about how we would use the spectrum, including expectations about constructing a combined 1XRTT/EV-DO network on the spectrum capable of supporting data services. Although we have constructed a combined 1XRTT/EV-DO network in those markets, we expected to be able to support our services as demand increased by upgrading the networks to EV-DO Revision A with VoIP when available. Based upon our discussions at the time with our network vendor, we anticipated that these upgrades would be available in 2006.

 

As a result of a delay in the availability of EV-DO Revision A with VoIP, in September 2006 we contacted the DOJ to inform them that we had determined that it was necessary for us to redeploy the EV-DO network assets at certain cell sites in those markets to 1XRTT in order to serve our existing customers. The DOJ responded with an informal letter expressing concern over our use of the spectrum and requesting certain information regarding our construction of our network facilities in these markets, our use of EV-DO, and the services we are providing in the Dallas/Ft. Worth and Detroit Expansion Markets. We have responded to the initial DOJ request and subsequent follow-up requests. We cannot predict at this time whether the DOJ will pursue this matter any further and, if they do, what the outcome may be.

 

If we experience a higher rate of customer turnover than we have forecasted, our costs could increase and our revenues could decline, which would reduce our profits.

 

Our average monthly rate of customer turnover, or churn, for the nine month period ended September 30, 2006 was approximately 4.7%. A higher rate of churn could reduce our revenues and increase our marketing costs to attract the replacement customers required to sustain our business plan, which could reduce our profit margin. In addition, we may not be able to replace customers who leave our service profitably or at all. Our rate of customer churn may be affected by several factors, including the following:

 

 

 

Unlike many of our competitors, we do not require our customers to enter into long-term service contracts. As a result, our customers have the ability to cancel their service at any time without penalty, and we therefore expect our churn rate to be higher than other wireless carriers. In addition, customers could elect to switch to another carrier that has service offerings based on newer network technology. We cannot assure you that our strategies to address customer churn will be successful. If we experience a high rate of wireless customer churn, seek to prevent significant customer churn, or fail to replace lost customers, our revenues could decline and our costs could increase which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

 

We may not have access to all the funding necessary to build and operate our Auction 66 Markets.

 

The proceeds from the sale of the senior notes and our borrowings under our senior secured credit facility did not include the funds necessary to construct, launch and operate our Auction 66 Markets. In addition to the proceeds from this offering, we will need to generate significant excess free cash flow, which is defined as Adjusted EBITDA less capital expenditures, from our operations in our Core and Expansion Markets in order to construct and operate the Auction 66 Markets in the near term or at all. See “Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources.” If we are unable to fund the build-out of our Auction 66 Markets with the proceeds from this offering and excess internally generated cash flows, we may be forced to seek additional debt financing or delay our construction. The covenants under our senior secured credit facility and the indenture covering the notes may prevent us from incurring additional debt to fund the construction and operation of the Auction 66 Markets, or may prevent us from securing such funds on suitable terms or in accordance with our preferred construction timetable. Accordingly, we may be required to continue to pay interest on the secured debt and the senior notes for our Auction 66 Market licenses without the ability to generate any revenue from our Auction 66 Markets.

 

We may not achieve the customer penetration levels in our Core and Expansion Markets that we currently believe are possible with our business model.

 

Our ability to achieve the customer penetration levels that we currently believe are possible with our business model in our Core and Expansion Markets is subject to a number of risks, including:

 

 

 

If we are unable to achieve the aggregate levels of customer penetration that we currently believe are possible with our business model in our Core and Expansion Markets, our ability to continue to grow our customer base and revenues at the rates we currently expect may be limited. Any failure to achieve the penetration levels we currently believe are possible may have a material adverse impact on our future financial results and operations. Furthermore, any inability to increase our overall level of market penetration in our Core and Expansion Markets, as well as any inability to achieve similar customer penetration levels in other markets we launch in the future, could adversely impact the market price of our stock.

 

We may be subject to claims of infringement regarding telecommunications technologies that are protected by patents and other intellectual property rights.

 

Telecommunications technologies are protected by a wide array of patents and other intellectual property rights. As a result, third parties may assert infringement claims against us from time to time based on our general business operations, the equipment, software or services we use or provide, or the specific operation of our wireless networks. We generally have indemnification agreements with the manufacturers, licensors and suppliers who provide us with the equipment, software and technology that we use in our business to protect us against possible infringement claims, but we cannot guarantee that we will be fully protected against all losses associated with an infringement claim. Moreover, we may be subject to claims that products, software and services provided by different vendors which we combine to offer our services may infringe the rights of third parties and we may not have any indemnification protection from our vendors for these claims. Further, we have been, and may be, subject to further claims that certain business processes we use may infringe the rights of third parties, and we may have no indemnification rights from any of our vendors or suppliers. Whether or not an infringement claim is valid or successful, it could adversely affect our business by diverting management’s attention, involving us in costly and time-consuming litigation, requiring us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements (which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all), require us to pay royalties for prior periods, or requiring us to redesign our business operations, processes or systems to avoid claims of infringement. If a claim is found to be valid or if we cannot successfully negotiate a required royalty or license agreement, it could disrupt our business, prevent us from offering certain services and cause us to incur losses of customers or revenues, any or all of which could be material and could adversely affect our business, financial performance, operating results and the market price of our stock.

 

The wireless industry is experiencing rapid technological change, and we may lose customers if we fail to keep up with these changes.

 

The wireless telecommunications industry is experiencing significant technological change. Our continued success will depend, in part, on our ability to anticipate or adapt to technological changes and to offer, on a timely basis, services that meet customer demands. We cannot assure you that we will obtain access to new technology on a timely basis, on satisfactory terms, or that we will have adequate spectrum to offer new services or implement new technologies. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. For us to keep pace with these technological changes and remain competitive, we must continue to make significant capital expenditures to our networks and to acquire additional spectrum. Customer acceptance of the services that we offer will continually be affected by technology-based differences in our product and service offerings and those offered by our competitors.

 

The wireless telecommunications industry has been, and we believe will continue to be, characterized by several trends, including the following:

 

 

 

We expect competition to intensify as a result of new competitors, allocation of additional spectrum and relaxation of existing policies, and the development of new technologies, products and services. For instance, we currently do not offer certain of the high speed data applications offered by our competitors. In addition, push-to-talk has become popular as it allows subscribers to save time on dialing or connecting to a network and some of the companies that compete with us in our wireless markets offer push-to-talk. We do not offer our customers a push-to-talk service. As demand for this service continues to grow, and if we do not offer these technologies, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining subscribers, which will have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, other service providers have announced plans to develop a WiFi or WiMax enabled handset. Such a handset would permit subscribers to communicate using voice and data services with their handset using VoIP technology in any area equipped with a wireless Internet connection, or hot spot, potentially allowing more carriers to offer larger bundles of minutes while retaining low prices and the ability to offer attractive roaming rates. The number of hot spots in the U.S. is growing rapidly, with some major cities and urban areas being covered entirely. The availability of VoIP or another alternative technology to our competitor’s subscribers could increase their ability to offer competing rate plans, which would have an adverse effect on our ability to attract and retain customers.

 

We and Royal Street may incur significant costs in our build-out and launch of new markets and we may incur operating losses in those markets for an undetermined period of time.

 

We and Royal Street have invested and expect to continue to invest a significant amount of capital to build systems that will adequately cover our Expansion Markets, and we and Royal Street will incur operating losses in each of these markets for an undetermined period of time. We also anticipate having to spend and invest a significant amount of capital to build systems and operate networks in the Auction 66 Markets.

 

Our and Royal Street’s network capacities in our existing and new markets may be insufficient to meet customer demand or to offer new services that our competitors may be able to offer.

 

We and Royal Street have licenses for only 10 MHz of spectrum in certain of our markets, which is significantly less than most of the wireless carriers with whom we and Royal Street compete. This limited spectrum may require Royal Street and us to secure more cell sites to provide equivalent service (including data services based on EV-DO technology) compared to Royal Street’s and our competitors or to deploy more expensive network equipment, such as six-sector antennas and EV-DO Revision A with VoIP, sooner

than our competitors. Royal Street’s and our limited spectrum may also limit Royal Street’s and our ability to support our growth plans without additional technology improvements and/or spectrum, and may make Royal Street and us more reliant on technology advances than our competitors. There is no guarantee we and Royal Street can secure adequate tower sites or additional spectrum, or that expected technology improvements will be available to support Royal Street’s and our business requirements or that the cost of such technology improvements will allow Royal Street and us to remain competitive with other carriers. Competitive carriers in these markets also may take steps prior to Royal Street and us launching service to try to attract Royal Street’s and our target customers. There also is no guarantee that the operations in the Royal Street metropolitan areas, which are based on a wholesale model, will be profitable or successful.

 

Most national wireless carriers have greater spectrum capacity than we do that can be used to support third generation, or 3G, and fourth generation, or 4G, services. These national wireless carriers are currently investing substantial sums of capital to deploy the necessary capital equipment to deliver 3G enhanced services. We and Royal Street have access to less spectrum than certain major competitive carriers in most of our and Royal Street’s markets. Our limited spectrum may make it difficult for us and Royal Street to simultaneously support our voice services and 3G/4G services. In addition, we and Royal Street may have to invest additional capital and/or acquire additional spectrum to support the delivery of 3G/4G services. There is no guarantee that we or Royal Street will be able to provide 3G/4G services on existing licensed spectrum, or will have access to either the spectrum or capital, necessary to provide competitive 3G/4G services in our metropolitan areas, or that our vendors will provide the necessary equipment and software in a timely manner. Moreover, Royal Street’s and our deployment of 3G/4G services requires technology improvements which may not occur or may be too costly for Royal Street and us to compete.

 

We are dependent on certain network technology improvements which may not occur, or may be materially delayed.

 

The adequacy of our spectrum to serve our customers in markets where we have access to only 10 MHz of spectrum is dependent upon certain recent and ongoing technology improvements, such as EV-DO Revision A with VoIP, 4G vocoders, and intelligent antennas. Further, there can be no assurance that (1) the additional technology improvements will be developed by our existing infrastructure provider, (2) such improvements will be delivered when needed, (3) the prices for such improvements will be cost-effective, or (4) the technology improvements will deliver our projected network efficiency improvements. If projected or anticipated technology improvements are not achieved, or are not achieved in the timeframes we need such improvements, we and Royal Street may not have adequate spectrum in certain metropolitan areas, which may limit our ability to grow our customer base, may inhibit our ability to achieve additional economies of scale, may limit our ability to offer new services offered by our competitors, may require us to spend considerably more capital and incur more operating expenses than our competitors with more spectrum, and may force us to purchase additional spectrum at a potentially material cost. If our network infrastructure vendor does not supply such improvements or materially delays the delivery of such improvements and other network equipment manufacturers are able to develop such technology, we may be at a material competitive disadvantage to our competitors and we may be required to change network infrastructure vendors, the cost of which could be material.

 

We may be unable to acquire additional spectrum in the future at a reasonable cost.

 

Because we offer unlimited calling services for a fixed fee, our customers tend, on average, to use our services more than the customers of other wireless carriers. We believe that the average amount of use our customers generate may continue to rise. We intend to meet this demand by utilizing spectrum-efficient state-of-the-art technologies, such as six-sector cell site technology, EV-DO Revision A with VoIP, 4G vocoders and intelligent antennas. Nevertheless, in the future we may need to acquire additional spectrum in order to maintain our grade of service and to meet increasing customer demands. However, we cannot be sure that additional spectrum will be made available by the FCC for commercial uses on a timely basis or that we will

be able to acquire additional spectrum at a reasonable cost. For example, there have been recent calls for reallocating spectrum previously slated for commercial mobile uses to public safety uses in order to enable first responders to establish an interoperable nationwide broadband network. If the additional spectrum is unavailable when needed or unavailable at a reasonable cost, we could lose customers or revenues, which could be material, and our ability to grow our customer base may be materially adversely affected.

 

Substantially all of our network infrastructure equipment is manufactured or provided by a single infrastructure vendor and any failure by that vendor could result in a material adverse effect on us.

 

We have entered into a general purchase agreement with an initial term of three years, effective as of June 6, 2005, with Lucent Technologies, Inc., or Lucent, now known as Alcatel Lucent, as our network infrastructure supplier of PCS CDMA system products and services, including without limitation, wireless base stations, switches, power, cable and transmission equipment and services. The agreement does not cover the spectrum we recently acquired in Auction 66. The agreement provides for both exclusive and non-exclusive pricing for PCS CDMA products and the agreement may be renewed at our option on an annual basis for three additional years after its initial three-year term concludes. Substantially all of our PCS network infrastructure equipment is manufactured or provided by Alcatel Lucent. A substantial portion of the equipment manufactured or provided by Alcatel Lucent is proprietary, which means that equipment and software from other manufacturers may not work with Alcatel Lucent’s equipment and software, or may require the expenditure of additional capital, which may be material. If Alcatel Lucent ceases to develop new products or support existing equipment and software, we may be required to spend significant amounts of money to replace such equipment and software, may not be able to offer new products or service, and may not be able to compete effectively in our markets. If we fail to continue purchasing our PCS CDMA products exclusively from Alcatel Lucent, we may have to pay certain liquidated damages based on the difference in prices between exclusive and non-exclusive prices, which may be material to us.

 

Our network infrastructure vendor has merged, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

 

Lucent announced on April 2, 2006 that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with Alcatel, and the shareholders of each company approved the merger. Alcatel and Lucent announced on November 30, 2006 the completion of the merger and the companies began doing business on December 1, 2006 as “Alcatel Lucent.” There can be no assurance that the combined entity will continue to produce and support the products and services that we currently purchase from Alcatel Lucent. In addition, the combined entity may delay or cease developing or supplying products or services necessary to our business. If Alcatel Lucent delays or ceases to produce products or services necessary to our business and we are unable to secure replacement products and services on reasonable terms and conditions, our business could be materially adversely affected.

 

Our network infrastructure vendor may change where it manufactures equipment necessary for our network which could have a material adverse effect on us.

 

As a result of its ongoing operations, Alcatel Lucent may move the manufacturing of some of its products from its existing facilities in one country to another manufacturing facility located in another country and that process may accelerate with the completion of its merger. To the extent that products are manufactured outside the current facilities, we may experience delays in receiving products from Alcatel Lucent and the quality of the products we receive may suffer. These delays and quality problems could cause us to experience problems in increasing capacity of our existing systems, expanding our service areas, and the construction of new markets. If these delays or quality problems occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our ability to meet our business plan and our business operations and finances may be materially adversely affected.

No equipment or handsets are currently available for the AWS spectrum and such equipment or handsets may not be developed in a timely manner.

 

The advanced wireless services, or AWS, spectrum requires modified or new equipment and handsets which are not currently available. We do not manufacture or develop our own equipment or handsets and are dependent on third party manufacturers to design, develop and manufacture such equipment. If equipment or handsets are not available when we need them, we may not be able to develop the Auction 66 Markets. We may, therefore, be forced to pay interest on our indebtedness which we used to fund the purchase of the licenses in Auction 66, without realizing any revenues from our Auction 66 Markets.

 

If we are unable to manage our planned growth effectively, our costs could increase and our level of service could be adversely affected.

 

We have experienced rapid growth and development in a relatively short period of time and expect to continue to experience substantial growth in the future. The management of rapid growth will require, among other things, continued development of our financial and management controls and management information systems. Historically, we have failed to adequately implement financial controls and management systems. We publicly acknowledged deficiencies in our financial reporting as early as August 2004, and controls and systems designed to address these deficiencies are not yet fully implemented. The costs of implementing these controls and systems will affect the near-term financial results of the business and the lack of these controls and systems may materially adversely affect our ability to access the capital markets.

 

Our expected growth also will require stringent control of costs, diligent management of our network infrastructure and our growth, increased capital requirements, increased costs associated with marketing activities, the ability to attract and retain qualified management, technical and sales personnel and the training and management of new personnel. Our growth will challenge the capacity and abilities of existing employees and future employees at all levels of our business. Failure to successfully manage our expected growth and development could have a material adverse effect on our business, increase our costs and adversely affect our level of service. Additionally, the costs of acquiring new customers could adversely affect our near-term profitability.

 

We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting in the past. We will incur significant time and expense enhancing, documenting, testing and certifying our internal control over financial reporting and our business may be adversely affected if we have other material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting in the future.

 

In connection with the preparation of our quarterly financial statements for the three months ended June 30, 2004, we determined that previously disclosed financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2004 understated service revenues and net income. Additionally, in connection with their evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures with respect to the filing in May 2006 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that certain material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting existed as of December 31, 2004. The material weaknesses related to deficiencies in our information technology and accounting control environments, insufficient “tone at the top,” deficiencies in our accounting for income taxes, and a lack of automation in our revenue reporting process. In connection with their review of our material weaknesses, our management and audit committee concluded that our previously reported consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003 should be restated to correct accounting errors resulting from these material weaknesses.

 

We have identified, developed and implemented a number of measures to strengthen our internal control over financial reporting and address the material weaknesses that we identified. Although, there were no reported material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, our management did identify a significant deficiency relating to the accrual of equipment and services in one of

our markets. There can be no assurance that we will not have significant deficiencies in the future or that such conditions will not rise to the level of a material weakness. The existence of one or more material weaknesses or significant deficiencies could result in errors in our financial statements or delays in the filing of our periodic reports required by the SEC. Any failure by us to timely file our periodic reports could result in a breach of the indenture covering the senior notes and our secured credit facility, potentially accelerating payment under both agreements. We may not have the ability to pay, or borrow any amounts necessary to pay, any accelerated payment due under the secured credit facility or the indenture covering the senior notes. We may also incur substantial costs and resources to rectify any internal control deficiencies.

 

As a public company we will incur significant legal, accounting, insurance and other expenses. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as compliance with other SEC and exchange listing rules, will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly. Furthermore, once we become a public company, SEC rules require that our chief executive officer and chief financial officer periodically certify the existence and effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Our independent registered public accounting firm will be required, beginning with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for our fiscal year ending on December 31, 2008, to attest to our assessment of our internal control over financial reporting.

 

During the course of our testing, we may identify deficiencies that would have to be remediated to satisfy the SEC rules for certification of our internal control over financial reporting. As a consequence, we may have to disclose in periodic reports we file with the SEC significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in our system of internal controls. The existence of a material weakness would preclude management from concluding that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, and would preclude our independent auditors from issuing an unqualified opinion that our internal control over financial reporting is effective. If we cannot produce reliable financial reports, we may be in breach of the indenture covering the senior notes and our secured credit facility, potentially accelerating payment under both agreements. In addition, disclosures of this type in our SEC reports could cause investors to lose confidence in our financial reporting and may negatively affect the trading price of our common stock. Moreover, effective internal controls are necessary to produce reliable financial reports and to prevent fraud. If we have deficiencies in our disclosure controls and procedures or internal control over financial reporting it may negatively impact our business, results of operations and reputation.

 

Because we may have issued stock options and shares of common stock in violation of federal and state securities laws and some of our stockholders and optionholders may have a right of rescission, we intend to make a rescission offer to certain holders of shares of our common stock and options to purchase shares of our common stock.

 

Certain options to purchase our common stock granted since January 2004 and certain shares issued upon exercise of options granted during this period may not have been exempt from the registration and qualification requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 or under the securities laws of a few states. As of September 30, 2006, we granted to employees and former employees options to purchase approximately 716,000 shares of our common stock, of which approximately 659,000 options remain outstanding with a weighted average exercise price per option of $18.83. As of September 30, 2006, we had issued approximately 15,600 shares of common stock upon exercise of these options, none of which are currently held by the optionees. We issued these options and shares of common stock in reliance on Rule 701 under the Securities Act of 1933. However, we may not have been entitled to rely on Rule 701 because (1) during certain periods we exceeded certain thresholds in the rule and may not have delivered to our optionholders the financial and other information required to be delivered by Rule 701; and (2) during certain periods in 2004 and 2006 we were subject to, or should have been subject to, the periodic reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As a result, certain holders of options and shares acquired from us may have a right to require us to repurchase those securities if we are found to be in violation of federal or state securities laws.

 

In order to address these issues, we intend to make a rescission offer to the holders of options to purchase approximately 659,000 shares of our common stock as soon as practicable after the completion of our initial public offering. We will be making this offer to approximately 525 of our current and former employees. If the rescission offer is accepted by all persons to whom it is made, we could be required to make aggregate payments of up to approximately $2.6 million. This amount reflects a purchase price equal to the price paid by the holder for each share of common stock that is the subject of the rescission offer and a purchase price equal to 20% of the aggregate exercise price for each option that is the subject of the rescission offer. It is possible that an optionholder could argue that the purchase price for the options does not represent an adequate remedy for the issuance of the option in violation of applicable securities laws, and a court may find that we are required to pay a greater amount for the options.

 

There can be no assurance that the SEC or state regulatory bodies will not take the position that any rescission offers should extend to all holders of options or stock acquired upon exercise of options granted during the relevant periods. However, the Securities Act of 1933 does not provide that a rescission offer will extinguish a holder’s right to rescind the grant of an option or the issuance of shares that were not registered or exempt from the registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933. Consequently, should any recipients of our rescission offer reject the offer, expressly or impliedly, we may remain liable under the Securities Act of 1933 for the purchase price of the options and shares that are subject to the rescission offer.

 

We failed to register our stock options under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and, as a result, we may face potential claims under federal and state securities laws.

 

As of December 31, 2005, options granted under our 1995 option plan and our 2004 equity incentive plan were held by more than 500 holders. As a result, we were required to file a registration statement registering the stock options pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 no later than April 30, 2006. We failed to file a registration statement within the required time period.

 

If we had filed a registration statement pursuant to Section 12(g) as required, we would have become subject to the periodic reporting requirements of Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 upon the effectiveness of that registration statement. We have not filed any periodic reports, including quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and periodic reports on Form 8-K during the period since April 30, 2006, which is the latest date upon which we were required to file a registration statement.

 

Our failure to file the periodic reports we would have been required to file had we registered our common stock pursuant to Section 12(g) could give rise to potential claims by present or former stockholders based on the theory that such holders were harmed by the absence of such public reports. In addition to any claims by present or former stockholders, we could be subject to administrative and/or civil actions by the SEC. If any such claim or action is asserted, we could incur significant expenses and divert management’s attention in defending them.

 

A significant portion of our revenue is derived from geographic areas susceptible to natural and other disasters.

 

Our markets in California, Texas and Florida contribute a substantial amount of revenue, operating cash flows, and net income to our operations. These same states, however, have a history of natural disasters which may adversely affect our operations in those states. The severity and frequency of certain of these natural disasters, such as hurricanes, are projected to increase over the next several years. In addition, the major metropolitan areas in which we operate, or plan to operate, could be the target of terrorist attacks. These events may cause our networks to cease operating for a substantial period of time while we reconstruct them and our competitors may be less affected by such natural disasters or terrorist attacks. If our networks cease operating for any substantial period of time, we may lose revenue and customers, and may have difficulty attracting new customers in the future, which could materially adversely affect our operations. Although we have business interruption insurance which we believe is adequate, we cannot provide any

assurance that the insurance will cover all losses we may experience as a result of a natural disaster or terrorist attack or that the insurance carrier will be solvent.

 

Our substantial indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health.

 

We have now, and will continue to have, a significant amount of debt. As of September 30, 2006, as adjusted to give effect to the repayment of our first and second lien credit agreements, the repayment of our bridge loans, the borrowing of $1.6 billion under our senior secured credit facility and the receipt of the proceeds from the sale of $1.0 billion of 91/4% senior notes due 2014, we had $2.6 billion of outstanding indebtedness under the senior secured credit facility and the senior notes. Our substantial amount of debt could have important material adverse consequences to us. For example, it could:

 

 

 

 

In addition, a substantial portion of our debt, including borrowings under our senior secured credit facility, bears interest at variable rates. Although we have entered into a transaction to hedge some of our interest rate risk, if market interest rates increase, variable-rate debt will create higher debt service requirements, which could adversely affect our cash flow. While we have and may in the future enter into agreements limiting our exposure to higher interest rates, any such agreements may not offer complete protection from this risk and any portions not subject to such agreements would have full exposure to higher interest rates. We estimate the interest expense and principal repayments on our debt for the 12 months ending December 31, 2007 to be approximately $231.1 million.

 

Despite current indebtedness levels, we will be able to incur substantially more debt. This could further exacerbate the risks associated with our leverage.

 

We will be able to incur additional debt in the future despite our current level of indebtedness. The terms of the senior secured credit facility and the indenture governing the senior notes will allow us to incur substantial amounts of additional debt, subject to certain limitations. There are no restrictions on our or any of our future unrestricted or upstream subsidiaries’ ability to incur additional indebtedness. If new debt is added to our current debt levels, the related risks we could face would be magnified.

 

To service our debt, we will require a significant amount of cash, which may not be available to us.

 

Our ability to make payments on, or repay or refinance, our debt and to fund planned capital expenditures and operating losses associated with the Expansion Markets and the Auction 66 Markets, will depend largely upon receipt of proceeds from this offering and our future operating performance. Our future performance is subject to certain general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control. In addition, our ability to borrow funds in the future to make payments on our debt will depend on the satisfaction of the covenants in our senior secured credit facility, the indenture covering the senior notes and our other debt agreements and other agreements we may enter into in the

future. Specifically, we will need to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy financial condition tests. We cannot assure you that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future borrowings will be available to us under our senior secured credit facility or from other sources in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay interest or principal on our debt, including the senior notes, or to fund our other liquidity needs.

 

The terms of our debt place restrictions on certain of our subsidiaries which may limit our operating flexibility.

 

The indenture governing the senior notes and the senior secured credit facility impose material operating and financial restrictions on MetroPCS Wireless and certain of its subsidiaries. These restrictions, subject in certain cases to ordinary course of business and other exceptions, may limit MetroPCS Wireless’ and our ability to engage in some transactions, including the following:

 

 

 

 

Under the senior secured credit facility, MetroPCS Wireless is also subject to financial maintenance covenants with respect to its senior secured leverage and in certain circumstances total maximum consolidated leverage and certain minimum fixed charge coverage ratios.

 

These restrictions could limit MetroPCS Wireless’ and our ability to obtain debt financing, repurchase stock, refinance or pay principal on our outstanding debt, complete acquisitions for cash or debt or react to changes in our operating environment. Any future debt that we incur may contain similar or more restrictive covenants.

 

Our success depends on our ability to attract and retain qualified management and other personnel.

 

Our business is managed by a small number of key executive officers. The loss of one or more of these persons could disrupt our ability to react quickly to business developments and changes in market conditions, which could harm our financial results. Only one of our key executives has an employment contract, so any of our other key executive officers may leave at any time subject to forfeiture of any unpaid performance awards and any unvested stock options. In addition, upon any change in control, all unvested stock options will vest which may make it difficult for anyone to acquire us. We believe that our future success will also depend in large part on our continued ability to attract and retain highly qualified executive, technical and management personnel. We believe competition for highly qualified management, technical and sales personnel is intense, and there can be no assurance that we will retain our key management, technical and sales employees or that we will be successful in attracting, assimilating or retaining other highly qualified management, technical and sales personnel in the future sufficient to support our continued growth. We have

occasionally experienced difficulty in recruiting qualified personnel and there can be no assurance that we will not experience such difficulties in the future. Our inability to attract or retain highly qualified executive, technical and management personnel could materially and adversely affect our business operations and financial performance.

 

We rely on third-party suppliers to provide our customers and us with equipment, software and services that are integral to our business, and any significant disruption in our relationship with these vendors could increase our cost and affect our operating efficiencies.

 

We have entered into agreements with third-party suppliers to provide equipment and software for our network and services required for our operations, such as customer care and billing and payment processing. Sophisticated information and billing systems are vital to our ability to monitor and control costs, bill customers, process customer orders, provide customer service and achieve operating efficiencies. We currently rely on internal systems and third-party vendors to provide all of our information and processing systems. Some of our billing, customer service and management information systems have been developed by third-parties and may not perform as anticipated. If these suppliers experience interruptions or other problems delivering these products or services on a timely basis or at all, it may cause us to have difficulty providing services to our customers, developing and deploying new services and/or upgrading, maintaining, or improving our networks. If alternative suppliers and vendors become necessary, we may not be able to obtain satisfactory and timely replacement services on economically attractive terms, or at all. Some of these agreements may be terminated upon relatively short notice. The loss, termination or expiration of these contracts or our inability to renew them or negotiate contracts with other providers at comparable rates could harm our business. Our reliance on others to provide essential services on our behalf also gives us less control over the efficiency, timeliness and quality of these services. In addition, our plans for developing and implementing our information and billing systems rely to some extent on the design, development and delivery of products and services by third-party vendors. Our right to use these systems is dependent on license agreements with third-party vendors. Since we rely on third-party vendors to provide some of these services, any switch or disruption by our vendors could be costly and affect operating efficiencies.

 

If we lose the right to install our equipment on wireless cell sites, or are unable to renew expiring leases for wireless cell sites on favorable terms or at all, our business and operating results could be adversely impacted.

 

Our base stations are installed on leased cell site facilities. A significant portion of these cell sites are leased from a small number of large cell site companies under master agreements governing the general terms of our use of that company’s cell sites. If a master agreement with one of these cell site companies were to terminate, the cell site company were to experience severe financial difficulties or file for bankruptcy or if one of these cell site companies were unable to support our use of its cell sites, we would have to find new sites or rebuild the affected portion of our network. In addition, the concentration of our cell site leases with a limited number of cell site companies could adversely affect our operating results and financial condition if we are unable to renew our expiring leases with these cell site companies either on terms comparable to those we have today or at all.

 

In addition, the tower industry has continued to consolidate. If any of the companies from which we lease towers or distributed antenna systems, or DAS systems, were to consolidate with other tower or DAS systems companies, they may have the ability to raise prices which could materially affect our profitability. If any of the cell site leasing companies or DAS system providers with which we do business were to experience severe financial difficulties, or file for bankruptcy protection, our ability to use cell sites leased from that company could be adversely affected. If a material number of cell sites were no longer available for our use, our financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.

We may be unable to obtain the roaming and other services we need from other carriers to remain competitive.

 

Many of our competitors have regional or national networks which enable them to offer automatic roaming and long distance telephone services to their subscribers at a lower cost than we can offer. We do not have a national network, and we must pay fees to other carriers who provide roaming services and who carry long distance calls made by our subscribers. We currently have roaming agreements with several other carriers which allow our customers to roam on those carriers’ network. The roaming agreements, however, do not cover all geographic areas where our customers may seek service when they travel, generally cover voice but not data services, and at least one such agreement may be terminated on relatively short notice. In addition, we believe the rates charged by the carriers to us in some instances are higher than the rates they charge to certain other roaming partners. The FCC recently initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on whether automatic roaming services are considered common carrier services, whether carriers have an obligation to offer automatic roaming services to other carriers, whether carriers have an obligation to provide non-voice automatic roaming services, and what rates a carrier may charge for roaming services. We are unable to predict with any certainty the likely outcome of this proceeding. The FCC previously has initiated roaming proceedings to address similar issues but repeatedly has failed to resolve these issues. Our current and future customers may desire that we offer automatic roaming services when they travel outside the areas we serve which we may be unable to obtain or provide cost effectively. If we are unable to obtain roaming agreements at reasonable rates, then we may be unable to effectively compete and may lose customers and revenues.

 

A recent ruling from the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress may have an adverse effect on our distribution strategy.

 

The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, or the Copyright Office, recently released final rules on its triennial review of the exemptions to certain provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. A section of the DMCA prohibits anyone other than a copyright owner from circumventing technological measures employed to protect a copyrighted work, or access control. In addition, the DMCA provides that the Copyright Office may exempt certain activities which otherwise might be prohibited by that section of the DMCA for a period of three years when users are (or in the next three years are likely to be) adversely affected by the prohibition on their ability to make noninfringing uses of a class of copyrighted work. Many carriers, including us, routinely place software locks on wireless handsets, which prevent a customer from using a wireless handset sold by one carrier on another carrier’s system. In its triennial review, the Copyright Office determined that these software locks on wireless handsets are access controls which adversely affect the ability of consumers to make noninfringing use of the software on their wireless handsets. As a result, the Copyright Office found that a person could circumvent such software locks and other firmware that enable wireless handsets to connect to a wireless telephone network when such circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting the wireless handset to another wireless telephone network. A wireless carrier has filed suit in the United States District Court in Florida to reverse the Copyright Office’s decision. This exemption is effective from November 27, 2006 through October 27, 2009 unless extended by the Copyright Office.

 

This ruling, if upheld, could allow our customers to use their wireless handsets on networks of other carriers. This ruling may also allow our customers who are dissatisfied with our service to utilize the services of our competitors without having to purchase a new handset. The ability of our customers to leave our service and use their wireless handsets on other carriers’ networks may have an adverse material impact on our business. In addition, since we provide a subsidy for handsets to our distribution partners that is incurred in advance, we may experience higher distribution costs resulting from wireless handsets not being activated or maintained on our network, which costs may be material.

We may incur higher than anticipated intercarrier compensation costs, which could increase our costs and reduce our profit margin.

 

When our customers use our service to call customers of other carriers, we generally are required to pay the carrier that serves the called party and any intermediary or transit carrier. Similarly, when a customer of another carrier calls one of our customers, that carrier generally is required to pay us. While we generally have been successful in negotiating agreements with other carriers that establish acceptable compensation arrangements, some carriers have claimed a right to unilaterally impose charges on us that we consider to be unreasonably high. The FCC has determined that certain unilateral termination charges imposed prior to April 2005 may be appropriate. We have requested clarification of this order. We cannot assure you that the FCC will rule in our favor. An adverse ruling or FCC inaction could result in some carriers successfully collecting such fees from us, which could increase our costs and affect our financial performance. In the meantime, certain carriers are threatening to pursue or have initiated claims against us for termination payments and the likely outcome of these claims is uncertain. A finding by the FCC that we are liable for additional terminating compensation payments could subject us to additional claims by other carriers. In addition, certain transit carriers have taken the position that they can charge “market” rates for transit services, which may in some instances be significantly higher than our current rates. We may be obligated to pay these higher rates and/or purchase services from others or engage in direct connection, which may result in higher costs which could materially affect our costs and financial results.

 

Concerns about whether wireless telephones pose health and safety risks may lead to the adoption of new regulations, to lawsuits and to a decrease in demand for our services, which could increase our costs and reduce our revenues.

 

Media reports and some studies have suggested that radio frequency emissions from wireless handsets are linked to various health concerns, including cancer, or interfere with various electronic medical devices, including hearing aids and pacemakers. Additional studies have been undertaken to determine whether the suggestions from those reports and studies are accurate. In addition, lawsuits have been filed against other participants in the wireless industry alleging various adverse health consequences as a result of wireless phone usage. While many of these lawsuits have been dismissed on various grounds, including a lack of scientific evidence linking wireless handsets with such adverse health consequences, future lawsuits could be filed based on new evidence or in different jurisdictions. If any such suits do succeed, or if plaintiffs are successful in negotiating settlements, it is likely additional suits would be filed. Additionally, certain states in which we offer or may offer service have passed or may pass legislation seeking to require that all wireless telephones include an earpiece that would enable the use of wireless telephones without holding them against the user’s head. While it is not possible to predict whether any additional states in which we conduct business will pass similar legislation, such legislation could increase the cost of our wireless handsets and other operating expenses.

 

If consumers’ health concerns over radio frequency emissions increase, consumers may be discouraged from using wireless handsets, and regulators may impose restrictions or increased requirements on the location and operation of cell sites or the use or design of wireless telephones. Such new restrictions or requirements could expose wireless providers to further litigation, which, even if not successful, may be costly to defend. In addition, compliance with such new requirements, and the associated costs, could adversely affect our business. The actual or perceived risk of radio frequency emissions could also adversely affect us through a reduction in customers or a reduction in the availability of financing in the future.

 

In addition to health concerns, safety concerns have been raised with respect to the use of wireless handsets while driving. Certain states and municipalities in which we provide service or plan to provide service have passed laws prohibiting the use of wireless phones while driving or requiring the use of wireless headsets. If additional state and local governments in areas where we conduct business adopt regulations restricting the use of wireless handsets while driving, we could have reduced demand for our services.

A system failure could cause delays or interruptions of service, which could cause us to lose customers.

 

To be successful, we must provide our customers reliable service. Some of the risks to our network and infrastructure which may prevent us from providing reliable service include:

 

 

Network disruptions may cause interruptions in service or reduced capacity for customers, either of which could cause us to lose customers and incur expenses. Further, our costs to replace or repair the network may be substantial, thus causing our costs to provide service to increase. We may also experience higher churn as our competitors systems may not experience similar problems.

 

Unauthorized use of, or interference with, our network could disrupt service and increase our costs.

 

We may incur costs associated with the unauthorized use of our network including administrative and capital costs associated with detecting, monitoring and reducing the incidence of fraud. Fraudulent use of our network may impact interconnection and long distance costs, capacity costs, administrative costs, fraud prevention costs and payments to other carriers for fraudulent roaming. Such increased costs could have a material adverse impact on our financial results.