Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Commission File Number 000-21091

FIBERTOWER CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

185 Berry Street
Suite 4800
San Francisco, CA 94107
(Address of Principal executive offices)

(415) 659-3500
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

         Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

         Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

         Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o    No ý

         Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15 (d) of the Securities Act. Yes o    No ý

         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý    No o

         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes o    No o

         Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ý

         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of "large accelerated filer", "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934): Yes o    No ý

         As of June 30, 2010, the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates was $165 million based on the closing price of the Company's common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on that day.

         The registrant had 49,955,113 shares of its common stock outstanding as of February 28, 2011.

         Portions of the Proxy Statement for the registrant's 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K to the extent stated herein. The Proxy Statement will be filed with the Commission within 120 days of the registrant's fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Table of Contents

FiberTower Corporation
INDEX

2

Table of Contents

PART I.

ITEM 1.    BUSINESS

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

        This report includes "forward-looking" statements, as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 or by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, in its rules, regulations and releases. Forward looking statements relate to expectations, beliefs, projections, future plans and strategies, anticipated events or trends and similar expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts. These include statements regarding, among other things, our future financial performance and results of operations, our financial and business prospects, the deployment of our services, capital requirements, financing prospects, planned capital expenditures, expected cost per site, anticipated customer growth, expansion plans and anticipated cash balances.

        There are many risks, uncertainties and other factors that can prevent the achievement of goals or cause results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These include, among other things, negative cash flows and operating and net losses, additional liquidity requirements, potential loss of significant customers, downturns in the wireless communication industry, regulatory costs and restrictions, potential loss of FCC licenses, equipment supply disruptions and cost increases, competition from alternative backhaul service providers and technologies, along with those risk factors described in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

FiberTower Overview

        We are a leading alternative provider of facilities-based backhaul services to wireless carriers. Facilities-based providers own or lease a substantial portion of the property and equipment necessary to provide backhaul services. Backhaul is the transport of voice, video and data traffic from a wireless carrier's mobile base station, or cell site, to its mobile switching center, or MSC, or other exchange point where the traffic is then switched onto a wireline telecommunications network. We provide backhaul services nationally by utilizing our wireless spectrum assets and fiber relationships to construct and operate high-coverage, high-capacity hybrid microwave and fiber networks. Our services provide wireless carriers a long-term solution for their increasing demand for backhaul capacity while giving them increased availability and reliability.

        As of December 31, 2010:

•

We provide service to 6,400 billing customer locations at 3,276 deployed sites in 13 markets throughout the U.S.;



•

We have master service agreements with nine U.S. wireless carriers;



•

We have extensive relationships with fiber service providers giving us access to over 1,000 mobile switching centers, or MSCs, and 125,000 fiber-based aggregation points;



•

We own a national spectrum portfolio of 24 GHz and 39 GHz wide-area spectrum licenses, including over 740 MHz in the top 20 U.S. metropolitan areas and, in the aggregate, approximately 1.55 billion channel pops calculated as the number of channels in a given area multiplied by the population, as measured in the 2000 census, covered by these channels. We believe our spectrum portfolio represents one of the largest and most comprehensive collections of millimeter wave spectrum in the U.S. Our licenses extend over substantially all of the continental U.S., covering areas with a total population of over 300 million; and



•

We hold separate service agreements with Verizon Business and Qwest Communications, as their fixed wireless partner on the General Services Administration Networx contract to provide fixed wireless government-grade primary transport and physically diverse network transport services.

3

Table of Contents

The service agreement with Verizon Business also allows us to provide government-grade services for other Verizon Business-managed contracts.

        We offer our customers transport services based on a variety of protocols such as time division multiplexing ("TDM"), SONET and Ethernet. In general, we provide these services between a wireless carrier's cell site and mobile switching center, but also provide wireless-only connections and fiber-based transport.

        Our network is designed to be modular and to enable us to offer our customers a high degree of coverage cost-effectively as compared to other solutions. We deploy networks to existing towers, rooftops, or other sites where wireless carriers have deployed cell sites. At each of these physical locations, or sites, there may be more than one wireless carrier's cell site—each of which we refer to as a customer location. When possible, we provide service to multiple customers at a single site, using a shared infrastructure in order to increase our capital efficiency. We generally generate revenue in proportion to the number of customers on a site, the amount of bandwidth used by each customer at that site, and the price charged for each increment of bandwidth. This revenue, after subtracting the cost of fiber service transport, is available to cover a fixed cost base consisting of items such as rent, insurance, utilities, and field technicians.

        We have invested significant capital to build and expand our network. As a result, we have incurred net losses and negative cash flows since our inception, and we expect that we will continue to incur operating and net losses and negative cash flows for the next few years as we continue to invest to expand our network. If market conditions or our liquidity position warrant, we expect to be able to slow the amount of capital expenditures to a level consistent with the business needs at that time.

        Our long-term economic model is designed to allow replicable, scalable individual market builds so that we can increase or decrease our market deployment schedule based on available cash. As a result, the amount and timing of our long-term capital needs will depend on the extent of our network deployment. As our business is in its early stages, we regularly evaluate our plans and strategy, and these evaluations often result in changes, some of which may be material and significantly modify our cash requirements.

FiberTower Corporation History

Exchange Offer and Redemption of Debt

        On October 26, 2009, we initiated an offer to exchange, which we refer to as the "Exchange Offer," our existing 9.00% Convertible Senior Secured Notes Due 2012 ("Notes due 2012") for 9.00% Mandatorily Redeemable Convertible Senior Secured Notes Due 2012 (the "Interim Notes"). The Interim Notes were mandatorily redeemable by us for a combination of cash, shares of our common stock, and 9.00% Senior Secured Notes Due 2016 ("Notes due 2016"). We refer to the mandatory redemption of the Interim Notes as the "Mandatory Redemption."

        Upon the expiration of the Exchange Offer on December 1, 2009, we had received tenders of $266.8 million principal amount of the Notes due 2012, representing approximately 90.8% of the outstanding Notes due 2012.

        On December 15, 2009, our stockholders approved the issuance of shares of common stock to be issued in the Mandatory Redemption. In order to provide a sufficient number of authorized shares of common stock for the issuance of shares in the Mandatory Redemption, on December 18, 2009, we effected a 1-for-10 reverse stock split of our common stock.

4

Table of Contents

        On December 22, 2009, we completed the Mandatory Redemption, whereby $266.8 million of the Interim Notes were exchanged in consideration for the following:

•

30,578,567 shares of common stock (on a post-reverse stock split basis), representing approximately 67% of our outstanding shares on a fully diluted basis, with a fair value upon issuance of $156.6 million;



•

approximately $12.7 million in cash; and



•

approximately $113.5 million in principal amount of Notes due 2016.

        The purpose of the Exchange Offer and Mandatory Redemption transactions was to reduce our outstanding debt and cash interest requirements and extend the maturity of our outstanding debt. As a result of the Exchange Offer and Mandatory Redemption, the total carrying value of our outstanding debt was reduced by $171.7 million, the maturity of a substantial portion of our debt was extended from 2012 to 2016 and our annual cash interest payments were reduced by more than $20.0 million to approximately $1.8 million in 2010 and $6.0 million in each of 2011 and 2012.

        On June 3, 2010 at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders, our stockholders approved the reduction of the size of our Board of Directors from nine to seven members. Randall A. Hack and Mark E. Holliday, both of whom had resigned from our Board in connection with the consummation of the Exchange Offer and redemption of debt and were reappointed by the Board to serve as directors until the June 3, 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, were re-elected to the Board by our stockholders on June 3, 2010.

        See Note 1, Organization and Business and Note 8, Long-term Debt, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (included in this Form 10-K) for additional information on the Exchange Offer and redemption of debt.

First Avenue/FiberTower merger

        On August 29, 2006, First Avenue Networks, Inc., which we refer to in this Form 10-K as First Avenue, completed its merger with FiberTower Network Services Corp. (formerly known as FiberTower Corporation) which we refer to in this Form 10-K as Old FiberTower. We refer to this merger as the First Avenue/FiberTower merger.

        First Avenue, as the surviving entity of the First Avenue/FiberTower merger, changed its name to FiberTower Corporation and our common stock continues to be listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol "FTWR." Previously the First Avenue stock traded under the symbol "FRNS."

        The First Avenue/FiberTower merger was accounted for as a "reverse acquisition." As a result, all financial information and statements prior to the First Avenue/FiberTower merger included in this Report reflect only the financial results of Old FiberTower on a historical basis after applying the First Avenue/FiberTower merger exchange ratio to historical share-related data. All financial information and financial statements subsequent to the First Avenue/FiberTower merger include the historical results of operations of Old FiberTower and the results of operations of First Avenue from the effective date of the First Avenue/FiberTower merger.

        First Avenue was incorporated in Delaware in 1993. Old FiberTower was incorporated in Delaware in 2000.

Industry Overview

        Backhaul, a critical component of a wireless carrier's network, is the transport component between a cell site and a carrier's mobile switching center or other exchange point. Key factors driving demand for backhaul services include the nationwide rollout of third (3G) and fourth (4G, such as WiMax or

5

Table of Contents

LTE) generation networks, the continued rise in voice, video and data usage, and expansion of wireless carriers' geographic coverage. Additionally, according to a report by Visant Strategies, a market research firm, 3G and 4G technologies will require greater backhaul capacity than is in use today. Visant Strategies expects the wireless carriers to connect each 3G and 4G base station with 20-50 megabits per second of capacity initially.

        The majority of backhaul traffic in the U.S. is currently transported over a wired infrastructure, typically copper-based T-1 circuits that are based on a time-division multiplexing network infrastructure (or "TDM") for transmitting two or more signals over a common path by using successive time intervals for different signals. Copper-based networks are extensively deployed today, but, as backhaul traffic demands continue to increase, carriers are seeking alternatives to copper-based T-1 circuits due to their limited capacity to transport voice and data traffic.

        Wireless carriers have attempted to solve this capacity problem by encouraging service providers to build fiber optic networks to cell sites, and by utilizing Ethernet-based circuits as opposed to TDM-based T-1 circuits. Currently, fiber optic networks, which have a higher capacity for the transport of voice and data traffic as compared to copper networks, service over 20% of existing cell sites based on feedback from wireless carriers customers. We expect this number to increase over time. However, we believe that the cost-prohibitive nature of building fiber optic networks will require multiple transport mediums to be utilized to cover a high percentage of sites with high capacity solutions. Additionally, carriers are increasingly selecting Ethernet-based circuits and are migrating traffic away from TDM-based circuits.

        Hybrid networks provide an alternative to the traditional wired backhaul infrastructure. These networks utilize both fiber and microwave connections to provide backhaul transport services to cell sites. Fiber connections are utilized when available and economic, while fixed wireless is used to extend coverage to the remaining sites. These hybrid networks have the ability to provide both TDM and Ethernet-based circuits to carriers while also meeting their capacity and coverage requirements.

Business Strategy

        We seek to grow long-term shareholder value by positioning ourselves to provide long-term solutions for the increasing demand for backhaul capacity. Key elements of our strategy include:

        Expand Our Networks Based on Identified Demand.    We seek to identify areas of demand in our existing 13 markets and new markets by working closely with our customers to design high-coverage, high-capacity backhaul networks using both microwave and fiber. Our 13 markets and areas adjacent to those markets provide for regional concentrations where we continue to have incremental sites to deploy.

        Leverage Existing Network and Customer Relationships.    We have deployed 3,276 sites in our 13 markets serving 6,400 billing customer locations. We continue to focus sales and operational resources to improve efficiency by providing incremental backhaul capacity to existing customers and by selling carriers at our existing sites that we have not previously sold. These resources utilize our existing customer relationships, assets and expertise to maximize our financial returns and usage.

        Continue to Develop Additional Revenue Sources.    Our goal is to use our expertise in backhaul transport to develop new solutions that meet the needs of our customers and expand the types of customers to whom we provide backhaul. First launched in 2007, in 2010 our Ethernet-based backhaul services were approximately 50% of our total sales bookings compared to approximately 1% in 2009. Almost 80% of our new location sales bookings in 2010 were for Ethernet services. In 2010 we have continued to generate revenue from sales on our fiber-based assets. Additionally, we are working with Verizon and Qwest to develop the U.S. government as a new backhaul customer and with fiber service providers as potential wholesale customers for our transport services.

6

Table of Contents

        Allocate Capital Efficiently.    We are focused on allocating our capital efficiently by balancing new site growth with increasing existing network utilization. We anticipate that we will use between $10 million and $15 million of cash for capital expenditures during 2011. However, our decisions to invest additional capital in structural enhancements or build activities are generally based upon whether such investments exhibit sufficient revenue potential to achieve acceptable risk-adjusted returns. We have the ability to reduce capital spending if market conditions or our liquidity position warrant.

FiberTower Strengths

        We believe the following strengths will assist us in implementing our strategy:

        Extensive Operating Experience Deploying Hybrid Networks.    We have a demonstrated expertise in designing, deploying and operating hybrid microwave/fiber networks to provide high-capacity carrier-class backhaul transport services. With the growing demand for bandwidth, we are continuing to expand and evolve our hybrid network which includes initiatives to develop radios and more effectively utilize our spectrum assets to deliver ultrahigh capacity solutions. We deployed our first network in 2003 and have expanded to serve 3,276 deployed sites across 13 markets throughout the U.S. with over 350 fiber points of presence.

        Ability to Design Solutions to Meet Customer Requirements.    Our networks are designed to be flexible in order to meet the changing requirements of our customers. We launched as a T1 service provider in 2003 and have continued to evolve our network to add new packet-based protocols such as Ethernet.

        Premier Portfolio of Spectrum Assets.    Our 24 GHz spectrum and 39 GHz spectrum licenses represent what we believe to be the largest collection of wide-area millimeter wave spectrum licenses in the U.S. for backhaul and similar applications, providing breadth of geographic coverage, depth in key markets and complementary technical and propagation characteristics. Our spectrum enables us to use a wide range of radio technologies. Our spectrum portfolio includes, on average, over 740 MHz in the top 20 U.S. metropolitan areas and, in the aggregate, approximately 1.55 billion channel pops. These 738 wide-area licenses, which include 635 licenses for 39 GHz spectrum and 103 licenses for 24 GHz spectrum, extend over substantially all of the continental U.S., with a population of over 300 million. We also possess over 3,300 point-to-point microwave licenses.

        Significant Industry Relationships.    We have built our networks by forming deep relationships with key infrastructure providers such as tower companies and fiber service providers. We have master service agreements with tower owners representing approximately 139,000 towers across the U.S. Additionally, we have successfully integrated over 25 different fiber service providers into our network solutions. We plan to continue to develop and grow these relationships as we expand our network.

        Experienced and Proven Senior Management Team.    Our management team includes key personnel who have previously held senior positions at major communications companies including AT&T, Verizon, Neon Communications, T-Mobile, Flarion Technologies, IDT Spectrum, Nextel, Nortel Networks, Teligent and Winstar Communications.

7

Table of Contents

Product and Services

        As of December 31, 2010, we offered backhaul transport services to major wireless carriers in the following 13 markets:

        Backhaul transport bridges the distance between cell sites and the landline fiber optic infrastructure. Our services provide this connection through a hybrid approach that utilizes both wireless radios and wireline fiber-based networks. The main service offerings include:

•

TDM/SONET.  These services include selling individual T-1s to carrier customers and have also included selling larger bulk capacity services such as n × Tl, DS-3 and up to OC-N Level SONET services provided over fiber and wireless.



•

Ethernet.  In 2007, we began offering Ethernet-based services to the cell site. These services are offered over the same network as our other services and range in speeds from 5 Mbps to in excess of 300 Mbps.

        We sell these backhaul services directly to wireless carriers under service contracts that typically have a term of five years, but which may vary in term from 18 months to seven years. Our connections are designed to support all voice, video and data applications and all air interface technologies currently required by our customers.

Sales and Marketing

        Our sales organization primarily focuses on two types of customers: national carriers and regional carriers. National carriers typically have presence in all or most of our deployed markets whereas regional carriers usually have presence in a subset of our markets.

        Our sales approach consists of working with customers in a consultative manner to design networks that fit their needs and meet our economic requirements. Our sales organization is assisted by staff providing sales engineering, research, proposal and customer development support, working closely with the sales teams on customer pricing, invoicing, contract management and sales programs.

        We have entered into master services agreements with AT&T Mobility, Clearwire, Leap, Metro PCS, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, Revol, U.S. Cellular and Verizon Wireless.

        We hold separate service agreements with Verizon Business and Qwest Communications, as their fixed wireless partner on the General Services Administration Networx contract to provide fixed wireless government-grade primary transport and physically diverse network transportation services. The service agreement with Verizon Business also allows us to provide government-grade services for other Verizon Business-managed contracts. We intend to continue to develop government-related relationships and future revenue opportunities.

Our Network

Network Architecture

        The networks we deploy consist of both a wireless and wireline component. The wireless portion utilizes a Point-to-Point radio link over the 11 GHz, 18 GHz, 23 GHz, 24 GHz and 39 GHz microwave radio spectrum. The 11 GHz, 18 GHz and 23 GHz spectrum is licensed to us on a site-by-site basis by the FCC. The 24 GHz and 39 GHz spectrum is our own licensed spectrum.

8

Table of Contents

        Using the licensed radio spectrum, we transport voice, video and data traffic from wireless carrier base stations to aggregation sites, known as Fiber Exchange Points, or FEPs. At these FEPs, the customer traffic is transferred from the wireless network to a fiber-based wireline network. The aggregated traffic streams are converted at the FEP sites for delivery to carrier Mobile Switching Centers, or MSCs, or other drop-off locations over fiber optic networks.

        Multiple FEP sites, strategically positioned throughout our markets, support carrier traffic grooming, aggregation and signal handoff to fixed network fiber optic facilities for transport to carrier MSCs or other drop-off points. These fiber facilities are typically provided in the form of dark fiber transport leases by national or regional fiber service providers, or FSPs. In certain cases, we utilize lit fiber capacity where dark fiber is not available or economically feasible.

        We currently have equipment in place at FEP sites not currently using dark fiber which can be modified to utilize dark fiber for a relatively small incremental cost. This enables us to reap significant cost savings, increase operating leverage and enhance control and reliability over transmissions to carrier MSCs or other drop-off locations.

        We enter into leases at cell sites and FEPs, which provide space to place our equipment on the tower or other structure as well as ground space for an equipment cabinet. We also generally obtain rights from customers to place similar equipment in their MSC or other exchange point and, in certain circumstances, to place equipment in their space at a cell site.

Network Deployment and Management

        We manage the deployment of our networks using both internal resources as well as national and regional telecommunications contractors. In mature markets, our own local team may lead market expansion projects or direct local telecommunications contractors. For new markets where we do not yet have an established presence, we typically engage a major telecommunications deployment partner to manage the network deployment.

        We manage and monitor our networks on a 24 hour per day, seven day per week basis from our Network Operating Centers (NOCs). We operate a primary NOC in San Francisco, California, with a back-up system in Plano, Texas. Through our scalable back office systems and business processes, we enable customers to have visibility across the network and to access an integrated suite of management tools that provides insight into network status and repair activities. Our online reporting applications and processes enable increased service quality as they allow for immediate analysis of network faults and as a result, minimize repair times and outage minutes.

Equipment

        We purchase equipment from major telecommunications equipment manufacturers and typically maintain multiple vendors for critical types of network equipment in order to ensure availability and reliability of supply. We have designed our network to use equipment that is widely available in high volume and deployed in large scale worldwide. Our equipment purchases include those needed to expand our development efforts around higher capacity radio frequency microwave and fiber capabilities.

        Advances in technology and increased competition among manufacturers have led to the development of new network equipment, such as antennas, which are less costly, more compact and capable of supporting higher transmission capacities. This has led to several economic and operational benefits for us including lower rent expense, reduced structural analysis costs and deployment lead times, increased flexibility in equipment placement, and zoning fee reductions.

Our Spectrum

        Our spectrum portfolio includes 635 licenses for channels in the 38.6-40.0 GHz (39 GHz) spectrum and 103 licenses in the 24 GHz spectrum and extends over substantially all of the continental U.S., with a population of over 300 million. We have one of the largest and most comprehensive FCC-granted millimeter wave spectrum license portfolios in the U.S. including, on average, over 740 MHz in the top 20 metropolitan areas. In the aggregate, our licenses represent approximately 1.55 billion channel pops.

9

Table of Contents

        The following table summarizes our license holdings and total channel pops in the 50 largest U.S. markets.

License Holdings and Channel Pops in All Markets

10

Table of Contents

Competition

        We compete with a range of diversified telecommunications services providers. Our competitors include:

        Incumbent and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers.    The mobile wireless backhaul services market is currently dominated by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, or ILECs, including AT&T, Verizon, Embarq, and Qwest which provide backhaul services primarily over copper lines but increasingly over fiber. These carriers own significant network assets and often have affiliated relationships with their mobile wireless carrier customers, such as AT&T's relationship with AT&T Mobility and Verizon's relationship with Verizon Wireless.

        Cable Multiple System Operators.    Cable multiple system operators, or MSOs, including Cox, Time Warner Cable, Bright House and Comcast, among others, are moving to offer broadband access over their networks and offer or are considering offering backhaul services.

        Wireless Carriers.    The wireless carriers have constructed their own wireless and wireline backhaul networks in certain geographic regions and have the ability to build more of these networks.

        Fiber Service Providers.    Fiber services providers, including Level 3 Communications, Time Warner Telecom, Zayo Broadband, DukeNet and FPL FiberNet are moving aggressively to provide direct fiber optic links to cell towers.

        Emerging Competition.    Satellite providers that use spectrum suitable for high-bandwidth transport services could emerge as competitors. Some 4G equipment manufacturers are also promoting using "in-band" equipment (i.e., equipment that uses the mobile carrier's own spectrum) to provide backhaul. In addition to us, a number of companies, some of which have significant spectrum assets, have launched, or are considering launching fixed wireless backhaul networks including Tower Cloud, Telecom Transport Management Inc. and IDT Spectrum (a subsidiary of IDT Corporation).

        Our primary competitors are the ILECs who provide approximately 80% of the backhaul services purchased today. FiberTower competes with the ILECs and others by providing service at a discount to the market price typically charged by the ILEC. In addition, we offer a provisioning schedule which is generally much quicker than our competitors that meets minimum service reliability requirements of our customers and oftentimes improves upon services currently provided by our competition.

        Many competitors are well-established and have larger and better developed networks and systems, longer standing relationships with customers and suppliers, greater name recognition and greater financial, technical and marketing resources than we have. These competitors can often subsidize competing services with revenues from other sources, such as customer services, content or advertising, and thus may offer their services at lower prices. These or other competitors may also reduce the prices of their services significantly or may offer backhaul connectivity with other services, which could make their services more attractive to customers. Given the intense competition, we may be unable to compete effectively with these and other technologies and service providers and, consequently, we may be unable to attract customers and grow and maintain our sales, or we may experience difficulty in developing long-term opportunities.

11

Table of Contents

Employees

        As of December 31, 2010, we had 160 employees, of whom 112 were in Engineering, Market/Field Operations, and Network Operations, the payroll-related costs of which are classified as Cost of Service Revenues; 14 were in Sales and Marketing; and 34 were in General and Administrative. On March 3, 2011, we implemented a reduction in force throughout FiberTower resulting in a reduction of approximately 10% of our employee headcount. See Note 17, Subsequent Events, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

        None of our employees are represented by a collective bargaining agreement. We believe our relations with our employees are satisfactory and that our continued success will depend, in part, on our ability to attract and retain highly qualified and motivated employees and on maintaining positive working relations with current employees

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

Government Regulation

        Our wireless broadband services are subject to regulation by the FCC and to a lesser extent, the Commerce Department, General Services Administration and the State Department. We may also be subject to telecommunications regulation by state and local governmental agencies. At the federal level, the FCC has jurisdiction over the use of the electromagnetic spectrum (i.e., wireless transmissions) and has exclusive jurisdiction over all interstate telecommunications services (those that originate in one state and terminate in another state). State regulatory commissions have jurisdiction over intrastate communications (those that originate and terminate in the same state). Municipalities may regulate limited aspects of our business by, for example, imposing zoning requirements and requiring installation permits. The regulations are continually evolving. On a broader level, this includes changes resulting from presidential or congressional election cycles. On a more specific level, these changes occur through rulemaking and other administrative and judicial proceedings. It is possible that regulatory, legislative or judicial changes could have an adverse effect on our business.

        2008 and 2010 Federal Elections.    The November 2008 presidential elections brought, and will continue to bring, regulatory and legislative change. This includes new or refreshed broadband stimulus programs, a new emphasis on the FCC developing a national broadband policy delivered to Congress in March 2010 and different FCC oversight priorities, along with a new FCC Chairman and two new FCC Commissioners who were all seated in 2009. The congressional elections in November 2010 brought additional changes to the emphasis placed on new and existing policies and programs.

Federal Regulation and Programs

        FCC Licensing.    As an FCC licensee and FCC regulated entity, we are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight, including regulations constraining foreign ownership of us, rules governing our licenses and radio equipment, and rules related to construction and operation of our services. In addition, we are subject to certain regulatory and other fees levied by the FCC for certain classes of licenses and services. Under certain circumstances, including certain violations of FCC rules, our licenses may be revoked, canceled, conditioned, not renewed upon expiration or we may be fined. Among other things, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the FCC rules and regulations impose requirements on radio licensees and carriers that include regulations on the ownership, operation, acquisition and sale of the broadband operating radio systems that are needed to provide the services we offer.

        Wide-area licensing.    We hold wide-area licenses in the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz (24 GHz) and 38.6-40.0 GHz (39 GHz) bands. The FCC operational rules generally provide significant flexibility to licensees operating in both the 24 GHz and 39 GHz bands. For example, licensees are

12

Table of Contents

permitted to offer point-to-multipoint and point-to-point services, and, at least in the 39 GHz band, will be permitted to provide mobile device services upon adoption of inter-licensee coordination policies.

        Point-to-point licensing.    In addition to our 24 GHz and 39 GHz wide-area licenses, we also provide transmission links utilizing point-to-point licensed spectrum licensed by the FCC in other bands, including 6 GHz, 10 GHz, 11 GHz, 18 GHz and 23 GHz bands. We hold over 3,000 point-to-point licenses. A point-to-point licensee may only operate from the exact geographic coordinates identified on the license. Any changes that require operation at another coordinate require either a license modification or a new license. The FCC generally processes such applications for point-to-point microwave licenses on a routine basis.

        License Renewal.    Our spectrum licenses in the 24 GHz and 39 GHz bands are granted for ten-year terms with renewal dates ranging from 2010 to 2021. In October 2008, renewal applications for our 39 GHz licenses that were scheduled to expire in 2007 received either (1) ten-year renewals for licenses deemed constructed or (2) ten-year renewals contingent upon meeting construction requirements which the FCC extended until June 1, 2012. Recent applications to renew licenses that met the FCC "safe harbor" build standard or to extend construction deadlines for 39 GHz licenses expiring in 2009, 2010 and 2011 have been granted by the FCC. In order for our 24 GHz and 39 GHz licenses to qualify for renewal, we filed renewal applications for each license prior to expiration and demonstrated that we have provided "substantial service" by the end of the term of each license (which was February 1, 2011 for 102 of the 103 24 GHz licenses) or reserved the right to make such a showing by an FCC approved substantial service showing date (which is June 1, 2012 for a substantial majority of the 39 GHz licenses and all but one of the 24 GHz licenses). The FCC's substantial service renewal standard for both the 24 GHz and 39 GHz licenses is intended to provide licensees with flexibility in demonstrating usage of their licenses. The FCC's "safe harbor" test provides licensees with a degree of certainty as to how to comply with the substantial service requirement. For example, for 39 GHz licensees offering point-to-point service, the FCC has said that the construction of four links per channel per million persons in the license area will meet the substantial service test. For 24 GHz point-to-point/multipoint licensees, the FCC has said that a showing of four links per million persons within a service area or service to an area that has very limited access to either wireless or wireline telecommunications services will meet the substantial service test. FCC precedent also exists in the millimeter wave bands for meeting buildout requirements by constructing a point-to-multipoint system whose signal reaches 20% or more of the population in the license area. While the safe harbors are intended to provide guidance, they are not the only way for licensees to demonstrate substantial service. Licensees may show that they have met the substantial service test in other ways, such as providing niche services or offering services to underserved consumers, however, there is little precedent in this area at this time. Accordingly, we believe that the level of service that will be considered "substantial" by the FCC at renewal may vary depending upon the type of product offering by the licensee. Further, the FCC may modify its interpretation of substantial service and, in the future, we may encounter more stringent substantial service requirements. License renewal is not guaranteed and the FCC holds significant discretion in making renewal decisions. The loss of some number of our licenses could limit the expansion of our business, cause us to take impairment charges to our FCC licenses intangible asset and harm our operating results.

        We do not currently meet the substantial service safe harbor guidance provided by the FCC for the substantial majority of our 24 GHz and 39 GHz licenses, which require license construction or "substantial service" showings mostly by June 1, 2012. We believe that our licenses will be renewed based on (1) our significant network investment, (2) spectrum offerings, (3) market leadership, (4) expanding geographic coverage and (5) the ability to convey to the FCC information about best practices for refreshing the license renewal standards through the Uniform License Renewal proceeding that the FCC opened on May 25, 2010. This proceeding was opened when the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95,

13

Table of Contents

and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services; Imposition of a Freeze on the Filing of Competing Renewal Applications for Certain Wireless Radio Services and the Processing of Already-Filed Competing Renewal Applications (WT Docket 10-1112). This proceeding, which also addresses the spectrum bands that our mobile customers use to operate their networks, could prove to be a catalyst or an obstacle to wireless network operators, depending upon whether the license renewal standards ultimately adopted are market-oriented. Non-market oriented policies, whether implemented through the Uniform License Renewal proceeding or through the FCC's discretionary powers in interpreting various existing renewal regulations, could result in the FCC not renewing wide-area spectrum licenses belonging to us, our customers, or both.

        The point-to-point licenses that we possess also have a ten-year term and, as long as the point-to-point link remains operational, may be renewed by paying a minimal license renewal fee.

        Spectrum Leasing.    The FCC has also adopted regulations permitting certain classes of licensees, such as 24 GHz and 39 GHz licensees, to lease a portion, or all, of their spectrum to third parties. We refer to those regulations as the Secondary Market Ruling. The FCC's spectrum leasing rules are generally designed to promote a secondary market for spectrum and provide a number of options for leasing depending upon the degree of control that the lessee desires to be afforded. Since the ruling, we believe that the transaction costs associated with meeting FCC documentation requirements for any kind of spectrum leasing have decreased from over $20,000 per lease to a negligible amount. While generally beneficial to licensees, the FCC's leasing rules may introduce additional competition to the types of services and products that we offer. Moreover, the FCC spectrum leasing rules could be modified in a manner that is not favorable to our business.

        Band Sharing.    Licenses in the 39 GHz band are subject to an arrangement between the FCC and the Department of Industry of Canada regarding sharing between broadband wireless systems along the U.S.-Canada border. Additionally, this band is subject to satellite power flux density limits which might limit our ability to provide service in certain conditions if certain satellite systems receive the right to operate.

        Auctions.    Since 1994, the FCC has conducted auctions of licenses for spectrum. In July 2004, the FCC auctioned 80 MHz licenses for 24 GHz spectrum in 176 Basic Economic Areas (BEA, or BEAs) covering the entire United States. Licenses in seven BEAs were purchased covering 12.8 million pops, including one by us. As discussed below, the purchasers typically acquired spectrum in areas outside our 24 GHz spectrum holdings.

        Our 24 GHz licenses are for geographic areas known as SMSAs (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) and were originally awarded to Teligent, a company from whom we acquired the licenses in 2005, as replacement spectrum due to rebanding in the 18 GHz band. Importantly, new licensees in the 24 GHz band, who may be authorized for service areas larger than the SMSAs, must protect operations conducted under our authorizations in order to not interfere with our business.

        The availability of more spectrum in the 24 GHz or 39 GHz band could increase the number of entities with which we compete. In the future, the FCC could decide to hold another 24 GHz auction. The FCC still controls a substantial amount of 39 GHz spectrum. The FCC could auction this spectrum in the future, increasing the number of entities that hold this spectrum. Additionally, in a pending proceeding, the FCC is considering the allocation and licensing by auction of additional spectrum in the 37-38.6 GHz range. In the future, the FCC could make available additional spectrum between 10 and 40 GHz. For example, in May 2008, the Utilities Telecommunications Council (UTC), along with Winchestor Cator, L.L.C., petitioned the FCC for secondary access nationwide to the 14.0-14.5 GHz band to, among other applications, provide fixed broadband wireless access to utilities for critical infrastructure communications and management. When not utilized by utilities, Winchestor Cator

14

Table of Contents

proposes to manage and achieve access to the spectrum. The satellite industry and others filed in opposition to this proposal. FiberTower filed comments asking the FCC to determine a modern definition for those who provide broadband for critical infrastructure applications, arguing that the definition pre-dates September 11, 2001, and is therefore stale. Throughout 2009, UTC made additional filings on this matter with the FCC and other federal agencies. It is not clear at this point if, when or how the FCC may rule in this still pending 14 GHz proceeding.

        SafeView's SafeScout Interference Issues.    In September 2006, we filed with the FCC a Petition for Reconsideration of the FCC's August 2006 Order granting a waiver to SafeView, Inc. to permit the certification, marketing, and operation of SafeView's SafeScout unlicensed imaging device under Part 15 of the FCC's Rules. The SafeScout is a device that uses imaging technology to detect contraband or weapons carried by individuals, and would be particularly useful in airports. The FCC noted that, by operating as a Part 15 unlicensed device, the SafeScout must accept harmful interference and not cause interference to primary licensees like FiberTower. In addition, the FCC imposed certain conditions on SafeView's operation of the SafeScout, including limiting installations to indoor areas and maintaining a database of installed devices. L-3 Communications later purchased SafeView renaming it L-3 Communications SafeView, Inc. On January 14, 2010, the FCC issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part the FiberTower Petition. In particular, unlicensed devices like the SafeView product must continue to abide by the Part 15 rules for unlicensed devices and shut down immediately if they cause interference to licensed users like FiberTower. In addition, L-3 Communications SafeView must continue to maintain and update a list of all installed devices that follows changes in device location and/or transfer of ownership to third parties subsequent to an initial sale. Use of the SafeView device increased substantially in 2010.

        Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service.    In June 2006, the FCC released a further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking specifically seeking to promote prompt commencement of the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service, or BSS, which is intended to introduce a new generation of broadband services to residential and business subscribers in the United States. The proposed BSS use includes ground-to-satellite uplinks in spectrum that overlaps with part of the 24 GHz spectrum for which we are licensed. In the proceeding, the FCC seeks comment on (1) whether the existing power limits for satellite earth stations in bands shared co-equally with terrestrial radio communications services are appropriate, and (2) whether the antenna pattern requirements applicable to BSS feeder-link stations should be modified to relieve the coordination burden on either BSS or 24 GHz or both services. We filed comments in October 2006 and reply comments in November 2006 concerning the technical requirements for inter-service operations and sharing in the 24 GHz band designed to assure that interference concerns are minimized or eliminated. In May 2007, the FCC released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O). In the R&O, the FCC stated that it does not intend to license 24 GHz BSS feeder links to operate in existing 24 GHz FS licensed areas. The FCC also designated an interference standard for BSS feeder link stations that may operate near the borders of 24 GHz license areas. We continue to examine that border interference standard in the context of the architecture of any future BSS feeder link stations that may become licensed and operational. At this time, no such feeder stations are known to be operating, or licensed for specific operation in the 24 GHz band or near our license areas. Prior to and during 2008, satellite companies filed applications to operate 17/24 GHz BSS systems. We are tracking these applications and expect to assess which ones may result in licensed and built systems. We also filed comments in 2009 in the FCC National Broadband Policy proceeding highlighting that any such potential operations in or near the FiberTower license areas should be coordinated by and conducted only through, where technically and economically feasible to FiberTower, a business relationship with FiberTower in order for FiberTower to manage its existing and growing operations in the 24 GHz band.

        Outage Reporting.    FCC regulations govern the circumstances whereby certain sized outages that occur on our network, our customer networks and our competitors' networks, must be reported. Failure

15

Table of Contents

to file reports in a complete fashion can result in enforcement actions by the FCC, including fines or result in voluntary payments.

        Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs) and Special Access Transport.    As of March 2006, incumbent local exchange carriers, or ILECs, are no longer required to lease certain parts of their network at favorable costs to their competitors. Instead, Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, or CLECs, and others that had been using these unbundled network elements from the ILECs must obtain them from other sources or negotiate new supply arrangements with ILECs. This ruling affected mass market local switching and, in many circumstances, DS-1 (1.5 megabits per second) and DS-3 (45 megabits per second) local access and transport. Nonetheless, in the FCC's approval of the AT&T/BellSouth merger, the FCC conditioned their approval upon the merged company continuing to provide certain unbundled network elements at current rates for a period of time to our competitors. It also required certain ILECs to offer similar prices in their territories to competitors in order to obtain those rates from AT&T. We expect that there may be some instances when competitive carriers will seek alternative (non-ILEC) services, and we hope to serve those carriers with broadband, fixed wireless transport solutions. At this time, the FCC continues to investigate whether UNEs and special access transport are being priced reasonably to carriers who do not possess facilities in the markets in which they need such UNEs or transport.

        Private Carriage and Common Carriage.    Although there has been a narrowing of the differences in regulatory requirements applicable to common carriers and private transmission companies in recent years, the FCC regulations applicable to common carriers remains more extensive. Generally, the Communications Act regards firms that offer transmission services directly to the public for a fee as common carriers. We currently offer our fixed wireless services to particular customers with specific needs on an individual contract basis and we traditionally do not hold ourselves out to the public for the provision of our services. As such, we operated as a private carrier not subject to the FCC's common carrier regulations. Nonetheless, as we grow, especially in the fiber optic market, there are benefits to operating as a common carrier, including enhanced access to ducts, conduits, rights-of-way and poles. Accordingly, we began the process for filing for common carrier status in selected markets in 2010, and expect those filings to occur throughout 2011. Operating as a common carrier will likely increase certain compliance requirements and costs of providing service which could have an adverse impact on our business operations, revenues, and profitability, though we believe that the cost and efficiency savings from more cleanly accessing fiber will outweigh the compliance costs.

        Building Access and RF Exposure Proceedings.    In October 2007, notice was published in the Federal Register that the FCC is collecting additional information for its record in multiple building access and radio-frequency exposure proceedings, most originally adopted in October 2000. Those proceedings, designed to foster competition in local communications markets by implementing measures to ensure that competing telecommunications providers, including fixed wireless providers, are able to provide services to customers in multiple tenant environments (MTEs). Specifically, the rules: (1) prohibited carriers from entering into contracts that restrict or effectively restrict a property owner's ability to permit entry by competing carriers; (2) established procedures to facilitate moving the demarcation point to the minimum point of entry (MPOE) at the building owner's request, and requires incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to timely disclose the location of existing demarcation points where they are not located at the MPOE; (3) determined that utilities, including ILECs, must afford telecommunications carriers and cable service providers reasonable and non-discriminatory access to their conduits and rights-of-way located in customer buildings and campuses; and (4) extended to fixed wireless antennas the existing prohibition of restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of certain video antennas on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user, where the user has a direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in the property. The potential impact on FiberTower of these rulemakings is uncertain.

16

Table of Contents

        The FCC also stated that this information collection will also help ensure that customer-end antennas used for telecommunications service comply with the FCC's limits on radio frequency exposure and it will provide the Commission with information on the state of the market. At this time, the FCC has yet to make a ruling or suggest changes to existing rules related to these matters.

        Pole Attachments.    In February 2008, an FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register. The FCC sought comment on whether to amend its rules governing pole attachments, which are designed to ensure the attachment of facilities of telecommunications carriers and cable television systems to utility poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way (collectively, "pole attachments") at just and reasonable rates, terms and conditions. The FCC noted that the current pole attachment rules may be inadequate in scope or no longer in accord with developing technology and business models. The FCC has found no clear indication that the rules could not accommodate wireless attachers' use of poles. The FCC sought comment on whether, when they are "telecommunications carriers," wireless providers are entitled to the telecommunications rate as a matter of law, or whether the Commission should adopt a rate specifically for wireless pole attachments. The Commission asked whether, if a wireless facility uses more than the presumptive one foot of space, the per-foot rate could simply be doubled, tripled, or otherwise multiplied as required. Comments were filed in March 2008 and Reply Comments were filed in April 2008. FCC activity in this area in 2009 was limited to advocacy from various parties. We expect the FCC to renew work in this proceeding in 2011 as it continues to work on the National Broadband Policy. The potential impact on FiberTower of this proposed rulemaking is uncertain.

        National Broadband Plan.    The FCC issued a National Broadband Plan to Congress on March 17, 2010. The FCC identified (1) Middle Mile backhaul, (2) shared-use access to federal sites, (3) zoning reform, (4) access to low-band long-haul spectrum (such as the TV White Spaces), (5) government contracting reforms to encourage local and state governments to use federal contracts and (6) a national first responder network as key elements in the National Broadband Plan effort. FiberTower participated in several rulemakings directly or through its trade associations. The National Broadband Plan resulted in subsequent Congressional hearings and multiple FCC rulemakings on numerous aspects of broadband policy that will likely extend well into 2011 and beyond. This includes a Broadband Acceleration Initiative launch on February 9, 2011 by the FCC Chairman, and multiple bills in Congress designed to fund mobile broadband deployments nationwide, including a +44,000 site national first responder network based on the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) standard. Substantial changes in the policy concerning government efforts to stimulate broadband growth may result in significant alterations to, among other items, spectrum policy, rules enforcement, government involvement in broadband deployment and financing, and mobile network siting, zoning and deployment issues.

        Advice to NTIA.    The FCC may receive funds from, or provide advice to, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, for the national first responder network and additional national broadband mapping, national broadband policy development, and other matters.

        Intellectual Property.    In November 2005, we applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for a service mark for a shared infrastructure backhaul service that allows for collocating backhaul for first responder networks, municipal (school, hospital, local government, etc.) networks, commercial mobile networks and other systems. In October 2008, the PTO granted us a registration for MuniFrame®. We use this mark routinely, including in a February 9, 2011 presentation to the FCC.

        In December 2008, the PTO granted trademark registration for FiberTower® for use in describing broadband communications services.

17

Table of Contents

State Regulation

        Our services are non-switched wireless transmission links that we offer on a private, rather than on a common carrier basis. However, as FiberTower decides to become a common carrier to avail itself of benefits related to that status, or one or more states determine that FiberTower is providing intrastate, common carrier service, we would be subject to state regulation in those states. Regulations vary in each state, but if we are deemed to be providing intrastate service, we may be required to apply for and maintain Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity in some or all of the states in which we have operations and may also then be required to make similar common carrier filings with the FCC. We also may be required to fulfill other state requirements, such as file tariffs, reports and contribute to state universal service funds, among other things.

Available Information

        Our Internet address is www.fibertower.com. On the Investor Relations portion of this web site, we make available free of charge our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and any amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with or furnished to the SEC.

ITEM 1A.    RISK FACTORS

        While the following are the risks and uncertainties we believe are most important for you to consider, they are not the only risks or uncertainties facing us or that may adversely affect our business. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business. If any of these risks and uncertainties actually occurs, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be harmed substantially.

Risks Related to our Business Operations

We expect to incur operating and net losses and negative cash flows for the next few years.

        We have incurred net losses and negative cash flows since our inception, and we expect that we will continue to incur operating and net losses and negative cash flows for the next few years as we continue to invest to expand our network. As a result, we may not achieve or sustain profitability in the future. Our ability to achieve profitability will depend, in part, on our ability to:

•

acquire and retain customers;



•

react to changes, including but not limited to technological changes, in the markets we target;



•

deploy our services in a timely manner and expand into additional markets;



•

expand our network capacity to support rapidly growing bandwidth;



•

respond to competitive pressures;



•

manage costs;



•

attract and retain experienced and talented personnel; and



•

establish strategic and maintain existing business relationships.

        Our historical revenue may not be indicative of future revenue. If the prices for our communications services decrease, and if we are unable to offer additional services from which we can derive additional revenue or otherwise reduce our operating expenses, our operating results will decline and our business and financial results will suffer.

18

Table of Contents

We believe we will require significant funds in the near future, which may not be available to us, to operate and expand our business.

        As of December 31, 2010, we had unrestricted cash and cash equivalents of $21.3 million. However, our business is capital intensive, and we believe we will require additional amounts to fund capital expenditures and pay operating expenses in the near future. We will also require additional capital to finance our current growth plans, take advantage of business opportunities or pursue potential acquisitions. To raise additional capital, we may be required to issue additional equity securities in public or private offerings or to seek significant additional debt financing. We may be unable to secure such additional financing when needed, on acceptable terms or at all, which could harm our business. In addition, any financing we do obtain could be subject to onerous terms. Any additional debt financing could cause us to incur significant interest expense and increase our future financial commitments, and any additional equity financing could be dilutive to our stockholders. If we are unable to secure capital when needed, we may be required to change our business plans and curtail our operations, and our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations would likely be adversely affected.

We may be unable to successfully execute any of our currently identified business opportunities or future business opportunities that we determine to pursue.

        In order to pursue business opportunities, we will need to continue to build our infrastructure and operational capabilities. Our ability to do any of these successfully could be affected by one or more of the following factors:

•

market acceptance of our services;



•

our ability to execute our business strategy, which could be affected by our limited experience in providing high-speed transmission services;



•

our ability to effectively manage our third party relationships;



•

our ability to negotiate acceptable agreements to secure suitable locations for our radios and antennas;



•

our ability to manage the expansion of our operations, which could result in increased costs, high employee turnover or damage to customer relationships;



•

our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel, which may be affected by the significant competition in our industry for persons experienced in network operations and engineering;



•

equipment failure or interruption of service, which could adversely affect our reputation and our relations with our customers;



•

our ability to respond to regulatory or policy changes in our industry;



•

our ability to accurately predict and respond to the rapid technological changes in our industry and the evolving demands of the markets we serve; and



•

our ability to raise substantial additional capital to fund our growth.

        Our failure to adequately address one or more of the above factors would have a significant impact on our ability to implement our business plan with respect to mobile backhaul and fiber network extensions and our ability to pursue other opportunities that arise, which might negatively affect our business.

19

Table of Contents

We may experience difficulties in constructing, upgrading and maintaining our network, which could adversely affect customer satisfaction, increase carrier turnover and reduce revenues.

        We may experience quality deficiencies, cost overruns and delays on construction, maintenance and upgrade projects, including the portions of those projects not within our control, and be unable to build and source fiber in a timely manner and within our budget. The construction of networks for backhaul services also requires the receipt of permits and approvals from numerous governmental bodies, including municipalities and zoning boards. Such bodies often limit the expansion of transmission towers and other necessary construction. Failure to receive approvals in a timely fashion can delay system rollouts and raise the cost of completing construction projects. In addition, we typically must obtain rights from land, building and tower owners to install our antennas and other equipment to provide our services. We may not be able to obtain, on terms acceptable to us, or at all, the rights necessary to construct our network and expand our services.

        We also face challenges in managing and operating our network. These challenges include operating, maintaining and upgrading network and customer premises equipment to accommodate increased traffic or technological advances, and managing the sales, advertising, customer support, billing and collection functions of the business while providing reliable network service at expected speeds and levels of quality. The failure in any of these areas could adversely affect customer satisfaction, increase subscriber turnover, increase costs, decrease our revenues and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We are a relatively new entrant into a highly concentrated market with few potential customers.

        There are only a limited number of national mobile wireless carriers in any given regional market and typically fewer than four to seven mobile wireless carriers in any given market who are potential customers for mobile wireless carrier backhaul services. Our business strategy will depend on maintaining and growing customer relationships with a small number of national mobile wireless carriers and additional wireless carriers in each market. The competitors in this market, including large telephone companies, enjoy long-standing and established relationships with all of the mobile wireless carriers. If we are unable to secure and maintain a minimum number of ongoing and growing relationships with carrier customers in each market, our results of operations will be adversely affected.

Our top four customers accounted for 87%, and one of these customers accounted for 44%, of our revenues in 2010.

        AT&T Mobility accounted for 44% of our revenues in 2010, 39% of our revenues in 2009 and 40% of our revenues in 2008. In addition, 19% of our 2010 revenues were from Sprint Nextel, 12% of our 2010 revenues were from Clearwire Corporation and 12% of our 2010 revenues were from T-Mobile. If we were to lose any of AT&T Mobility, Sprint Nextel, Clearwire or T-Mobile as a customer, or if any of them reduced their usage of our services, our business, financial condition and operating results would be harmed. In addition, if any of these customers were to encounter financial difficulties or become financially unable to pay our fees, our business could be adversely affected. In February 2011, we received an early termination notice from Clearwire to terminate service at approximately 220 billing locations effective February 28, 2011 and that they are reviewing approximately 50 additional locations for possible early termination by March 31, 2011. These billing locations represent up to approximately $344 thousand in monthly service revenue. The monthly billing revenue terminated and being reviewed for termination represent a portion of our total service contracted by Clearwire. We also consider at potential risk of termination the approximately $426 thousand remaining monthly billing revenue from Clearwire. See Note 17, Subsequent Events, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

20

Table of Contents

The success of our business strategy relies on the continued growth of the mobile wireless services industry and high-bandwidth broadband mobile applications in the U.S.

        The demand for backhaul services, including those we offer, depends on the continued growth of the mobile wireless services industry. The provision of mobile wireless services represents an evolving sector of the telecommunications industry, and is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including:

•

the continued development and market acceptance of mobile devices enabled for mobile applications;



•

the continued development and use of high-bandwidth mobile applications;



•

historical perceptions regarding the burdens and unreliability of previous mobile wireless technologies;



•

high rates of consumer adoption of mobile applications;



•

increased levels of usage by subscribers;



•

increased or burdensome government presence through policy and regulatory changes; and



•

increases in the number of overall subscribers.

        If the mobile wireless carrier industry demand for backhaul services does not continue to grow through new subscriber additions and the adoption of high-bandwidth 3G and 4G (such as WiMax or LTE) applications, or for any other reason, our operations and financial performance will be adversely affected.

Our revenues depend on the sale of backhaul circuits for mobile wireless carriers.

        We derive a substantial majority of our revenues from the sale of backhaul and related services to mobile wireless carriers. We expect that we will continue to derive a substantial majority of our revenues from these services in the future. Any competitor's substitute service with similar performance and coverage characteristics and a lower cost structure could create downward price pressure and adversely affect our sales efforts. In addition, competing technologies could be developed that make our services obsolete. Accordingly, any changes in demand for our services, whether due to pricing pressure, technological changes, or otherwise, could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We operate in a highly competitive environment and may not be able to compete successfully, which could materially and adversely affect our ability to attract customers and maintain and increase our sales.

        Our competitors include or could include:

•

incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers who offer T-1, DS-3 and higher bandwidth services or Ethernet-based backhaul services;



•

cable multiple system operators offering either T-1, DS-3 and higher bandwidth circuits or Ethernet-based backhaul services;



•

mobile wireless carriers building proprietary backhaul networks;



•

fiber services providers with metro area network and distribution facilities;



•

satellite providers providing high capacity backhaul services;



•

other fixed-wireless service providers using unlicensed or licensed spectrum, suitable for high-bandwidth transport services; and

21

Table of Contents

•

electric utilities and other providers offering or planning to offer broadband access over power lines.

        Moreover, we expect other existing and prospective competitors to adopt technologies or business plans similar to ours, or to seek other means to develop a product competitive with our services. Many competitors are well-established and have larger and better developed networks and systems, longer-standing relationships with customers and suppliers, greater name recognition and greater financial, technical and marketing resources than we have. These competitors can often subsidize competing services with revenues from other sources, such as consumer services, content or advertising, and thus may offer their services at lower prices. These or other competitors may also reduce the prices of their services significantly or may offer backhaul connectivity with other services, which could make their services more attractive to customers. Given the intense competition, we may be unable to compete effectively with these and other technologies and service providers and, consequently, we may be unable to attract customers and grow and maintain our sales, or we may experience difficulty in developing long-term opportunities.

An economic or wireless telecommunications industry slowdown may materially and adversely affect our business.

        Slowdowns in the U.S. economy or in the telecommunications industry may impact consumer demand for wireless services, thereby reducing demand for our backhaul services. In addition, these slowdowns could negatively impact the debt and equity markets, thereby reducing demand for our services by causing wireless carriers to delay or abandon implementation of new systems and technologies, including 3G, 4G and other wireless broadband services. Further, the threat of terrorist attacks and the political and economic uncertainties resulting from these threats, uncertainties and other unforeseen events may impose additional risks upon and adversely affect the wireless telecommunications industry and our business.

Competitors or customers may acquire radio spectrum for the purpose of offering similar fixed wireless services, which could impact our growth and negatively affect our operating results.

        The FCC and the U.S. Commerce Department each control a substantial amount of radio spectrum that may be procured through auction, application, or other licensing mechanisms and used for provision of fixed wireless services. Fixed wireless radio spectrum could be acquired by companies through sale or lease for the purpose of competing with us. Additionally, companies that we might serve with our wireless operations may elect to acquire spectrum or use spectrum they already control and develop their own fixed wireless networks. Moreover, certain unlicensed technologies may be used to provide services that could be used to compete with our services. Any of these events could adversely affect our business.

We depend on third parties to help deploy and maintain our infrastructure and equipment to deliver our services.

        We rely on third-party contractors to deploy and, in certain markets, to maintain the infrastructure and equipment needed to provide our services. None of these third parties are contractually obligated to continue providing these services to us for any specific period of time. There are inherent risks in relying on third parties to provide these services, including:

•

the third parties could cease providing these services, which would require us to obtain the services from other third-party contractors or develop the capability to perform these services internally;

22

Table of Contents

•

reduced control over delivery schedules and quality of work; or



•

defects in third-party work may not be discovered until after services have been provided, which could lead to outages, decreased performance levels and customer dissatisfaction.

        If these third-party contractors are unable to provide quality services to us at reasonable prices, or if these third-party providers cease providing these services, our business could be harmed.

        In addition, we depend on certain single source suppliers that supply components used in our network to deliver our services. If we need alternative sources for key component parts for any reason, these component parts may not be immediately available to us. If alternative suppliers are not immediately available, we will have to identify and qualify alternative suppliers, and production or delivery of these components may be delayed. We may not be able to find an adequate alternative supplier in a reasonable time period, or on commercially acceptable terms, if at all.

Interruption or failure of information technology and communications systems could impair our ability to provide services, which could damage our reputation and harm our operating results.

        We have experienced service interruptions in some markets in the past and may experience service interruptions or system failures in the future. If we experience frequent or persistent system or network failures, our reputation and brand could be permanently harmed. We may make significant capital expenditures to increase the reliability of our systems, but these capital expenditures may not achieve the expected results. In some of our markets, some of our network facilities do not have redundant components. Accordingly, if one of these components were to fail for any reason, our network may not be able to achieve satisfactory performance levels and may even suffer outages. Any service disruptions may have an immediate and significant impact on our ability to attract, retain, and grow customer revenues, which would harm our business and operating results.

        We also depend on the continuing operation of our information technology and communications systems. Any damage to or failure of these systems could result in interruptions in service. Interruptions in service could reduce revenues and harm operating results, and our brand could be damaged if people believe the network is unreliable. These systems are also vulnerable to damage or interruption from earthquakes, terrorist attacks, riots, acts of war, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, power loss, telecommunications failures, computer viruses, computer denial of service attacks or other attempts to harm our systems, and similar events. Some systems are not fully redundant, and disaster recovery planning may not be adequate. The occurrence of a natural disaster or unanticipated problems at any network center could result in lengthy interruptions in service and adversely affect operating results.

If our data security measures are breached, our reputation and business may be harmed.

        We rely on the security of our networks to deliver our services to customers. Because techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to or to sabotage networks change frequently and may not be recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate or implement adequate preventive measures against unauthorized access or sabotage. Consequently, unauthorized parties may overcome these security systems and obtain access to data on the network. We may incur costs associated with the unauthorized use of our networks including administrative and capital costs associated with detecting, monitoring and reducing the incidence of fraud. In addition, because we operate and control the network and the customers' network connectivity, unauthorized access or sabotage of our network could result in damage to our network and to the computers or other devices used by customers or carriers. An actual or perceived breach of network security, regardless of whether the breach is our fault, could harm public perception of the effectiveness of our security measures, adversely affect our ability to attract and retain customers, expose us to significant liability and adversely affect our business prospects.

23

Table of Contents

The industry in which we operate is continually evolving. Our services may become obsolete, and we may not be able to develop competitive products or services on a timely basis or at all.

        The mobile wireless services industry is characterized by rapid technological change, competitive pricing, frequent new service introductions and evolving industry standards and regulatory requirements. The backhaul infrastructure that supports this dynamic industry must be similarly flexible and able to adapt to these changes. Our success depends on our ability to anticipate and adapt to these challenges and to offer competitive services on a timely basis. We face a number of difficulties and uncertainties associated with this reliance on technological development, such as:

•

competition from service providers using other means to deliver similar or alternative services;



•

competition from new service providers using more efficient, less expensive technologies, including products or services not yet invented or developed;



•

customers self-provisioning their own backhaul services;



•

gaining and sustaining market acceptance of the technology underlying our services;



•

realizing economies of scale;



•

responding successfully to advances in competing technologies in a timely and cost-effective manner;



•

migration toward standards-based technology, requiring substantial capital expenditures; and



•

existing, proposed or undeveloped technologies that may render fixed wireless backhaul and other services less profitable or obsolete.

        For example, a significant majority of our current customer contracts provide T-1 backhaul service. These contracts generally have a five-year term, and a significant number of these contracts expire each year. As a result of increased data usage by cell phone users, we expect our customers will generally not renew this T-1 backhaul service, but will instead seek backhaul service, such as Ethernet backhaul service that we provide, that has greater data capacity. If we are unable to obtain replacement contracts, whether for Ethernet service or otherwise, upon expiration of our T-1 contracts, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected.

        As the services offered by us and our competitors develop, wireless carriers may not accept our services as a commercially viable alternative to other means of delivering wireless backhaul and other services. Accordingly, our inability to keep pace with technological development could materially and adversely affect our business.

We depend on the continued availability of leases or licenses for our communications facilities.

        We lease communications facilities from the owners of towers, rooftops, water towers, utility poles and other structures. We typically seek five year initial terms for our leases with three, five year renewal options. The renewal options are generally at our option with a window of 90 to 180 days before the expiration of each term in which to terminate the agreement. If these leases are terminated or if the owners of these structures are unwilling to continue to enter into leases or licenses with us in the future, we would have to seek alternative arrangements with other providers. If we are unable to continue to obtain or renew leases on satisfactory terms, our business would be harmed.

        In some cases, some of our communications facilities or some of our equipment may not have been installed with valid lease agreements and/or proper permits in place. There can be no assurance that our efforts will be successful to remediate these lease agreements and/or permits. In such a case, if a facilities owner were to challenge our ability to operate on that site, the resolution of the matter may

24

Table of Contents

require the termination of service to the customer, or an increase in operating costs associated with the locations, which could adversely affect operating results.

We do business with an affiliated third party and may not have obtained the same terms as from an unaffiliated provider.

        We lease communications facilities from subsidiaries of one of our stockholders, Crown Castle, which owned approximately 5% of our outstanding common stock as of December 31, 2010. While we believe our terms are at market rate, we may not have obtained the same lease terms with this stockholder as we might have obtained from unaffiliated providers.

To be successful, we must attract, retain and motivate key employees, and the inability to do so could seriously harm us.

        To be successful, we must attract, retain and motivate executives and other key employees and keep them focused on our strategies and goals. Competition for personnel throughout our industry is intense, and we may be unable to retain key employees or attract or retain other highly qualified employees in the future. If we are not successful in attracting new personnel or retaining and motivating our current personnel, our business and prospects could be adversely affected. Our future success depends to a significant extent on the skills, experience, performance and continued services of our senior management and other key personnel. We believe that our future success is highly dependent on our senior management to provide significant continuity in the execution of our growth plans. The loss of any members of our management team could harm our business.

We have little experience with customer renewal rates and it is difficult to predict the extent of customer renewals for our services.

        We sell our services pursuant to service agreements that typically have a term of five years, but which may vary in term from 18 months to seven years. Customers have no obligation to renew after the expiration of their initial subscription period and no assurance can be given that customers will renew at the same or higher levels of service, if at all. Moreover, under some circumstances, some of these customers have the right to cancel their service agreements prior to the expiration of the terms of their agreements. We have limited historical data with respect to rates of customer renewals, and we cannot accurately predict future customer renewal rates. Renewal rates may decline or fluctuate as a result of a number of factors, including our customers' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the services, the prices of the services, the prices of the services offered by competitors or mergers and acquisitions affecting our customer base. If customers do not renew their subscriptions for our services or if they renew on less favorable terms, revenues may decline and our business will suffer.

We have experienced growth in recent periods. If we fail to manage future growth effectively, we may be unable to execute our business plan, maintain high levels of service or address competitive challenges adequately.

        We have substantially expanded our overall business, customer base, headcount and operations in recent periods. We increased our total number of full-time employees from 29 on December 31, 2003 to 160 on December 31, 2010. On March 3, 2011, we implemented a reduction in force throughout FiberTower resulting in a reduction of approximately 10% of our employee headcount. See Note 17, Subsequent Events, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information. During the period from December 31, 2003 to December 31, 2010, we made substantial investments in network infrastructure, growing from 121 sites deployed and billing to 3,276 sites deployed and 2,944 deployed and billing sites as of December 31, 2010. We will need to continue to expand our business, including the number of billing sites. We anticipate that this expansion will require substantial management effort and significant additional investment in infrastructure. Our historic expansion has placed, and our expected future growth will continue to place, a significant strain on managerial, administrative, operational, financial and other resources. If we are unable to manage growth successfully, our business will be harmed.

25

Table of Contents

We may from time to time pursue strategic transactions, which could have an adverse impact on our business.

        We may evaluate potential strategic transactions, including acquisitions, in the future. The process of acquiring and integrating a company, business or technology is risky, may require a disproportionate amount of management or financial resources, and may create unforeseen operating difficulties or expenditures. Future acquisitions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses, or write-offs of goodwill or intangible assets, any of which could harm our financial condition. Acquisitions could also expose our business to unforeseen liabilities or risks associated with entering new markets or businesses. Even if we are successful in integrating our acquisitions into our existing operations, we may not derive the benefits, such as operational or administrative synergies, that we expect from such acquisitions, which may result in the commitment of capital resources without the anticipated returns on such capital. In addition, future acquisitions may require additional equity or debt financing, which may not be available on favorable terms, or at all.

We are subject to comprehensive and continually evolving regulation that could increase our costs and adversely affect our ability to successfully implement our business plan.

        We and some of our communications services and installations are regulated by the FCC, state agencies, local zoning authorities, and other governmental entities. Our failure to comply with these requirements may have an adverse effect on our licenses or operations and could result in sanctions, fines or other penalties. These regulators regularly conduct new rulemaking proceedings and also issue interpretations of existing rules. For example, the FCC has a number of proceedings still pending to interpret or implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and these regulatory proceedings could impose additional obligations on us, give rights to competitors, increase our costs, and otherwise adversely affect our ability to implement our business plan. Congress could also enact new legislation that could restrict the manner in which we conduct our business, impose additional obligations on us, assist our competitors in competing against us or otherwise harm our business.

Additional Risks Related to our FCC Licenses

If we do not retain, obtain or maintain rights to use licensed spectrum in one or more markets, we may be unable to operate in these markets, which could harm our business and our ability to execute our business strategy.

        Since we plan to provide services using licensed spectrum, we will be dependent on our ability to retain, acquire and maintain sufficient rights to use licensed spectrum by retaining our own licenses and acquiring additional microwave radio spectrum licenses, or long-term spectrum leases, in each of the markets in which we operate. Obtaining additional licensed spectrum can be a long, difficult and costly process that can require a significant amount of management resources. We may not be able to acquire, lease or maintain the spectrum necessary to execute our business strategy.

The FCC may cancel or revoke our licenses for past or future violations of the FCC's rules, which could limit our operations and growth.

        As an FCC licensee, we are subject to extensive regulatory oversight. For example, the FCC imposes requirements on the construction and technical aspects of the operation of our licenses and wireless communication systems and on the nature of the services that we can provide within a particular frequency band. The FCC's regulations also require various regulatory filings and fees. The FCC may find that our filings made and fees paid are insufficient. The FCC also may find that the operation of our licenses or wireless communication systems violates the FCC's rules or policies. Findings of violations by the FCC may result in fines and/or sanctions. Moreover, under some circumstances, our licenses may be canceled or conditioned, and in extreme cases, our licenses may be

26

Table of Contents

revoked. In addition, the FCC could change its regulations of our operations and licenses, which could impact our business. The FCC also could change its regulation of our wireless customers that are using our backhaul services, thereby impacting our operations and growth.

The value of our FCC licenses could decline, which could materially affect our ability to raise capital, and could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

        The carrying value of our wide-area fixed wireless FCC spectrum licenses comprises a significant portion of our assets. A decline in the value of our FCC licenses could negatively impact our ability to raise capital both privately and in the public markets and could significantly reduce the value and the attractiveness of our stock to investors. The value of any or all of our FCC licenses could decrease as a result of many factors, including:

•

increases in the supply of licensed or leased spectrum that provides similar functionality;



•

new radio technology in unlicensed bands that provides the same capability as our network;



•

a decrease in the demand for services offered with any of our FCC licenses;



•

lower values placed on similar licenses in future FCC auctions;



•

regulatory limitations on the use, transfer or assignment of any of our FCC licenses; or



•

bankruptcy or liquidation of any comparable companies.

        Many of these factors depend on circumstances beyond our control. The occurrence of any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate revenues and on our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition.

        Also, if the value declines, impairment charges might be necessary which would negatively impact operating results and might lead to a conclusion that the FCC spectrum assets are no longer indefinite lived intangible assets in which case they would then have to be amortized over their remaining useful lives which would negatively impact results of operations.

        As a result of the impairment evaluation in the fourth quarter of 2008 of the carrying value of our FCC licenses, which was conducted in connection with the preparation of our 2008 consolidated financial statements we determined that the fair value of our FCC licenses was less than their carrying value. Consequently, the carrying value of our FCC licenses was reduced by $54.5 million to $287.5 million at December 31, 2008. The impairment evaluation in the fourth quarter of 2010 and 2009 of the carrying value of our FCC licenses resulted in the determination that the fair value of our FCC licenses was greater than their carrying value. Therefore, no additional reduction to their carrying value was required in 2010 or 2009. Future impairment evaluations of our FCC licenses could lead to additional material impairment charges. Any operating losses resulting from impairment charges to FCC licenses or other long-lived assets would have an adverse effect on our future financial results and could have an adverse effect on our stock price. See Note 6, Impairment of FCC Licenses, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

We may be required to make certain FCC filings in the future and may be subject to fines and/or sanctions for failure to file in the past.

        Prior to the merger with Old FiberTower, First Avenue had taken the position that it was not obligated to submit certain revenue reporting forms required by the FCC's rules to be filed by certain providers of telecommunications services. These forms are the basis of payments assessed by the FCC in support of universal service, numbering administration, telecommunications relay services for the deaf, and local number portability. The FCC could determine that such revenue reporting filings should have been made and that FiberTower should be assessed a fine and/or be required to make any and all

27

Table of Contents

payments such filings might necessitate. While Old FiberTower filed such revenue reporting forms prior to the First Avenue/FiberTower merger, those revenues did not meet the FCC's threshold for Old FiberTower to make payments to the FCC's programs described above. There can be no assurance that the FCC would accept a decision by FiberTower to suspend such filings in the future.

Our FCC licenses may not be renewed upon expiration in the future, which could limit the expansion of our business and our ability to serve our customers and could harm our operating results.

        Our spectrum licenses in the 24 GHz and 39 GHz bands are granted for ten-year terms with renewal dates ranging from 2010 to 2021. In October 2008, renewal applications for 39 GHz licenses that were scheduled to expire in 2007 received either (1) ten-year renewals for licenses deemed constructed or (2) ten year renewals contingent upon meeting construction requirements which the FCC extended until June 1, 2012. Recent applications to renew licenses that met the FCC "safe harbor" build standard or extend construction deadlines for 39 GHz licenses expiring in 2009, 2010 and 2011 have been granted by the FCC. In order for our 24 GHz and 39 GHz licenses to qualify for renewal in the future, we must file renewal applications for each license prior to expiration and demonstrate that we have provided "substantial service" by the end of the term of each license (which was February 1, 2011 for 102 of the 103 24 GHz licenses) or reserved the right to make such a showing by an FCC approved substantial service showing date (which is June 1, 2012 for a substantial majority of the 39 GHz licenses and all but one of the 24 GHz licenses). The FCC's substantial service renewal standard for both the 24 GHz and 39 GHz licenses is intended to provide licensees with flexibility in demonstrating usage of their licenses. The FCC's "safe harbor" test provides licensees with a degree of certainty as to how to comply with the substantial service requirement. For example, for 39 GHz licensees offering point-to-point service, the FCC has said that the construction of four links per channel per million persons in the license area will meet the substantial service test. For 24 GHz point-to-point/multipoint licensees, the FCC has said that a showing of four links per million persons within a service area or service to an area that has very limited access to either wireless or wireline telecommunications services will meet the substantial service test. FCC precedent also exists in the millimeter wave bands for meeting buildout requirements by constructing a point-to-multipoint system whose signal reaches 20% or more of the population in the license area. While the safe harbors are intended to provide guidance, they are not the only way for licensees to demonstrate substantial service. Licensees may show that they have met the substantial service test in other ways, such as providing niche services or offering services to underserved consumers, however, there is little precedent in this area at this time. Accordingly, we believe that the level of service that will be considered "substantial" by the FCC at renewal may vary depending upon the type of product offering by the licensee. Further, the FCC may modify its perception of substantial service and, in the future, we may encounter more stringent substantial service requirements. License renewal is not guaranteed and the FCC holds significant discretion in making renewal decisions. The loss of some number of our licenses could limit the expansion of our business, cause us to take impairment charges to our FCC licenses intangible asset and harm our operating results.

        We do not currently meet the substantial service safe harbor guidance provided by the FCC for the substantial majority of our 24 GHz and 39 GHz licenses, which require license construction or "substantial service" showings mostly by June 1, 2012. We believe that our licenses will be renewed based on (1) our significant network investment, (2) spectrum offerings, (3) market leadership, (4) expanding geographic coverage and (5) the ability to convey to the FCC information about best practices for refreshing the license renewal standards through the Uniform License Renewal proceeding described above in "Item 1. Business—Regulatory Environment—Federal Regulation and Programs." We are uncertain as to whether this proceeding, which also addresses the spectrum bands that our mobile customers use to operate their networks, will prove to be a catalyst or an obstacle to wireless network operators, depending upon whether the license renewal standards ultimately adopted are market-oriented. Since we are required to demonstrate substantial service at the time licenses are

28

Table of Contents

renewed, the FCC has little and possibly changing precedent in the 24 GHz and 39 GHz bands, and determination of substantial service is subject to FCC discretion, the FCC could choose to not renew licenses that do not meet the substantial service safe harbor.

Our reliance upon spectrum licensed by the FCC includes additional risks.

        Our use of FCC-licensed spectrum imposes additional risks on our business, including:

•

increases in spectrum acquisition costs;



•

adverse changes to regulations governing spectrum/licensee rights;



•

the risk that spectrum will not be commercially usable or free of harmful interference from licensed or unlicensed operators in our or adjacent bands;



•

the risk that the government or other license holders introduce an oversupply of substantially similar spectrum into the market;



•

contractual disputes with or the bankruptcy or other reorganization of the license holders, which could adversely affect control over the spectrum subject to such license;



•

the risk that competitors, customers or other users may over utilize point-to-point licensed spectrum and thus alter the FCC availability or allocation of such microwave radio spectrum in markets or geographic areas where we require it;



•

change in the FCC rules regarding the licensing of microwave radio spectrum; and



•

invalidation of any authorization to use all or a significant portion of the spectrum, resulting in, among other things, impairment charges related to assets recorded for such spectrum.

Common carrier regulation could increase our costs and result in a decline in our operations, revenues and profitability.

        Although there has been a narrowing of the differences in regulatory requirements applicable to common carriers and private transmission companies in recent years, the FCC regulations applicable to common carriers remains more extensive. Generally, the Communications Act regards firms that offer transmission services directly to the public for a fee as common carriers. We currently offer our fixed wireless services to particular customers with specific needs on an individual contract basis and we traditionally do not hold ourselves out to the public for the provision of our services. As such, we operated as a private carrier not subject to the FCC's common carrier regulations. Nonetheless, as we grow, especially in the fiber optic market, there are benefits to operating as a common carrier, including enhanced access to ducts, conduits, rights-of-way and poles. Accordingly, we began the process for filing for common carrier status in selected markets in 2010, and expect those filings to occur throughout 2011. It is possible that states or the FCC could determine that such common carrier filings were required sooner than expected, and thus impose common carrier obligations sooner. Alternatively, any of our potential future requests for common carrier status may not be granted. In addition, operating as a common carrier will likely increase certain compliance requirements and costs of providing service, which could have an adverse impact on our business operations, revenues, and profitability.

FCC Regulation of radio frequency emissions and radio frequency environments may increase our costs and/or limit our operations.

        The FCC regulates the health and safety effects of radio frequency emissions for us and other wireless communications providers. Any FCC licensee whose emissions in an area exceed five percent (5%) of the total permissible emissions limit is responsible for ensuring that the site meets applicable

29

Table of Contents

health and safety requirements. The fixed wireless equipment we use is designed to operate at RF emission levels well below the FCC's standard. However, if we operate in an area where other higher RF emitters are operating, we could nonetheless be required to cooperate with, and contribute financially to, efforts intended to bring the site within applicable health and safety limits.

FCC, Congressional or State action that requires Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) to artificially lower and cap their special access transport pricing could result in pricing pressure on FiberTower.

        The FCC, Congress and the States possess the ability to require ILECs to artificially lower and cap their special access transport pricing. If the ILECs were required to significantly drop their backhaul pricing in our markets, our customers might then find our pricing unattractive.

Additional Risks Related to our Indebtedness

To service our indebtedness, we will require a significant amount of cash. Our ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond our control.

        Our business does not currently generate sufficient cash flow from operations to service the interest on the Notes due 2012 and Notes due 2016. Our annual cash interest payments on these notes are approximately $6.0 million in 2011 and 2012. When we issued the Notes due 2016, we deposited into an escrow account approximately $11.0 million which, together with the earnings thereon, was an amount sufficient to pay the cash portion of the first six semi-annual interest payments on the Notes due 2016. Two-thirds of the interest payable on the Notes due 2016 will be paid by issuing new Notes due 2016.

        We elected to pay the May 2009, November 2009, May 2010 and November 2010 interest payments on the Notes due 2012 entirely by the issuance of additional Notes due 2012, as permitted under the related indenture. This resulted in the issuance of an additional $33.5 million in 2009 and $3.1 million in 2010 in principal amount of Notes due 2012. The interest rate applicable to any such interest payments made in additional Notes due 2012 is 11%. Interest payments on the Notes due 2012 after November 2010 are payable only in cash.

        Our ability to pay our expenses and make payments due on the Notes due 2016 and the Notes due 2012 depends on our future performance, which will be affected by financial, business, economic, legislative and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. Our business may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations in the future, which could result in our being unable to pay interest or repay indebtedness, including the Notes due 2012 or the Notes due 2016, or to fund other liquidity needs. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may be required to sell assets or incur additional debt, or we may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness at or before maturity. We cannot assure you that we will be able to accomplish any of these alternatives on terms acceptable to us, or at all. In addition, the terms of existing or future debt agreements may restrict us from adopting any of these alternatives. The failure to generate sufficient cash flow or to achieve any of these alternatives could materially adversely affect our ability to meet our obligations.

Our substantial level of indebtedness could materially adversely affect our financial condition and prevent us from fulfilling our obligations under the Notes due 2016 and the Notes due 2012 and any other indebtedness.

        As of December 31, 2010, we had $164.8 million of total indebtedness, excluding our obligation under a capital lease. The indentures governing the Notes due 2016 and Notes due 2012 allow us to enter into a senior secured credit facility and incur certain other additional indebtedness, including

30

Table of Contents

pari passu senior secured indebtedness in certain circumstances. Our substantial indebtedness could have significant effects on our business, including the following:

•

it may make it difficult for us to satisfy our obligations under the Notes due 2016 and the Notes due 2012 and our other indebtedness and contractual and commercial commitments and, if we fail to comply with these requirements, an event of default could result;



•

we will be required to use a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to pay interest on the Notes due 2016 and the Notes due 2012 and any other indebtedness, which will reduce the funds available to us for other purposes;



•

our ability to obtain additional debt financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or general corporate purposes may be limited;



•

our flexibility in reacting to changes in our industry may be limited and we could be more vulnerable to adverse changes in our business or economic conditions in general; and



•

we may be at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that are not as highly leveraged.

        The occurrence of any one of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, prospects and ability to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness.

We are a holding company, and therefore our ability to make any required payments on our indebtedness depends upon the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or to advance funds.

        We have no direct operations and no significant assets other than the stock of our subsidiaries. Because we conduct our operations through our operating subsidiaries, we depend on those entities for dividends and other payments to generate the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations, including our required obligations under the Notes due 2016 and the Notes due 2012. However, each of our subsidiaries is a legally distinct entity, and the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends and make distributions to us will be subject to, among other things, the terms of any debt instruments of our subsidiaries then in effect and applicable law. If distributions from our subsidiaries to us were eliminated, delayed, reduced or otherwise impaired, our ability to make payments on our indebtedness would be substantially impaired and an event of default could result.

Despite our substantial level of indebtedness, we may still incur significantly more debt, which could exacerbate any or all of the risks described above.

        We may be able to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. Although the indenture governing the Notes due 2016 limits our ability and the ability of our subsidiaries to incur additional indebtedness, these restrictions are subject to a number of qualifications and exceptions and, under certain circumstances, debt incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. In addition, the indenture governing the Notes due 2016 does not prevent us from incurring obligations that do not constitute indebtedness. To the extent that we incur additional indebtedness or such other obligations, the risks associated with our substantial leverage described above, including our possible inability to service our debt, would increase.

The Notes due 2016 contain restrictive covenants that limit our operational flexibility.

        The Notes due 2016 contain covenants that, among other things, restrict our ability to take specific actions, even if we believe them to be in our best interest. These covenants include restrictions on our ability to:

•

incur or guarantee additional indebtedness or issue certain preferred stock;

31

Table of Contents

•

pay dividends or make other distributions;



•

issue capital stock of our restricted subsidiaries;



•

transfer or sell assets, including the capital stock of our restricted subsidiaries;



•

make certain investments or acquisitions;



•

grant liens on our assets;



•

incur dividend or other payment restrictions affecting our restricted subsidiaries;



•

enter into certain transactions with affiliates; and



•

merge, consolidate or transfer all or substantially all of our assets.

        Our failure to comply with these restrictions could lead to a default under the Notes due 2016.

The repurchase rights in the Notes due 2016 triggered by a fundamental change could discourage a transaction that could be beneficial to the holders of our common stock.

        If a "fundamental change" (as defined in the indenture governing the Notes due 2016, and which generally includes events relating to certain changes in control) occurs prior to maturity, holders may require us to repurchase all or part of their Notes due 2016 for cash at a repurchase price equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest, up to but excluding the repurchase date. These repurchase rights in the Notes due 2016 could discourage a potential acquirer from engaging in a transaction that may be beneficial to the holders of our common stock.

Risks Related to an Investment in FiberTower

We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

        We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate that any cash dividends will be declared or paid in the foreseeable future. In addition, the indenture governing our Notes due 2016 contains covenants that restrict our ability to pay dividends. As a result, holders of our common stock may not receive a return, if any, on their investment unless they sell their shares of our common stock.

Our quarterly results of operations have fluctuated in the past and may fluctuate in the future. As a result, we may fail to meet or exceed the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

        Our quarterly results of operations have fluctuated in the past and may fluctuate in the future as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. If quarterly results of operations fall below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, the trading price of our common stock could decline substantially. Fluctuations in quarterly results of operations may be due to a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the risks described in "—Risks Related to Our Business Operations" above.

        We believe that, as a result of these risks, our quarterly revenues and results of operations may vary significantly in the future and that period-to-period comparisons of operating results may not be meaningful. You should not rely on historical results as an indication of future performance.

32

Table of Contents

Failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and stock price.

        Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires us to include in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting containing an assessment by management as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, as well as an opinion by our Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting. If we are unable to assert in future years that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, that could cause our stock price to decline and could have an adverse effect on our business and operating results.

Future sales of our common stock in the public market or the issuance of securities senior to our common stock could adversely affect the trading price of our common stock and our ability to raise funds in the future.

        Future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock or equity-related securities in the public market, or the perception that such sales could occur, could adversely affect prevailing trading prices of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through future offerings of equity or equity-related securities. We cannot predict the effect, if any, that future sales of shares of common stock or the availability of shares of common stock for future sale will have on the trading price of our common stock.

Changes in the composition of our stockholders, including those resulting from the issuance of common stock in the Mandatory Redemption, are likely to limit our ability to use our net operating losses.

        We have substantial tax loss carryforwards for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result of prior changes in the stock ownership of FiberTower, our ability to use a substantial part of such carryforwards to offset future income or tax liability is limited under section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. As a result of the issuance of shares of common stock in the Mandatory Redemption, our ability to use these loss carryforwards will be restricted as a result of the ownership change. See Note 12, Income Taxes, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

Provisions in our charter documents and Delaware law may delay or prevent an acquisition of FiberTower.

        Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that could make it harder for a third party to acquire us without the consent of our Board of Directors. For example, our certificate of incorporation provides that the Board of Directors can issue preferred stock at our discretion with respect to voting, conversion, distribution, and other rights given to stockholders, which may be used in a way to significantly dilute the ownership of a hostile acquirer. In addition, if a potential acquirer were to make a hostile bid for us, the acquirer would not be able to cumulate votes at a meeting, which would require the acquirer to hold more shares to gain representation on the Board of Directors than if cumulative voting were permitted. In addition, the members of our Board of Directors are elected on a staggered or classified basis, which could prevent or deter takeovers or changes in control by increasing the time it takes for a hostile acquirer to replace board members.

        Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law limits mergers and other business combination transactions involving 15% or greater stockholders of Delaware corporations unless certain board or stockholder approval requirements are satisfied. These provisions and other similar provisions make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us without negotiation. These provisions may apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders.

        Our Board of Directors could choose not to negotiate with an acquirer that it did not believe was in our strategic interests. If an acquirer is discouraged from offering to acquire us or prevented from

33

Table of Contents

successfully completing a hostile acquisition by these or other measures, stockholders could lose the opportunity to sell their shares at a favorable price.

ITEM 1B.    UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

        There were no unresolved written comments received from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to our periodic reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

ITEM 2.    PROPERTIES

        Our executive offices are located in San Francisco, California, where we lease approximately 15,600 square feet of space. The lease continues through November 2014 and does not include a renewal option. We do not own any real property.

        The following table shows significant leased properties and their approximate square footage:

        We lease additional field operations office and warehouse space in Marietta, GA; Broadview Heights, OH; Centennial, CO; Plymouth, MI; Fort Worth, TX; Billerica, MA; Houston, TX; Secaucus, NJ; Tampa, FL; San Antonio, TX; Washington, D.C.; Freedom, PA; and Woodbridge, IL.

        Our facilities are considered adequate for our current level of operations but may need to be expanded as FiberTower expands.

        As of December 31, 2010, we also lease nominal space at over 3,500 buildings, towers or other structures for network equipment installations.

ITEM 3.    LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

        We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings. From time to time, we could become involved in various legal proceedings arising from the normal course of business activities. Depending on the amount and timing, an unfavorable resolution of a matter could materially affect our future results of operations, cash flows or financial position in a particular period.

ITEM 4.    REMOVED AND RESERVED

34

Table of Contents

PART II

ITEM 5.    MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

        Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol FTWR. The market price range for the common stock for the last two fiscal years, adjusted to give effect to the 1-for-10 reverse stock split of our common stock on December 18, 2009, was as follows:

        On February 28, 2011, the closing price of our common stock as reported by the Nasdaq Global Market was $3.32 per share. There were 850 holders of record of our common stock on February 28, 2011.

        We have not paid any cash dividends in the past and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We intend to retain earnings, if any, to finance the expansion of our business and fund ongoing operations for the foreseeable future. The indenture governing our Notes due 2016 contains covenants that restrict our ability to pay dividends.

Stock Performance Graph

        The following graph compares total stockholder return on our common stock since August 29, 2006 (the date of the First Avenue/FiberTower merger), with the Nasdaq Composite Index and the Nasdaq Telecommunications Index. The graph assumes that $100 was invested in our stock at the August 29, 2006 closing price of $77.40, after giving retroactive effect to our 1-for-10 reverse stock split, and that the same amount was invested in the Nasdaq Composite Index and the Nasdaq Telecommunications Index. Our closing price on December 31, 2010, the last trading day of our 2010 fiscal year, was $4.46. The following graph is not deemed to be "filed" with the SEC or deemed to be incorporated by reference into any of our filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into such a filing.

35

Table of Contents

Comparison of Cumulative Total Return on Investment

36

Table of Contents

ITEM 6.    SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

        The following selected historical consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 and the consolidated balance sheet data at December 31, 2010 and 2009 are derived from FiberTower's audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected historical consolidated statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the consolidated balance sheet data at December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 are derived from FiberTower's audited consolidated financial statements not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

        As described in Note 1, Organization and Business, in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, on December 18, 2009, we effected a 1-for-10 reverse stock split of our common stock. Accordingly, the following selected financial data for all periods prior to the reverse stock split have been retroactively restated to reflect the effect of the reverse stock split.

37

Table of Contents

(1)

On August 29, 2006, First Avenue completed the First Avenue/FiberTower merger with Old FiberTower. The First Avenue/FiberTower merger was accounted for as a reverse acquisition under the purchase method of accounting. Under this accounting treatment, Old FiberTower was considered the acquiring entity and First Avenue was considered the acquired entity. First Avenue, as the surviving entity of the First Avenue/FiberTower merger, changed its name to FiberTower Corporation. The selected financial data before the First Avenue/FiberTower merger reflects the financial results of Old FiberTower on a historical basis after applying the exchange ratio to historical share-related data, and includes the results of operations of First Avenue from the effective date of the First Avenue/FiberTower merger.

(2)

As a result of the First Avenue/FiberTower merger, First Avenue's network of 79 deployed sites (all sold and billing) and 497 billing T-1s were added during 2006.

(3)

The average monthly revenue per deployed site excludes $1.3 million in 2010, $0.5 million in 2008 and $0.6 million in 2006 recognized from customers' early termination of certain circuits. Revenue from early termination in 2009 and 2007 was immaterial.

(4)

Adjusted EBITDA is not a substitute for loss from operations, net loss, or cash flow provided by (used) for operating activities as determined in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, as a measure of performance or liquidity. See "Non-GAAP Financial Measures" in this Form 10-K for our reasons for including Adjusted EBITDA, for material limitations with respect to the usefulness of this measurement and for a reconciliation of total Adjusted EBITDA to net loss.

(1)

In December 2008, Clearwire Corporation completed a transaction with Sprint Nextel and an investor group to launch a new WiMAX-based wireless services provider. As a result of this transaction, a portion of the circuits previously billed to Sprint Nextel have been transferred to Clearwire. If this transaction had occurred on January 1, 2008, approximately 14% of our 2008 revenues would have been attributed to Clearwire and approximately 19% would have been attributed to Sprint Nextel.