This paper studies the outcomes of hypothetical T-Mobile/Sprint and AT&T/T-Mobile mergers in the U.S. wireless telecommunications industry. I propose a model in which consumers trade off price and network coverage, so firms have to compete on both price and investment. The key finding is that had T-Mobile and Sprint merged in 2009, consumers would have benefited from expanded network coverage. The two firms would have increased profits due to less duplication on the investment side. An acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T, on the other hand, would have harmed consumers because it would not have resulted in better coverage. Additionally, the outcomes of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger vary across geographic areas. Markets with high population density or flat terrain typically have a strong initial Sprint or T-Mobile presence, and would therefore experience lower, often negative, changes in consumer surplus as a result of the merger. Conversely, markets where the merging parties struggle to enter separately, mainly those with lower population density and harder to cover terrain, benefit more because the merger would diversify carrier choices.