Traci Biswese, Doug Brake, Michael Calabrese, Monica Desai, Kristian Stout, and Sarah Oh Lam (moderator)
TPI’s Winter Spectrum Series hosted its second panel entitled, “Access Models for Current and Future Tech: Frequencies, Power Limits, and Sharing Regimes” on Tuesday, February 18, 2025. This panel discussion was focused on use cases for wireless connectivity indoors and outdoors, including WiFi, fixed wireless, 5G, 6G, satellite, mobility, and wearables. Expert panelists included Traci Biswese, Doug Brake, Michael Calabrese, Monica Desai, Kristian Stout, and Sarah Oh Lam. Here are some key takeaways:
Gridlock Slows Spectrum Release Despite Agreement on Need: The panel largely agreed that both types of spectrum allocations are vital, but disagreed on implementation. While some advocated for immediate unlicensed deployments followed by later licensed use (citing UK’s Ofcom model), others emphasized the need for 400 MHz of additional flexible use licensed access to match international standards. The discussion highlighted how Congressional gridlock is slowing spectrum auction reauthorization and federal spectrum reallocation, with panelists suggesting various compromise approaches.
Wi-Fi and Fixed Wireless Show Strong Consumer Adoption: The panel explored economic value across different spectrum uses. Cable companies have deployed “Wi-Fi first” mobile services reaching 18 million subscribers. Mobile carriers have attracted about 10 million fixed wireless subscribers and are expanding 5G services. Satellite providers are partnering with device manufacturers and terrestrial wireless providers to introduce direct-to-device services for emergency communications. All constituencies pointed to growing bandwidth demands from AI, AR/VR, and medical applications requiring both high bandwidth and low latency.
Indoor Traffic Dominates Consumer Use: 90% of mobile device traffic occurs indoors over WiFi. Wi-Fi technology is evolving to use wider channels for low-latency applications. The panel discussed how indoor usage patterns differ from outdoor, particularly in venues like hospitals, schools, and manufacturing facilities. Indoor use is increasingly provided by mobile carriers with fixed wireless connections which would benefit from a pipeline of flexible use mid-band spectrum in the lower 3 GHz band and an additional 200 MHz in the upper C-Band.
Providers Move Toward Seamless Multi-Technology Integration: Connectivity is becoming more integrated across technologies, exemplified by new smartphone capabilities like the iPhone’s two-way global satellite texting feature. One panelist noted that consumers expect seamless connectivity regardless of technology, pushing providers toward business relationships that complement each other’s services.
CBRS Rollout Continues After Three Years: The panel debated CBRS success metrics, revealing different views on sharing frameworks. While 380,000 CBRS base stations have been deployed in three years, with mobile carriers as major users alongside new entrants, drive tests showed lower utilization (less than 10%) compared to the C-band (90%), with rural areas accounting for 80% of general access usage. NTIA data shows CBRS users prefer higher power levels, suggesting the band serves both as supplemental carrier capacity and as an enabler of new rural and enterprise uses.
Debate on U.S. Leadership in the 6 GHz Unlicensed Band: A significant debate emerged over the U.S. allocation of 1200 MHz in the 6 GHz band for unlicensed use, compared to 300 to 540 MHz in the 6 GHz band for high powered licensed mobile spectrum in the UK. One panelist argued the unlicensed allocation was too extensive, citing low adoption of 6 GHz Wi-Fi equipment and minimal speed improvements. Another countered that the allocation is crucial for next-generation applications requiring wide channels and low latency. The debate highlighted broader questions about measuring spectrum efficiency and success.
Government Spectrum Key to National Solutions: The panel examined how government spectrum policy affects digital divide solutions, balancing federal needs with commercial opportunities. The aging airborne warning and control system (AWACS) exemplifies opportunities to modernize government systems while freeing spectrum, though increasing military reliance on electronic warfare limits wholesale clearing. The National Spectrum Strategy is studying three approaches: full-power licenses, lower-power licensing, and very low power indoor use. Panelists proposed varied solutions – from satellite services to licensed spectrum to CBRS-style sharing – though all agreed on the need for better federal efficiency incentives.
Sarah Oh Lam is a Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute. Oh completed her PhD in Economics from George Mason University, and holds a JD from GMU and a BS in Management Science and Engineering from Stanford University. She was previously the Operations and Research Director for the Information Economy Project at George Mason School of Law. She has also presented research at the 39th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference and has co-authored work published in the Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property among other research projects. Her research interests include law and economics, regulatory analysis, and technology policy.
Scott Wallsten is President and Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute and also a senior fellow at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy. He is an economist with expertise in industrial organization and public policy, and his research focuses on competition, regulation, telecommunications, the economics of digitization, and technology policy. He was the economics director for the FCC's National Broadband Plan and has been a lecturer in Stanford University’s public policy program, director of communications policy studies and senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a senior fellow at the AEI – Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an economist at The World Bank, a scholar at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and a staff economist at the U.S. President’s Council of Economic Advisers. He holds a PhD in economics from Stanford University.
