I’ve regularly seen editorials and blogs that claim that the U.S. is far behind in providing spectrum to wireless carriers. The purpose of these articles seems to be to lobby the FCC to make more cellular spectrum available, particularly mid-range spectrum. That’s spectrum between 1 GHz and 6 GHz, which is the sweet space for 5G cellular coverage. Spectrum in this range is perfect for mobile cell coverage – the spectrum penetrates foliage and other impediments and also carriers for a decent distance of a few miles from cell towers.

Part of the reason for the recent spate of articles is that the FCC has lost the ability to hold spectrum auctions. In March 2023, Congress declined to renew the agencies ability to hold auctions, which has been the common way to decide how to allocate spectrum – to those who are willing to pay the most to use it.

A common claim made is that the U.S. is far behind China, which is the bogey-man for everything wireless. I recall an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that claimed that China has 245 5G base stations per 100,000 people, Europe has 103, and the U.S. has only 51. While this may be true, this is more of a case of the willingness of U.S. cell carriers to invest in new cell towers and sites. In U.S. cities, cellphone download speeds are regularly reported to be over 100 Mbps download, and cell carriers here don’t see any reason why they need to beef up speeds more than that.

The main difference between the cellular networks in U.S. compared to the rest of the world is that a lot more people here rely on landline broadband and WiFi for their broadband needs versus using the cellular networks. In pars of the world where wireless carries a much larger share o broadband, it’s far more important to have robust wireless networks.

I’ve seen a lot of wireless experts that claim that the big U.S. foray into FWA wireless is due to carriers finding a way to monetize the excess spectrum that cell carriers already own. It’s an interesting choice of how to use spectrum, because from a monetary perspective, cell carriers are selling a gigabit of FWA broadband at a tiny fraction of what they charge for a gigabit of cellular broadband. It doesn’t make sense that carriers would pursue FWA so aggressively if they were feeling spectrum constraints.

Another reason why U.S. cellular carriers have excess spectrum capacity is that the many projected uses for 5G that were touted a decade ago never materialized. They had originally predicted that a lot of the devices in our homes and outdoor sensors would all be subscribed to cellular – but it never happened. In the home, everything moved to free WiFi, which became overabundant when ISPs increased home broadband speeds, and the FCC released a gigantic pile of new WiFi spectrum in the 6 GHz band. Connecting outdoor sensors to cellular never took off because it required deploying batteries that have to be replaced.

This is not to say that we won’t ever have a shortage of spectrum. The use of wireless broadband is growing at a faster pace than home broadband. While it’s still only a tiny fraction of all broadband usage, the inexorable impact of annual growth will mean that new spectrum will be needed.

One of the biggest controversies with mid-range spectrum is that much of it is use by various parts of the military and government. The process of relocating government users to different spectrum bands is costly and takes many years. Government users often make a convincing case why they should be allowed to continue to use the spectrum they have.

If there is any place where there is a spectrum shortage, it’s in rural America. This is not due to a lack of available spectrum – but of spectrum that they owners are willing to share. Carriers generally buy spectrum to satisfy their needs in urban areas. Bands of spectrum that might be full and business in a city likely sit fallow and unused in rural areas where there is no demand. There are huge amounts if mid-range spectrum that are not in use in most rural markets.

Cellular carriers could share spectrum. We see that happening with CBRS where spectrum holders in rural areas are required to allow others to use the spectrum when it’s not in use. But spectrum owners won’t do this voluntarily because it adds to their costs. The FCC has to act to require spectrum sharing on any given band of spectrum. In FCC filings, the cellular carriers argue strongly against requiring more sharing – and they would like to curtail what is already allowed.