Hard WRC: United States Muddles Through Rather Than Leading Global Spectrum Conference
The World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) ended this week with a mishmash of compromises open to contradictory interpretations. The world lacks a unified vision of spectrum allocation, and so far, the United States has not been a primary driver of one.
WRC is the quadrennial meeting of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and is the main stage for harmonizing spectrum allocations between countries and looking ahead to new ones. This process is important because it sets the standards for what types of devices will use which spectrum bands. For example, it’s helpful for both the United States and Europe to use the same spectrum for cell phones so their citizens' phones work on either side of the Atlantic. Standardization also expands the market for devices: Manufacturers can sell one product to the whole world rather than having to reengineer and retool their devices for individual countries.
As the world becomes more wireless, negotiations over international standards have become more contentious. Whoever leads the way on standards can also exert more influence on the development of wireless technology and the way we use it. That is why a strong, unified approach from democratic countries that support open communications is so important. The alternative is an outsized role for more authoritarian adversaries, like China, who have a starkly different vision for the future of wireless. Unfortunately, clear, bold leadership is not what we saw from the United States in this recent WRC.
At the top of the U.S. agenda for this WRC was international harmonization of the 6 GHz band for unlicensed use. This 1,200 megahertz band is larger than all licensed mid-band allocations combined. The United States hoped to preserve the whole band for unlicensed use while some other countries, primarily in Europe and Africa, sought the top portion of the band for licensed mobile services. In the end, the Conference agreed to a proposal that seems to move forward on both—or perhaps neither—by recognizing unlicensed uses while continuing mobile allocations in many countries. This decision not to decide is the opposite of the clear harmonization that would maximize the economies of scale that ultimately benefit consumers.
The United States also has an interest in satellite spectrum, but it didn’t prioritize a proposal that would have started updates to power limits for non-geostationary orbit satellites. By taking advantage of technological advances, these modifications could allow higher-quality satellite broadband to reach more people without disadvantaging established geostationary satellites. This item, too, resulted in ambiguity: Technical studies are permitted but without “regulatory consequences.” That is enough for both sides to declare victory, but it's far from the clear go-ahead that’s needed to maximize the benefits of low-earth orbit satellite broadband as soon as possible.
On midband spectrum for commercial use more generally, the United States is apparently at odds with itself. It didn’t support the study of the 7-8 GHz band for commercial use despite the recent National Spectrum Strategy teeing them up for study back home. The National Spectrum Strategy is an opportunity for the United States to rise above interagency squabbles and speak with one voice on spectrum allocation. But the lack of U.S. support for international studies of the same bands it seeks to study domestically can only stoke fears that the executive branch will fold to the Department of Defense, again stymieing commercial access to valuable spectrum.
The tepid and disjointed U.S. stance on the global spectrum stage poses a tangible risk to American leadership in wireless innovation. The longer the United States remains on the periphery, the muddled outcomes of WRC-23 could tilt further towards nations with a clearer vision of spectrum policy, potentially compromising U.S. economic and national security interests. In an era where connectivity is paramount, the United States must seize the opportunity to recalibrate its approach to ensure it remains at the forefront of the evolving wireless landscape.
