Dean Bubley: Winning in 6G Will Not Require More Spectrum

Editor's Note: This is the second of a two-part series by Expert Opinion author Dean Bubley about shared spectrum. The first piece was published on Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026.

At the end of 2025, the White House issued a presidential memorandum titled “Winning the 6G Race,” which discussed various themes relating to the U.S. role in developing and deploying future 6G wireless networks, with stated goals of furthering “national security, foreign policy, and economic prosperity.”

6G is the term for the next generation of mobile technologies, following from 5G which entered service in 2019. The first large-scale 6G launches are expected around 2030, aligned with industry standards, although smaller headline deployments may occur slightly earlier. 

Proponents of 6G are promising to offer better performance, ubiquitous coverage and various additional features and capabilities, reflecting ongoing development in radio systems and key enablers such as AI. As well as being used for commercial wireless services, 6G advocates believe it can have important roles in defense, national infrastructure and enterprise private wireless networks.  Some claims for 6G are echoes of the hyperbolic (and still unrealized) original promises for 5G.

The memorandum includes a variety of objectives and policy initiatives. At first glance, there seems to be a mix of thoughtful decisions, mixed with surprising statements and problematic directions and omissions. The focus of the memorandum on the need for more spectrum allocation for the success of 6G is flawed – more spectrum is not a critical element for its success. 

The administration would be wise to reconsider the simplistic focus on more spectrum for national carriers’ public 6G networks, in favor of paying attention to the real critical elements for the success and usefulness of next generation wireless. These include AI-driven spectrum efficiency and coexistence techniques, and a specific focus on the wireless needs of enterprises, homes and remote/rural areas.

The good news

From the perspective of advances in spectrum management and usefulness for U.S. citizens and businesses, there are some positives in the memorandum:

• It is good to see a commitment to “advancing American interests in the international standards bodies”. The U.S. needs to take an active, collegiate and robust role in the 6G harmonization process, for instance in advancing discussions about efficient, shared and dynamic use of spectrum resources
• Together with the already-announced FCC examination of the 3.98-4.20 GigaHertz (GHz) Upper C-Band, the memorandum’s focus on 7.125-7.4 GHz, 2.7-2.9 GHz and 4.4-4.9 GHz means that over 1,200 megahertz of spectrum is under consideration to be auctioned – a significant cushion to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA’s) target of 800 megahertz. This should give policymakers the leeway to rethink inclusion of the lower 7.125-7.25 GHz slice, which could alternatively be identified for unlicensed use. 
• The memorandum suggests that there is no political appetite for re-allocating any portion of the existing 6 GHz unlicensed band or Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) innovation band. 6 GHz is used for world-leading Wi-Fi performance and reliability, essential for connectivity in millions of homes and business premises. CBRS is the core spectrum band for private 5G networks on enterprise sites such as airports, factories, oil and gas, logistics centers, hospitals and arenas. Both bands are also used for wireless ISPs, especially in rural areas. Upsetting the unlicensed use of the 6 GHz band, or disrupting the delicate balance of spectrum and technical characteristics relied upon for CBRS, would have devastating consequences for innovation, consumers’ broadband experiences and industry investment.    
• The goal of the United States reaching a clear, early position on spectrum allocations for the upcoming WRC27 World Radio Conference in Shanghai is welcome. It is essential that U.S. stakeholders adopt a common message, and that the government works with global partners and allies to advance a shared vision for wireless, including exclusively licensed, shared licensed and unlicensed spectrum, as a Western counterweight to China’s stance. 

The bad news

While the assertion in the memorandum that 6G needs “a significant volume of radiofrequency spectrum that can be harmonized” is a common one, it is far from consensus. 

There are several reasons why an alternative position is more appropriate – 6G will in fact not need extra spectrum allocations, especially for full-power, wide-area deployment:

• The U.S. already has ample mid-band spectrum allocated for cellular use, in comparable amounts to that available elsewhere in the world.
• Recent transactions involving EchoStar’s spectrum have effectively taken the U.S. from a four-carrier market to three, increasing the supply of spectrum per mobile network operator.
• Many demand projections for 6G envisage extra mobile capacity is only needed in localized and typically lower-power hotspots such as downtown areas or venues like sports arenas. The projected economics of the industry in the 6G era are better served with smaller license areas, “spectrum on demand” models or various forms of wholesale or neutral-host shared capacity, rather than wasteful and expensive exclusive, high-power only deployments – often with spectrum left unused in many places, as seen in the 5G era.  
• Expectations for 6G are specifically related to achieving improved spectrum-efficiency. AI-based techniques promise to squeeze much more capacity from existing spectrum allocations, without needing fresh frequency bands. The U.S. hopes to lead in such technology areas, for instance through the AI-RAN initiative led by Nvidia and others, which uses intelligence in the radio network for understanding the radio environment, pointing “beams” exactly where needed, and mitigating risks of interference 

With the future needs of 6G still in flux, the decision to promote the 7.125-7.4 GHz band for full-power, exclusive use for 6G is premature and lacking good justification. There are currently no obvious use-cases for wide-area or national commercial deployments of cellular networks in that spectrum. It has poor penetration into buildings, while demand for outdoor applications for 5G is already flattening. Wireless carriers’ main likely interest in bidding at a future auction would be based on foreclosure from competitive fear, rather than a recognition of genuine revenue opportunity.

Pre-emptively designating this lower 7 GHz band for full-power exclusive 6G constrains the projected need for unlicensed / Wi-Fi expansion above its current 6 GHz range, where there is already healthy adoption and growing use, significant value-generation and possible scarcity of spectrum on the horizon. There needs to be a full, unbiased study and analysis, that looks at all options (licensed, unlicensed, shared licensed) for the 7 GHz band rather than a rushed decision that may prove wrong.

We already know that the arguments for 6G Hz for 6G in Europe, China and elsewhere are flawed – the U.S. risks blindly repeating those errors for the 7 GHz band. 

The question marks and omissions

The memorandum also includes some confusing statements, such as asserting that 6G “will play a pivotal role in the development and adoption of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, robotics, and implantable technologies”.

While wireless connectivity for robots makes some good sense, most AI connectivity is based on ultra-fast fixed (fiber) networks inside and between datacenters, which have significantly more capacity than even the best wireless technologies. There is very little impact from AI on “access” network traffic to and from mobile end-users. 

It is also highly doubtful that implanted wireless medical devices will rely on high-power 6G cellular networks, rather than much lower-power links to external systems. The inclusion of this application seems to be a similar category error as the historical irrelevance of “robotic surgery” in 5G’s hype.

And while the focus on standards and international coordination on WRC-27 are welcome, the memorandum omits various potential ways for the U.S. to accelerate and differentiate its approach to 6G. A forward-looking and innovative approach to spectrum policy would:

• Exploit and extend the US’s existing lead in spectrum sharing and coexistence models, allowing it to squeeze a greater number of users and applications into each slice of frequencies, with AI-enabled coordination.
• Address the over-riding importance of indoor wireless connectivity as an explicit goal for the 6G era. Over 80% of existing mobile use is indoors, including education, medical and many industrial uses. 6G could better exploit coordination with Wi-Fi and through enabling shared indoor systems.
• Incentivize innovation and development of a domestic 6G equipment and software industry in the US, through creation of trials and demonstration programs, funding R&D initiatives or offering testing and certification laboratories. 

A key variable is national security and defense. There are legitimate reasons for the military and other government users to wish to adopt their own 5G/6G networks, as a “commercial-off-the-shelf” technology that could supplement or replace conventional dedicated or custom-built wireless systems, while still running in existing government frequency bands. In other words, military 6G could itself share spectrum with radar and other communications systems. 

Lastly, it is a shame that the memorandum attempts to anoint 6G – and specifically commercial high-power national mobile networks - as a specific technology “winner”, with another future “race” being run against other nations. 

It is a missed opportunity to reframe the 2030s wireless and spectrum landscape entirely. We should pursue a broader goal of “advanced connectivity” – both in terms of U.S. leadership on the supply side, and in terms of becoming a thought-leader on advanced spectrum management, sharing and coexistence. 

A true vision of spectrum and the wireless future would recognise not just high-power uses for spectrum, but also lower power localized and enterprise networks, next-generation satellite constellations, ongoing evolutions of Wi-Fi and other wireless systems - potentially integrated into a future multi-technology, flexible-power wireless fabric or “network of networks”.

Dean Bubbly is the Founder of Disruptive Analysis. He is one of the conveners of the 6G Reset initiative and a leading analyst covering 5G, 6G, Wi-Fi, telco business models & regulation, the future of voice/video, and the emergence of technologies such as quantum networking and AI. This Expert Opinion is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.