Leaders Gather on Capitol Hill to Discuss the Value of Shared Spectrum

As Members of Congress work to demonstrate leadership in wireless technology, it’s important for lawmakers and their staff to hear from experts on the benefits of an inclusive approach to spectrum policy. That’s why policy and industry leaders recently participated in a briefing on Capitol Hill – sharing their firsthand accounts of the success of spectrum sharing in their respective industries. Hosted by Spectrum for the Future, the panel discussed the evolution of spectrum sharing in recent years, different use cases enabled by sharing in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS), and its future outlook.

Committee and Congressional staff from the House and Senate heard key insights about spectrum sharing from David Redl, Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, and Dr. Coleman Bazelon, a leading economist at The Brattle Group. Dr. Bazelon’s latest study, which outlines a clear, evidence-based framework for comparing the costs and benefits of exclusive versus shared spectrum licensing, shows that a shared licensing approach to the 3.1–3.45 GHz band can create almost $19 billion in net private value, while exclusive licensing would impose a net loss.

There was also a discussion on the false promise of segmenting the band or compressing federal use by requiring Department of Defense (DoD) operations to clear the band and make it available for high-powered exclusive licensing. This would multiply the cost to the government, harm national security interests by impeding mission-critical military operations, and congest remaining portions of the band, which would stall innovation and efficiencies unleashed by shared spectrum.

Panelists also examined uses of CBRS across the country – in manufacturing, agriculture, commercial real estate, and much more – which are fueling economic growth and competition, while protecting mission-critical DoD operations. As Dr. Bazelon stated during the briefing, “CBRS is able to coexist with federal users; it allows you to create a valuable use without cost to the incumbents.”

When it comes to the outlook on spectrum sharing, the experts offered a strong case for fostering modern licensing models to meet future spectrum needs:

Paul Savill – Kyndryl

“There are benefits not just from a competitive standpoint, but from a human standpoint. For example, we’ve deployed [CBRS] in large chemical manufacturing environments. After we’ve deployed it, the technology has achieved such results where we’ve seen health and safety accidents cut in half.”

Matt Mandel – Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)

“Rural America relies on shared spectrum to provide access. Without that, these communities wouldn’t have access at all.”

Joshua Baggett – Hewlett Packard Enterprise

“We were able to put this [shared spectrum] up in a matter of days. You could run basically everything on the golf course. We had over 200,000 guests come through [at the Ryder Cup]. The scanners, the concessions, the scoring… this trial showed that we can do this on a 370-acre campus.”

John Windhausen – Schools, Health & Libraries Coalition (SHLB)

“We shouldn’t be locked into one particular technology; we should be finding different technologies for different environments. We need to have access to all of these different technologies if we’re going to solve the digital divide.”

Across a host of industries, it’s clear that an inclusive approach to spectrum policy is a major catalyst for building connections and bolstering innovation. Moreover, it will protect mission-critical national security functions now and for years to come – ensuring the U.S. maintains its competitive technological edge within each and every industry sector.