Every four years, the ITU (International Telecommunication Union), an UN agency responsible for IT and telecoms, holds the World Radio Congress (WRC) to review and revise the international treaty governing the use of the radio-frequency spectrum and satellite orbits. Each nation then puts the agreement into practice through its own laws and allocation processes.
The next WRC is due to occur at the end of 2027 (WRC-27). At the moment, the host country has yet to be decided – but the spectrum community understands the only candidates to be China and Rwanda.
This is important – the host country’s role goes beyond just prestige. It has significant technical and geopolitical implications in terms of the way the conference is conducted. Given the focus of WRC-27 on satellite services and proposed new bands being studied for 5G / 6G, US policymakers must take seriously – and urgently – the possibility that China will host it.
Benefits and implications of hosting WRC
The host country for the WRC plays a number of crucial roles, including providing the conference Chair, guiding discussions, influencing themes of debate, and facilitating last-minute decisions and sometimes “back-room” negotiations.
In addition to the procedural roles, the host country also coordinates security and the physical location and organization of the event.
Hosting the WRC also allows the host country to exert “soft” influence over the wider global telecommunications sector and news-flow. It enables favored (especially local) organizations to showcase their technological advancements, offer demonstrations and host diplomats. Competing voices offering alternative visions get fewer opportunities of this type.
It is unclear how an event hosted in China would coexist with its typical restrictions on Internet access, or even permissibility of attendees using software or equipment such as encrypted VPNs or satellite communications that are normally prohibited. Importantly, WRC participants are not just official government staff, but also various representatives of trade groups, journalists, specific companies and others that may not have the same diplomatic or legal protections.
What could WRC-27 mean for US wireless and federal services?
Headlining the WRC-27 agenda are debates over designating new spectrum for IMT (or International Mobile Telecoms, i.e. 5G / 6G wireless) and for direct-to-device (D2D) satellite services. Delegates will study the 4.4-4.8GHz, 7.1-8.4GHz and 15GHz ranges for IMT use.
At the 2023 WRC, there was considerable surprise at the late proposal of these studies, which are heavily used by military incumbents in many countries. Coming shortly after Sweden and Finland (homes to two of the largest non-Chinese 5G vendors) had recently joined NATO, many observers pointed towards China- and Russia-led pressure on these bands as a backdoor effort to weaken both the West’s military and its top vendors.
Of these bands, the US National Spectrum Strategy is also studying commercial use of the 7.1-8.4GHz band, although the domestic American debate focuses mostly around spectrum-sharing models, rather than clearing and allocating these bands for mobile carriers’ exclusive use. As well as military, meteorological and space applications, this band is also increasingly used for applications such as low-power sensing and radar-type functions in phones and other consumer electronics such as tags and motion-detectors.
Certain proposed bands will likely lead to arguments between commercial cellular interests and other groups (such as the military) in the US and other western countries. This then offers a win-win for China and other hostile governments such as Russia – clearing bands for exclusive IMT use can effectively weaken defense systems and force extra unnecessary costs on the US and allies’ militaries – at the same time as adding doubt and friction to commercial wireless suppliers.
If China wins its fight to redesignate those bands for 5G / 6G, then its companies will enjoy a larger addressable market for their products. If the outcome is indecisive and unfavourable, then they will still have added friction, disharmony, and fragmentation – repeating what we have already seen around the globe with the 6GHz band.
By contrast, China’s government and domestic manufacturers such as Huawei and ZTE are almost always aligned on matters such as spectrum policy, as well as on their strong preference for cellular 5G / 6G rather than Wi-Fi or other co-existence technologies.
There are numerous satellite- and space-related agenda items covered at WRC-27 as well, which could impact major US Low Earth Orbit (LEO) constellations, the growth of D2D services in mobile handsets, and other areas of interest such as space science and observation.
What actions should US government agencies be taking?
Firstly, the various US agencies such as FCC, NTIA, DoD and NASA should work on the assumption that China will end up hosting WRC-27. If it turns out that Rwanda or another country assumes the role, most of the preparation will still be useful and relevant.
Secondly, it should work to align the views of stakeholders in the US – especially the telecoms industry, DoD and satellite sectors – as rapidly as possible. While there are numerous WRC agenda items in play, the most important connectivity debates are over IMT and satellite spectrum allocations, as discussed above.
It is important to have a clear, unified position at an early stage, so that the US can raise the profile of that stance in the run-up to the conference itself. The worst case is still having internal arguments and vitriolic wrangling while actually onsite in 2027.
While there are obvious differences of opinion on topics such as the future of 7-8GHz for 5G / 6G, there should be relative consistency of view on the 4GHz range, and hopefully also on sectors such as LEO (also called NGSO or Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit) satellite connectivity.
US agencies should start by developing common positions on the simpler elements, while fixing a timeline for deciding the thornier issues and sticking to them, even with cross-departmental divergence. Some of the positions may relate to innovation and new approaches such as dynamic sharing, which may need technical studies to be conducted. These should be identified urgently and expedited as much as possible.
Thirdly, the US should simultaneously align with allies on spectrum issues, especially around the bands used by NATO allies and others in Asia Pacific. The US should engage with NATO’s own spectrum and radio teams as well as European bodies such as CEPT, which is developing its own common position on the same agenda items. Technical study work should be shared or coordinated where practical.
The US should also reach out to the wider global community, especially focusing on allies, and Americas / Caribbean neighbors (ITU Region 1) that will determine its regional body CITEL (Inter-American Telecommunication Commission) shared positions, and those – especially in Africa – that sit on the ITU Council and will thus have a choice between China, Rwanda and maybe other options.
Finally, the US should look to raise the profile of spectrum-sharing – especially dynamic sharing, where the US is a global leader. If new bands are ultimately identified for IMT, the US would benefit from securing text or footnotes which reference the desirability of spectrum-sharing, or co-existence with incumbents or other services. This is a possible fallback position, as seen in WRC-23’s final text about the Upper 6GHz band.
Conclusions
There is a medium-to-high chance that WRC-27 will be hosted by China. The US authorities should recognize this as a risk to its interests and priorities and take early steps to mitigate any potential downsides in terms of future spectrum rules and allocations. It is particularly important to develop common positions as fast as possible, and coordinate both across the different US stakeholders, and with like-minded global partners and allies.
Dean Bubley (@disruptivedean) is the Founder of Disruptive Analysis. He is one of the leading analysts covering 5G, 6G, Wi-Fi, telco business models & regulation, and the emergence of technologies such as quantum networking and AI.
Op-eds from industry experts, analysts or our editorial staff are opinion pieces that do not represent the opinions of Fierce Network.