CTIA and a few of its mobile-industry members proceed to push coverage messaging and commissioned research claiming that the US has a major “hole” in mid-band business spectrum in comparison with different international locations, particularly in China and Europe, which undermines US 5G and future 6G networks.
There are two issues, nevertheless, with these doom-mongering claims of a mid-band deficit:
- CTIA misrepresents “mid-band” as frequencies from 3GHz upwards. The remainder of the cellular {industry} refers to mid-band as beginning at 1GHz.
- CTIA’s worldwide comparisons mischaracterize another international locations’ low-power, shared mid-band spectrum allocations as high-power unique bands.
Collectively, these numerical mis-steps imply that CTIA’s advocacy systematically undercounts the US availability of mid-band frequencies, and overcounts the remainder of the world. When evaluating apples to apples, the claimed mid-band spectrum deficit within the US shrinks massively or disappears.
Mid-band begins at 1GHz, not 3GHz
CTIA makes use of an uncommon, arbitrary and self-serving definition of “mid-band” to make it seem that US mobile operators have much less spectrum entry. Along with its consultants similar to Accenture, it has unilaterally outlined spectrum ranges as:
- Low-band (0.3 – 3GHz)
- Decrease mid-band (3 – 8.4GHz)
- Higher mid-band (8.4 – 24GHz)
- Excessive-Band (>24GHz)
Creating and altering its personal handy definitions will not be new. In 2016, CTIA known as something above 6GHz “excessive band”. In 2018, experiences CTIA commissioned from exterior consultants began referring to mid-band between 3-24GHz. However in 2020 it described mid-band as stretching from 3-7GHz, with low-band beneath 3GHz. However by 2022 it had adjusted this definition but once more to incorporate frequencies as much as 8.4GHz, because it turned clear which may conceivably be used for mobile in some unspecified time in the future.
In the meantime, just about everybody else within the cellular {industry} defines mid-band as 1-6GHz or 1-7GHz, together with GSMA, 5G Americas, Nokia, Ericsson and lots of extra.
- GSMA, 2022: “Mid-bands are discovered at 1-7 GHz”
- CTIA member T-Cell: Refers to mid-band as 1-6GHz in a current weblog, and particularly identifies its 2.5GHz vary as mid-band
- 5G Americas, 2023: “mid-band, which ranges between 1 GHz and 6 GHz”
- Nokia: “Mid-band spectrum (1 GHz – 6 GHz) is taken into account excellent for 5G”
- Ericsson, 2022: “Community professionals discuss this space when it comes to sub-6 GHz… The spectrum used right here is within the 1 GHz to six GHz vary”. On an {industry} analyst name in December 2024, the corporate confirmed that it views 1-7GHz as midband, with 5G deployments principally utilizing 2.3GHz upwards.
- GSA (the International Cell Suppliers’ {industry}) launched a report in July 2024 which mentioned precise deployed mid-band networks and frequency ranges, between 1.71GHz and 5GHz
- Even CTIA consultants AnalysysMason, in a 2022 report commissioned by CTIA, famous (maybe with some embarrassment) that “The two.5GHz band … shares lots of the identical traits of the recognized mid-band spectrum … and will subsequently correctly be grouped with mid-band spectrum as properly.”
In different phrases, the {industry} consensus agrees that 1-3GHz is a part of the mid-band. In early discussions about 6G spectrum, some have began to confer with “higher mid-band” between 7-24GHz, however they nonetheless confer with decrease mid-band from 1GHz and up.
The US telecom {industry}’s personal requirements physique ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunications Business Options) holds the smart view that low / mid / excessive band terminology is just too obscure, saying that “basically, it is suggested that the above phrases are acceptable provided that ambiguity will be averted”.
Why does this matter? It signifies that CTIA can artificially exclude its members important AWS licenses within the 1-3GHz band and T-Cell’s big 2.5GHz holdings from its arbitrary depend of “mid-band” availability, whilst T-Cell itself repeatedly refers to these licenses as “mid-band”.
CTIA additionally conveniently omits any references to 4G / 5G mobile having the ability to use unlicensed spectrum bands similar to 5GHz for further localized capability, or indoor protection. Applied sciences similar to 4G LTE-U (Unlicensed), MuLTEfire, 5G NR-U and others are well-understood and have been utilized by some US operators prior to now. In the event that they actually wanted further spectrum, they’d make use of this non-obligatory further useful resource, a minimum of opportunistically.
If CTIA as an alternative used the identical definition of mid-band utilized by everybody else, their claims look very totally different. Taken collectively, AT&T, Verizon, T-Cell and Dish/EchoStar have round 870 megahertz of true midband spectrum. That is a lot nearer to different international friends, together with China and numerous European international locations.
Worldwide comparisons
Comparable inaccuracies or questionable assertions happen in CTIA’s claims and commissioned analysis centering on comparisons with different markets, particularly China, but in addition Europe.
As an illustration, only a few international locations have allotted the three.3-3.4GHz vary to MNOs, with even fewer actively utilizing it for full-power unique use. In China, this band is particularly allotted for low-power indoor use, by way of network-sharing preparations between China Unicom, China Telecom & China Broadcasting Community. That is in stark distinction to how CTIA characterizes its use.
Certainly, when CTIA commissioned AnalysysMason to have a look at 3-7GHz mid-band allocations for cellular in 2022, it didn’t distinguish between high-power nationwide licenses and low/mid-power licenses for shared native or non-public community use. AnalysysMason famous “totals embody spectrum that’s obtainable in a number of international locations for personal 5G use. Particularly, a number of regulators in Europe have put aside spectrum particularly for personal 5G networks”. But subsequent feedback by CTIA have missed that caveat, and simply assumed it was all equal to auctioned, unique use bands, which is most undoubtedly not the case.
CTIA member AT&T has additionally individually claimed in its current CBRS NPRM feedback that “many international locations have assigned or deliberate to assign a big, contiguous swath of three GHz spectrum for cellular broadband, together with Japan (3.4-4.1GHz), the UK (3.4-4.2GHz), France (3.4-4.0GHz), South Korea (3.4-4.0GHz), and Australia (3.4-4.0GHz)”.
That is improper for a number of international locations – once more, it’s combining regular unique, nationwide high-power assignments with native shared-spectrum allocations for personal networks and neighborhood FWA networks. As an illustration within the UK, 3.4-3.8GHz is allotted for nationwide MNO use, however 3.8-4.2GHz falls beneath the “Shared Entry Licence” framework for low/medium energy deployments on a location-by-location foundation. In France, the three.8-4.0GHz vary is at present utilized by about 90 non-public networks on a trial foundation. Australia has native “Space Vast Licenses” within the 3.75-3.95GHz vary, for enterprises similar to mining and remote-area neighborhood FWA broadband.
In different phrases, CTIA and AT&T are mockingly and unwittingly advocating for some good coverage positions right here; a spotlight by governments on enhancing indoor protection by way of network-sharing and impartial host fashions could be very sensible. And the provision of as much as 400 megahertz of native, shared spectrum for personal 5G, specialist suppliers, or neighborhood FWA in some markets is considerably extra bandwidth than that obtainable from CBRS within the US.
Conclusion
CTIA’s argument that the US lacks adequate mid-band spectrum for cellular operators’ 5G networks is deeply flawed. It undercounts current US allocations, particularly within the 2.5GHz vary that its personal member T-Cell usually identifies as mid-band. And its worldwide comparisons incorrectly embody quite a lot of low-power and shared spectrum when including up different international locations’ allocations to unique high-power licenses.
In abstract, plainly CTIA must revisit its definitions, assumptions and comparisons. It should discover that the US has loads of mid-band spectrum, even whether it is at present distributed inconsistently between its members.