CBRS pricing applied to 6 GHz band could raise $40 billion while fueling Wi-Fi and 5G
In a new article for PolicyTracker, “Pricing the Airwaves: Why Market-Based Spectrum Allocation Matters”, Roslyn Layton explains why the radio spectrum, one of the most valuable natural resources of the modern economy, should be priced to allocation usage. Yet most frequencies remain underpriced and underutilized. Since the 1990s, spectrum auctions have raised more than $600 billion globally, fueling innovation and connectivity. But less than one-third of global frequencies are currently allocated through these market mechanisms.
In her PolicyTracker opinion piece, Roslyn Layton argues that market-based spectrum allocation is essential for efficiency, investment, and lower consumer costs. Drawing on Ronald Coase’s seminal work, she highlights how transparent pricing ensures that spectrum flows to its highest-value uses. The debate over the 6 GHz band illustrates the stakes: while some regulators designated all of it for free Wi-Fi use, this decision forfeited an estimated $20–40 billion in public revenue and limited 5G deployment.
Importantly, Layton notes that there is precedent for monetizing shared spectrum. The U.S. Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) auction raised $4.58 billion from just 70 MHz of shared-access spectrum. Applying a similar model to the 6 GHz band could generate roughly $40 billion while still supporting Wi-Fi innovation.
Her pragmatic solution: split the 6 GHz band. Allow unlicensed, low-power Wi-Fi in the lower portion, while auctioning the upper portion for licensed mobile use. This “satisficing” approach may not be perfect, but it balances industry needs, consumer benefits, and national competitiveness.
Opinion: Pricing the Airwaves—Why Market-Based Spectrum Allocation is Key to 5G, Wi-Fi, and Economic Growth
September 5, 2025, PolicyTracker
Spectrum is a critical natural resource for modern economies, yet much of it remains underpriced and underutilized. Market-based allocation, as Coase first argued, ensures efficient use, drives investment, and lowers connectivity costs. With the 6 GHz band in contention, splitting it between licensed and low-power unlicensed use offers a pragmatic solution that balances innovation, public revenue, and industrial needs.
By Roslyn Layton, PhD
First Best: Market-Based Spectrum Allocation
A central tenet of any market economy is that pricing helps allocate scarce resources efficiently. Governments have long used prices to manage access to valuable goods, thereby avoiding the tragedy of the commons. Consider access to oil, gas and energy reserves; such leases generate some $16 billion annually for U.S. government entities. By contrast, the natural resource of radio spectrum—no less critical for modern economies—remains underpriced and underutilized.
Without additional licensed spectrum, mobile operators face capacity bottlenecks, higher costs, and reduced quality of service
Spectrum auctions are a relatively recent but impressive innovation. Since the first auction in 1994, governments have earned some $600 billion globally from mobile operators for spectrum licensing. This framework for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) allows the suite 3G, 4G (LTE), 5G, and 6G technologies and fuel a global $1.3 trillion economy and some 20 million jobs.
And yet, less than one-third of global frequencies are assigned through such market mechanisms. While wireless technologies have improved dramatically, spectrum allocations remain largely fixed in bands assigned nearly a century ago, effectively grandfathering government, broadcast, satellite, and aerospace users. For example, airlines pay only nominal administrative fees for frequencies. Meanwhile, administrative “beauty contests” persist, in which regulators select industries and uses for specific bands—such as the unlicensed designation for the 6 GHz band.
Noting the lack of transparency, distorted incentives, and constrained investment as early as 1959, economist Ronald Coase argued that all frequencies should be priced and tradable. He proposed a rational approach to maximize spectrum availability for all users—commercial,government, and unlicensed—while ensuring efficient allocation and lower access prices. Today, however, by restricting the availability of frequencies with specific technical characteristics, such as low-latency mid-band spectrum for 5G, regulators not only constrain supply but also inflate spectrum prices, making connectivity more expensive.
Licensed technologies running over limited licensed spectrum have nonetheless increased spectral efficiency hundreds of times. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) secondary spectrum markets now see thousands of trades each year, moving tens of billions of MHz-POPs of spectrum—equivalent to millions of MHz across U.S. population coverage—demonstrating that license transfers are a central mechanism for reallocating spectrum to higher-value uses. Yet we are approaching the limits of what technology alone can achieve. Without additional licensed spectrum, mobile operators face capacity bottlenecks, higher costs, and reduced quality of service.
From 2000 to today, global internet data traffic has grown 900-fold, or 90,000 percent. While the growth rate has moderated since the smartphone boom, internet usage still expands roughly 20 percent year-over-year. Nations currently allocate roughly 3,500–5,000 MHz for 5G, but will require about 25 percent more capacity to meet demand. Frequencies between 3–6 GHz offer the best combination of coverage and capacity.
China allocated the entire 6 GHz band to IMT, making clear its priority is not feel-good ‘shared access’ but industrial dominance with 5G
In the U.S., roughly 60 percent of prime mid-band spectrum remains under federal control, often with minimal reporting requirements on usage. Recent Congressional legislation further protects spectrum for favored defense projects, intensifying scarcity. In 2020, U.S. mobile operators spent $90 billion to acquire just 280 MHz in the 3.7–3.98 GHz range. The proceeds funded incumbent relocation, deficit reduction, rural and tribal broadband, education, and healthcare initiatives. Operators were eager to bid billions more for the next best option—the 6 GHz band—but were blocked.
Instead, many nations designated the 6 GHz band—a massive 1,200 MHz of prime mid-band spectrum—for free, low-power unlicensed indoor use, primarily benefiting Wi-Fi technologies. While hailed by device makers and tech companies as a boon for innovation, this decision represented a staggering cost to Americans: roughly $20–40 billion in forgone revenue for the use of a vital natural resource.
Given the growing competition for scarce spectrum and the opportunity costs involved, regulators are now reevaluating these allocation decisions.
The 6 GHz Do-Over: Global Stakes and Opportunity Cost
The U.S. and EU are now considering a split approach for 6 GHz, licensing the upper portion and relocating incumbents while leaving the lower portion for low-power, unlicensed use indoors. Other countries, including Brazil and Chile, are even walking back their earlier fullunlicensed designations altogether. Saying the quiet part out loud, China allocated the entire 6 GHz band to IMT, making clear its priority is not feel-good “shared access” but industrialdominance with 5G.
The leading advocate for unlicensed spectrum is the Austin, TX–based Wi-Fi Alliance, whose members include Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and more than 50 companies headquartered in China. Huawei, ZTE, Tencent, BYD, and Hikvision face multiple U.S. government restrictions due to security concerns, yet these firms continue to participate and benefit from the Alliance’s efforts to “shape the future of Wi-Fi®.” Huawei itself faced temporary membership restrictions in 2019 following its placement on the U.S. Entity List, but today appears to enjoy full participation and recognition.
Wi-Fi proponents often claim that mobile operators simply want to offload traffic onto Wi-Fi networks. In reality, operators would prefer to invest in their licensed offloading capacity—if only they were allowed to purchase spectrum rights.
Importantly, there is nothing stopping payments for unlicensed spectrum. Many unlicensed advocates point to shared-access models like the 3.5 GHz CBRS band, which raised $4.58 billion from auctioning 70 MHz of priority access. Scaling the 6 GHz band to a similar model could generate roughly $40 billion, even after accounting for its higher frequency and shared nature. If unlicensed dominance is truly essential, the Wi-Fi Alliance itself could pay a proportional fee—through membership contributions or device levies—forcing the industry to internalize spectrum scarcity, improve interference management, and prioritize higher-quality devices, while market pressures drive efficiency in licensed bands.
Satisficing: Split Spectrum Is the Pragmatic Path Forward
Market-based allocation, as Coase argued more than half a century ago, remains the most efficient approach. Where political compromise is unavoidable, satisficing—a term coined by Herbert Simon to describe solutions that are “good enough” though not optimal—offers the pragmatic path to split the 6 GHz band. Allowing low-power indoor unlicensed use in the lower portion supports Wi-Fi innovation without disrupting incumbents, while reserving the upper portion for licensed, auctioned use ensures that mobile operators can expand 5G networks. Splitting 6 GHz may not be first-best, but it is the only realistic way to secure spectrum for both Wi-Fi and 5G. Policymakers should also favor models that compensate the public for the use of its scarce resources.
Roslyn Layton, PhD is an American economist, Executive Vice President of Strand Consult and Research Fellow at Aalborg University in Denmark.