Who Should Control America’s Spectrum? | American Enterprise Institute

Spectrum is an essential resource that supports wireless communications, economic growth, and national security. But the several agencies that use and oversee spectrum often rely on isolated systems and have few incentives to move beyond these costly programs to pursue efficiency. Other countries are moving toward commercial-first models that enable their militaries to use advanced commercial networks instead of building and maintaining separate systems. Our latest episode examines how market-based reforms and greater reliance on commercial networks could modernize American spectrum policy.

Shane is joined by Roslyn Layton, executive vice president at Strand Consult. She is also a digital policy fellow at Michigan State University’s Quello Center and a senior fellow at the National Security Institute at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. She previously served as a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and on the president-elect’s transition team for the Federal Communications Commission.

Below is a lightly edited and abridged transcript of our discussion. You can listen to this and other episodes of Explain to Shane on AEI.org and subscribe via your preferred listening platform. If you enjoyed this episode, leave us a review, and tell your friends and colleagues to tune in.

Shane Tews: The FCC recently announced that it is creating a super band of mid-band spectrum. Why does this matter so much?

Roslyn Layton: The super band is about as exciting as it gets when it comes to spectrum policy. It reflects something people in telecom policy have been working toward for decades.

In the last administration, we were in a period of spectrum stasis. Auction authority had lapsed, and there was no pipeline. Last year, the One Big Beautiful Bill restored that authority and teed up a plan to get 800 megahertz of spectrum into the auction process and ultimately to the American people. That is a big deal.

We are almost past 5G, and we are running out of spectrum. Commercial actors can use only about one-fifth to one-quarter of the total, while most of it is held by the federal government. There is relatively little that industry can access, even though commercial networks are heavy users.

This kind of auction is essential for technologies such as fixed wireless access, which allows you to receive broadband through the air instead of through a wire in the ground. We also want to be ready for 6G. Our adversaries and allies are already there in terms of having the right spectrum in place, and we have been playing catch-up on mid-band spectrum for some time.

The FCC also deserves credit for putting two auctions together in a short period. These things used to take a decade, but the commission has a new software system and can now move resources into the marketplace much faster. It is a great success story about government modernization and innovation.

The federal government controls much of the valuable mid-band spectrum. How can we change that allocation while still meeting the military’s needs?

Mid-band spectrum has properties that support high-speed, high-quality data transmission. Commercial broadband networks are very heavy users of the band.

Military usage is relatively light. The military uses spectrum for signals, sensing equipment, and radar, and of course it needs spectrum. But it is not moving massive amounts of data in the same way. Many military applications can work in other bands, while certain commercial applications need access to mid-band spectrum, where the physics are best.

Our allies are already moving to what I call a “commercial-first” spectrum strategy. If you are a military, there is an increasing cost to building your own systems because they are expensive to maintain. Commercial systems advance faster, and you want to have more capability. In the Nordic countries, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland can take a slice of commercial networks and run their military communications across it. They get better security, encryption, throughput, and all the capabilities we know from using 5G. They can use those networks across countries and operators because their spectrum is harmonized.

We cannot do that in the United States today because our frequencies are not harmonized with those used by our allies. The Pentagon would have to declare a state of emergency, control the private sector, and essentially commandeer the networks.

Fortunately, many smart people in our armed forces recognize that if they pivot to a commercial-first spectrum strategy, they will be able to use 5G networks across the United States and our allied countries for defense and other military applications.

For decades, the Pentagon’s spectrum policy has been that more is better, quantity over quality. The idea was that owning the spectrum was what mattered. But what matters now is access: getting what you need, in the way that you need it, at the right time. That is much more important than simply holding the whole thing.

The same principle applies to military technology. Sometimes you want the expensive and sophisticated system, but sometimes you want the optimal match. You are not making those strategic decisions when you end up with the million-dollar missile taking out the $1,000 drone.

Are we seeing the Pentagon move toward that commercial-first approach?

There have always been a lot of smart people in the American military. In recent years, a number of entrepreneurs and business leaders have left the private sector to serve. Emil Michael, the Pentagon’s chief technology officer, came out of Uber and other American companies and is driving a commercial-first policy for AI. He is approaching the issue as a good CEO would: extracting value and pushing suppliers to deliver what the military needs. People in the military are also accustomed to commercial mobile devices. They know their 5G smartphones and everything those devices can do. They want military applications to have the same functionality, interoperability, seamlessness, quality, and accessibility. They are demanding that, and I think we have smarter buyers today who better understand the procurement process.

When you move toward a commercial-first approach, you move away from being locked into a small number of providers. In the past, you would say, “Battleship maker, make me a new battleship.” Today, you can look across the whole universe of firms and pursue a best-of-breed strategy. You can put different functionalities together in the way that a software company or software-as-a-service enterprise would. It is a smart way to bring what may be America’s greatest strength in business management into the military, along with the expertise it already has in conflict, defense, and security. The commercial sector in the United States invests more than a trillion dollars in research and development every year. The Pentagon should be taking advantage of that and integrating the best of American enterprise.

What makes it so difficult for federal agencies to rethink their spectrum holdings?

In 2027, it will have been 100 years since the Federal Radio Act essentially put in place the federal spectrum policy we still have today. Over time, the FCC emerged to manage commercial spectrum, while everything else came to be managed by the Department of Commerce through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

That bifurcation is a uniquely American anomaly. Most nations put spectrum management in one place because you want one portfolio, one inventory, one clearinghouse, and one system.

Imagine if all our spectrum operated under a market-based system in which users could trade spectrum or return what they did not need. The FCC allows that on the commercial side, but we do not have the same concept for the rest of the federal government. We know that individuals and firms in the marketplace make more efficient decisions than bureaucrats when it comes to allocating scarce resources. If you have licenses and want to expand, you can purchase spectrum from someone leaving the market and combine it with your existing holdings. That FCC policy is one of the great American innovations. It’s been recognized with a Nobel Prize. 

Federal departments do not face those market pressures. They do not even face much transparency pressure. They do not have to say what they are doing with their spectrum or how efficiently they are using it. We have two different realities, and we cannot keep that status quo for another 100 years. We just cannot afford it. 

Fortunately, spectrum is our best renewable resource. It has tremendous value, belongs to the American people, and should produce a return for them. We should also be able to ask whether each agency is using what it has been given in the best possible way.

Spectrum auctions give us a reflection of the value of a particular use at a particular time and place. The FCC has shown that it can manage that process effectively. Imagine if we could bring that capability to the whole electromagnetic spectrum frontier.

One challenge is that agencies become fiefdoms and focus on protecting their turf. The question is who is looking out for the American people and whether these agencies are working to optimize the whole picture. 

China is not wasting time on these disputes, and neither are our allies. The Nordic countries are preparing for a potential invasion by Russia, so they are not fighting over fiefdoms. They are saying, “We’d better use our spectrum to get the job done, should an invasion happen.”

The FCC and NTIA can work together, but that cooperation has to accelerate. The Defense Department also needs to provide greater transparency, which can be done confidentially with the relevant officials. Many of these decisions come down to people looking at spectrum portfolios and deciding how to shift things around. The engineers can do the work. Making sure those conversations happen is critical.