11th Asia Pacific Spectrum Management Conference

The US now has an unprecedented mandate to build a substantial new pipeline of commercial spectrum for 5G and 6G. The challenge is no longer simply identifying potential bands, but ensuring that spectrum can be cleared, funded and brought to market within the timelines set by legislation and the evolving technology cycle. The first statutory milestone comes in July 2027, by which time at least 200 MHz of the federal tranche must be identified and the Upper C-band auction completed. The FCC has already adopted plans for 160 MHz of Upper C-band, while NTIA is studying further options across 7 GHz, 2.7 GHz, 4.4–4.94 GHz and 1675–1695 MHz; with its 7 GHz study due to conclude in December 2026 (around the time of this event). Each presents a different timeline, relocation challenge and value to network operators. This session examines whether the US can turn the legislative mandate into a credible, funded and deliverable pipeline; and whether the spectrum being identified is the spectrum that industry actually needs, in the quantities and on the timelines that will matter.

 
• Are we on track to meet the first statutory identification deadline of July 2027? Which bands will make up that first 200 MHz and what will happen if timings slip?
• NTIA’s final 7 GHz study is expected around the time of this event. What will determine whether the lower 7GHz band becomes a cornerstone of US 6G spectrum? What will be the exact frequency range that can be made available, and can relocating federal incumbents into upper portion of the band provide a durable basis for making this spectrum available?
• What is the situation with other key bands that are being explored, including the 2.7 GHz, 4.4-4.94 GHz and 1675-1695 MHz bands?
• Is the funding and relocation model fit for purpose? With the Spectrum Relocation Fund dependent on appropriations, agency transition plans still under review and clearing costs running into billions, how can funding and federal relocation be prevented from becoming bottlenecks?
• What does success look like for federal incumbents, and can spectrum reallocation deliver a genuine win-win for both federal and commercial users?
  Is the US identifying the right spectrum, not simply enough of it? What frequencies and bandwidths will 6G actually require, and how can the drive for additional mobile spectrum be balanced with the needs of other commercial users (satellite, Wi-Fi, IoT, private networks and more)?
• Is the spectrum pipeline aligned with the 6G technology cycle, and will it provide industry with certainty early enough, and will current timelines support early 6G releases?

Artificial intelligence is set to transform both the demand for wireless connectivity and the way networks use spectrum. As AI moves into smartphones, vehicles, robots, factories and other connected devices, the resulting growth in data, low-latency and highly distributed connectivity will create new pressure for spectrum policy. At the same time, AI could fundamentally change how spectrum is managed and used, enabling networks to predict demand, manage interference, dynamically allocate resources and make much more intensive use of existing capacity. This session will explore the extent to which current spectrum policy keeping pace with the connectivity demands of an AI-driven economy; and at what spectrum strategy will best support continued US leadership in AI. As the industry looks towards AI-native 6G and increasingly intelligent connectivity networks, it will consider both how much additional spectrum is needed and how much more can be achieved from the spectrum already available. Ultimately, what will the future wireless connectivity layer need to look like to support AI both in the data centre and at the edge, enabling applications for end users across enterprise campuses, factories, healthcare, education and beyond?

 
• Is current spectrum policy keeping pace with the connectivity demands of an AI-driven economy?
• What will the future wireless connectivity layer need to look like to support AI data centres and also to bring AI-enabled services to consumers, businesses, vehicles and machines? What role will different connectivity providers play in this?
• What spectrum characteristics will AI-driven connectivity require, and how should policymakers balance demand for additional mid-band capacity with greater use of existing spectrum across mobile, Wi-Fi, satellite and other networks?
• Can AI-enabled network optimisation materially reduce the need for additional spectrum and infrastructure by enabling networks to predict demand, manage interference and dynamically allocate resources, or will AI-driven traffic ultimately outpace these efficiency gains?
• How will AI-native 6G networks change the way spectrum, network resources and connectivity are managed in real time, and what regulatory frameworks will be needed to enable more intelligent and dynamic spectrum use?
• Ultimately, will AI make spectrum smarter, drive demand for more spectrum, or both?

The satellite industry is evolving rapidly, and regulators around the world are adapting their frameworks to keep pace. The US is widely seen as at the forefront of this effort, with a number of significant initiatives introduced in recent years. Alongside key decisions on direct-to-device (discussed separately at the event taking place alongside this conference), other major reforms to satellite spectrum regulation include an overhaul of the decades-old power-flux-density limits governing sharing between geostationary and non-geostationary systems, an overhaul of the licensing regime for space and earth stations through its Space Modernization Order, and a review of restrictions on where earth stations can be deployed alongside terrestrial services. Taken together, these reforms represent a significant evolution of the US satellite spectrum framework — welcomed by some parts of the industry, contested by others, and in several cases moving ahead of international processes. This session will examine what the emerging rulebook means for satellite operators and spectrum management more broadly, and whether other administrations across the Americas should follow the US approach.

 
• What are the key changes to satellite licencing that have been brought in from the FCC and what impact are these likely to have? To what extent can these provide a broader blueprint for the Americas region and globally?
• Is performance-based coordination the right approach for GSO and NGSO sharing? Has the right balance been found in order to provide greater flexibility while still protecting incumbent services?
• What practical measures are needed to assess whether the new framework is working? How should service degradation be measured and addressed when satellite operators disagree?
• What are the spectrum implications of the new space modernization order, and can it help to deliver the speed and flexibility the satellite industry needs? Is the balance between faster approvals and regulatory oversight right?
• Should restrictions on earth-station siting alongside terrestrial services be relaxed? With 28 GHz at the centre of the debate and terrestrial deployments in the band arguably falling short of expectations, is reform overdue, and how should the rights of satellite and terrestrial users be balanced?
• What are the implications of the US moving ahead of international processes? Does domestic reform create momentum for global change, or risk greater fragmentation between markets?
• Should other administrations across the Americas follow the US approach? Where would greater alignment deliver the greatest benefits for satellite operators and spectrum users?

C-band has become a cornerstone of US 5G, and the FCC has now adopted a plan to make a further 160 MHz of Upper C-band (3.98-4.14 GHz) available for terrestrial wireless use, with the spectrum to be auctioned by July 2027. The focus now shifts from allocation to execution: transitioning incumbent satellite operations out of the band, funding and coordinating relocation through an independent clearinghouse, and managing coexistence with radio altimeters in the adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz range, where the Commission has adopted a guard band and a 60 MHz buffer, made rebates available to aircraft owners for FAA-mandated retrofits, and tied deployment timing to the completion of those retrofits. The first C-band transition provides important lessons, not least on aviation, but the next phase brings its own technical, operational and commercial challenges — and terrestrial service will not begin until December 2030, extending into 2031 across remaining markets, some four years after the auction. This session will examine whether the transition timetable is achievable, where the greatest risks lie, and what is needed to bring the spectrum into productive use as quickly and efficiently as possible.

• How achievable is the transition timetable? What needs to happen between now and 2030 to ensure the Upper C-band is ready for terrestrial use on schedule?
• What are the biggest technical challenges in relocating satellite operations? Can incumbent services be migrated without disrupting existing users or compromising service quality?
• Who should bear the costs of the transition? Is the current compensation and funding framework sufficient to incentivise a timely and efficient migration?
• What lessons can be learned from the first C-band transition? What worked, what didn’t, and how should those lessons shape the Upper C-band process?
• Is aviation coexistence resolved? With new guard-band measures, radio-altimeter upgrades and rebates tied to FAA requirements, has the US learned the lessons of the first C-band transition or does aviation remain a critical path to deployment?
• How should the transition manage coexistence between satellite and terrestrial users? Can phased deployment or geographic coordination accelerate commercial use while incumbents are still being migrated?
• Is 2030 the right target for terrestrial use of the Upper C-band? Could the transition be accelerated, and what would be required to bring the spectrum into productive use sooner?

The US has two of the world’s most developed spectrum-sharing frameworks in live operation, and they take markedly different approaches to enable additional users while protecting incumbent services. In 6 GHz, the full 5.925–7.125 GHz range has been made available for unlicensed use, supported by mechanisms including low-power indoor operation, standard-power AFC and, more recently, geofenced variable-power operation. CBRS, meanwhile, provides a tiered framework combining incumbent protection, shared access and licensed use. Both offer important real-world tests of how sharing can work at scale, but they also raise different questions about coordination, interference protection, power, predictability and the balance between different users. As policymakers consider how to make greater use of increasingly contested spectrum, including potential future opportunities in bands such as 4.4 GHz and 7 GHz, what can these models tell us about when and how sharing should be used? Drawing on the experience of 6 GHz and CBRS, this session will step back to ask how far spectrum sharing can go. It will examine what these frameworks reveal about the opportunities and limits of coexistence in practice, whether emerging technologies such as AI-enabled spectrum management and sensing can support more intensive sharing, and what conditions need to be in place for sharing to succeed.

• What are 6 GHz and CBRS telling us about spectrum sharing in practice? Where have the two models worked well, where have they exposed limitations, and what lessons can be applied to future sharing frameworks?
• How far can sharing go? As the FCC considers higher-power and more flexible operating models in 6 GHz, and CBRS continues to evolve, what evidence is needed to determine how intensively spectrum can be shared without increasing harmful-interference risks?
• Could emerging technologies fundamentally change what is possible? Would AI-enabled spectrum management, sensing and more dynamic coordination materially improve shared-spectrum efficiency, or are the gains likely to be incremental?
• What does the divergence in approaches to 6 GHz across the Americas and the rest of the world mean for device availability, equipment costs and investment? Is there still a path towards greater harmonisation, and what lessons does CBRS offer?
• How should policymakers choose between different sharing models? When is unlicensed access, a tiered framework such as CBRS, local licensing or another approach most appropriate, and how should policymakers balance incumbent protection, predictability, flexibility and efficient use?
• Can 6 GHz and CBRS provide a blueprint for future bands? What could their experience mean for potential sharing in bands such as 4.4 GHz and 7 GHz, and what conditions would need to be in place for similar models to work?

With WRC-27 now just over a year away and the ITU’s preparatory cycle well advanced, the US and the wider Americas are entering a critical period in shaping and consolidating positions ahead of Shanghai. Domestically, the FCC’s WRC-27 Advisory Committee and its informal working groups, NTIA and the State Department are working through preliminary views across a broad and demanding agenda. Across the region, administrations are pursuing that same process through CITEL, where common proposals are built between countries whose markets and connectivity priorities differ considerably. The issues in play will have a significant bearing on the future of spectrum management for the decade ahead – from IMT expansion in the upper mid-band and the rapid growth of satellite and direct-to-device services, to NGSO regulatory measures and the protection of incumbent science and federal services. WRC-27 will also set the agenda for WRC-31, determining which bands and issues are studied over the following cycle. This session will examine where preparations stand on both a national and regional level, assess the extent of alignment across the Americas, and explore the steps needed in the months ahead to ensure the region arrives at WRC-27 with an effective and well-supported voice.

 
• Which WRC-27 agenda items are of greatest strategic importance to administrations across the Americas, and how far have national positions been consolidated?
• How should the region balance competing demands from IMT, satellite, Wi-Fi and other spectrum users, and how important will WRC-27 be in setting that balance?
• Is the US domestic spectrum pipeline aligned with its WRC-27 objectives, or could domestic and international priorities pull in different directions?
• Where is consensus forming within CITEL, and where do significant divergences remain? How can the region build effective Inter-American Proposals where interests differ?
• Can the Americas approach WRC-27 with a genuinely coordinated voice? Where do North American, Caribbean and South American priorities converge — and where must the region accept differences?
• What are the critical milestones between now and WRC-27, and what would a successful outcome for the Americas look like?

The US has made 6G leadership a strategic priority, and the December 2025 Presidential Memorandum “Winning the 6G Race” made spectrum the primary instrument for delivering it. The July 2026 Call to Action for 6G Leadership and Security committed more than 20 nations to coordinated spectrum planning alongside secure supply chains and industry-led standards. But coordination in principle is not harmonisation in practice. The US is moving on 7.125–7.4 GHz; the UK has split its upper 6 GHz band between Wi-Fi and mobile; the EU has prioritised the upper 540 MHz in the band for mobile, with the remainder of its allocation contingent on the outcome of WRC-27; and other major markets have taken different views again. WRC-27 may permit a range of outcomes, but the bands that actually reach global scale will be determined by national decisions taken over the next two years, and by whether chipsets, devices and equipment support them. The coalition reconvenes in 2027 to review progress. This session asks whether allied spectrum decisions are converging on a common 6G base or drifting apart, what fragmentation would cost, and how far the US can lead the outcome rather than simply move first.

• What would “winning” the 6G race actually look like for the US – first to deploy, setting the standard, the largest device and equipment ecosystem, or the widest harmonised spectrum footprint? Are these compatible, and which matters most if the US cannot lead on all of them?
• How significant are the global divergences that are being seen in mid-band strategy? How much of the eventual answer now rests with WRC-27 rather than with national decisions?
• What would fragmentation actually cost? At what point does divergence start to damage the 6G business case and can this be avoided?
• Does moving first deliver influence? Can early US decisions shape where other markets land, or risk leaving it aligned with fewer partners than intended?
• What does the coalition need to deliver on spectrum specifically by its 2027 review to be judged a success?
• To what extent more broadly are we moving towards achieving sufficient clarity and investment certainty for industry to begin planning for 6G and to deliver the true global leadership that is targeted?

The traditional boundaries between connectivity technologies are rapidly breaking down. 5G and FWA are capturing significant shares of the home broadband market, cable operators are expanding into wireless through MVNO models, and direct-to-device services are bringing satellite and mobile connectivity ever closer together. At the same time, IoT is adding another layer of convergence, with applications drawing on technologies from unlicensed LPWAN and cellular IoT to satellite depending on coverage, reliability, power and cost. Consumers and businesses increasingly experience connectivity as a combination of fibre, Wi-Fi, cellular, satellite, IoT and cloud infrastructure rather than through any single network. Yet spectrum and regulatory frameworks remain largely organised around separate mobile, satellite and unlicensed regimes, with distinct licensing routes, service definitions and obligations. As these boundaries blur, does this regulatory structure still fit the market it governs? This session will examine how far convergence has really gone, whether siloed frameworks are constraining the development of complementary and hybrid services, and how regulation can support technology-neutral investment, interoperability and connectivity models that maximise outcomes for users.

• How is the competitive landscape changing as different connectivity technologies increasingly serve the same users and applications? Are traditional distinctions between connectivity providers becoming less meaningful?
• How far has convergence actually gone? Are we seeing the start of a structural shift in how connectivity is delivered, or simply a growing range of complementary technologies?
• Is convergence happening at the application level even where networks remain distinct? Are consumers, businesses and IoT users, increasingly looking for the right combination of coverage, reliability, capacity and cost, regardless of the underlying network?
• How should spectrum policy evolve as the traditional boundaries between mobile, satellite and unlicensed use become increasingly blurred? What can the experience of IoT seeing coexistence of cellular, unlicensed LPWAN and satellite connectivity tell us about how spectrum should be managed?
• Can regulatory frameworks become genuinely technology neutral, while still providing the certainty needed to encourage long-term investment in different connectivity platforms? How should policymakers balance licensed, shared and unlicensed access where different technologies can increasingly support overlapping applications?
• What regulatory approaches are needed to encourage interoperability, complementary investment and hybrid networks rather than forcing technologies to compete in isolation?
• Ultimately, should policy focus less on individual connectivity technologies and more on the end-to-end connectivity outcomes they collectively deliver?

2 targeted and focussed sessions, exploring key issues relating to spectrum policy. Each session will have a maximum of 3 speakers and will be highly interactive.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup was one of the most demanding spectrum coordination exercises ever undertaken for a major sporting event, bringing together thousands of wireless devices, broadcasters, public safety users, event operations and connectivity providers across the US, Canada and Mexico. With the tournament now complete, what can the spectrum community learn from the experience? From early planning and cross-border coordination to interference management, temporary authorisations and real-time monitoring, this is an opportunity to assess what worked, what proved challenging and what should change before the next major global event.

• Looking back, what were the biggest spectrum coordination challenges at the 2026 World Cup?
• Where were coordination efforts most stretched and were there areas that came close to going wrong? What would have happened if it had failed?
• Concerns were raised beforehand about congestion in the channels production teams rely on, unlicensed use encroaching on broadcast links, and equipment arriving without proper authorisation. How did those play out in practice, and is the current model sustainable for events of this scale?
• What has the experience of the World Cup taught us about supporting major events in an increasingly congested spectrum environment, and what lessons should regulators and industry carry forward into the 2028 Olympics and other major international events?

How spectrum is awarded matters as much as how much of it is released. The US is entering its most significant sequence of awards in years: the AWS-3 auction has concluded, the upper C-band auction is scheduled for July 2027 with more than three thousand licences on offer and bidding credits available to small businesses and rural providers, a 2.7 GHz award is anticipated for 2028, and further auctions are required under statute before the end of the decade. At the same time, the largest reallocation of US spectrum in recent years has happened without an auction at all — through private transactions transferring low-band, mid-band and satellite holdings between operators. Together these raise questions about what auction design can realistically achieve, how transfers and consolidation should be reviewed, and who ultimately ends up holding spectrum. This short session examines how award design is evolving, and whether the tools available to regulators still match the market they are shaping.

• What outcomes were seen from the AWS-3 process, and can any lessons be taken? With upper C-band and further awards in preparation, which design choices are being repeated, which are being changed, and what is driving those decisions?
• How much can auction design realistically achieve? Bidding credits, spectrum caps, licence areas and coverage obligations are all used to shape outcomes — do they work, or do they mainly move the price?
• Is the secondary market now doing more than auctions? With major transactions reshaping spectrum holdings, how should transfers, leasing and consolidation be reviewed — and are the current tools adequate?
• Who gets spectrum if they cannot realistically bid? Tribal, rural and smaller carrier access has been raised repeatedly in recent proceedings. Is the balance between speed, revenue and access right?

Private wireless networks are moving from experimentation into real-world deployments across manufacturing, ports, logistics, energy, mining, healthcare and other industrial environments. The US has been at the forefront of this shift through the CBRS framework, while enterprises are also using Wi-Fi, unlicensed spectrum, operator partnerships, leased spectrum and dedicated allocations.
These developments raise a broader policy question: does the traditional model of nationwide spectrum licensing adequately reflect the increasingly diverse connectivity needs of industry? As AI, robotics, automation and edge computing create demand for secure, reliable and low-latency connectivity, verticals may increasingly want greater control over the networks supporting critical applications. Drawing on the experience of CBRS and other dedicated and shared spectrum models, this session will examine where current approaches are working, where they fall short, and what policymakers can learn from today’s private-network deployments about who will need spectrum in the 6G and AI era.

• What have we learned from CBRS and early private-network deployments? Where has the model worked well, where has it fallen short, and what does this tell us about how spectrum should be made available to verticals?
• Who needs spectrum of their own? As factories, ports, utilities, mines and other industries deploy increasingly sophisticated connectivity, where should the line sit between dedicated allocations, shared frameworks, local licensing and buying capacity from mobile operators?
• Could operator partnerships, leasing and neutral-host models provide the control enterprises need without dedicated spectrum?
• Is shared spectrum the right model for industrial connectivity? How should regulators balance predictable access and interference protection with the flexibility and efficiency that sharing can provide?
• What does the 900 MHz experience tell us about spectrum dependency? Much vertical connectivity – including asset tracking, sensors, agriculture and logistics – relies on unlicensed IoT in the lower 900 MHz band (902–928 MHz). With the band now the subject of a contested reallocation proposal, what are the implications for users that depend on spectrum they cannot license or protect?
• Does AI change the spectrum equation? As AI moves into factories, robotics, logistics, healthcare and edge computing, will private and locally controlled networks become an increasingly important part of the infrastructure needed for secure, reliable and low-latency connectivity?
• What should policymakers take from today’s deployments when designing 6G spectrum policy? Could local licensing, dynamic sharing, leasing or access to other licensed and unlicensed bands provide better options for the next generation of vertical connectivity?