Europe to decide if 6 GHz is shared between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
- Reference: 1762687445
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/11/09/europe_to_decide_if_6/
- Source link:
The Wi-Fi Alliance and the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA) have published open letters addressed to "EU digital ministers," expressing concerns that the upper 6 GHz band (6425 to 7125 MHz) may be rendered off-limits to Wi-Fi networks in European Union countries.
At the heart of the problem is that newer Wi-Fi standards such as Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 7 are capable of using frequencies in the entire 6 GHz band to provide greater performance. But mobile operators are also eyeing this band for 5G and 6G network services.
[1]
The Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) of the European Commission is currently exploring ways of sharing the upper 6 GHz band between license-exempt technologies such as Wi-Fi and mobile networks. The lower part of the band is already license-exempt. Britain's telco regulator Ofcom is [2]following a similar policy , after a consultation process in 2023.
[3]
[4]
However, the Wi-Fi camp is worried that the German government may have changed its stance to favor exclusive mobile network use of the upper 6 GHz band, potentially influencing the RSPG's decision.
A spokesperson for the Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport told German news site [5]Heise Online : "The frequency requirements of mobile network operators in the upper 6 GHz band are assessed as greater with a view to future 6G applications" than those of Wi-Fi applications.
[6]Apartment living to get worse in 5 years as 6 GHz Wi-Fi nears 'exhaustion'
[7]Trump's budget bill opens wide swath of spectrum for sale
[8]EchoStar secures rights to spectrum it plans to sell to SpaceX
[9]EchoStar sells off its spectrum for more than its total market cap
In response, the Wi-Fi Alliance and the DSA are trying to stoke fears that such a move would severely dent Europe's digital development, claiming Wi-Fi is the primary way consumers access the internet and constraining it would impact progress.
"Blocking Wi-Fi access to the upper 6 GHz band would be devastating to the future of Wi-Fi technology in Europe. This spectrum is uniquely positioned to sustain the evolution of the Wi-Fi ecosystem and enable the next generation of digital innovation," said the DSA.
[10]
The DSA styles itself as a global body advocating for regulations that will deliver more efficient spectrum use, but its member list appears to consist chiefly of US tech giants – Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Broadcom, and Cisco.
The Wi-Fi Alliance complained that its members were working with the RSPG's proposals to try and use the spectrum on a shared basis, in line with the European Commission's mandate.
"By contrast, the mobile industry is arguing against a compromise. It is now demanding exclusive use of the entire upper 6 GHz band for mobile services, arguing this would strengthen Europe's digital sovereignty," its letter states.
[11]
It claims that Wi-Fi has access to "significantly less spectrum than mobile. These traffic patterns show Wi-Fi's need for the upper 6 GHz band far exceeds that of mobile."
The mobile telecoms industry sees it differently, of course. Vodafone has [12]previously conducted tests in the upper 6 GHz frequencies, achieving download speeds of up to 5 Gbps, and saying it should be made available to boost cellular capacity when current bandwidth becomes exhausted.
Nokia and Swedish telco Telia also [13]carried out a pilot deployment using the upper 6 GHz spectrum last year, claiming it showed the ability to add "massive capacity" in built-up areas, while high throughput can be achieved in suburban or rural areas.
In this respect, the mobile industry has backing from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which earmarked the upper 6 GHz band for cellular services at the [14]World Radio Conference (WRC) in 2023.
However, the US telco regulator the FCC [15]reserved the entire 6 GHz band for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed operations back in 2020. Other countries are not prevented from following their own path.
All eyes will be on the RSPG's next Plenary Meeting on November 12, to see what decision (if any) it adopts.
A spokesperson at the European Commission sent a statement to The Register :
"The Commission envisages a technical harmonisation decision on the upper 6 GHz band.To this end, the Commission has tasked the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) to develop EU-harmonised technical conditions for a preferred usage scenario of the band. The CEPT has to deliver its final report in July 2027." ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aRDIqlPaq_zTlTfekcxUMgAAABY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/11/ofcom_proposes_wifi_and_cellphones/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aRDIqlPaq_zTlTfekcxUMgAAABY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aRDIqlPaq_zTlTfekcxUMgAAABY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.heise.de/en/news/WLAN-Rejection-Germany-Favors-Mobile-for-Upper-6-GHz-Band-10965806.html
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/22/cable_labs_wifi_future_analysis/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/08/trump_budget_bill_spectrum_auctions/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/06/echostar_secures_rights_to_spectrum_to_sell_to_spacex/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/27/echostar_sells_off_spectrum/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aRDIqlPaq_zTlTfekcxUMgAAABY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aRDIqlPaq_zTlTfekcxUMgAAABY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/26/vodafone_6_ghz_wi_fi/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/05/nokia_upper_6_ghz_spectrum/
[14] https://www.itu.int/wrc-23/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/28/nab_spectrum_fcc/
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Would love to see el Reg interview a neutral radio expert on this. I don't know enough to judge the competing arguments of the telcos and gadget makers.
I agree.
Claims about stifling innovation strike me as obvious bollocks. I can make an equally bogus claim about the need for innovative products in the mobile market.
They are different use-cases though. One is mostly used when you are out and about. The other is mostly when you are in a (friendly) fixed location such as home or work or the pub.
I'm under the impression that these bands have very different properties in terms of proportion through air and various wall materials, as well as suffering different degrees of interference from neighbouring frequencies, so there is probably quite a lot of scope for a rational decision process here.
I'm no "expert", just an amateur radio operator. I can tell you that the higher you go, the more bandwidth you can allocate for high speed data. But the higher you go, the less distance you can cover. This is by rule of thumb, there are other issues with for example 2.4GHz being absorbed more than other frequencies by water molecules, and this is why it's used in microwave ovens.
Anyway, with the data rate requirements of modern wifi (and cellular, too) it's not possible to allocate anything on lower frequencies. For example current wifi standards allow for a 160MHz channel width, which if allocated in the 450MHz band, for example, would mean that a single channel spans from 450 to 610 MHz, eating up a lot of other allocated services. There is also an issue with the bandwidth of the channel vs the centre frequency, you cannot make efficient antennas (and RF circuits, too) that can reliably work when the total bandwidth is not a small portion of the centre frequency. 160MHz is 35% of 450 MHz, but it's only 0,026% of 6GHz.
A lot of current allocations should be modified because of the advancements in the technical knowledge about RF circuits and modulation techniques, but it's a big problem to replace all of the existing infrastructure. For example terrestrial TV should be shrinked in terms of band allocation (which has already happened, up to a point, to give spectrum to 4G phones in the 800 MHz region) and any cellular service should be pushed upwards, while wifi should be pushed even upper because of its "very small local coverage" nature and need for even faster speeds.
Low data rate services (which are rarer everyday, it seems no one wants 9600 bps anymore, even for M2M services that could indeed work fine at that speed) can live on lower frequencies with lower bandwidth and lower total power, with higher efficiency.
Regarding the low bandwidth: Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoRa - there are tons of current application and uses for LoRaWAN which uses those lower frequencies. Most of them are sensors or buttons. Wind speed, rain, brightness, temperature, seismic, electric monitoring and tons of other sensors I simply don't know exist.
If you can German, the German wikipedia article is, IMHO, better. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Wide_Area_Network - for example actually mentioning the 433 MHz spectrum directly.
How much truth is there that sub-6GHz 5G can be blocked by a someone standing between you and the nearest transmitter? If that is true, wouldn't 6GHz be even more useless?
My take
Mobile telcos should not be handed the upper 6G spectrum.
This is a ploy to cripple 6GHz rollout on wifi so they can force more people to take cell plans for data. Because think about it, landline ISPs are usually unlimited in quota while mobile would just love it that you fork out more money on quota extensions. And you're more likely to become frustrated and turn off phone wifi and use data from your mobile provider because there's not enough bandwidth on the spectrum so everyone's brand new 6E and 7 routers end up fighting for a slice of the frequency, and nobody wins.
Re: My take
"This is a ploy to cripple 6GHz rollout on wifi"
I'm not seeing it myself. Plenty of online reports from US users of 6GHz wifi that the data rate per device is often lower than 5GHz, and whilst I'd agree the upper 6Ghz band should be unlicensed, if it weren't the loss of upper 6GHz (that we've not had access to anyway) would hardly be crippling for EU wifi users.
Personally I think it's a knee jerk, Pavlovian response by the mobile networks of "more spectrum better...must have more spectrum or everybody dies!" They've got no plans to usefully deploy it, and since they don't provide decent coverage or high speeds with existing frequencies then it's a racing certainty that consumers will see no benefit of mobile networks squatting on more spectrum.
Using 6 GHz for mobile is nonsense.
Several German telcos are currently trying to educate our current government how stupid the idea of using 6 GHz for mobile actually is. 5 GHz has already enough problems going through walls, and 6 GHz disproportional more (i.e. not even half as good as 5 GHz).
A bit info: The "Green party" in Germany has a high number of technical literate, the SPD medicore, the FDP is known to only cared for themselves and who's buying them to sabotage which is why they are currently completely out. However the current government is CDU dominated and not known for technical knowledge, which they proved again. And before you ask about it: The AfD is technical total bullshit on a level designed for illiterate, loudmouths with no actual capability or working ideas.
6G is fine for WLAN, router close to the TV streaming high bitrate, but for mobile it does not make sense.
Re: Using 6 GHz for mobile is nonsense.
Exactly so. If additional mobile spectrum really is a priority, then it should be well below 5 GHz not above. If any line-of-sight stuff stands in the way, let that move to the WiFi spectrum outdoors and let WiFi do it indoors. All those walls will be a really neat cell divider at 6 GHz.
From a purely selfish point of view ... based on my general understanding of the issues.
The problem most people are hitting is WiFi congestion because people tend to live close to each other therefore lots & lots of routers too close to each other.
Giving the 6Ghz band to WiFi is of most practical use. 6Ghz reach is shorter and therefore less interference with your neighbours.
Mobile providers don't need 6Ghz, they need to build more cell towers to give a wider coverage.
As mentioned worse WiFi encourages people to use cell networks ... which makes the Mobile providers more money [Quelle Surprise !!!]
:)
as always the consumer comes last
5G is functionally useless in swathes of the country here in the UK & from what i understand we don't even have REAL 5G anyway.
WiFi networks are consistently saturated in places like bars & restaurants or they want everything about you including your blood type. 5G refuses to work inside a few buildings, especially if there is a hint of steel or the building was actually built correctly thus blocking the signal.
We don't need higher frequency mobile which will be even more useless than 5G unless you're stood outside with nothing between you & the transmitter & MAYBE an ACTUAL infrastructure behind that to deliver what was promised.
I can be stood in the middle of london & not have a mobile signal, which is insane & the less said about large venues the better.
As ever the telecoms firms will try to get free money from the government to do the work they should be doing & WiFi will still be as shit as it ever was. I can see the advantages of very high frequency WiFi as the coverage doesn't have to be crazy & even if they can restrict it inside the house, google won't be able to map it all & you're less likely to interfere with your neighbours.
Mobile networks have too much spectrum already
I don't know how much spectrum mobile networks need already.
They already use from 700Mhz to 3700Mhz in Europe. With 24.25Ghz to 27.50Ghz also made available to them for 5G. I don't know of any mobile phone on the EU market that uses those frequencies. Current 5G standard also allows for frequency range from 24.25Ghz and up to 71.00Ghz. Along with several satellite frequencies that 5G can use (this is not available to 4G because of the standard). Mobile networks have a lot of frequencies that they can use. But they don't and for some reason demand more spectrum.
For instance. 4G supports band 31. That is 450Mhz band that was used for NMT (1G standard) few decades ago in Scandinavia and few other countries. In some countries this is being used by 4G as a data only network. This is also supported by 5G standard.