11th Asia Pacific Spectrum Management Conference

As the EU’s proposed Digital Networks Act (DNA) enters the legislative phase, spectrum policy is emerging as one of its most significant and debated pillars. The panels in this session will concentrate on two central spectrum elements addressed in the Act — licensing and governance. Discussions will examine the specific proposals set out under the DNA in these areas, while also considering more broadly the path forward to ensure Europe delivers a robust, future-proof spectrum framework.

A central ambition of the Digital Networks Act is to modernise and streamline Europe’s spectrum governance framework. By bringing together the existing EECC and the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) into a single structure, and by clarifying the roles, relationships and coordination mechanisms between EU institutions and national authorities, the aim is to eliminate overlaps, simplify regulatory requirements and ease compliance burdens. This session will examine the proposals that have been made at a governance level, at how the split of responsibilities may be affected and the questions that are raised on the balance between national competence and European harmonisation. It will look more broadly at the impact that the DNA could have on spectrum governance across Europe, and whether it will deliver the increased consistency, investment certainty and strategic autonomy that is targeted, or if it risks adding new layers of complexity to an already intricate regulatory landscape.

What problem is the DNA trying to solve in Europe’s spectrum governance model, and are the proposed institutional changes proportionate to that challenge?
Where does the balance of authority currently sit, and how might the proposed reforms shift this? How should responsibilities be divided between greater centralisation at EU level and effective coordination that still respects national differences and specific requirements?
What impact can the consolidation of existing spectrum frameworks such as the EECC and Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) into a single framework have on the way spectrum policy is developed and implemented in Europe? Will this consolidation genuinely simplify regulatory obligations and reduce compliance burdens?
What practical impact will the creation of the Office for Digital Networks (ODN) and the transformation of the RSPG into a Radio Spectrum Policy Body have? How might the status, authority and relationships between these entities and BEREC, the Commission and Member States evolve in practice?
Has the right balance been found between national competence and European harmonisation?
How could the proposed new changes affect the ways in which EU positions for CEPT are defined, and how non-EU European countries fit with the new structures that are being proposed, particularly relating to preparation for WRC-27 and other key events?
What does success look like for EU-level spectrum governance by 2030, and are we now on the path to deliver this?

The Digital Networks Act makes a number of key recommendations relating to Europe’s spectrum licensing regime. It proposes a move away from short-term, revenue-driven spectrum awards toward a framework centred on long-term access, stronger sharing obligations and greater EU-level oversight. Key proposals include very long or indefinite licences, new “use-it-or-share-it” obligations, increased scrutiny of national auction designs, and EU-wide authorization regimes, particularly for satellite communications. The aim is to improve investment predictability, reduce fragmentation and treat spectrum as strategic infrastructure rather than a fiscal asset. However, the proposals have triggered debate, with critics warning of reduced competition, blurred accountability between EU and national authorities, and added uncertainty around auctions and renewals. As satellite connectivity becomes more integrated into the framework, questions also arise around coexistence, security and governance. Against this backdrop, this session will examine how spectrum licensing, renewals, awards and pricing may evolve in Europe over the next decade.

Is Europe’s traditional time-limited spectrum licensing model still fit for delivering its long-term connectivity ambitions, or would a transition to indefinite licences, as proposed in the DNA, provide a more effective framework?
Do longer or unlimited-duration licences improve investment certainty, or do they risk entrenching market structures and weakening competitive pressure?
How should renewal conditions be designed to balance predictability with accountability?
Will ‘use-it-or-share-it’ and spectrum sharing obligations meaningfully improve spectrum efficiency in practice? Are these mechanisms realistic at scale, and how should disputes over sharing be managed?
Will enhanced EU-level scrutiny of national auctions and awards improve outcomes, or risk adding uncertainty and complexity to already delicate award processes? Where should the line be drawn between coordination and interference?
Should Europe rethink how spectrum is priced altogether? Are traditional auctions still the best tool, or should alternative models such as revenue-based fees, annual usage charges or cash-free auctions be explored more seriously?
How does the shift toward EU-level spectrum authorisation for satellite networks change the broader licensing landscape in Europe? To what extent should regulators set detailed conditions, and where should satellite operators themselves be responsible for coordinating technical parameters to ensure coexistence?

Europe’s discussions about the future of the upper 6 GHz band (6.425–7.125 GHz) has entered a decisive new phase. The long awaited strategic opinion from the RSPG on the future of the band was released in November last year, proposing that 540 MHz of the available spectrum be prioritised for licensed mobile use. A decision on the remaining 160 MHz was then placed on hold until after WRC-27, pending the outcome of discussions on whether the 125 MHz of spectrum in the 7 GHz band currently under consideration will be IMT. At the same time, the UK is pressing ahead with its own approach in the band – a prioritised band split that would enable Wi-Fi access under automated frequency coordination (AFC), while reserving spectrum for future mobile deployment. Against the backdrop of the RSPG opinion but also considering the approach proposed by Ofcom and other developments that are being seen both in Europe and elsewhere, this session will look at whether we are finally approaching closure on the future use of this hotly contested band across Europe and elsewhere, and at what the decisions that are being taken may mean for mobile and unlicensed users, as well as more broadly for satellite, PMSE and other incumbent services operating in the band.

What are the strategic implications for Europe’s digital sovereignty and competitiveness if the upper 6 GHz band becomes primarily a mobile band?
What is the impact going to be on the mobile and Wi-Fi communities, as well as for satellite, PMSE and other incumbent users in the band? How can it be ensured that the future needs of all these key users are met?
Following the RSPG opinion, what work is now taking place at a CEPT level and elsewhere to define possible technical conditions under which mobile operators can use the 540 MHz that is to be prioritised for licenced mobile use?
Does the 540 MHz that has been allocated to mobile in the upper 6 GHz band provide sufficient spectrum for Europe’s 6G ambitions, or is more spectrum still required?
To what extent could the RSPG recommendation impact the European position on the 7.125 – 7.250 MHz band at WRC-27?
By deferring a decision on the lower 160 MHz until after WRC-27, is Europe preserving flexibility, or prolonging uncertainty for investors and connectivity providers?
Has the RSPG decision now effectively closed the door on complex sharing models in Europe?
Could the UK’s prioritised split with AFC-controlled Wi-Fi offer an alternative model for balancing licensed and unlicensed use? Could this offer a pragmatic sharing framework model for others, or does it risk fragmenting the European approach?
What approaches to the upper 6 GHz band are emerging elsewhere in the world?

Europe’s 2 GHz mobile satellite service band is emerging as a focal point for some of the most complex spectrum policy questions facing the EU: how to balance continuity of existing services with the need for greater competition, how to enable new direct-to-device and IoT use cases, and how to align spectrum decisions with Europe’s broader ambitions on digital sovereignty. Long-held by a small number of incumbents under non-competitive licences, the band is now attracting strong interest from satellite newcomers, mobile operators and policymakers ahead of licence expiry in 2027. With proposals ranging from automatic renewal to full competitive reassignment, and from maintaining the current duopoly to more fragmented or shared band structures, the choices made on 2 GHz is key for the numerous different stakeholders staking a claim to the available bandwidth. This session will look at the current situation regarding the band and explore the options on the table and the different stakeholders that are staking a case for access to the prime spectrum that is available. More broadly, it will look at the extent to which the 2 GHz decision goes beyond being about one single band, and ask if it could set a template for the strategic direction of Europe’s future connectivity framework in the era of terrestrial–satellite convergence and 6G as the integration of terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks becomes more prevalent.

What options are on the table for the future allocation of spectrum in the 2GHz band once the licences expire in 2027?
Should the priority be continuity of existing services or opening the band to greater competition through a full or partial reassignment process?
What are the pros and cons of the 4 proposed segmentation models put forward by the European Commission? Which option best balances innovation, market entry and efficient use of spectrum?
To what extent will the 2 GHz band become a cornerstone for future NTN-D2D services? What regulatory and technical framework is needed to make that viable at scale?
How should policymakers weigh the risk of disruption to services like the European Aviation Network against the potential long-term benefits of increased competition?
To what extent should “European sovereignty” be an explicit selection criterion in assigning this band — and how can this be reconciled with an open, competitive market?
Is the 2 GHz decision a one-off case, or could it set the template for how Europe manages scarce spectrum in the era of terrestrial–satellite convergence and 6G?

As satellites become more deeply embedded in Europe’s connectivity architecture, the regulatory and spectrum management landscape is entering a period of significant transition. The rapid expansion of NGSO constellations, the continued importance of GSO systems, and the emergence of hybrid, multi-orbit and direct-to-device models are blurring traditional distinctions between satellite and terrestrial services. This evolution is not only intensifying debates around interference management and EPFD limits, but also prompting more fundamental questions about how spectrum rights in space are defined, assigned and enforced. As orbital resources become increasingly congested and commercially valuable, policymakers must consider whether existing frameworks, largely designed for a different era of satellite activity, can still deliver long-term sustainability, fair competition and investment certainty. This session will explore the work that is continuing at both a European and international level on exploring whether the current approach to spectrum governance in space remains fit for purpose, or whether a broader rethink of spectrum rights and regulatory oversight is now required to support sustainable growth and effective coexistence across an increasingly integrated satellite-terrestrial ecosystem.

– How are licensing and authorisation models evolving in response to satellite growth (e.g. national licensing, market access, gateway authorisations), and are current approaches fit for purpose?

– As operators deploy hybrid and multi-orbit constellations, are we moving beyond traditional GSO vs NGSO distinctions, and should regulation evolve to reflect this convergence?

– More broadly, how is the rise of satellites changing the way spectrum is used and managed across different users (satellite, mobile, fixed, space science)?

– Are further adjustments needed at European or ITU level to maintain long-term spectrum sustainability and investment certainty, and if so, where should priorities sit?

– Do we need a broader rethink of how spectrum rights are defined and enforced in space to ensure sustainability, competition and investment certainty?

– What are the most material interference risks between GSO and NGSO systems, as well as between competing NGSO systems? What work is currently being conducted at a European level and internationally to address these?

– Is the existing ITU framework around EPFD limits and interference management still sufficient to ensure fair and effective coexistence with GSO systems?

hosted by Broadcast Network Europe (BNE)

With WRC–27 now only 16 months away, we are more than halfway through the current WRC ‘cycle’, and positions are starting to emerge. In Europe, the next meeting of the CEPT Conference Preparatory Group is scheduled to be held in Latvia at the end of this month, and ahead of that, the RSPG are due to release their draft recommendations on EU positions for WRC in their plenary meeting held immediately prior to this conference. This session will look at the progress that is being made by CEPT and across Europe on key agenda items, examine the main recommendations that have been made by the RSPG draft opinion and look generally at the regional positions that are now emerging. It will look at areas in which alignment is now being seen, and the areas in which more work is required in order to reach a common position, before finally looking at the critical next steps in the months ahead to support ongoing preparations and help ensure a successful and coordinated regional outcome at WRC-27.

– Which WRC-27 agenda items are of highest strategic importance for European administrations, and how aligned is the region on these priorities? Which agenda items are proving most challenging for Europe in terms of achieving a coordinated position?

– What trends and policy objectives are driving national spectrum priorities in countries across the region, and how are these being translated into the regional positions now taking shape?

– How aligned are CEPT members at this stage of the cycle, and where are the main divergences still emerging?

– What are the key recommendations in the RSPG draft opinion, and how influential are they likely to be in shaping the broader European position?

– Are we seeing early signs of consensus across Europe on priority bands or services, or is significant negotiation still ahead?

– How can Europe ensure that its regional coordination translates into influence at the global level during WRC-27 negotiations?

– What are the critical milestones over the next 12-17 months that stakeholders should be preparing for to support a successful and unified European outcome?

Nearly a decade after the first 5G spectrum awards and with work having begun on preparing the ground for 6G, this session will provide an opportunity to take stock on the extent to which Europe’s 5G spectrum and regulatory strategy has delivered. There have undoubtedly been challenges relating to 5G, particularly in areas such as monetisation and the roll-out of 5G standalone, but these are not limited to Europe. The key question, therefore, is whether Europe ultimately got its 5G strategy right, or whether different choices could have produced stronger outcomes. This interactive session will poll our audience on this question and more, with the aim of taking stock of Europe’s 5G journey and approach, and as we move towards 6G, crucially look at any lessons that can be taken and explore whether course correction is needed for the decade ahead.

– Has Europe’s 5G spectrum strategy strengthened or weakened its global competitiveness?
Is Europe keeping pace globally in access to critical mid-band spectrum for 5G and future 6G services?

– How does the European approach to 5G compare to that seen in other regions and countries in terms of success?

– Has the approach taken with 5G provided a strong foundation for the transition to 6G?

Europe is stepping up its preparations for 6G. In February this year, the RSPG published its draft Opinion on a European 6G Spectrum Roadmap, identifying a range of low, mid and high-band frequencies as potential candidates, while clearly positioning the upper 6 GHz band as the leading option for initial 6G deployment in Europe by 2030. Following a public consultation, the final Opinion is expected to be adopted at the RSPG plenary taking place immediately ahead of this conference. Against this backdrop, this session will examine the roadmap’s key recommendations and what they signal for Europe’s longer-term 6G spectrum strategy. With the proposed prioritisation of the upper 6 GHz band placing Europe on a different trajectory from other regions, notably the United States, which has designated the band for unlicensed use and is instead looking to use the 7.125 – 7.4 GHz band for 6G, the discussion will explore the broader implications of this divergence, including what it could mean for global harmonisation, device ecosystems, and Europe’s competitiveness in the emerging 6G landscape.

– What are the key recommendations made in RSPG’s final opinion on the 6G Spectrum Roadmap and what do these signal about Europe’s long-term strategic priorities? Is the upper 6 GHz band now firmly established as Europe’s ‘pioneer band’ for 6G?

– Beyond the upper 6 GHz band, which other frequency ranges are likely to play a meaningful role in Europe’s 6G strategy, and on what timeline?

– With the US pursuing a different path and looking to use the 7.125 – 7.4 GHz range for 6G, how significant is the emerging transatlantic divergence in mid-band strategy, and what could it mean for global harmonisation and equipment ecosystems?
With the selected bands being in adjacent frequency ranges, is there still potential for a coordinated approach in some way?

– How are the ongoing WRC-27 studies on candidate IMT bands influencing Europe’s overall 6G spectrum strategy? With 160 MHz in the upper 6 GHz band effectively placed on hold pending the outcome of WRC-27, how decisive will the Conference’s conclusions be in shaping Europe’s longer-term approach to 6G spectrum planning?

– How should member states balance national priorities and local spectrum constraints with the benefits of regional coordination when shaping their own national 6G spectrum roadmaps and timelines?

– To what extent are we moving towards achieving sufficient clarity and investment certainty for industry to begin planning for 6G? What are now the next steps and regulatory milestones ahead in order to maintain momentum toward 2030?

As spectrum demand intensifies, sharing is increasingly shifting from being seen as a complementary policy tool to a more central element of spectrum strategy. In Europe, this evolution is reflected by its inclusion in recent key policy materials – the Digital Networks Act and RSPG’s draft 6G Spectrum Roadmap, for example, both highlight the importance of sharing and coexistence frameworks as key components of Europe’s future approach. At the same time, rapid technological progress is broadening what can realistically be achieved. In this context, the debate is no longer about whether spectrum sharing is viable, but about how far it can be scaled, and under which regulatory and market conditions. This session will focus on this question and examine the next steps and likely timelines ahead. It will explore emerging new sharing models and the best way to maximise their potential; as well as the conditions and protections that need to be in place to ensure that efficiency gains are balanced with the need for investment certainty and quality-of-service guarantees.

– How have thinking and approaches to sharing evolved in Europe over recent years? What prominence is it now being given as part of broader overarching policy strategies and is it now being seen as a central element of spectrum strategy?

– How are technological advances changing the feasibility and scalability of sharing? Which sharing models are currently gaining traction across Europe and elsewhere, and what early lessons can be drawn?

– How can AI and machine learning enhance real-time spectrum monitoring, interference detection, and dynamic assignment; and what governance safeguards are required?
What are the economic implications of different sharing models? Can dynamic and shared access frameworks coexist with the investment predictability required for widespread network deployment?

– To what extent can mobile networks operate efficiently within shared spectrum environments while maintaining quality of service, security and coverage obligations?
What lessons can Europe draw from international examples such as CBRS in the US and evolving approaches in Asia? Are there elements that could be adapted within Europe’s regulatory and market structure?

– Is greater coordination or harmonisation at EU level needed to avoid fragmentation in sharing approaches, and what would a scalable European framework look like? What proposals on sharing are made in the DNA, and to what extent can these help to shape the future direction for sharing in Europe?

– Which spectrum bands and use cases are most suited to expanded or more dynamic sharing models, and where are the clear limits?

Europe is often seen as leading the way when it comes to delivering spectrum for private networks and industrial users. Spectrum in the 3.8GHz – 4.2GHz range has been harmonised across the region for local and vertical use, and member states are moving forward with the use of various shared, licensed and hybrid models to support private networks across different sectors. Yet questions remain around uptake: how extensively are locally assigned bands actually being used, which regulatory models are proving most effective, and how can spectrum policy best support Europe’s industrial competitiveness? In addition, the spectrum currently allocated for industrial use sits within the prime c-band range that is increasingly being considered in other regions as a candidate for additional 5G or even 6G capacity, and further debate is emerging over whether this remains the most appropriate long-term home for local networks. This session will look to explore all of this. Considering both 5G and other key connectivity technologies such as Wi-Fi, satellite and IoT, it will examine how different approaches to delivering private networks and vertical connectivity are performing in practice, and whether current frameworks are delivering scale, efficiency and measurable impact. It will also explore the longer-term strategic choices facing Europe, including whether the existing band plan strikes the right balance between acting as a catalyst for innovation across key vertical sectors and meeting wider mobile capacity needs in the decade ahead.

– How are different EU Member States structuring local or vertical spectrum access (e.g. local licensing, shared access, set-asides within mobile bands), and which models are proving most effective in driving real industrial deployment?

– To what extent are frequencies that have been allocated for private networks being actively utilised? What barriers remain to broader adoption?

– Has the right balance been found between identifying the spectrum that is needed to provide vertical connectivity and support industrial competitiveness, whilst also meeting the continual needs for finding additional spectrum for 5G and other key services?

– With the 3.8GHz – 4.2GHz band that is currently harmonised for this use increasingly being explored in other regions as possible c-band expansion spectrum for IMT, is there an argument that Europe should revisit the approach that is currently being seen?

– If that debate were reopened, what would be the likely implications for local network users, mobile operators, and for Europe’s broader spectrum planning and investment certainty?

– How do alternative connectivity technologies complement 5G networks when it comes to delivering private networks? What key successes are being seen across different sectors?

– How can spectrum policy more explicitly support Europe’s industrial competitiveness in sectors such as manufacturing, energy, transport, ports and logistics? How can spectrum frameworks better support mission-critical public services, including healthcare, emergency services and utilities, while ensuring resilience and security?

– What does success look like by 2030 and what changes, if any, are needed now to ensure spectrum policy truly strengthens Europe’s industrial competitiveness?

The RSPG’s final report on the future use of sub-700 MHz spectrum beyond 2030, published last November, highlights an increasingly complex and divergent landscape for the 470–694 MHz band. While DTT remains central in many Member States, with some investing in next-generation technologies and long-term licence extensions, others anticipate scaling back or ending DTT operations by 2030. For PMSE, another incumbent user, there is broader consensus, with most Member States indicating continued need for the full band and few viable alternatives. This session will look at what the findings mean for the future of the band and the key incumbent users, as well as for the ambitions of the mobile sector who view the band as a key low-frequency coverage layer, essential for rural reach, indoor penetration and network resilience. In the absence of a single EU-wide trajectory, this session will look at the path that needs to be taken to shape a flexible, forward-looking framework that balances coexistence, investment certainty and long-term spectrum value.

– Following the RSPG report, what concrete next steps should now be prioritised at EU and national level, including licence decisions, further compatibility studies, and preparation for upcoming international discussions?

– In light of increasing national divergence in the future use of the 600 MHz band beyond 2030, to what extent is continued European coordination necessary, and what form should that coordination take?

– In Member States where demand for terrestrial broadcasting is declining or where switch-off is being considered, how can the band be reorganised to enable the introduction of IMT or other new services?

– What would be the implications of such reorganisation for the 600 MHz band, neighbouring bands, and other key incumbent users such as PMSE? What practical steps are required to plan for a potential transition or reallocation?

– Given that most Member States foresee continued need for the full band for PMSE, how can future spectrum planning ensure these requirements are protected? Should dedicated and potentially harmonised spectrum be identified for PMSE, and how could this be implemented?

– How critical is sub-700 MHz spectrum to achieving Europe’s long-term mobile coverage, resilience and rural connectivity objectives? What solutions may be available in those countries who see DTT as a key part of their future?

– Are large-scale coexistence or sharing models between broadcasting, PMSE and mobile services technically feasible and economically sustainable?

– What role could technological innovation, from DVB-T2 and 5G Broadcast to more spectrum-efficient PMSE equipment, play in reshaping future use scenarios for the band?