The battle over electromagnetic spectrum allocation has long been a contentious issue between the Department of Defense and commercial industry. This “spectrum war” has only intensified as advancements like 5G and the prospects of futureG technologies hinge on access to mid-band spectrum, a finite and highly desirable resource. For government contractors, understanding this fight is crucial, as it directly impacts projects related to national security, telecommunications and technological innovation.

There’s no better place to deliberate on these issues and gain a deeper understanding of them than the Potomac Officers Club’s upcoming 2025 5G Summit. Hosted on Feb. 27, the event will gather the perfect mix of defense, public and private sector voices to tackle the important questions about communications technology and how it is impacting the American mission. Register now!

The Core of the Conflict

At the heart of the spectrum fight lies the 3.1 GHz to 3.5 GHz S-band, part of the mid-band spectrum considered the “Goldilocks” zone. Its unique frequency range enables optimal performance for various applications, balancing range and data-transfer speed, according to Breaking Defense.

The DOD argues that this part of the spectrum is essential for critical functions such as satellite communications, radar systems and navigation tools, which are pivotal for military operations globally. For example, the Navy’s Aegis radar system operates within this band, safeguarding naval vessels from aerial threats like missiles and drones while supporting missions overseas.

Conversely, the commercial industry, primarily telecommunications providers, sees this spectrum as a gateway for expanding high-speed 5G wireless services. Commercial stakeholders argue that more access to this band would accelerate digital connectivity for consumers and businesses alike.

The challenge, however, is that spectrum cannot be simultaneously utilized by both parties without risking interference. This creates what experts have labeled a “zero-sum game.” The finite nature of this spectrum forces difficult choices, as overcrowding these frequencies could compromise military missions or disrupt commercial networks.

Spectrum Allocation Oversight and Key Players

The dispute involves multiple agencies and stakeholders responsible for managing U.S. spectrum policy:

DOD

The Pentagon has consistently prioritized spectrum access for national security needs. It contends that reallocating portions of its spectrum would require overhauling radar systems and other technologies at an extraordinary financial cost—estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars—while posing operational risks during the transition.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

NTIA manages federal spectrum allocations and coordinates usage across government agencies. It plays a pivotal role in determining how federal users share spectrum with commercial entities.

Federal Communications Commission

The FCC oversees the commercial use of spectrum, regulating telecommunication providers and facilitating auctions to allocate spectrum resources. While NTIA focuses on federal needs, the FCC often leans toward maximizing economic benefits from spectrum privatization.

Commercial Stakeholders

Telecommunications companies see mid-band spectrum as key to deploying comprehensive 5G networks. Firms argue that these investments promise economic growth, innovation and digital equity by connecting more users to high-speed wireless internet.

Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

Spectrum allocation disputes are traditionally negotiated collaboratively. When disagreements persist between NTIA and the FCC, issues may escalate to the Office of the President. Rarely, legal action becomes the last resort, as seen in the high-profile Ligado case involving FCC approval of spectrum usage amid strong objections from the DOD.

5G, FutureG—and the Stakes for Both Sides

The ongoing spectrum battle has far-reaching implications for the deployment of 5G and future wireless technologies, a.k.a. futureG, presenting challenges and opportunities for both DOD and commercial industry:

Implications for DOD

• National Security Risks:

Restricting or sharing spectrum access could impact military preparedness. For instance, U.S. forces in conflict zones like Ukraine rely on spectrum to disable threats, including Russian missiles. Similarly, domestic training for overseas deployments demands uninterrupted spectrum access.

• Cost of Transition:

Relinquishing part of its spectrum would require the Pentagon to replace current systems, a process that not only carries an astronomical price tag but also poses risks to operational readiness during the transition period.

Benefits for Commercial Industry

• Accelerating 5G Deployment:

Expanding access to mid-band spectrum is key to scaling 5G networks, which require bandwidth to handle high-speed data transfers, especially in densely populated urban areas.

• Economic Growth:

Broader 5G adoption is expected to bolster sectors like telehealth, autonomous vehicles and smart cities, significantly contributing to GDP growth.

Prospects for Spectrum Sharing

Given the stakes, spectrum sharing has emerged as a potential compromise. Technologies enabling “dynamic spectrum sharing” allow federal and commercial users to coexist on overlapping frequencies. For example:

• The Citizens Broadband Radio Service, or CBRS, in the 3.5 GHz band provides shared spectrum access for commercial applications under certain conditions.
• Ongoing studies by DOD and NTIA explore advancing this concept, although barriers like interference and priority access allocation remain unresolved.

The Role of Government Contractors

For GovCons, the spectrum battle offers both challenges and opportunities:

• Telecommunications Development

GovCons working with DOD on 5G-related projects must address compatibility concerns, ensuring that military applications can safely coexist with commercial networks.

• Infrastructure Overhaul

If spectrum is reallocated, contractors may play critical roles in modernizing military systems to operate on new frequencies.

• Advanced Research

Developing technologies for spectrum-sharing solutions could become a lucrative focus area for contractors positioning themselves as problem-solvers in this space.

Get details on how GovCons can partner with both defense and civilian agencies on 5G at the 2025 5G Summit on Feb. 27. Secure your ticket now before it’s too late!

What Lies Ahead

The spectrum fight reflects broader tensions between advancing technological innovation and preserving national security. With the rise of FutureG technologies on the horizon, this conversation is far from over. The balance between private industry needs and governmental priorities will continue shaping policy decisions under new administrations and shifting political landscapes.

For the industrial base, staying informed about spectrum policy developments is essential. Opportunities to collaborate with stakeholders on spectrum optimization, shared technologies and infrastructure enhancement will play a pivotal role in shaping the next generation of communication and defense capabilities.

By keeping an eye on this dynamic landscape, contractors can position themselves as key contributors to both U.S. technological innovation and national security resilience.

The U.S. Army Cyber Command is spearheading a Radio Frequency Data Pilot program in partnership with other units of the service branch to strengthen Army capabilities in the electromagnetic spectrum in support of multi-domain missions. The program’s focus areas include experiments to identify and demonstrate the data support architecture for secure EMS operations, the Army said.

According to Steven Rehn, ARCYBER chief technology and data officer, the RF Data Pilot is unlocking the potential for the Army dominating EMS, which is the “key to multi-domain operations.”

ARCYBER officials said the pilot’s goals and deliverables are geared toward data architecture and standards, modular mission payloads. They added that the program will also inform the Army’s EMS Security Classification Guide, future modernization efforts and electronic warfare capability assessments.

Capability Demo in Vanguard Exercise

The program’s capabilities were demonstrated during the Army’s Vanguard 24 exercise in September focused on EW and intelligence operations of the multi-domain task forces of the United States and its allies. Advanced technologies tested during the event include high-altitude electromagnetic warfare systems and threat simulators.

ARCYBER officials noted that the pilot’s participation in Vanguard 24 and future exercises will help enable Army reconnaissance forces using the EMS to significantly scale Department of Defense situational awareness in areas of operations. 

The service units collaborating with ARCYBER in the pilot include the Army Cyber Center of Excellence, Program Executive Office – Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors,  Army Futures Command and the Army Intelligence Center of Excellence.

Leonel Garciga, chief information officer of the U.S. Army and a two-time Wash100 awardee, has signed and issued a memorandum detailing the Army’s software assurance policy for the military branch’s information systems in support of Army and Department of Defense DevSecOps initiatives and DOD’s Risk Management Framework, or RMF, process. 

Software Assurance Requirements

The memo published on Friday requires all Army systems to have software assurance requirements validated against the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Special Publication 800-53 and reported through the RMF process when securing authorizations under the Assess and Authorize or assess only process.

All information system owners should a use certified DevSecOps platform to perform software assurance in accordance with the policy outlined in the memo.

Roles & Responsibilities of Army Officials

The Army chief information security officer should collaborate with the deputy chief of staff, G-6, to develop guidelines, procedures and baseline requirements acceptable for software assurance, the memo said.

The DCS, G-6, will advise the CIO in developing a software assurance policy; update and maintain applicable software assurance procedures; and develop and implement an Army-approved product list.

The document directs authorizing officials to consider software assurance risks into the overall authorization determination and approve baseline requirements for tailoring security controls during software assurance.

According to the memo, information system owners should create or update the security plan as part of the system’s RMF package and use existing third-party assessment results to prevent unnecessary software reassessment.