In the rapidly evolving landscape of wireless technology, the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) has emerged as a revolutionary force, challenging the iron grip of the industry’s titans—AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, often referred to as the Big Three. Introduced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) during the first Trump Administration, CBRS operates within the 3.55–3.7 GHz band, leveraging a spectrum-sharing model that prioritizes lower power levels and smaller license areas to democratize access. This framework has ignited unprecedented competition, empowering smaller entities to enter a market long dominated by a powerful few. Yet, this progress hangs in a precarious balance as the Big Three mount a fierce campaign to reshape CBRS rules in their favor, threatening to dismantle the very innovation and equity the policy has fostered. The stakes couldn’t be higher for rural communities, niche operators, and the future of a competitive wireless ecosystem.
CBRS: A Beacon of Innovation and Equity
The impact of CBRS on the wireless industry has been nothing short of transformative, creating opportunities for over 1,000 network operators who have collectively invested billions into the ecosystem. With nearly half a million base stations deployed—most in rural areas often overlooked by major carriers—this initiative has bridged critical connectivity gaps. Rural internet service providers, schools, factories, and even airports have reaped the benefits of enhanced access and reduced mobile costs. By challenging the Big Three, who control a staggering 82% of licensed spectrum, CBRS has also paved the way for cable companies like Comcast and Charter to introduce competitive mobile plans, shaking up a market that has historically favored entrenched players over consumer choice and affordability.
Beyond its economic impact, CBRS represents a rare policy success in promoting fair competition within a sector notorious for its barriers to entry. The spectrum-sharing model has allowed smaller players to thrive without the need for exorbitant investments typically required to compete with industry giants. This has not only lowered prices for end users but also spurred innovation in how connectivity is delivered to underserved regions. The success of this framework stands as a testament to what can be achieved when regulatory design prioritizes inclusivity over monopoly, setting a precedent for future spectrum policies. However, this hard-won progress now faces a severe test as powerful forces seek to tilt the scales back in their favor.
The Big Three’s Aggressive Push for Power
In a calculated move to reclaim dominance, the Big Three are pressing the FCC to approve a staggering 3,100% increase in CBRS transmission power limits, a change that could fundamentally alter the playing field. Such a dramatic shift would enable their high-powered towers to overshadow the low-power operations of smaller competitors, effectively pushing them out of the spectrum. The ripple effects of this proposal are profound, potentially rendering existing hardware obsolete for current operators and causing interference with adjacent frequencies. More critically, it risks eroding trust in the stability of FCC licensing, as businesses that invested heavily under the current rules could find their operations unsustainable overnight.
This regulatory maneuver is widely viewed as a direct assault on competition, prioritizing the interests of a powerful few over the broader public good. Rather than competing on merit through better services or pricing, the Big Three appear to be leveraging their influence to rewrite the rules in their favor. If successful, this power increase would not only marginalize smaller players but also undermine the very principles of equity and innovation that CBRS was designed to uphold. The potential fallout extends beyond immediate financial losses, threatening to reshape the wireless landscape into one where only the biggest players can survive, leaving consumers with fewer options and higher costs.
Scrutinizing Federated Wireless’s Unconvincing Claims
Amid this contentious battle, Federated Wireless, a vendor with close financial ties to the Big Three, has stepped forward with assurances that advanced Spectrum Access Systems (SAS) can mitigate the harms of higher power levels. Their argument hinges on the idea that cutting-edge technology could manage spectrum use in a way that prevents disruption to the CBRS ecosystem. However, these claims quickly unravel under closer examination, as they lack concrete rules or enforceable standards. The proposed solutions rely heavily on unproven technologies and unrealistic assumptions, offering little more than speculative promises that fail to address the practical challenges of implementation in a diverse and dynamic network environment.
Even if such technological fixes were feasible, they overlook critical issues that would still devastate smaller operators. Over 1,000 General Authorized Access (GAA) users—key beneficiaries of the current CBRS model—would face reduced capacity and performance. Additional concerns, such as diminished uplink capabilities and expanded Navy exclusion zones that limit spectrum access, are conveniently ignored in these proposals. The absence of mandatory FCC guidelines further undermines confidence in these assurances, suggesting that Federated Wireless’s stance serves more as a public relations shield for the Big Three than a genuine solution to protect the ecosystem’s integrity.
Telecom’s Ongoing Power Struggle
This conflict over CBRS encapsulates a broader, long-standing tension within the telecommunications industry between established giants and emerging challengers. The Big Three’s current push to alter power limits echoes their earlier attempts to auction the CBRS band for exclusive control, revealing a consistent pattern of using regulatory influence to safeguard market dominance. Their actions reflect a preference for maintaining an oligopoly over embracing a competitive landscape that benefits consumers through innovation and lower costs. CBRS, by contrast, has stood as a symbol of progress, breaking down barriers and enabling smaller entities to carve out a space in a heavily concentrated market.
The implications of this struggle extend far beyond technical spectrum rules, touching on fundamental questions of fairness and access in a digital age. Allowing the Big Three to overpower competitors through regulatory changes would set a dangerous precedent, signaling that influence can trump innovation. Protecting the current CBRS framework is not merely about preserving a single policy but about upholding the principle that the wireless market should serve the many, not just the few. The outcome of this battle could shape the industry’s trajectory for years to come, determining whether competition or consolidation will define the future of connectivity.
Safeguarding Connectivity for Vulnerable Communities
At the core of this debate are the rural communities and niche operators who have come to rely on CBRS for affordable, reliable internet access, often in areas where traditional carriers have shown little interest. The Big Three’s proposal to ramp up power limits threatens to undo billions in investments made by these smaller players, potentially widening the digital divide at a time when connectivity is more critical than ever. Rural America, already grappling with limited infrastructure, stands to lose the most if the current low-power model is dismantled, as alternative solutions are neither feasible nor cost-effective for many of these regions.
Preserving the CBRS framework is essential to ensuring that the benefits of modern technology reach all corners of society, not just urban centers where major carriers focus their efforts. The FCC must weigh the long-term consequences of altering power limits against the immediate gains claimed by industry giants. Looking ahead, stakeholders should advocate for policies that reinforce spectrum sharing and incentivize innovation over monopolistic control. Only through such measures can the wireless industry maintain a balance that prioritizes public interest, fostering an environment where competition thrives and connectivity remains a universal right.
