The Role Of Spectrum Management In Enhancing Rural Broadband Access

By Emily Newton

Broadband connections are becoming inseparable from many everyday tasks. As its importance in education, business, and communication rises, access discrepancies between urban and rural areas grow increasingly worrisome. Spectrum management deserves more attention amid this trend.

High-speed connections are so common in large cities that urban populations may take them for granted. However, 22.3% of Americans in rural areas and 27.7% in Tribal lands lack coverage at 25 Mbps or higher. Now that the FCC has updated its definition of “broadband” to mean at least 100 Mbps, the uncovered population is likely even bigger.

The availability of a provider offering 100 Mbps download speeds only tells part of the story. Even though some regions may meet the government’s definition of broadband access, these connections are not always accessible.

Satellite internet is often the only available coverage type in remote areas. It’s also typically among the most expensive. In other regions, consumers may have cable or fiber options, but only from one or two carriers. Limited choices exacerbate issues of high costs, which can restrict broadband access even if it’s technically available in the town.

How Spectrum Management Can Expand Rural Broadband

The connectivity gap between rural and urban areas will grow increasingly damaging if the industry doesn’t address it soon. A new approach to spectrum management may be necessary, as moving away from the current auction and allocation system could expand rural access in several ways.

Addressing Artificial Scarcity

Spectrum sharing could improve rural connectivity by removing artificial scarcity from the equation. While RF frequencies are a limited resource, spectrums are typically not as scarce as they seem, thanks to underutilization.

Just 16.13% of rural Americans have three or more available providers. More than half have just one. As a result, many smaller towns face an effective ISP monopoly, but these ISPs may not use their allotted spectrum to its full extent. Underutilization leaves people in these regions with fewer connectivity resources.

A shared model would dismantle this barrier. When multiple providers can use the same spectrums, they ensure all or most of the available resources in an area go to use. It then becomes easier for rural communities to access high-speed internet without running into restrictions from the limits of RF frequencies as a whole.

Managing Costs

Spectrum management can address price-related accessibility concerns for similar reasons. Because the auction model leads to a scarcity of carrier choices in rural areas, there’s little room for cost competitiveness. An ISP with an effective monopoly can charge as much as they want without worrying about losing customers because there are no alternatives.

Costs can be a barrier even apart from such a cynical view of the current system. Consumers may find a carrier too expensive, but the company may not be able to justify lower prices because of the costs of maintaining its standards. Spectrum management could resolve that by opening the door to other providers who may be able to offer reduced-price services.

Competition and market diversity foster greater accessibility. When it’s easier for multiple providers to serve an area through spectrum sharing, it leads to a mix of low-cost and premium offerings. Customers can choose an expensive but high-quality service or a cheaper but more bare-bones one according to their own needs.

Avoiding Infrastructure-Related Delays

While there are no legal obstacles to carriers expanding into new regions with the current spectrum allotment model, there are technological ones. An ISP hoping to serve an area would need to install its infrastructure to use its spectrum. Some broadband funding programs offer tax breaks and low-interest loans to manage the costs, but lead times remain long.

Spectrum sharing would mitigate some of these concerns because carriers could share existing equipment. There wouldn’t be a need for specialized towers to work on specific spectrums because another ISP could utilize the frequencies already in use in the area.

Additional infrastructure will still be necessary eventually to provide more capacity. However, the high costs and long construction timelines would be less of an obstacle, as carriers could begin moving into a region before they complete such projects.

Remaining Challenges To Spectrum Management

Shared approaches to spectrum management do incur additional technological complexity. Determining which frequencies to use is not always easy, and optimal paths may shift with fluctuating usage patterns. Consequently, communications infrastructure will need to adapt in real time to changing scenarios.

Thankfully, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising solution. Studies show today’s AI technology is already capable of enhancing spectrum management, including analyzing traffic and allocating spectrums to different purposes as necessary.

While spectrum sharing reduces some infrastructure concerns, real-time adaptive technologies may consume bandwidth and require additional power. Consequently, communications companies will still need to fund rural towers and cables, but the reduced initial need should help.

It’s also important to consider regulatory barriers. Government regulations will need to evolve to enable this new management model, which will be a long process. Organizations can help in the meantime by communicating with politicians about the issue and funding research into spectrum-sharing best practices.

Spectrum Management Is Key To A Connected Future

Rural America’s internet needs will only grow as connectivity becomes increasingly important to everyday life. Given that RF wavelengths are a limited resource, novel spectrum management approaches are the only way forward. The industry must begin the transition now to ensure a connected future.