Spectrum Showdown in Shanghai: What the UN’s World Radiocommunication Conference Means for U.S. Competitiveness and the Future of Wi-Fi
Congressional Internet Caucus Academy – Washington DC - May 11, 2026
VIDEO | AUDIO | RECAP EN / ES / FR | ARCHIVE | PERMALINK
Speakers: Evan Swarztrauber - CorePoint Strategies; Mary L. Brown - WifiForward; Ambassador Steve Lang - Crest Hill Advisors; David Redl - Salt Point Strategies
Moderator: Anne Keeney Weaver - Glen Echo Group
HOST: Tim Lordan – Executive Director, Congressional Internet Caucus Academy
Opening Context and Importance of the WRC
Tim Lordan opened the session by introducing the Congressional Internet Caucus Academy event as a discussion focused on the upcoming World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) scheduled for Shanghai in 2027. He noted the bipartisan leadership of the Congressional Internet Caucus and framed the discussion as an examination of how spectrum policy intersects with technology policy, economic competitiveness, and national security.
Anne Keeney Weaver introduced the panelists and emphasized that although the topic was highly technical, it carried major implications for U.S. technology leadership, wireless policy, and global telecommunications governance. The panelists then outlined their backgrounds and areas of expertise.
Evan Swarztrauber recalled his experience at the FCC during the Ajit Pai chairmanship, when the agency adopted the landmark decision to open the 6 GHz band for unlicensed Wi-Fi use. He said that experience gave him direct insight into the debates surrounding spectrum allocation and the policy rationale behind prioritizing Wi-Fi expansion.
Mary L. Brown described more than two decades working in Wi-Fi policy and standards development, particularly during her time at Cisco coordinating among device manufacturers, chipset makers, and enterprise vendors. She emphasized the rapid evolution of Wi-Fi technologies, noting that while deployment of Wi-Fi 7 is underway, engineers are already developing Wi-Fi 8.
Ambassador Steve Lang summarized his thirty-year State Department career, particularly his leadership role on international communications and information policy and his oversight of U.S. engagement with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), including leadership of the U.S. delegation to WRC-23.
David Redl explained that his work on Capitol Hill and later as NTIA Administrator gave him experience bridging domestic spectrum policy with international telecommunications negotiations. He emphasized that the FCC, NTIA, and State Department jointly shape U.S. positions within the ITU process.
Understanding the ITU and the World Radiocommunication Conference
Anne Weaver asked Ambassador Lang to explain the ITU and the WRC process for the audience.
Lang described the ITU as the United Nations agency responsible for telecommunications policy and spectrum harmonization. He explained that the World Radiocommunication Conference updates the international Radio Regulations treaty every three to four years and therefore has binding international consequences. He noted that the ITU is unusual among UN agencies because private sector companies can participate directly as sector members, even though they do not vote.
David Redl expanded on how the WRC operates procedurally. He compared the ITU process to Congress, arguing that agenda items established at one conference are effectively “referred” to working groups and study processes over the next three years, similar to legislation moving through committees and subcommittees. He stressed that unlike Congress, where votes are common, the ITU overwhelmingly operates through consensus, making negotiations highly delicate and dependent on compromise.
Redl also highlighted the importance of the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, where leadership positions within the organization would be decided. He noted that American Doreen Bogdan-Martin was seeking reelection as ITU Secretary-General, adding another geopolitical layer to the broader telecom policy struggle.
Why Congress Should Care About Spectrum Policy
Mary Brown argued that Congress should care about WRC decisions because multinational U.S. companies rely on globally harmonized spectrum policies to operate consistently across borders. She explained that industries deploying Wi-Fi, private 5G, and enterprise wireless systems need predictable international regulatory environments in order to scale efficiently.
She also emphasized the importance of spectrum for federal agencies and the military, which depend on long-term spectrum planning for operational systems. Finally, she highlighted consumer benefits, explaining that globally harmonized wireless standards allow manufacturers to achieve economies of scale, reducing equipment costs and improving deployment efficiency.
Ambassador Lang added additional national interests at stake, including aviation safety, scientific research, radio astronomy, Earth observation satellites, and strategic technological competitiveness. He argued that success at the WRC is essential if the United States wants global telecom infrastructure to rely on U.S. and allied technologies rather than Chinese systems.
David Redl stressed that radio signals themselves ignore borders, but national governments do not. He argued that the WRC process is fundamentally about reconciling global technological interoperability with geopolitical realities. He highlighted Wi-Fi and non-geostationary satellite systems as examples of U.S. technological leadership that depend heavily on favorable international spectrum rules.
Evan Swarztrauber framed spectrum policy as deeply connected to industrial policy and manufacturing competition. He emphasized that the United States remains dominant in Wi-Fi equipment manufacturing through companies such as Cisco, Broadcom, and HPE, while China dominates much of the cellular infrastructure sector through Huawei and ZTE. He argued that spectrum allocations directly influence which countries’ manufacturers benefit economically and strategically.
He also connected the issue to rural broadband deployment, noting that spectrum policy decisions affect whether underserved communities can receive affordable internet access through programs like BEAD.
Major Agenda Items for WRC-27
David Redl identified Agenda Item 1.7 as one of the most consequential issues heading into WRC-27. This agenda item concerns the identification of spectrum for IMT — International Mobile Telecommunications — commonly understood as future 5G and 6G systems. He described the issue as a continuing struggle between licensed cellular advocates and supporters of unlicensed technologies such as Wi-Fi.
He explained that while countries retain sovereign authority over their own spectrum allocations, the ITU’s global allocation tables strongly influence international markets and investment decisions. As a result, WRC outcomes can shape the trajectory of major industries worldwide.
Redl also devoted substantial attention to satellite policy and the issue known as EPFD — Equivalent Power Flux Density. He described how geostationary satellites and non-geostationary satellite constellations operate at different orbital altitudes and must coexist within shared spectrum environments. Existing rules, established decades earlier, heavily favor geostationary systems, according to NGSO operators.
He argued that the rise of large NGSO constellations such as Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper has intensified demands for updated coexistence rules that allow fairer competition while still protecting existing operators. The debate over EPFD, he said, is ultimately a debate about balancing innovation and competition against legacy protections.
The FCC’s 6 GHz Decision and Global Wi-Fi Expansion
Anne Weaver shifted the discussion specifically to the FCC’s 2020 decision to open the entire 1200 MHz 6 GHz band for unlicensed use.
Evan Swarztrauber explained that the FCC concluded existing Wi-Fi spectrum allocations in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands were becoming severely congested due to surging demand. The commission determined that future technologies such as augmented reality, AI applications, and advanced video streaming would require substantially more Wi-Fi capacity.
He outlined the competing proposals before the FCC at the time. One proposal would have allocated the full band for Wi-Fi, while another would have split the spectrum between Wi-Fi and licensed cellular uses. The FCC rejected the split proposal partly because it would have disrupted existing users such as utilities, satellite earth stations, and public safety operators, whereas Wi-Fi systems could coexist more easily with incumbent operations.
Swarztrauber argued that the U.S. government has since promoted the 6 GHz Wi-Fi model internationally because broader adoption strengthens American manufacturers and reduces equipment costs through scale. He noted that countries such as South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina have followed the U.S. approach, while China has advocated using the band entirely for cellular systems tied to Chinese state-supported vendors.
Mary Brown described the market response to the FCC decision as explosive. She stated that 114 countries had already opened some or all of the 6 GHz band for Wi-Fi use. She emphasized the importance of global consistency for device manufacturers producing hundreds of millions of Wi-Fi products annually.
Brown cited ABI Research projections estimating that North American shipments of 6 GHz consumer devices would grow from 95 million units in 2024 to 367 million by 2029. She also projected annual Wi-Fi access point shipments would rise from 4 million in 2024 to 66 million by 2030.
She further referenced Telecom Advisory Services research estimating that Wi-Fi technologies collectively would generate $2.4 trillion in economic value globally by 2027, reflecting the ubiquity of Wi-Fi across homes, businesses, transportation hubs, and public infrastructure.
China, 6 GHz, and Competing Telecom Philosophies
Ambassador Lang explained that at WRC-27 the United States would largely be defending existing gains on 6 GHz rather than seeking a new affirmative allocation. Because 6 GHz is not a standalone agenda item at the conference, the concern is that countries may attach themselves to footnotes permitting IMT use of the band under Chinese influence.
He argued that the best defensive strategy is for the United States to proactively identify alternative spectrum bands suitable for future licensed wireless systems so that countries do not feel pressure to use 6 GHz for IMT.
David Redl described 6 GHz as one of the clearest examples of spectrum geopolitics. He contrasted the U.S. position favoring Wi-Fi with China’s position advocating IMT. He noted that Huawei remains the primary vendor producing IMT equipment for the 6 GHz band and argued that China’s advocacy is closely tied to advancing Huawei’s market position globally.
He described Wi-Fi as a decentralized, democratized technology ecosystem dominated by American intellectual property, whereas cellular IMT systems rely on centralized network architectures with increasing Chinese technological influence. According to Redl, the broader WRC debate reflects competing visions of connectivity, competition, and control.
Mary Brown argued that China’s telecom policies are closely intertwined with the Belt and Road Initiative and broader geopolitical influence efforts. She cited examples including Laos, Cambodia, and the Maldives, where Chinese influence reportedly pushed governments toward IMT deployment in 6 GHz.
She also described cases where governments adopted compromise approaches, allocating portions of the band differently in order to balance Chinese economic pressure against domestic policy goals. Brown emphasized that U.S. companies often struggle to compete with the scale of Chinese state-backed influence efforts.
Satellite Competition and EPFD
Returning to satellite policy, Ambassador Lang explained that the United States had unsuccessfully attempted at WRC-23 to place EPFD reform directly on the WRC-27 agenda. Although a formal decision item was not adopted, the issue remained under study and could still lead to regulatory changes.
Lang emphasized the enormous potential of NGSO constellations to expand connectivity globally and argued that modernizing EPFD rules is important for efficient spectrum use and digital inclusion. He acknowledged, however, that achieving consensus would be difficult because the issue lacks formal agenda status.
David Redl then discussed the FCC’s April 2026 action reviewing EPFD limits. He described the decision as a strong signal that the United States intends to support more balanced coexistence rules between geostationary and non-geostationary systems. He explained that the FCC’s position would strongly shape the broader U.S. interagency process involving FCC, NTIA, State Department, and private sector stakeholders.
Ambassador Lang disclosed that he works with NGSO companies on the issue and emphasized the strategic significance of U.S. leadership in satellite internet. He pointed to Starlink’s existing global presence and Amazon’s expected deployment timeline, while warning that China is simultaneously developing competing constellations such as Guowang and Qianfan.
Concerns About Holding WRC-27 in Shanghai
The panel devoted significant attention to the implications of holding the conference in China.
Ambassador Lang said the location created major information security concerns because of China’s extensive cyber espionage capabilities. He warned that U.S. delegates would need to assume that electronic communications and in-person conversations could be monitored unless substantial countermeasures were adopted.
He also expressed concern that China, as host country, would appoint the conference chair, potentially giving it procedural influence over negotiations and conference management. He argued that the United States and its allies would need to closely monitor procedural fairness and coordinate responses to any perceived abuses.
David Redl offered a more balanced perspective, arguing that host countries also face strong pressure to ensure conferences are viewed as successful and legitimate. He suggested that China’s desire to avoid diplomatic embarrassment could create incentives for compromise and orderly negotiations.
Lang added that the conference’s location had already elevated attention to the issue in Washington and generated unusually high levels of bipartisan engagement and preparation.
U.S. Strategy and Recommendations
Asked what the United States should do over the next 19 months, Ambassador Lang emphasized the importance of quickly appointing a head of delegation for WRC-27 and accelerating the development of formal U.S. positions. He stressed the need for extensive diplomatic engagement with allies and partners, including through embassies, capacity-building initiatives, and possible spectrum summits hosted in the United States.
He also recommended extensive planning for cybersecurity and operational security at the conference itself, including secure communications infrastructure and negotiations over technical protections with China and the ITU.
In closing remarks, Evan Swarztrauber urged the United States government and industry to maintain a united front around key spectrum priorities. He argued that alignment among Congress, agencies, and companies strengthens U.S. negotiating leverage internationally.
Mary Brown stressed that congressional attention itself matters geopolitically. She argued that China closely watches congressional engagement on these issues and that bipartisan support signals seriousness and resolve.
Ambassador Lang urged policymakers not to lose sight of the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, emphasizing the importance of reelecting Doreen Bogdan-Martin, electing Jennifer Warren to the Radio Regulations Board, and retaining the U.S. seat on the ITU Council.
David Redl concluded by encouraging policymakers to evaluate every WRC issue through a simple lens: whether a proposal benefits American companies and technologies or strengthens Chinese competitors.
Audience Question on U.S. Aggressiveness
During the audience Q&A, a participant asked whether the United States was being aggressive enough in defending its positions internationally.
David Redl responded that the United States was already aggressively promoting American technologies globally, particularly in 6 GHz Wi-Fi and NGSO satellite systems. He pointed to the FCC’s EPFD action and international advocacy efforts as evidence of sustained U.S. engagement.
Ambassador Lang agreed but emphasized that U.S. success ultimately depends on cooperation with allies and partners, since the United States cannot achieve favorable WRC outcomes unilaterally.
RESOURCES
Congressional Internet Caucus Academy — host of the briefing on the UN telecom showdown
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) — UN agency convening WRC-27 in Shanghai
World Radiocommunication Conference 2027 (WRC-27) — the treaty-level spectrum negotiation at the center of the discussion
FCC 2020 6 GHz Order — opened 1,200 MHz for unlicensed Wi-Fi use, the U.S. position WRC-27 is built around
FCC EPFD Report and Order (April 30, 2026) — replaces decades-old NGSO/GSO satellite power limits with performance-based rules
WifiForward — Wi-Fi spectrum policy coalition led by panelist Mary L. Brown
Salt Point Strategies — David Redl’s tech and telecom advisory firm
Crest Hill Advisors — Ambassador Steve Lang’s bipartisan tech and telecom consulting firm
Assessing the Economic Value of Wi-Fi (Telecom Advisory Services, 2024) — Raul Katz study projecting $2.4 trillion in U.S. Wi-Fi economic value by 2027
U.S. ITU Candidates: Bogdan-Martin, Warren, Council — State Department page on the November 2026 ITU Plenipotentiary races discussed at close of panel