The socioeconomic
benefits of the 6 GHz band
Considering licensed
and unlicensed options

Copyright © 2022 GSMA Intelligence

The GSMA is a global organisation unifying the mobile
ecosystem to discover, develop and deliver innovation
foundational to positive business environments and societal
change. Our vision is to unlock the full power of connectivity
so that people, industry, and society thrive. Representing
mobile operators and organisations across the mobile
ecosystem and adjacent industries, the GSMA delivers for
its members across three broad pillars: Connectivity for
Good, Industry Services and Solutions, and Outreach. This
activity includes advancing policy, tackling today’s biggest
societal challenges, underpinning the technology andinteroperability that make mobile work, and providing theworld’s largest platform to convene the mobile ecosystem at
the MWC and M360 series of events.
We invite you to find out more at gsma.com
Follow the GSMA on Twitter: @GSMA

GSMA Intelligence is the definitive source of global mobile
operator data, analysis and forecasts, and publisher ofauthoritative industry reports and research. Our data covers
every operator group, network and MVNO in every country
worldwide — from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. It is the mostaccurate and complete set of industry metrics available,
comprising tens of millions of individual data points,
updated daily.
GSMA Intelligence is relied on by leading operators,
vendors, regulators, financial institutions and third-party
industry players, to support strategic decision-making
and long-term investment planning. The data is used as
an industry reference point and is frequently cited by the
media and by the industry itself.
Our team of analysts and experts produce regular thoughtleading research reports across a range of industry topics.
www.gsmaintelligence.com
info@gsmaintelligence.com@GSMAiPublished June 2022
Authors
Kalvin Bahia, Principal Economist
Pau Castells, Director of Economic Analysis© 2022 – GSMA Intelligence. This material has been
independently prepared by GSMA Intelligence (the mobile
industry’s leading data and analysis resource operated
by GSMA Ltd, the “GSMA”) in collaboration with Huawei
Technologies Co., Ltd., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
The GSMA is not liable for the accuracy of this material
when used or relied on by a third party. When used by third
parties, the GSMA accepts no responsibility for errors in theinformation sourced or provided nor the effect of any such
errors on any analysis, suggestions or recommendations
made by the GSMA.

Contents
Executive summary2

1 Introduction

5

2 Licensed and unlicensed usage in society8

3 Analytical approach

14

4 Results for house dwelling setting21

5 Results for apartment setting29

6 Conclusion

34

References

36

Appendix A Methodology

38

Appendix B Detailed country results forhouse dwelling setting

49

Appendix C Detailed country results forapartment dwelling setting

54

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Executive
summary
Considerations on the optimal approach for managing spectrum are currently
at the forefront of the debate around the 5925–7125 MHz frequency range as
governments decide how best to manage this spectrum over the coming decades.
The key consideration is whether to utilise the spectrum for licensed mobile (i.e. 5G
new radio (NR) and its evolution) or for unlicensed use (i.e. Wi-Fi 6 and its evolution).
To date, countries that have allocated spectrum in thisband have taken divergent approaches. Some haveassigned the full 6 GHz band for unlicensed use, whileothers are considering the full band for licensed use.
A third group are allocating the lower part of 6 GHz(5925/5945–6425 MHz) for unlicensed and considering
the upper part (6425–7125 MHz) for licensed. Included
on the agenda of the next World Radiocommunication
Conference (WRC-23) is the IMT identification of 6425–
7025 MHz in ITU Region 1 (Europe, the Commonwealthof Independent States, Mongolia, Africa and the Middle
East west of the Persian Gulf, including Iraq)1 and
7025–7125 MHz in all regions.

1

2

See ITU RR article 5.3 for exact definition

Governments around the world therefore need to makea carefully considered decision as to what the mostefficient use of 6 GHz spectrum will be. It represents thelargest remaining single block of mid-band spectrum
that can be allocated to licensed mobile or unlicensed
services in the foreseeable future. When governments
are considering which approach to take, policymakers
should conduct a regulatory impact assessment to
identify the best policy option for radio spectrum
assignments – specifically the policy that will maximise
the social and economic value of spectrum. To assist
policymakers in performing such an assessment, thisreport conducts a cost-benefit analysis for different
authorisation models for the 6 GHz band.

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

In the case of 5G licensed use, 6 GHz can enable
increased wide-area capacity in urban areas forenhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), ultra-reliable
low-latency communication (URLLC) and massive IoT(mIoT), as well as the provision of fixed wireless accessin small towns and villages. If additional mid-band
spectrum is not made available, this could increase
the cost of public mobile network deployments – asoperators need to densify networks to an extent that
may not be economically feasible – or it could result ina degradation in network quality, especially if operators
reach the technical limits of network densification. This
would mean that consumers would not realise the fullsocioeconomic benefits of 5G.

In the case of Wi-Fi, if the existing amount of
unlicensed spectrum available is not sufficient to meetdemand in the medium and long term for householdswith fast enough fibre-to-the-home/building (FTTH/B)
or cable broadband infrastructure, then households
will not benefit from the full capabilities of ultrafast
fixed broadband (FBB) services and the use cases theycan enable.
In this report, we implement a supply and demandframework in the 2021–2035 period to determine
where 6 GHz spectrum will have its most productive
use. We find that the optimal assignment policy
largely depends on the expected adoption of 5G and
fixed fibre/cable broadband services in each market,
along with the speeds that fixed broadband canoffer consumers. The report addresses three policy
scenarios, as shown in Figure i.

Figure i

6 GHz policy scenario analysis
Baseline

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 35925 MHz

6425 MHzNot allocated7125 MHz
Unlicensed

Licensed

Baseline refers to no allocation for either licensed or unlicensed use. In some countries (e.g. within CEPT), the lower frequency boundary is 5945 MHz.
Source: GSMA Intelligence

Executive summary3

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Key findings
The key factors that impact the benefits of 6 GHz spectrum assignment policies are as follows:• Expected adoption of 5G and fixed fibre/cablebroadband services: The expected adoption of 5G
and fixed fibre/cable broadband will respectively
be the key drivers of demand for licensed andunlicensed use of the 6 GHz band.
• Fixed broadband speeds: The existing and future
fixed broadband infrastructure in a market will
determine the maximum speeds achievable overa Wi-Fi connection and therefore the addressable
traffic demand.
• The existing spectrum availability for licensed andunlicensed use: Both existing and future spectrum
allocation to licensed mobile use and unlicensed use(in bands other than 6 GHz) will determine the supply
and capacity constraints relative to broadband traffic
demand, and therefore the requirement for additional
spectrum from the 6 GHz band.

• Utilisation of high-band spectrum for licensed
and unlicensed use: The benefits for unlicensed
use depends on the utilisation of available andplanned high-band spectrum. This includes
spectrum within the 57–71 GHz range andpotentially other bands in the future. Utilisation ofhigh-band spectrum for Wi-Fi traffic demand will
reduce the amount of traffic demand that is reliant
on other spectrum bands. Equally, the benefits
for licensed use also depend on the utilisation of
the licensed mobile high bands (including in the
24–40 GHz range). Although this study considers
scenarios where high bands are not utilised by WiFi, it should be noted that this would represent an
inefficient use of spectrum. The utilisation of highbands is always considered when analysing thebenefits of 5G.

Taking these considerations into account, this report draws the following conclusions:• In a house dwelling setting, the licensed use of theentire 6 GHz band will deliver the largest benefits
across all countries if fixed broadband technologies
do not provide maximum user speeds above
5 Gbps. This is because there is already sufficient
capacity with existing unlicensed spectrum. The
licensed use of the 6 GHz band will still deliver thelargest benefits across most countries if in thosecountries fixed broadband provides maximum user
speeds up to 10 Gbps and if up to 30% of Wi-Fi
traffic is offloaded to the high bands. Assigning thelower 6 GHz band for unlicensed use and the upper
6 GHz band for licensed use will deliver the largest
benefits in some countries, if FTTH/B and cablebroadband adoption is widespread, they support
maximum user speeds of 10 Gbps and high bands
are not utilised by Wi-Fi.

• When carrying out the analysis based on anapartment setting, rather than a house dwelling,
we still find that in the majority of countries, thelicensed use of the entire 6 GHz band will deliver
the largest benefits. For the remaining countries,
split use across the 6 GHz band (5925–6425 MHz
for unlicensed and 6425–7125 MHz for licensed)
would generate the largest benefits.
• Unlicensed use across the whole 6 GHz band was
not found to be the most beneficial allocation in
any of the considered analyses. Even in countries
with very high Wi-Fi demand, allocating an
additional 500 MHz of spectrum for unlicensed
use in the lower 6 GHz band is sufficient to meet
expected demand. This means that there are no
additional gains from allocating the full 6 GHz
frequency band for unlicensed use.

While the results of this study focus on 24 specific markets (Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Colombia,
Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Qatar,
Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, the UAE and Vietnam), the findings and analytical approach are also relevant
to other countries that have yet to make a decision on the 6 GHz band.

4

Executive summary

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

1 Introduction
Spectrum as a common pool resource
Radio spectrum is used to transfer information wirelessly for many essential
services, including mobile networks, satellites, TV broadcasting and defence. As ascarce resource, governments aim to make efficient and effective use of spectrum
and ensure it is available for uses that stimulate social and economic progress.2
For the majority of bands that are assigned forcommercial use, governments assign individual
authorisations that allow the licensee to use thespectrum for the duration of the licence over ageographical area. The economic rationale for thisis that spectrum is a ‘common-pool resource’, whichmeans it is non-excludable (it is potentially available
for everyone to use) and rivalrous (multiple nonregulated users will suffer from mutual interference).
Without assigning an individual usage right, there is a2

significant risk of multiple unknown individuals trying
to use a spectrum band, which would result in signal
interference. This would either mean that ultimately no
one would benefit from its use, or that it would be used
but without any quality of service assurance. Conversely,
if spectrum usage rights are assigned, a licensee will
have the incentive to make substantial investments ifthey are able to generate a return on the provision of
products and services that use the spectrum.

ITU 2015, Handbook on National Spectrum Management

Introduction

5

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Once it is decided that the assignment of individual
usage rights (i.e. a licensed spectrum regime) will
be relied upon, the question turns to who (or what)should be granted the right of use. Regulators take
into consideration many factors when making sucha decision, a key one being how citizens can mostbenefit from the assignment. In order to achieve this,over the past 20 years, many countries have usedmarket-based processes – particularly auctions – toassign spectrum. This has especially been the case formobile telecommunications, where operators often
engage in a competitive bidding process to acquire
spectrum that is then used to deploy networks thatprovide broadband connectivity and services to
consumers and enterprises. 3 A large body of researchand empirical evidence has demonstrated thesocial and economic benefits that arise from mobile
connectivity.4 The latest generation of technology,
5G, has the potential to impact societies even more
broadly by driving innovation and transforming thedigital landscape across different industries andsectors. 5
However, governments may not always license
spectrum and may choose instead to allow the useof spectrum without needing any kind of individual
authorisation (we refer to this as ‘unlicensed’ use).
Under this authorisation regime, usage of spectrum isfree as long as the equipment fulfils a set of technicalconditions. This could include, for example, restricting
transmission power to limit signal interference to otherservices in the band. On one hand, this has the benefitof facilitating access to spectrum for multiple different
types of users, potentially enabling innovation in termsof new products and the involvement of new players.
On the other hand, the technical rules that are required
to support unlicensed use of spectrum (e.g. radiatedpower restrictions) lead to some intrinsic limitations,such as the unsuitability for providing wide area
coverage, ‘on the go’ services and predictable qualityof service – which in turn will limit the use cases.
One example of such unlicensed use is Wi-Fi, which
provides local wireless connections to homes andpremises as well as outdoor short-range coverage.
Similar to the rapid rollout of mobile technologies,
Wi-Fi use has accelerated in the past two decades,with Wi-Fi capabilities introduced into a wide range of
products. These have also driven significant economic
and social benefits worldwide.

Assigning the 6 GHz band
Considerations on the optimal approach for managing
spectrum are currently at the forefront of the debate
around the 5925–7125 MHz frequency range (hereafterreferred to as the ‘6 GHz band’) as governments decide
how best to manage this spectrum going forward.
To date, countries that have allocated spectrum inthis band have taken divergent approaches. Whilesome countries have assigned the full 6 GHz band for
unlicensed use, others are considering the full band forlicensed use. A third group are following a ‘split-use’approach by allocating the lower part of 6 GHz for
unlicensed and considering the upper part for licensed.
It should be noted that the large majority of countries
globally have not taken decisions on the future use of
the upper 6 GHz band.

from the International Telecommunication Union(ITU). Such regulations ensure that spectrum is used
across countries with potentially different services
on each side of the border. Furthermore, consistentfrequency allocations between countries are important
to ensure international harmonised use, which allows
for economies of scale in the production and use ofdevices, equipment and other infrastructure. Included
on the agenda of the next World Radiocommunication
Conference (WRC-23), which can review and revise
the Radio Regulations where necessary, is the IMT
identification of 6425–7025 MHz in ITU Region 1(Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States,
Mongolia, Africa and the Middle East west of the Persian
Gulf, including Iraq) and 7025–7125 MHz in all regions.

An important factor to enable the efficient use ofspectrum is cross-border coordination between
countries, which is addressed by the Radio Regulations

Governments around the world will therefore need tomake a carefully considered decision as to what themost efficient use of 6 GHz spectrum will be. In most3
4
5

Cave and Webb (2015)
For example, see GSMA Intelligence (2020b) and ITU (2019)For example, see GSMA (2019) and GSMA Intelligence (2020a)

6

Introduction

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

countries, it represents the largest remaining single blockof mid-band spectrum that can be allocated to licensed
or unlicensed use. In theory, a well-designed marketbased assignment process such as an auction should
achieve an efficient assignment that will maximise thenet benefit to society. This means that spectrum will beassigned to users that are prepared to pay the highest
amount for it and therefore value it the most.
However, if governments believe there is a possibility ofmarket failure – for example, due to a lack of competition
or due to innovations and positive externalities fromcertain use cases of spectrum that are not reflectedin the private benefits priced into auction bids – analternative assignment process should be considered tomaximise the net benefit to society. In such cases, therelevant national authority should conduct a regulatory
impact assessment, with a consultation process tocollect views and evidence from stakeholders, in order
to identify the best policy option for radio spectrum
assignments other than a market-based approach.
This will contribute to the efficiency, transparency,
accountability and coherence of public policymaking.
It is also in line with international best practice,6 with
the ITU recommending that when there are competinginterests for spectrum use, the spectrum management
organisation should determine the use or uses thatwould maximise the societal value of spectrum.

To assist policymakers with such an assessment, thisreport conducts a cost-benefit analysis for different
assignment options for the 6 GHz band. The study
focuses on 24 countries across the three ITU Regions
where a decision on the allocation of the full bandhas yet to be taken: Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana,
India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan,
Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa,
Thailand, the UAE and Vietnam. While the results anddiscussion are focused on these specific markets, thefindings and analytical approach are also relevant toother countries that have yet to make a decision on
the 6 GHz band. These can serve as a framework on
which to consider the costs and benefits of different
6 GHz policies. The rest of the report is structured
as follows: Chapter 2 provides a description of thenext generation of mobile and RLAN technologies
and their likely relationship with each other; Chapter
3 sets out the analytical approach used in this study;
Chapter 4 delivers the key findings; and Chapter 5
presents the report’s conclusions. Further details on
the methodology and country-specific results areprovided in the appendix. To analyse the benefits ofthe different licensing regimes, the report focuses on
5G mobile technology for licensed use and Wi-Fi forunlicensed use.7

Please note that, unless otherwise stated, this report uses the term
“5G” to mean “5G NR and its evolution” and the term “Wi-Fi” to mean
“Wi-Fi 6 and its evolution”.

6
7

For example, see ITU (2014) and OECD (2020)
Unlicensed use refers to the broader family of RLAN technology. This report focuses on Wi-Fi technology.

Introduction

7

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

2 Licensed andunlicensed usage
in society
Almost everyone connected is reliant on wireless connectivity
The overwhelming majority of internet users are reliant on at least some form of
wireless connectivity. This obviously applies to the 51% of the world’s populationthat uses mobile internet.8 Mobile technology provides wide area coverage fromsites to end users that can either be indoors or outdoors – macro cell sites canprovide coverage up to around 15–20 km, and they are supported by backhaul
connections over fibre, microwave links and satellite. RLAN provides indoor andoutdoor short-range coverage to provide best-effort connectivity to end users –typically up to 50 m indoors and 300 m outdoors (in the case of line of sight).

8

GSMA (2021)

8

Licensed and unlicensed usage in society

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Wi-Fi provides the final link between a wirelessenabled device and a router or access point, which
receives a connection over fibre, copper, mobile orsatellite (see Figure 2). Mobile also provides wirelessconnectivity solutions to small, medium and large
enterprises, while Wi-Fi is also used by businesses
when reliability and latency are not critical.9

Figure 1

Mobile connectivity in urban areas

HOME BROADBAND
NETWORK

Small
site
SecuritycameraSmartvehicle

Macro
site
Smart
factory

Smart
sewer

Small
site
Smart
traffic
Macro
site
Smart Smartretail stadium

Environmental
monitoring

Smartconstruction

SmarthealthSmartphone

4G/5G coverage

Connectivity at home
InternetFixed broadband connection
e.g. fibre, cable, copper

H O M E B R OA D B A
ND NE

Lighting
and home
controls

K

Printers

Wi-Fi
accesspoint

Desktop
computers

AR/VR
headsets

T WOR

Smart
appliances

Laptopcomputers

SmartphonesGameconsolesNetwork music
and radio
players

Thermostats
Smart TVs
and streaming
video

Wi-Fi

Tablets

5G + Wi-Fi

Source: GSMA Intelligence9

For example, see Nokia 5G and Wi-Fi6 radio: options for operational technology

Licensed and unlicensed usage in society

9THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

The role of the two types of connectivity varies bymarket. In countries with widespread fixed broadband
infrastructure, mobile currently tends to provide
connectivity ‘on the go’, especially outdoors, while
Wi-Fi use is more common for a significant portion ofindoor users. In many countries, however, especiallylow- and middle-income countries, the adoption of

fixed broadband remains limited.10 Figure 2 shows thatmost of the 24 countries analysed have high levelsof mobile broadband penetration (relative to total
population), ranging from 54% in India to 155% in the
UAE. By contrast, fixed broadband adoption (relative
to total households) ranges from 1% in Ghana to morethan 170% in the UAE.

Figure 2

Fixed and mobile broadband adoption in the 24 countries analysed, 2020
180%

160%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Cable and FTTH/B adoption

Lower-speed FBB adoption

Kazakhstan

ArmeniaSouth Africa

Nigeria

Kenya

Ghana

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

BrazilArgentina

0%

Mobile broadband adoption

Fixed broadband refers to fixed subscriptions to high-speed access to the public internet, at downstream speeds equal to or greater than 256 Mbps. It includes cable modem;
xDSL; fibre-to-the-home/building; other fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions; satellite broadband; and terrestrial fixed wireless broadband. ‘Cable and FTTH/B’ refers to fixed
broadband subscriptions using a cable modem or fibre-to-the-home or fibre-to-the-building connection. Lower-speed FBB adoption includes technologies other than FTTH/B andcable. Mobile broadband includes 3G, 4G or 5G technologies that enable high-speed access to the internet.
FTTH/B and cable adoption and lower-speed FBB adoption are based on the number of subscriptions as a proportion of households, while mobile broadband adoption is basedon the number of mobile subscriptions as a proportion of total population. As one user can access multiple subscriptions and because both data points include subscriptions fororganisations (including businesses and governments), adoption in some countries exceeds 100%.
In the case of UAE and Qatar, we adjusted the estimates as the original calculations suggested that fixed broadband penetration was 150% in Qatar and more than 300% in UAE.
For Qatar, we use data from the Communications Regulatory Authority, which is based on households only. For UAE, we adjusted the number of households based on an average
household size of 5.3. This gives a fixed broadband penetration rate of 174%, meaning the estimate will include non-residential broadband subscribers.
Source: GSMA Intelligence and ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database 2021

10

10

 utside of residential properties, Wi-Fi can also be used in businesses and in public hotspots. Cisco (2020) forecasts almost 628 million global public Wi-Fi hotspots by 2023.
O
However, use of public Wi-Fi remains much more limited than residential Wi-Fi, even in countries with widespread fixed networks. For example, Katz et al (2021) estimate that justover 4% of Wi-Fi traffic in the US is ‘free’ traffic. Analysis by OpenSignal of smartphone users in the US suggests that they spend less than 1% of their time connected to public Wi-Fi.

Licensed and unlicensed usage in society

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Next-generation technologies
Both mobile and RLAN experience fast-moving
technology changes, with new generations coming
every 10 years or less. In the case of mobile, 5G is thelatest technology and has started being deployed inmany markets, offering significantly faster speeds
than 4G and allowing for extremely high reliability andvery low latency.11 For RLAN, the rollout of Wi-Fi 6 (or6E where 6 GHz spectrum is used) also offers faster
speeds and lower latencies than previous generations.
Appendix A provides further information on the data
rates associated with channel bandwidths for Wi-Fi 6,
along with the spectral efficiencies for 5G.
Both 5G and Wi-Fi 6 are expected to drive continued
increases in traffic. For both types of wirelessconnectivity, increased demand will come from newusers along with consumers using more devices withmore advanced capabilities, as well as using their
existing devices more intensively (e.g. smartphones,
laptops, tablets and smart appliances). This will be
driven by HD and UHD content, videos calls and newuse cases such as smart glasses, real-time cloud
gaming, 360 video and VR/AR devices. There will also
be a need for near-ubiquitous connectivity acrossdifferent devices and locations. It is expected that
there will be a significant increase in machine-tomachine (M2M) and IoT devices, such as for smart
home, manufacturing and vehicles. Many of the newuse cases, including AR/VR, real-time video andgaming, will also require lower latencies (see Figure 3).

Figure 3

Services supported by 5G

Delay

–

Services requiring 5G capabilities

Autonomous
driving

1 ms

Augmented
reality

Tactileinternet
Virtualreality

10 ms

Disaster Services deliverable by 4G and evolved 4G Real-time
alert
gaming

100 msAutomotive
ecall

Multi-person
video call

Bi-directional
remote controlling
Device remotecontrollingFirst responder
connectivity

Wirelesscloud-based office1,000 ms
Personal
cloud

Monitoring
sensor networks+–<1 Mbps

1 Mbps

10 MbpsVideo
streaming

100 Mbps>1 Gbps+

Bandwidth throughput

Person to person

Person to machine

Machine to machine

Source: GSMA Intelligence11

For example, see Cellular IoT in the 5G era. Latency refers to the amount of time it takes for data to be transferred across a network.

Licensed and unlicensed usage in society

11

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Demand for both mobile and RLAN will continue to increase
Mobile and RLAN have both seen wide adoption
globally, with RLAN being used indoors when there
is a fixed-line broadband connection and mobile
being used ‘on the go’ as well as where fixed is notavailable (or where low fixed-line speeds favour mobile
connectivity). This has historically allowed consumers
to access faster speeds (compared to 3G for example)
and more data when Wi-Fi is available with a fixed
broadband connection, including on a mobile device(e.g. smartphone or tablet), as they could use a fixed
connection that generally had higher – often unlimited– data volume allowances. However, this is changing
with the introduction of 5G.

Both mobile and RLAN demand will continue to grow as
the number of wirelessly connected devices increases.
RLAN demand will grow in markets where consumers
take up faster fixed broadband services (e.g. FTTH/B andcable). In terms of mobile, it is expected that consumers
will use more data on 5G relative to 4G and less will be
carried over Wi-Fi. This will be driven by two key factors:• Faster speeds: In markets where 5G has beenlaunched, consumers often get significantly better
speeds than on 4G and Wi-Fi (see Figure 4).12• Larger data volumes: Consumers will have accessto greater amounts of data on 5G. In markets where
5G is available, the majority of 5G tariffs offer anunlimited data allowance.13 Analysis of 5G users acrossseveral markets has also shown that consumers use
more data than 4G and, in some cases, less Wi-Fi.14

Figure 4

Speeds (Mbps)

Download speeds for 3G, 4G, 5G and Wi-Fi (2021)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Australia

FranceGermany

Italy
Wi-Fi

Japan
3G

4G

Qatar

Singapore

ThailandUÆ

5G

Data is provided for the nine countries with 5G adoption greater than 2% at the end of 2021.
Source: GSMA Intelligence analysis, based on Speedtest Intelligence® data provided by Ookla®

12
13
14

12

Given that Wi-Fi often supports the delivery of fixed-line connectivity, speeds will increase going forwards if consumers increase adoption of fibre broadband services.
Omdia and Tarifica (2021)
For example, Ericsson (2021) shows that 5G users spend more time on a range of uses (including cloud gaming, streaming music and video and using AR/VR) and that one infive users upgrading to 5G have decreased Wi-Fi usage at home and other locations.

Licensed and unlicensed usage in society

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Wi-Fi offload and onload
A number of studies have highlighted the role that Wi-Fi can play in reducing the costsof deploying mobile networks. This is because Wi-Fi can meet consumer traffic demandand ‘offload’ it from mobile networks, thereby avoiding the cost of further network
densification. Cisco (2019) estimates that more than half of mobile data is offloaded over
Wi-Fi or small cell networks.
While historically consumers have often used Wi-Fi instead of mobile where it is available,
particularly at home or in the office, many estimates around Wi-Fi offload are likely
to be overstated, as they do not consider the fact that a lot of Wi-Fi usage on mobile
devices represents ‘additional’ traffic rather than ‘replacement’ traffic. This is because
users consume data on Wi-Fi that they would not otherwise consume on mobile, due tohistorically higher speeds and/or unlimited data.15 However, this trend is changing with
5G given the faster speeds and higher data allowances enabled, as some consumers may
spend more time on 5G at the expense of Wi-Fi. In locations where there is limited fixed
broadband access – particularly in low- and middle-income countries – Wi-Fi offload willremain much more limited, with some consumers potentially moving to ‘Wi-Fi onload’,
with the increasing use of 4G- and 5G-enabled access points.16 Another consideration isthat if both 5G and Wi-Fi provide unlimited data, users may find that 5G offers a moreseamless experience if Wi-Fi requires multiple authentication procedures.
It has also been suggested that operators could deploy their own Wi-Fi networks (alongwith other small cells) to increase network capacity at lower cost. This could be further
enabled by 5G NR-U, which can operate in unlicensed spectrum bands. In practice,
however, there is limited evidence to suggest that operators deploy extensive Wi-Fi
networks to increase capacity and meet demand. In South Korea, which has one of themost extensive fibre networks worldwide, offload to operator Wi-Fi networks stood at
1.4% in July 2021, down from 5.6% in 2015.17 Operators have historically been reluctant touse Wi-Fi as a widespread capacity solution because the traffic is unmanaged and cannot
be coordinated.18 When deploying 5G, given the demanding performance requirements(e.g. near-guaranteed 100 Mbps data rates at any time and location as well as ultralow latencies) and the desire to deliver network slicing, operators are likely to continue
using licensed spectrum that they have complete control over.19 This is especially likely incountries with limited fixed infrastructure. Furthermore, although the equipment cost of
Wi-Fi is lower than deploying a cellular solution, the opex is typically higher and a large
number of access points are required – meaning that there is no clear economic case formobile operators to use unlicensed spectrum for 5G. 20

When considering options for assigning the 6 GHz
band, governments and policymakers have to consider
the supply and demand of both mobile and RLAN, andwhere the spectrum will support the generation of

15
16
17
18
19
20

most value. This will depend on the specifics of eachmarket, including current and expected use of 5G and
Wi-Fi, the availability of existing spectrum and fixed
broadband capabilities.

For example, see Husnjak et al (2018) and Coleago (2014).
Coleago (2020)
Source: Korean Ministry of Science and Technology
See Coleago (2014) for further discission. Exceptions to this may be in locations where it is difficult to provide a mobile signal, for example on underground transport and incertain indoor venues.
For example, see Ericsson (2020), Coleago (2020) and Oughton et al (2021).
Ericsson (2020)

Licensed and unlicensed usage in society

13

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

3 Analytical
approach
Supply and demand framework
The decision on how to allocate spectrum in the 6 GHz band between licensed or
unlicensed use is not straightforward given the different use cases. It is therefore
important for regulators to carry out a regulatory impact assessment, along witha stakeholder consultation, in order to come to an evidence-based decision.
We apply a cost-benefit analysis using a supply and demand framework. The
main impact of assigning 6 GHz spectrum to provide wireless connectivity isthat it can make it less costly to provide capacity. In economic terms, this isrepresented by a shift in the supply curve (see Figure 5). This has the result of
reducing prices and increasing output, driving a gain in economic welfare.

14

Analytical approachTHE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Figure 5

Cost/Price

Supply and demand framework

D em

an d

cur

ve

Old
equilibrium

Imp

P1

ac t

dd
of a

i ti o

n

pe
al s

c tr

um

re
lf a
We a i ng

P2Newequilibrium

pl
S up

yc

ur v

e

A

B

Data traffic

Source: GSMA Intelligence

The welfare gain reflects the increase in consumer
surplus (the difference between the maximum priceconsumers are willing to pay and the actual price theypay) and producer surplus (the difference between theprice actually obtained by firms and the minimum they
are willing to accept).
In order to understand which spectrum policy will
generate the greatest benefit, we need to take into
account the demand and supply conditions in eachmarket, in particular the current and expected demandfor 5G and Wi-Fi. This will show where 6 GHz spectrum
will have its most productive use. To estimate theimpact of assigning additional spectrum for 5G or
Wi-Fi, we develop two supply and demand models
for network capacity for the period between 2021 and2035, based on current and expected market growth(see Figures 6 and 7). The appendix provides details of
the methodology and assumptions behind each model,
but in summary we apply the following approach:• We estimate 5G and Wi-Fi traffic demand during theperiod 2021–2035, based on expected adoption ofdevices, performance requirements and traffic growth.
• We estimate capacity supply based on the amountof spectrum available (or expected to be available)
21

and spectral efficiencies (and number of sites
deployed in the case of 5G). This is done three times
based on different amounts of 6 GHz spectrum
available (see Figure 8).
• If capacity supply exceeds expected traffic demand,then there is no impact. If expected demand
exceeds capacity supply, meaning that there is a
capacity constraint, then this is assumed to impose
a reduction in quality of service for 5G or Wi-Fi.
• A reduction in quality of service is translated tolower adoption of 5G (for mobile) or FTTH/B andcable (for fixed broadband adoption), based on thecapacity gap.21 For example, if there is no capacity
gap with the full 6 GHz band assigned to licensed
mobile but there is a capacity gap of 20% with no
6 GHz spectrum assigned (i.e. unmet capacity is 20%
of total demand), then we assume that 5G adoption
falls by 20% in the scenario without any licensed
6 GHz spectrum. A similar approach is implemented
for Wi-Fi, where the capacity gap is translated tolower adoption of FTTH/B and cable broadband.
• Lower adoption for 5G or FTTH/B and cable islinked to a reduction in GDP based on empiricalresearch (see the last section in this chapter andthe appendix).

 e translate a capacity gap for Wi-Fi into a lower adoption level for FTTH/B and cable because those are the broadband services that Wi-Fi supports. We do not account forWlower adoption of other fixed broadband technologies (e.g. xDSL and FTTC), as Wi-Fi capacity will not be a bottleneck in those cases, given the more limited speeds available.

Analytical approach15

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Figure 6

5G traffic demand and capacity supply model

Spectralefficiencies

Numberof sites

Spectrumavailable

6 GHz spectrum availability(scenarios 1, 2, 3)i) Network QoS variationii) Network densificationand impact on end-user priceCapacity supply

5G adoption change

Traffic demand

Wi-Fi
offloadHigh bands
offloadPerformancerequirements

Share ofconnected
users thatare active

Urban
population

5G
adoption

Mobile traffic
growthSource: GSMA Intelligence

Figure 7

Wi-Fi traffic demand and capacity supply model

Spectralefficiencies

Spectrumavailable

6 GHz spectrum availability(scenarios 1, 2, 3)

Network QoS variation

Capacity supply

FTTH/B and cable adoption change

Traffic demand

Fixed-to-Wi-Fi
offloadUnlicensed
high bands
offloadDevices
adoption

Performancerequirements

Wi-Fi traffic growth
Source: GSMA Intelligence

16

Analytical approach

Households

FTTH/B andcable adoption

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

We consider three policy scenarios for each country,
relative to a baseline of no spectrum being allocatedfor either licensed or unlicensed use (shown in Figure8). Specifically, we look at the economic benefits ofallocating all of the 6 GHz band to licensed (Scenario 1);
all of the 6 GHz band to unlicensed (Scenario 2); andthe lower part of the band for unlicensed use and theupper part of the band for licensed (Scenario 3). Someof the countries in our study have already allocated thelower part for unlicensed use (e.g. the UAE, France andGermany), which means that Scenario 1 is no longer apolicy option. However, we present all the results forillustrative and comparative purposes.

Figure 8

6 GHz scenario analysis
Baseline

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 35925 MHz

6425 MHzNot allocated7125 MHz
Unlicensed

Licensed

Baseline refers to no allocation for either licensed or unlicensed use. In some countries (e.g. within CEPT), the lower frequency boundary is 5945 MHz.
Source: GSMA Intelligence

Key factors that impact the results
Spectrum availability and efficiencies
The capacity supply of a mobile network depends
on the amount of spectrum that operators have accessto – more spectrum enables greater throughput andhigher data rates. If there is not enough spectrum tomeet demand, then network congestion will reduce
the quality of service experienced by the device or end
user. The capacity of a Wi-Fi network depends on the
fixed broadband capability and amount of spectrum
Wi-Fi has access to. Given enough fixed broadband
speed, additional unlicensed spectrum enables greater
throughput and higher data rates.
In the case of licensed mobile, the amount of spectrum
assigned varies by country. We assume in each country
an amount of spectrum available in the low bands (below
1 GHz), lower mid-bands (1–3 GHz), upper mid-bands
22
23(3–6 GHz) and high bands (above 24 GHz). This is basedon the existing amount of spectrum, as well as planned
spectrum releases in the medium-to-longer term in thespecific country.
Wi-Fi can be used in the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands in eachof the 24 study countries (and indeed most countries
around the world). Generally, around 80 MHz is available
for use in the 2.4 GHz band. In the 5 GHz band, theavailability of spectrum depends on the country.22
Furthermore, in order to protect radar services that use
the 5 GHz band, some channels have dynamic frequency
selection (DFS) requirements. This detects transmissions
from radars and, where necessary, requires Wi-Fi devices
to switch to a different channel. In some countries, thesebands are either lightly used or not used at all,23 which

For example, the 5.8 and 5.9 GHz bands have not been made available in all countries.
For example, some Wi-Fi equipment avoids using DFS channels entirely.

Analytical approach17

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

impacts the quality of service over Wi-Fi. In particular,
where a DFS channel is used and detects a radar, there
can be a long period where the channel cannot be used.24
However, as Wi-Fi demand increases, some regulators
are looking to remove some of the DFS requirements
within the band.25
For the purposes of the model, we assume that allavailable spectrum will be utilised for 5G and Wi-Fi 6, themost efficient technologies over our period of analysis.26
In practice, although some operators are looking toswitch off legacy 2G/3G networks, this will not happen
in the short term in many countries, as operators need tosupport previous generations and spectrum bands formobile are not always technology neutral. Similarly, in thecase of Wi-Fi, older standards will continue to be used inlegacy devices that remain in existing bands.27 However,
our assessment is based on mobile operators and Wi-Fi
providers being efficient in the long term. This approachalso ensures that spectrum is not assigned for a service
on the basis that it is being delivered inefficiently using
older technologies, or because the existing bands thathave been assigned are not being fully utilised.
In the case of Wi-Fi, all spectrum theoretically available
may not be accessible to a specific household due
to interference from users nearby (e.g. neighbouringresidents). This is reflected in our model via spectral

efficiencies, which vary depending on the type ofresidence being considered. In a house dwelling, whereoccupants reside in a single building, users are likely tohave access to all available Wi-Fi channels with minimal
interference, meaning a higher spectral efficiency.
By contrast, in a flat or apartment setting, in which
occupants live in a building with multiple floors andmultiple apartments within a floor, users may not haveaccess to all available channels with minimal interference.
In some of our study countries, urban residents mostly
live in houses rather than flats or apartments,28 while inother countries a significant proportion also reside inapartments. We therefore present results for Wi-Fi basedon houses in Chapter 4 and on apartments in Chapter 5.
Details on the assumptions in each scenario are provided
in Appendix A.
Based on the amount of spectrum available and thespectral efficiencies enabled by 5G and Wi-Fi, we assess
whether there is sufficient capacity to meet demandfor both services over a 15-year period. This is done foreach of the policy scenarios highlighted in Figure 8 (i.e.
for Wi-Fi we compare supply and demand assuming no
6 GHz spectrum is allocated to Wi-Fi, allocating 1200
MHz for Wi-Fi use and allocating 500 MHz for Wi-Fi use).
If there is a capacity constraint at any point (i.e. demandis greater than supply), this is assumed to have a negative
impact on 5G and/or Wi-Fi adoption and usage.

Use of high-band spectrum for 5G and Wi‑Fi
The deployment of 5G in many countries is using – oris expected to use – high-band mmWave frequencies(e.g. in the 26, 28 and 40 GHz bands). High bands
are expected to address specific areas with extreme
traffic density and with very high peak data rates.29
We therefore assume that, over time, 30% of 5G
traffic demand will be offloaded to mmWave (see theappendix).
High-band spectrum is also available (or is being
considered) for unlicensed use in most countries,
particularly in the 60 GHz band (within the 57–71 GHz
range). Other high bands may also be made available
for unlicensed use in the coming years; for example, theQ-band (42–48 GHz) is already supported by the IEEE
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

18

standard (802.11aj-2018) together with the 60 GHz band.
These frequencies provide propagation properties thatallow short-range coverage (e.g. within a room) whileeasing coordination in terms of interference between
adjacent access points, in particular among neighbours
in a building block. High bands can therefore be used for
Wi-Fi to support connectivity for certain high-capacity
use cases, such as AR/VR and a variety of short-range
devices.30 In this study, we look at the impact of assigning
6 GHz for unlicensed use under the assumption that up
to 30% of Wi-Fi traffic is offloaded to the high bands. We
also model another scenario where the high bands are
not used for Wi-Fi. It should be noted, however, that notusing the high bands would represent an inefficient useof spectrum.

In our model, we assume that half of the channels with DFS requirements can be utilised (see the appendix).
For example, see Ofcom (2020)
Over the next 10 years, it is possible that new standards will be developed for RLAN (Wi-Fi 7) and mobile (6G). However, given the uncertainty over timing and the specifications,
we only model Wi-Fi 6 and 5G in this study.
Wi-Fi 6 compatible devices will also be backwards-compatible with holder standards.
See for example OECD (2021), UN Habitat (2011) and Statistics South Africa (2020)
See Coleago (2020 and 2021) and WPC (2021)
For example, see Broadband India Forum (2021), which highlights WiGig as one of the key use cases of V-band spectrum. This can link devices at up to 7 Gbps over a distance ofup to 12 metres.

Analytical approachTHE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Performance of fixed broadband network technologies will impact Wi-Fi speeds
A key consideration in terms of demand for Wi-Fi
is that the available data rates are impacted by thecapacity of the underlying copper, fibre, microwave
or satellite connection. For example, if a user has an
ADSL connection, which typically has a maximum
speed of 24 Mbps, then this will ultimately constrain
the amount of capacity available, regardless of thenumber of Wi-Fi channels available. Currently, even
FTTH/B and cable connections do not typically offer
users access to speeds greater than 1 Gbps. In somecases, fixed providers will not offer speeds greaterthan 50–200 Mbps; in such situations, Wi-Fi (and thespectrum available for Wi-Fi) will not be the capacity
bottleneck. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 2, in manyof the countries considered in this study, a significant
proportion of fixed broadband users are not currently
connecting via FTTH/B or cable.
The speeds that are available on a fixed connection
are expected to increase going forward.31 Fibre
optics technology for fixed broadband connections
has developed rapidly in the last 15 years, with theintroduction of a new FTTx technology generation
every 8–10 year, which deliver speeds to end usersthat are four times greater compared to the previous
generation. 10G PON technology became available from2017 and is expected to reach large scale take-up by
2026, delivering up to around 1.3 Gbps on average to

end users. The next generation of PON comprises 25G
EPON and ITU-T 50G PON, which became available in2020 and 2021 respectively. 50G PON is expected todeliver around 6.6 Gbps on average to end users. The
first products for 50G PON are expected to becomecommercially available by 2023 and the technology
is expected to reach a large-scale market by 2029.
Although the ITU-T work towards the standard
development has not started, preliminary researchis ongoing for the next PON technology generation,
which will be required to deliver up to 10 Gbps speeds toresidential users if market demand should materialise in
the future. The market launch for this new technology istherefore unlikely to occur until the next decade.
This report provides results for different fixed
broadband connectivity scenarios, with maximum FBB
speeds to end users of 1, 5 and 10 Gbps considered.
The scenario associated with each connection speed
assumes that such speed applies to all FTTH and cableconnections from 2021 (although in practice we do not
expect demand to exceed 5 Gbps until at least 2029,
even in countries with the highest demand). Whenconsidering 10 Gbps, for example, the model assumes
that all end users connected to FTTH and cable will
be receiving 10 Gbps, although it is unlikely that every
FTTH and cable connection would have access to
speeds of 10 Gbps.

Figure 9

G-PON technology overview

ONU 1

The same G-PON connection
is shared by a number of end users(up to 64 ONUs as of today)

Internet

VoD

OLT
PSTN

ONU 2

10 Gbps — 10G-PON
25 Gbps — 25G-EPON
50 Gbps — 50G-PON

OpticalsplitterONU 64Service provider central office

Customer premises

PON: Passive optical network OLT: G-PON optical line terminal ONU: Optical network unit
Source: Huawei

31

See for example Strategy Analytics (2021), Technology Roadmap for Passive Optical Networks: The Next Step is 50G PON

Analytical approach19

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Modelling the socioeconomic impacts of 5G and Wi-Fi
Once we estimate the impact of each policy scenario
on 5G and FTTH/B and cable adoption (the latterbeing impacted by Wi-Fi capacity), the next step isto estimate the wider socioeconomic impacts. Both
5G and fixed broadband are digital technologies thatare widely regarded as general-purpose technologies:
innovations that reshape the economy, redefining
the goods and services that are made, the ways used
to produce them and the functioning of the markets
that serve them. They drive economic gains because
they enable tools and processes for quicker, cheaperand more convenient production, which improves
the productivity of firms and workers. They also
lower information search and knowledge costs ofconsumers and producers, enabling new transactions
and improving existing ones, thereby stimulating moretrade and competition. 32
A number of studies have found a causal link
between the adoption of mobile and fixed internet
and GDP, suggesting that a 10% increase in mobile
or fixed internet adoption can increase a country’s
GDP by between 0.5% and 2.5%. 33 In this study, the

32
33
34

20

impact of introducing 5G or faster fixed broadband
is unlikely to deliver the same benefit as connecting
an individual or business for the first time – rather,
the impact will reflect an improvement or ‘upgrade’to the technologies that people are already using,for example by offering faster data rates and lower
latencies.
A study by GSMA Intelligence (2020b) found that
upgrading connections from 2G to 3G and 3G to 4G
increased the total economic impact of mobile byabout 15%. 34 We therefore assume a similar uplift whenestimating the impact of upgrading from 4G to 5G.
This allows us to calculate the overall contribution of
5G technology to a country’s economy over time.
The incremental economic impact of more/less
FTTH/B and cable adoption is assumed to be the sameas the impact of 5G. This ensures we apply a consistent
approach to both technologies, and it also means
the results between scenarios are not sensitive to thespecific impact assumption (as it is applied in the same
way to 5G and FTTH/B and cable).

See GSMA (2020b) and Katz et al (2021)
For example, see GSMA Intelligence (2020b) and ITU (2019)For example, if a 10% increase in 2G adoption increases GDP by 1%, then a 10% increase in 2G-to-3G adoption increases GDP by an additional 1% * 15% = 0.15%. This incorporates
both direct and indirect economic impacts (see the appendix).

Analytical approachTHE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

4 Results for housedwelling setting
In this chapter, we present the results of the socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis
assuming that all urban residents in each of the 24 countries live in a housedwelling, meaning that they would have access to the full amount of spectrum thatis available for Wi-Fi (without suffering from interference between access points).

Assigning the full 6 GHz band for 5G means faster speeds and/or lower
costs for mobile users
A mid-band spectrum shortage for 5G would haveone of the following two impacts on consumers.
Operators would have to densify their networks tocover any capacity gap and maintain 5G performancerequirements, which would result in higher annual
capital and operational expenditure – some ofthese cost increases would likely be passed on to
consumers in the form of higher prices and delayed
rollout, which would impact the adoption and useof 5G. Alternatively, in the absence of densification
investments from operators, consumers would
35

experience a degradation in network quality, which
would be unavoidable if operators have reached thetechnical limits of network densification.35
Assuming that densification is feasible from a technicalperspective (i.e. inter-cell interference remains at a
manageable level and suitable sites can be found, which
may not be the case in many areas), Figure 10 presents
the average increase in deployment cost across the
24 study countries if no 6 GHz spectrum is assigned
for licensed use (Scenario 2) and if 700 MHz of 6 GHzThis could be the case in cities with large population densities. See Coleago (2021).

Results for house dwelling setting

21

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

spectrum is assigned for licensed use (Scenario 3) – bothare in comparison to a scenario where the full 6 GHz
licensed band is used for 5G (Scenario 1). It shows thatwithout any of the 6 GHz spectrum band assigned tolicensed use, annual capital and operational expenditure
would increase by an average of around 80% compared
to a scenario of full allocation of the 6 GHz to licensed
use. If 700 MHz out of the 1200 MHz available in the

6 GHz band was assigned to licensed use, costs would
increase by an average of around 20% over the periodof analysis. These higher rollout costs would likely bepartially passed on by operators to consumers in theform of higher prices, which means that, depending
on price elasticity of demand assumptions, someconsumers would delay their subscription or not adopt
5G services at all.

Figure 10

Average increase in operators’ annual capital and operational expenditure in
Scenarios 2 and 3 (compared to Scenario 1)
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

Capex and opex increase when moving from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2
Capex and opex increase when moving from Scenario 1 to Scenario 3
Analysis is presented from 2025, which is when we assume that operators can start to use the 6 GHz band for 5G (see the appendix).
Source: GSMA Intelligence

Alternatively, if mobile operators cannot densify their
networks to meet traffic demand, then any capacity
gap that arises would be absorbed by subscribers interms of lower speeds. Assuming that the number ofsubscribers does not change as a result of changes
in the quality of service, urban subscribers would
experience lower speeds than the IMT-2020 minimum
performance requirements (user-experienced data
rates of 100 Mbps download and 50 Mbps upload).

36

22

Figure 11 presents the average reduction in download
speeds across the 24 study countries if no 6 GHz
spectrum is assigned for licensed use and if 700 MHz
of 6 GHz spectrum is assigned for licensed use. Itshows that download speeds would be reduced to an
average of less than 50 Mbps without any of the 6 GHz
band, or 75 Mbps with 700 MHz of the 6 GHz spectrum
band assigned to licensed use over the period ofanalysis. 36

A s explained in Chapter 3 and the appendix, these modelled changes in costs or speeds (depending on network densification assumptions) do not feed into the main cost-benefit
analysis – rather, they are translated to a change in 5G adoption. Figures 9 and 10 are illustrative of the potential alternative effects from not assigning the whole of the 6 GHz
spectrum band to licensed use.

Results for house dwelling setting

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Figure 11

Average 5G download speeds in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 (Mbps)
120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2025

2026

2027

2028
Scenario 1

2029

2030
Scenario 2

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

Scenario 3

The download speeds refer to those experienced at peak times, rather than average speeds. Analysis assumes no network densification to address the capacity gap (see theappendix). Download speeds for Scenario 1 assume that there is sufficient spectrum in other mid-bands – along with the 6 GHz band – to meet the 100 Mbps requirement. Analysis
is shown from 2025, when it is expected that 6 GHz spectrum will be available to use for 5G deployment. The analysis also reflects increasing use of high-band spectrum for 5G,
which is why download speeds increase between 2025 and 2030 (see the appendix for further details).
Source: GSMA Intelligence

It should be noted that the 5G traffic demand is basedon IMT-2020 minimum performance requirements
as defined by the ITU-R in 2017. 37 Such performancerequirements are applied for the whole period ofinterest (2021–2035). This represents a conservative

37

assumption since, over time, administrations could
set national targets that go beyond those minimum
requirements and considering that new generations
for the IMT systems will start becoming available
before 2035.

Report ITU-R M.2410-0.

Results for house dwelling setting

23

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Wi-Fi traffic demand is not currently constrained by spectrum
As explained in Chapter 3, the overall level of Wi-Fi
traffic depends primarily on two factors: the speedsthat are supported by the underlying fixed broadband
connection and the adoption of connected devices
within households. As shown in Figure 2, there issignificant variation in adoption of FTTH/B and cable
across the 24 study countries, from less than 1% in
Ghana to more than 100% in Singapore and the UAE.
Currently, FTTH/B and cable do not typically offer
users access to speeds greater than 1 Gbps, and inmany cases the available speeds are much less. Thismeans, considering the data rates supported by Wi-Fi,
that the spectrum available for Wi-Fi is unlikely to be abottleneck that limits speeds.
If going forward, however, adoption of FTTH/B andcable increases and if it allows for greater speeds,
then the demand on Wi-Fi will also increase, basedon the usage and adoption of connected devices
within households. The adoption of devices varies
significantly across the countries considered in thisstudy. For example, our analysis suggests that the
average household in the UAE and Qatar has 11 Wi-Fi
devices (including smartphones, tablets, laptops/PCs,
smart home devices, AR/VR systems, gaming consoles
and smart TVs). These countries will therefore likely
have a higher Wi-Fi traffic demand than countries
with lower device adoption such as Kenya and Ghana,where the average household has three devices.
In Figure 12, we present Wi-Fi traffic demand for three
types of household:• Household 1 is based on 11 connected devices
being concurrently used (the maximum in ourstudy).
• Household 2 is based on 6 connected devices
being used (the average in our study).
• Household 3 is based on 3 connected devices
being used (the minimum in our study).
We assume that each device requires a data rateof 100 Mbps, and we incorporate annual growthin demand over time to reflect increased data
consumption by users, more devices used andan increase in the adoption of FTTH/B and cable

24

Results for house dwelling setting

broadband (all of which will impact Wi-Fi traffic
demand). These demand scenarios are compared tothe average amount of Wi-Fi capacity available in ourbaseline/Scenario 1 (no 6 GHz spectrum), Scenario
2 (1200 MHz available) and Scenario 3 (500 MHz
available). While the usage of high bands is currently
unknown and the expectation is that this spectrum will
be implemented for efficient use of spectrum, we show
results in Figure 12A including the use of high-band
spectrum and results in Figure 12B without including
the use of high-band spectrum.
The analysis highlights several key points. First, if FTTH/B
and cable do not offer users speeds greater than 1 Gbps,
then there is no capacity constraint from existing Wi-Fi
spectrum allocations. If fixed broadband speeds provide
access to 5 Gbps, there is still sufficient capacity withexisting Wi-Fi spectrum, this even holds generally when
the high bands are not being utilised. If FTTH/B andcable are able to offer all users access to speeds of 10
Gbps, then there is a capacity constraint that depends onhousehold demand and the utilisation of high bands.
We find the following, assuming that FTTH/B and cable
are able to offer all users access to speeds of 10 Gbps by2035:• If the high bands are utilised (Figure 12A), inhousehold 1 (with high demand in the study)
demand exceeds capacity supply from 2030;
in household 2 (with average demand in the
study) demand exceeds supply from 2033; and inhousehold 3 (with low demand in the study) there isno capacity gap at all.
• If the high bands are not utilised (Figure 12B), inhousehold 1 demand exceeds capacity supply from
2029; in household 2 demand exceeds supply
from 2032; and in household 3 there is no capacity
gap. At the point where demand exceeds capacity
there would be a reduction in the quality of service
experienced by the consumer.
• Independent of the utilisation of the high bands, inthe case of households 1, 2 and 3, there is sufficient
Wi-Fi capacity during the whole period with 500
MHz of spectrum assigned in the 6 GHz band.

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Figure 12A

Total Wi-Fi traffic demand and capacity supply (Mbps), with high bands utilised –house dwelling setting
25,00020,00015,00010,000FTTH/B speed limit (10 Gbps)

FTTH/B speed limit (5 Gbps)

5,000

FTTH/B speed limit (1 Gbps)

02021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Scenario 1 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 1
FTTH/B speed limit (1 Gbps)

Scenario 2 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 2
FTTH/B speed limit (5 Gbps)

Scenario 3 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 3

Analysis assumes that 30% of Wi-Fi traffic is offloaded to the high bands.
Source: GSMA Intelligence

Figure 12B

Total Wi-Fi traffic demand and capacity supply (Mbps), with no high bands
utilised – house dwelling setting
25,00020,00015,000FTTH/B speed limit (10 Gbps)

10,000FTTH/B speed limit (5 Gbps)

5,000

FTTH/B speed limit (1 Gbps)

02021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Scenario 1 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 1

Scenario 2 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 2

Scenario 3 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 3

Analysis does not incorporate capacity from high-band spectrum.
Source: GSMA Intelligence

Results for house dwelling setting

25

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

The socioeconomic impacts of three 6 GHz spectrum policy scenarios
The allocation of 6 GHz spectrum that gives thegreatest benefit depends on the expected capacity
supply gaps for 5G and Wi-Fi traffic demand. In
addition, the expected developments in fixed
broadband technology are a key factor for Wi-Fi –specifically the penetration and speeds that FTTH/B
and cable can offer users. Lastly, the usage of the highbands is also critical for the Wi-Fi analysis. 38
Figure 13 presents the results of the cost-benefit
analysis for the three scenarios based on the following
assumptions:• The maximum fixed broadband user speed is
1 Gbps to all FTTH/B and cable users.
• The maximum fixed broadband user speed is
5 Gbps to all FTTH/B and cable users, with up to
30% of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum fixed broadband user speed is 10
Gbps to all FTTH/B and cable users, with up to 30%
of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum fixed broadband user speed is 5
Gbps to all FTTH/B and cable users, with no Wi-Fi
traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum fixed broadband user speed is 10
Gbps to all FTTH/B and cable users, with no Wi-Fi
traffic offloaded to the high bands.
If fixed broadband does not allow the majority ofusers to have speeds faster than 1 Gbps then Scenario
1 (assigning 5925–7125 MHz for licensed) will deliver
the greatest benefit across all countries. This isbecause there is already sufficient capacity withexisting unlicensed spectrum. This is also the caseif fixed broadband enables speeds up to 5 Gbps for
all countries and if the high bands can be utilised for
up to 30% of Wi-Fi traffic. Even if fixed broadband
speeds reach up to 10 Gbps, Scenario 1 still delivers thegreatest benefit in most countries. 39

38
39

26

If high-band spectrum is not used for Wi-Fi and if
fixed broadband speeds are able to reach 5 Gbps,
then Scenario 1 still drives the greatest benefit inmost countries. The only assumption where this result
substantively changes is if fixed broadband speeds
eventually reach 10 Gbps for all citizens with an FTTH/B
and cable connection and if no high-band spectrum is
utilised for Wi-Fi. In that case, Scenario 3 (500 MHz for
unlicensed and 700 MHz for licensed) generates thehighest benefit in countries where a capacity gap for
Wi-Fi materialises and where there is (or expected tobe) significant FTTH/B and cable adoption.
If the high bands are not available or utilised to addressa portion of Wi-Fi traffic demand, and if fixed speeds
are able to reach 10 Gbps, allocating the full 6 GHz tolicensed mobile (Scenario 1) will still drive the greatest
benefit for countries with relatively high expected 5G
penetration compared to their predicted Wi-Fi traffic
demand and FTTH/B and cable adoption. This is thecase in Ghana, Kenya, Jordan, Nigeria, South Africa,
Egypt and Indonesia.
For all countries, there is never a scenario where theallocation of the full 6 GHz band to unlicensed use(Scenario 2) generates the greatest benefit to society.
This is driven by the analysis highlighted in Figure
12 – even in countries with very high Wi-Fi demand,allocating an additional 500 MHz of spectrum forunlicensed use in the 6 GHz band (as reflected in
Scenario 3) is sufficient to meet expected demand.
This means that there are no additional gains fromallocating all 6 GHz for unlicensed as per Scenario 2.

Note that it is always assumed that mmWave will be used for 5G where it is available.
For the countries where this is not the case, Scenario 3 produces the greatest benefit. If FTTH/B and cable support maximum speeds of 10 Gbps, Scenario 1 would produce thegreatest benefit if high-band spectrum was able to offload 32–50% of traffic, depending on the country.

Results for house dwelling setting

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Figure 13

Summary of economic benefits by scenario and country – house dwelling setting
Proportion of expected GDP in 2035

Maximum available FBB speed of 1 Gbps, with or without Wi-Fi offload to high bands
0.7%
0.007%

0.6%
0.006%

0.5%
0.005%

0.4%
0.004%

0.3%
0.003%

0.2%
0.002%

0.1%
0.001%

0.0%

Armenia

Kazakhstan

Armenia

Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan

South Africa
South Africa
South Africa

Maximum available FBB speed of 5 Gbps, up to 30% Wi-Fi offload to high bands

Armenia

Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria

Kenya

Ghana

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

BrazilArgentina

0.000%

0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%

Kenya

Ghana

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

BrazilArgentina

0.0%

Maximum available FBB speed of 10 Gbps, up to 30% Wi-Fi offload to high bands
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

Kenya

Ghana

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

BrazilArgentina

0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

Results for house dwelling setting

27

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Maximum available FBB speed of 5 Gbps, no Wi-Fi offload to high bands
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%

Ghana

Kenya

NigeriaSouth Africa

Armenia

Kazakhstan

Ghana

Kenya

NigeriaSouth Africa

Armenia

Kazakhstan

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

BrazilArgentina

0.0%

Maximum available FBB speed of 10 Gbps, no Wi-Fi offload to high bands
1.0%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia*

BrazilArgentina

0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

The results represent the net present value (NPV) of economic benefits over the 2021–2035 period, expressed as a proportion of expected GDP in 2035 for each country.
The five sets of results adjust assumptions related to Wi-Fi and fixed broadband (the amount of high bands utilised and the maximum speeds available). Therefore, the resultsof Scenario 1 (where the full licensed band is allocated for 5G) are the same.
* Scenarios 1 and 2 give similar benefits and so overlap on the graph.
Source: GSMA Intelligence

28

Results for house dwelling setting

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

5 Results forapartment setting
In this chapter, we present the results of the socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis
assuming that all urban residents in each of the 24 countries live in a flat orapartment, meaning that they would not have access to the full amount ofspectrum that is available for Wi-Fi (due to interference). It will overstate thepotential benefits of assigning additional spectrum for unlicensed use in the 6 GHz
band, as a large proportion of urban residents in the study countries live in houses(for example more than half in Australia, France, South Africa and Indonesia).40
However, we present the results because the apartment setting will be relevant forsome of the urban areas considered in this report. For the purposes of quantifying
the economic benefits of 5G, we assume these are the same regardless of whether
a consumer is in a house dwelling or an apartment.

40

See for example OECD (2021), UN Habitat (2011) and Statistics South Africa (2020)

Results for apartment setting

29

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Wi-Fi traffic demand is not constrained by spectrum (apartment setting)
In Figure 14, we present Wi-Fi traffic demand for three
types of apartment residences (similar to the analysis
presented in Chapter 4):• Apartment 1 is based on 11 connected devices
being concurrently used (the maximum in ourstudy).
• Apartment 2 is based on 6 connected devices
being used (the average in our study).
• Apartment 3 is based on 3 connected devices
being used (the minimum in our study).
For each apartment type, Wi-Fi capacity is constrained
compared to a house dwelling due to interference
from neighbouring Wi-Fi users. We represent this bymeans of a lower spectral efficiency and base thoseon Qualcomm (2016) (see Appendix A). Consistently,
we also use more refined demand assumptions (seeAppendix A). This is needed because the demand
projections assumed in Figure 12 are not compatible
with the spectral efficiencies available in an apartment.
We then incorporate annual growth in demand overtime to reflect increased data consumption by users,
more devices being used and an increase in the
adoption of FTTH/B and cable broadband.

The analysis shows the following:• First, if FTTH/B and cable do not offer users speeds
greater than 1 Gbps, then there is no capacity
constraint from existing Wi-Fi spectrum allocations.
If fixed broadband speeds provide access to 5 Gbps,
there is a capacity constraint that depends onhousehold demand and the utilisation of high bands.
We find the following, assuming that FTTH/B andcable are able to offer all users access to speeds of
5 Gbps:• If the high bands are utilised (Figure 14A), inapartment 1 (with high demand in the study)
demand exceeds capacity supply from 2033; inapartment 2 demands exceeds supply from 2035;
and in apartment 3 there is no capacity gap at all.
• If the high bands are not utilised (Figure 14B), inapartment 1 demand exceeds capacity supply from
2032; in apartment 2 demand exceeds supply from
2034; and in apartment 3 there is no capacity gap.
• Independent of the utilisation of the high bands, inthe case of apartments 1, 2 and 3, there is sufficient
Wi-Fi capacity during the whole period with
500 MHz of spectrum assigned in the 6 GHz band.

Figure 14A

Total Wi-Fi traffic demand and capacity supply (Mbps), with high bands utilised –apartment setting
14,00012,00010,000FTTH/B speed limit (10 Gbps)

8,000

6,000
FTTH/B speed limit (5 Gbps)

4,000

2,000
FTTH/B speed limit (1 Gbps)

02021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Scenario 1 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 1

Source: GSMA Intelligence

30

Results for apartment setting

Scenario 2 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 2

Scenario 3 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 3

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Figure 14B

Total Wi-Fi traffic demand and capacity supply (Mbps), with no high bands
utilised – apartment setting
14,00012,00010,000FTTH/B speed limit (10 Gbps)

8,000

6,000
FTTH/B speed limit (5 Gbps)

4,000

2,000
FTTH/B speed limit (1 Gbps)

02021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Scenario 1 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 1

Scenario 2 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 2

Scenario 3 capacity supply
Wi-Fi demand for household 3

Source: GSMA Intelligence

The socioeconomic impacts of three 6 GHz spectrum policy scenarios
Figure 15 presents the results of the cost-benefit
analysis for the three 6 GHz policy scenarios based on
the following assumptions:• The maximum fixed broadband user speed is
1 Gbps to all FTTH/B and cable users, with up to
30% of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum fixed broadband user speed is
5 Gbps to all FTTH/B and cable users, with up to
30% of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum fixed broadband user speed is10 Gbps to all FTTH/B and cable users, with up to
30% of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum fixed broadband user speed is
5 Gbps to all FTTH/B and cable users, with no Wi-Fi
traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum fixed broadband user speed is10 Gbps to all FTTH/B and cable users, with no
Wi‑Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
Similar to the house dwelling setting in Chapter 4,
if fixed broadband does not allow all users to have

speeds faster than 1 Gbps, then Scenario 1 (assigning5925–7125 MHz for licensed use) will deliver thegreatest benefit across all countries. If fixed broadband
enables speeds up to 10 Gbps for all citizens and if
the high bands can be utilised for up to 30% of Wi‑Fi
traffic, then Scenario 1 remains the optimal policy inall countries, with the exception of UAE, Qatar andArmenia, where Scenario 3 delivers the greatest
benefit. If fixed broadband enables speeds up to 10
Gbps for all citizens and if the high bands are notutilised for any Wi-Fi traffic, then Scenario 1 delivers
the greatest benefit in 17 countries and Scenario 3delivers the greatest benefit in 7 countries.
This analysis shows again that, even in countries withvery high Wi-Fi demand, there is no result where theallocation of the full 6 GHz band to unlicensed use(Scenario 2) generates the greatest benefit to society.
Therefore, allocating an additional 500 MHz of spectrum
for unlicensed use in the 6 GHz band (as reflected in
Scenario 3) is sufficient to meet expected demand. Thismeans that there are no additional gains from allocating
all 6 GHz for unlicensed as per Scenario 2.

Results for apartment setting

31

32

Scenario 1: all to licensed

Results for apartment setting

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

Kazakhstan

Armenia

0.1%
0.1%

0.0%
0.0%
Kenya
Kenya

Ghana
Ghana

UAE
UAE

Qatar
Qatar

JordanJordan

Egypt
Egypt

Italy
Italy

Germany
Germany

FranceFranceVietnamVietnamThailandThailandSingapore
Singapore

Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan

0.2%
0.2%

Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan

0.3%
0.3%
Armenia
Armenia

0.4%
0.4%

Armenia
Armenia0.5%
0.5%SouthAfrica
Africa
South

0.6%
0.6%

South
SouthAfrica
AfricaMaximum
Gbps,upuptoto30%
30%Wi-Fi
Wi-Fioffload
offloadtotohighhighbands
bands
Maximum available
available FBBFBB speed
speed ofof 10
5 Gbps,Nigeria
Nigeria0.7%
0.7%

Nigeria
Nigeria

Kenya
Kenya

Ghana
Ghana

UAE
UAE

Qatar
Qatar

JordanJordan

Egypt
Egypt

Italy
Italy

Germany
Germany

FranceFranceVietnamVietnamThailandThailandSingapore
Singapore

Japan
Japan

Indonesia
Indonesia

India
India

Australia
Australia

MexicoMexicoColombia
Colombia

BrazilBrazilArgentina
Argentina

Nigeria

Kenya

Ghana

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

BrazilArgentina

Summary of economic benefits by scenario and country (proportion of expected
GDP in 2035) – apartment setting
Kazakhstan

ArmeniaSouth Africa

Maximum
toor
30%
Wi-FiWi-Fi
offloadto high
Maximum available
available FBBFBB speed
speed ofof 5
1 Gbps,
Gbps, upwithwithout
offloadto bands
high bands

South Africa

Nigeria

Kenya

Ghana

UAE

Qatar

JordanEgypt

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingapore

Japan
Japan

Indonesia
Indonesia

India
India

Australia
Australia

MexicoMexicoColombia
Colombia

BrazilBrazilArgentina
Argentina

Proportion of expected GDP in 2035

Japan

Maximum available FBB speed of 10 Gbps, up to 30% Wi-Fi offload to high bands

Scenario 1: all to licensed

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

0.7%

BrazilArgentina

0.5%
0.4%

0.3%

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

0.2%

Figure 15
0.1%

0.0%

0.7%
0.7%

0.6%
0.6%

0.5%
0.5%

0.4%
0.4%

0.3%
0.3%

0.2%
0.2%

0.1%
0.1%

0.0%
0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

0.6%

0.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%
0.1%

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND
Armenia

Kazakhstan

Maximum available FBB speed of 10 Gbps, up to 30% Wi-Fi offload to high bands

South Africa

Nigeria

Kenya

Ghana

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

BrazilArgentina

0.0%

0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

Armenia

Kazakhstan

Maximum available FBB speed of 5 Gbps, no Wi-Fi offload to high bands
0.7%South Africa

Nigeria

Kenya

Ghana

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

BrazilArgentina

0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%

Ghana

Kenya

NigeriaSouth Africa

Armenia

Kazakhstan

Ghana

Kenya

NigeriaSouth Africa

Armenia

Kazakhstan

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

BrazilArgentina

0.0%

Maximum available FBB speed of 10 Gbps, no Wi-Fi offload to high bands
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

UAE

Qatar

Jordan

Egypt

Italy

Germany

FranceVietnamThailandSingaporeJapan

Indonesia

India

Australia

MexicoColombia

BrazilArgentina

0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

The results represent the net present value (NPV) of economic benefits over the 2021–2035 period, expressed as a proportion of expected GDP in 2035 for each country.
The five sets of results adjust assumptions related to Wi-Fi and fixed broadband (the amount of high-band spectrum utilised and the maximum speeds available). Therefore, theresults of Scenario 1 (where the full licensed band is allocated for 5G) are the same.
Source: GSMA Intelligence

Results for apartment setting

33

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

6 Conclusion
Spectrum policymakers face an important decision in the coming years as
they look to decide the optimal approach for managing spectrum in the 5925–
7125 MHz frequency range. This report carries out a cost-benefit analysis ofdifferent assignment options in 24 countries where a decision on the allocationof the full band has yet to be taken. While they are specific to those markets, thefindings are also relevant to other countries.
Overall, we find that the optimal assignment policy
primarily depends the expected adoption of 5G and
fixed fibre/cable broadband services in each market,
the speeds that fixed broadband can offer consumers,
the existing and future spectrum availability forlicensed and unlicensed use, and usage of high bands
by 5G and Wi-Fi. In relation to the latter, we note thatin most countries, 5G has access to (or is expected to34

Conclusion

have access to) high-band frequencies above 24 GHz.
This spectrum is expected to address specific areas
with extreme traffic density. Similarly for Wi-Fi, while
it will not be possible to meet all Wi-Fi demand withhigh-band spectrum, this spectrum can still support
connectivity for certain use cases requiring extremely
high throughput such as AR/VR.

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Taking the above considerations into account, this report draws the following conclusions:• In a house dwelling setting, the licensed use of theentire 6 GHz band will deliver the largest benefits
across all countries if fixed broadband technologies
do not provide maximum user speeds above 5
Gbps. This is because there is already sufficient
capacity with existing unlicensed spectrum. The
licensed use of the 6 GHz band will still deliver thelargest benefits across most countries if in thosecountries fixed broadband provides maximum user
speeds up to 10 Gbps and if up to 30% of Wi-Fi
traffic is offloaded to the high bands. Assigning thelower 6 GHz band for unlicensed use and the upper
6 GHz band for licensed use will deliver the largest
benefits in some countries, if FTTH/B and cablebroadband adoption is widespread, they support
maximum user speeds of 10 Gbps and high bands
are not utilised by Wi-Fi.

• When carrying out the analysis based on anapartment setting, rather than a house dwelling,
we still find that in the majority of countries thelicensed use of the entire 6 GHz band will deliver
the largest benefits. For the remaining countries,
split use across the 6 GHz band (5925–6425 MHz
for unlicensed and 6425–7125 MHz for licensed)
would generate the largest benefits.
• Unlicensed use across the whole 6 GHz band was
not found to be the most beneficial allocation in
any of the considered analyses. Even in countries
with very high Wi-Fi demand, allocating an
additional 500 MHz of spectrum for unlicensed
use in the lower 6 GHz band is sufficient to meet
expected demand. This means that there are no
additional gains from allocating the full 6 GHz
frequency band for unlicensed use.

Conclusion

35

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

References
Bahia, K. and Castells, P (2021), The impact of spectrum assignment policies on consumer welfare,
Telecommunications Policy
Broadband India Forum (2021), The Economic Value of Wi-Fi Spectrum for India
Carew, D.G., Martin, N., Blumenthal, M. S., Armour, P. and Lastunen, J. (2018), The Potential Economic Value of
Unlicensed Spectrum in the 5.9 GHz Frequency Band: Insights for Future Spectrum Allocation Policy
Cave, M. and Webb, W (2015), Spectrum Management: Using the Airwaves for Maximum Social and Economic
Benefit, Cambridge University Press
Cisco (2019), Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2017–2022
Cisco (2020), Cisco Annual Internet Report (2018–2023)
Coleago (2014), Will Wi-Fi relieve congestion on cellular networks?
Coleago (2020), The 6 GHz opportunity for IMT
Coleago (2021), Estimating the mid-band spectrum needs in the 2025–2030 time frame
Ericsson (2020), 5G and Wi-Fi: Charting a path toward superior indoor connectivity
Ericsson (2021a), Ericsson Mobility Report November 2021
Ericsson (2021b), Five ways to a better 5G: Key trends influencing consumer adoption of 5G
Ernst & Young and GSMA (2020), Mobile taxation studies: Methodology documentation
GSMA (2019a), Regional Spotlights: Impact of mmWave 5G
GSMA (2019b), Closing the Coverage Gap: How Innovation Can Drive Rural Connectivity
GSMA (2020), Driving the digital revolution with improved mobile coverage
GSMA (2021), State of Mobile Internet Connectivity Report 2021
GSMA Intelligence (2020a), 5G and economic growth: an assessment of GDP impacts in Canada
GSMA Intelligence (2020b), Mobile technology: two decades driving economic growth, Working Paper
GSMA Intelligence (2020c), The Impacts of mmWave 5G in India
GSMA Intelligence (2021), The 5G FWA opportunity: Disrupting the broadband market

36

References

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Husnjak, S., Perakovic, D. and Forenbacher, I. (2018), Data Traffic Offload from Mobile to Wi-Fi Networks:
Behavioural Patterns of Smartphone Users, Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing
ITU (2014), Using regulatory impact analysis to improve decision making in the ICT sector
ITU (2018), Report ITU-R M.2441-0 Emerging usage of the terrestrial component of International Mobile
Telecommunication (IMT)ITU (2019), The economic contribution of broadband, digitalisation and ICT regulation
Katz, R. Jung, J. and Callorda, F. (2021), The Economic value of Wi-Fi: A Global View (2021 – 2025). New York:
Telecom Advisory Services
Layton, R., and Witkowski, D (2021), 5G Versus Wi-Fi: Challenges for Economic, Spectrum, and Security Policy,
Journal of Information Policy, vol. 11, Penn State University Press, pp. 523–61
Milgrom, P., Levin, J., & Eilat, A. (2011), The case for unlicensed spectrum. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy
Research Discussion paper No. 10-036, p. 2. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/
UnlicensedSpectrum.pdf
Nevo, A., Turner, J. and Williams, J. (2016), Usage-based Pricing and Demand for Residential Broadband,
Econometrics, Volume 84, Issue 2
OECD (2020), Regulatory Impact Assessment
OECD (2021), HM1.5. Residential Stock by Dwelling Type
Ofcom Statement (2020), Improving spectrum access for Wi-Fi: Spectrum use in the 5 GHz and 6 GHz bands
Omdia and Tarifica (2021), 5G Pricing Innovation: Are apps the answer for successfully driving upsell to 5G?
Oughton, E. J., Lehr, W., Katsaros, K., Selinis, I., Bubley, D., Kusuma J. (2021), Revisiting Wireless Internet
Connectivity: 5G vs Wi-Fi 6, Telecommunications Policy, Volume 45, Issue 5
Oughton, E. J., Comini, N., Foster, V. and Hall, J. W. (2021), Policy Choices Can Help Keep 4G and 5G Universal
Broadband Affordable, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 9563
Qualcomm (2016), A Quantification of 5 GHz Unlicensed Band Spectrum Needs
Quotient Associates (2017), Wi-Fi Spectrum Needs Study
Statistics South Africa (2020), General Household Survey 2019
UN Habitat (2011), Affordable Land and Housing in Asia
WPC (2021), Optimising IMT and Wi-Fi mid-band spectrum allocation: The compelling case for 6 GHz bandpartitioning in Asia-Pacific
WPC (2021), Optimising IMT and Wi-Fi mid-band spectrum allocation: The compelling case for 6 GHz bandpartitioning in Latin America

References

37

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Appendix A
Methodology
To estimate the impact of assigning additional spectrum in the 6 GHz band forlicensed or unlicensed (modelled via 5G or Wi-Fi in this study), we develop two
traffic demand and capacity supply models for the period between 2021 and 2035.

5G traffic demand and capacity supply model
Figure A1 illustrates the structure of the 5G model. It works as follows:• 5G traffic demand in urban areas41 is driven by (i)expected 5G adoption, (ii) the minimum ITU-R
performance requirements of IMT-202042 (100 Mbps
download speeds and 50 Mbps upload speeds43),(iii) Wi-Fi offload, (iv) high bands offload, (v) urban
population and (vi) the share of connected usersthat are active.44 We also assume a growth in traffic
demand over time, to reflect increased data use by
5G users.
41
42
43
44

38

• 5G capacity supply is driven by (i) the amountof spectrum available, (ii) the number of sites
deployed and (iii) spectral efficiencies.
• We estimate the number of sites needed to meettraffic demand given the 5G spectral efficiencies for
all available spectrum and based on three scenarios
on the amount of licensed spectrum available
within the 6 GHz band for 5G: 1200 MHz (5925–
7125 MHz), 700 MHz (6425–7125 MHz) and zero.

We focus on urban areas, as this is where capacity is most needed and where 6 GHz can be used for wide-area cellular networks.
Report ITU-R M.2410-0.
Such performance requirements are applied for the whole period (2021–2035). This represents a conservative assumption since over time administrations could set nationaltargets that go beyond those minimum requirements and considering that new generations for the IMT systems will become available before 2035.
This share refers to concurrent demand from connected 5G users during the busy period. For example, a share of 5% means that up to 5% of all 5G users will be using their devices
simultaneously.

Appendix A

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

• We then compare the scenarios where 1200 MHz
of spectrum is available for licensed use against
the scenarios where 700 MHz and no spectrum areavailable for licensed use. There are three possible
outcomes:i

Operators do not densify their networks, while
the capacity increases, which means that
traffic demand exceeds capacity supply andconsumers suffer a reduction in quality of service(i.e. receive less than 100 Mbps download and50 Mbps upload), which can be reflected in 5G
take-up.

ii Operators densify the network to meet demand,

meaning more sites that incur higher cost. These
costs are assumed to be (partially) passed on to
the consumer, which reduces 5G take-up.45
iii A combination of (i) and (ii).

Under approach (i), in order to estimate the impact ofassigning less than the complete 6 GHz band for 5G, wetranslate a reduction in quality of service to a reduction
in 5G adoption. This works by assuming that if operators
have access to zero or 700 MHz of 6 GHz licensed
spectrum, they would deploy the same number of sites
as if they had access to 1200 MHz – but with the result ofsuffering a reduction in network quality. We assume thateach reduction in 100 Mbps in downlink capacity (the IMT2020 minimum performance requirement) is associatedwith one less 5G user in practice (i.e. they could beconsidered as a 4G user instead). To provide an illustrative
example, if total traffic demand was 1,000 Mbps andhaving no 6 GHz spectrum meant supply was 800 Mbps,46
the model assumes there would be two fewer 5G users.
The rationale for this is that if users do not have access to
100 Mbps, then they do not have a 5G service.47 Anotherway of saying this is that we adjust 5G adoption based on
the capacity gap. For example, if there is no capacity gap
with the full 6 GHz band assigned to licensed mobile but
there is a capacity gap of 20% with no 6 GHz spectrum
assigned (i.e. unmet capacity is 20% of total demand),then we assume that 5G adoption falls by 20% in the
scenario without any licensed 6 GHz spectrum.
Alternatively, approach (ii) would assume that
operators increase capacity by densifying the networkwith less spectrum at higher cost – this would be(partially) passed on to consumers, which would
reduce demand and therefore 5G adoption. However,
it is possible that the required densification may not be
feasible from an interference perspective (i.e. requiring
too many sites in a given area). We therefore model
the economic impacts based on a reduction in qualityof service, which is also consistent with the approach
to modelling Wi-Fi in this report. As a sensitivity check,we implemented the ‘densification approach’ as analternative strategy, and the impacts on 5G adoption
were comparable to modelling based on approach (i).

Figure A1

5G traffic demand and capacity supply model
Spectralefficiencies

Numberof sites

Spectrumavailable

6 GHz spectrum availability(scenarios 1, 2, 3)i) Network QoS variationii) Network densificationand impact on end-user priceCapacity supply

5G adoption change

Traffic demand

Wi-Fi
offloadHigh bands
offloadPerformancerequirements

Share ofconnected
users thatare active

Urban
population

5G
adoption

Mobile traffic growth
Source: GSMA Intelligence

45
46
47

Assumptions on pass-through and demand elasticities are based on Ernst & Young and GSMA (2020).
Or anywhere between 800 and 899 Mbps
As noted in Coleago (2020), for applications and use cases that require a minimum speed, not having the required speed is the same as not having coverage at all.

Appendix A

39

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Table A1

5G model data inputs
Input

Data

Source5G spectral
efficiencies DL/UL(bps/Hz)Low band: 1.8/1.8

Coleago (2021)

Lower mid-band: 2.2/2.5
Upper mid-band: 6.0/4.1
High band: 6.0/4.1

Number of sites

Country-specific assumptions. The number of sites is calculated
based on how many sites are needed to meet expected demand,
given spectral efficiencies and the amount of spectrum available.
The model incorporates both macro cell sites and small cell sites.

GSMA Intelligence

Spectrum available

Country-specific assumptions. Existing and planned spectrum
assignments by country, including other mid-band spectrum in
3.3–4.2 GHz bands and mmWave spectrum.

GSMA Intelligence,
Coleago (2021) andnational regulators

Where mmWave spectrum is either currently available or expected
to be assigned for 5G, we assume that it will offload 30% of traffic
demand by 2030.
Wi-Fi offload

50%

GSMA Intelligence48

This is the proportion of 5G traffic that is offloaded to Wi-Fi.
Performancerequirements

100 Mbps download speeds
50 Mbps upload speeds

IMT-2020
requirements.
Report ITU-R
M.2441-0 (11/2018)

Share of connected
users who are active

5% in 2021.

5G adoption andurban population

Country-specific assumptions. Expected take-up of 5G services GSMA Intelligencecombined with urban population produces the number ofurban 5G users over time.

Mobile traffic growth

Country-specific assumptions, with a range of 20–40% traffic
growth per year.

This reflects the concurrent demand from connected 5G
users during the busy period. For example, a share of 5%means that up to 5% of all 5G users will be using their devices
simultaneously. Growth in the share of connected users thatare active is reflected in the mobile traffic growth assumptions(see below).

Coleago (2020)
and Oughton et al(2021)

GSMA Intelligence,
EricssonThis reflects the increase in traffic demand over time. It will
be driven by (and therefore account for) a combination ofincreased consumption per user, an increase in the share ofconnected users and an increase in non-human users (e.g. IoT).

48

40

Cisco (2020) reported that offload traffic was just over 50% in 2020 and that offload is expected to reach 71% for 5G. However, given that such estimates likely overstate actual
mobile-to-Wi-Fi offload as it includes additional traffic and the fact that 5G may reduce the amount of time spent on Wi-Fi (see Chapter 2), we assume 50% offload.

Appendix A

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Wi-Fi traffic demand and capacity supply model
Figure A2 illustrates the structure of the Wi-Fi model. It is based on demand in residential premises and works as follows:• Wi-Fi traffic demand is driven by (i) fixed
broadband adoption (in particular FTTH/B andcable),49 (ii) the adoption of various devices ineach household (smartphones, tablets, laptops/PCs, smart home devices, AR/VR systems,
gaming consoles and smart TVs), (iii) performancerequirements for each device and (iv) proportion of
fixed and cellular traffic that is loaded onto the WiFi network (Wi-Fi offload), (v) high band offloadand (vi) number of households. We also assume agrowth in demand over time, to reflect increased
data use and device adoption by consumers.
• Wi-Fi capacity supply is driven by (i) the amount ofspectrum available and (ii) spectral efficiencies.
• We compare Wi-Fi traffic demand and capacity
supply over the period of analysis for three
scenarios that are determined by the amountof 6 GHz available for unlicensed use: 1200 MHz(5925–7125 MHz), 500MHz (5925–6425 MHz) andzero. For each scenario, if traffic demand exceeds
capacity supply, then there is a reduction in qualityof service experienced by the consumer. If capacity
exceeds demand, then there are no impacts.
In the case of residential Wi-Fi, addressing capacity
constraints by ‘densifying the network’ (i.e. adding
more access points) may not be feasible given
potential interference. We therefore model theimpact of a capacity constraint based on a reduction
in network quality in a similar manner to 5G. For
example, if there is a capacity gap of 20% with no
6 GHz spectrum allocated for unlicensed use, then we
assume that FTTH/B and cable adoption falls by 20%
in that scenario.

Figure A2

Wi-Fi traffic demand and capacity supply model
Spectralefficiencies

Spectrumavailable

6 GHz spectrum availability(scenarios 1, 2, 3)

Network QoS variation

Capacity supply

FTTH/B and cable adoption change

Traffic demand

Fixed-to-Wi-Fi
offloadUnlicensed
high bands
offloadDevices
adoption

Performancerequirements

Households

FTTH/B andcable adoption

Wi-Fi traffic growth
Source: GSMA Intelligence

49

Other fixed technologies based on DSL and FTTC do not allow for fast enough speeds where Wi-Fi could be a potential capacity bottleneck.

Appendix A

41

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Table A2

Wi-Fi model data inputs
Input

Data

Remarks and source

Wi-Fi 6 Spectral
efficiencies (bit/sbps/Hz), housedwelling(Mbps)

15 bps/Hz

MCS Index.

Wi-Fi 6 Spectral
efficiencies (bps/Hz),apartment

3.9 bps/Hz in 2021–2027

Assume 1024-QAM, 5/6 coding, 2
spatial streams* and 0.8µs guard bandusing 802.11ax.
9.4 bps/Hz in 2028–2035

Spectral efficiencies are based on the
scenarios considered in Qualcomm(2016), with a 3-story apartmentbuilding with 10 apartments on eachfloor. Each apartment consists of 4
rooms and the total size is 10m × 10m.
For the first half of the period (2021–2027), we take the average spectral
efficiency in Configurations A and B,
assuming 2 antennas per STA and 4
antennas per AP. For the second half ofthe period (2028–-2035), we take thespectral efficiency in Configuration B
and assume 4 antennas per STA and 4
antennas per AP
Our study applies these spectrum
efficiencies for the 2.4, 5 and 6 GHz
bands.

Spectrum available

Country-specific assumptions. ExistingLinux wireless regulatory database andunlicensed spectrum assignments bynational regulators
country in the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. For
DFS channels in the 5 GHz band, we assume
50% utilisation.50
For high-band offload, we present one setof results where up to 30% of Wi-Fi traffic is
offloaded to the high bands and another setof results where no Wi-Fi traffic is offloaded
to the high bands.

Fixed-to-Wi-Fi
offload

The proportion of fixed traffic that isdelivered over Wi-Fi. This excludes any
fixed data traffic that is transmitted to a
device via a cable or wired connection fromthe access point.

Device adoption

Country-specific assumptions. Average
GSMA Intelligence, ITU, Strategy
number of devices used per household
Analytics(includes smartphones, laptops/computers,
tablets, gaming consoles, smart TVs, AR/
VR systems and other smart-home devices).

50

42

GSMA Intelligence and Katz et al (2021)

For example, if there is an 80 MHz channel available but it has a DFS requirement, then we assume the data rate offered is 1200 Mbps × 50% = 600 Mbps.

Appendix A

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Input

Data

Performancerequirements

See next section

FTTH/B and cable
adoption andhouseholds

Country-specific assumptions. Expected
take-up of FTTH/B and cable-based fixed
broadband, as a proportion of households
in each country. When combined with thenumber of households, this produces thenumber of FTTH/B and cable subscriptions
over time.

Remarks and source

GSMA Intelligence and ITU

Three maximum available fixed broadband
speeds are considered: 1 Gbps, 5 Gbps, 10
Gbps
Wi-Fi traffic growth

Country-specific assumptions, ranging
between 20–40% traffic growth per year.

GSMA Intelligence, Huawei, Cisco,
Analysys Mason

This reflects the increase in traffic demand
over time. It will be driven by (and therefore
account for) a combination of increased
consumption per device, increased
performance requirements and increase in
the number of devices used.
* W i-Fi 6 technology enables eight spatial streams, which would increase the assumed data rates fourfold (e.g. 9.6 Gbps for a 160 MHz channel, which is often the headline rate
referred to). However, the majority of existing devices (and many home access points) are limited to two streams. While this may change going forward, we assume two spatial
streams to ensure we do not overestimate the amount of capacity available. In terms of actual throughput that can be made available, there are products available on the market
that can achieve 10 Gbps and more by using spectrum from the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. 51

Demand for Wi-Fi
On the demand side, when considering a house dwelling, we assume a requirement of 100 Mbps downlink per device.
In the analysis for an apartment, we use more refined demand assumptions for each device, as shown in Table A3.
This is needed because the demand projections assumed for a house dwelling are not compatible with the spectral
efficiencies available in an apartment.
Table A3

Current performance requirements per device (2021)
DeviceSmartphone
TabletPC/Desktop
Gaming console
AR/VR system
Smart TV (8K)
IoT (smart home)

Required peak data rate (Mbps)
30
30
30
30
100
100
5

Source: GSMA Intelligence, Ericsson and Huawei
51

For example, a Huawei commercial router can use a combination of channels from the 2.4 GHz (40 MHz channel) and 5 GHz (160 MHz channel) bands to achieve 10.75 Gbps
speeds (see Huawei AirEngine 8760-X1-PRO).
8760-X1-PRO

Appendix A

43

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Modelling the socioeconomic impacts of 5G and Wi-Fi
Once we estimate the impact of each of the three
scenarios on 5G and FTTH/B and cable adoption,
the next step is to estimate the wider socioeconomic
impacts. Both 5G and fixed broadband are digitaltechnologies that are widely regarded as generalpurpose technologies: innovations that reshape theeconomy, redefining the goods and services thatare made, the ways used to produce them and thefunctioning of the markets that serve them. They
drive economic gains because they enable tools andprocesses for quicker, cheaper and more convenient
production, which improves the productivity of firms
and workers. They also lower information search andknowledge costs of consumers and producers, enabling
new transactions and improving existing ones, thereby
stimulating more trade and competition.52
A number of studies have found a causal link
between the adoption of mobile and fixed internet

and GDP, suggesting that a 10% increase in mobile
or fixed internet adoption can increase a country’s
GDP by between 0.5% and 2.5%.53 In this study, theimpact of introducing 5G or faster fixed broadband
is unlikely to deliver the same benefit as connecting
an individual or business for the first time – rather,
the impact will reflect an improvement or ‘upgrade’to the technologies that people are already using, forexample by offering faster data rates, lower latencies
and higher reliability.
Quantifying the economic benefits of 5G and Wi-Fi isa challenging task, given the new use cases they are
expected to enable. There are four broad categories ofuse cases that 5G is expected to enable (see Table A4).
Estimating the impact of each of these on a countrylevel basis would require a number of assumptions
that are likely to be speculative. We therefore take anapproach that is based on existing empirical evidence.

Table A4

5G use cases: description and relevance for business users
Description

Business need examples Vertical examples

Enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB)
5G will provide the capacity to handle growing data trafficand grant operators an opportunity to develop new andimproved services to consumers. This will enable a newrange of applications, including highly reliable mobileinternet services for mass gatherings and sports events– where current mobile technology is often stretched to
the limit of its capabilities – and AR/VR applications that
improve the customer experience, such as in retail bysupporting or even replacing traditional showrooms.

Immersive experience(AR/VR)
4K/8K streaming
on mobile

Retail, public
administration, artsand events

Increased service
capacity
Broadband to public
transport

Fixed wireless access (FWA)
5G will allow network operators to deliver ultra-high-speed
broadband to suburban and lower-density areas, supporting
home and business applications where fibre is prohibitively
expensive to lay and maintain. This will allow broader
communities to be connected to the internet via an ultrafast and reliable connection, bringing applications such as
telemedicine and remote education to more people. 5G FWA
can therefore provide the benefits of fibre-like connectivity
to peri-urban areas, busy small towns and villages.
52
53

44

See GSMA (2020b) and Katz et al (2021)
For example, see GSMA Intelligence (2020b) and ITU (2019)

Appendix A

Alternative to fibre
connection
Dynamic hotspots
Stationary monitoring
networks

Education, healthcare,public administration,utilities

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC)

Business need examples

Vertical examples

Low latency and high reliability will enable new applicationsin the fields of manufacturing, logistics, health andtransportation. These applications include autonomous
driving, connected robotic applications, AR/VR, drones andsurgical/medical remote operations.

Autonomous driving

Manufacturing,utilities, oil and gas,transport, healthcare

Safety-criticalapplications
Remote manufacturing
Remote healthcare
Edge computing

Massive IoT (mIoT)
5G will be able to facilitate a large network of IoT
devices, supporting the creation of smart cities, smart
infrastructures and, in the utility sector, smart grids capableof self-identifying issues on the networks. In the agricultural
sector, farmers will benefit from the potential of a vast
collection of sensors located directly in fields that are able
to identify with pinpoint precision which areas need water,
have disease or require pest management.

A study by GSMA Intelligence (2020b) found that
upgrading connections from 2G to 3G and 3G
to 4G increased the economic impact of mobile
by around 15%.54 We therefore assume a similar
uplift when estimating the impact of upgradingfrom 4G to 5G. As this reflects the overall impactof a technology upgrade on GDP growth, it will

Remote object
manipulation

Agriculture, utilities,
manufacturing, public
Advanced manufacturing administration
Smart cities

capture both ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ impacts. Direct
economic impacts include the value-add of firms inthe mobile ecosystem, including operators, handset
manufacturers, equipment and infrastructure vendors
and content providers. The ‘indirect’ economic impacts
include wider productivity benefits that mobile drives
in other sectors.

The benefit at country level is calculated as a function of 5G penetration rate, as follows:t = time

i = country

α = 5G adoption rate55

β = 5G productivity impact

Total_Benefitit = GDPit × ( αit — αit–1 ) × β
The α parameter is based on the 5G long-term forecasts for each country, while for the βparameter, the model assumes a value of 0.02 for low-income countries, 0.015 for middleincome countries and 0.008 for high-income countries. This reflects the fact that mobile
broadband has been found to have larger impacts in lower-income countries.56

54
55
56

For example, if a 10% increase in 2G adoption increases GDP by 1%, then a 10% increase in 2G-to-3G adoption increases GDP by an additional 1% * 15% = 0.15%.
This reflects the expected level of 5G adoption (number of 5G users relative to population) in each country over time.
See ITU (2019)

Appendix A

45

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Figure A3

Modelling the socioeconomic impacts of 5G
5G supply and demandmodel outputs

5G adoption rate yearly change(scenarios 1, 2, 3)
αit–αit–1

Social discount rate

Yearly 5G impact as % of yearly GDP
5G_benefitit = GDPit × (αit–αit–1) × β

5G impact as % of GDP
in 2035

5G productivity impact
on country’s GDP(β)
Source: GSMA IntelligenceThis allows us to calculate the overall contribution of
5G technology to a country’s economy in each year.
We then aggregate the overall economic benefit in
the 2021–2035 period by taking the net present valueof economic benefits, using a social discount rate of
3.5%. In our presentation of results, we express this as
a proportion of expected GDP in 2035.
In practice, this potentially represents a conservative
approach to estimating the economic impacts of 5G
because, by basing it on the impact of upgrading from
2G to 3G and 3G to 4G, it is more likely to capture use
cases around eMBB and could understate the impact
of FWA, URLLC and mIoT. However, we prefer to apply
a conservative approach given the lack of clear andquantifiable estimates around all the use cases.

46

Appendix A

The incremental economic impact of more/less
FTTH/B and cable adoption is assumed to be the sameas the impact of 5G. For example, if a 10% increase
in 5G penetration drives a 0.15% increase in GDP,then we assume that a 10% increase in FTTH/B andcable penetration also drives a 0.15% increase in GDP.
This ensures we apply a consistent approach to bothtechnologies, and it also means the results between
scenarios are not sensitive to the specific impact
assumption (as it is applied in the same way to 5G and
Wi-Fi). This methodology means that the estimatedeconomic impacts of assigning 6 GHz for Wi-Fi in eachcountry may differ from other studies that have soughtto estimate the benefits of a similar policy.

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Figure A4

Modelling the socioeconomic impacts of Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi supply and demandmodel outputs

FTTH/B and cable adoption rate
yearly change (scenarios 1, 2, 3)
αit–αit–1

Social discount rate

Yearly FTTH/B and cable impact as % of yearly GDP
5G_benefitit = GDPit × (αit–αit–1) × β

FTTH/B and cable impact
as % of GDP in 2035

FTTH/B and cable productivity
impact on country’s GDP(β)
Source: GSMA Intelligence

Both models of 5G and Wi-Fi supply and traffic
demand are based on urban demand and residential
requirements respectively. We then apply the
economic impact analysis based on overall 5G and
FTTH/B and cable adoption. This captures the

economic impacts that are consistent with existing
evidence, as the empirical literature demonstrating
the impact of mobile and fixed broadband on GDP isalmost entirely based on broadband adoption at theindividual (or household) subscription level.

Focus on capacity
When modelling the impacts of 6 GHz spectrum
assignment on 5G and Wi-Fi, we focus on capacity
rather than coverage – the assumption being thatassigning additional upper mid-band spectrum will
primarily allow operators to improve wide-area 5G
capacity and Wi-Fi providers to deliver faster speedswith greater capacity. Expanding wireless coverage,
particularly in rural areas, generally requires low-band
spectrum (below 1 GHz). Some studies have suggested
that assigning 6 GHz for unlicensed use may enablewireless internet service providers (WISPs) to expand
coverage and help close the digital divide.57 While itis unlikely that the propagation characteristics of the
6 GHz band will enable the expansion of 5G and Wi-Fi
coverage, the additional capacity would support moreusers at faster speeds, including in peri-urban areas,busy small towns and villages.
57
58
59
60
61

Given the experience of worldwide network deployments
to date, it is reasonable to assume that, going forward,
mobile technologies relying on licensed spectrum
will play a much bigger role than technologies relying
on unlicensed spectrum in closing the digital divide,
especially in rural and remote areas. Mobile technologies
currently account for 85% of all broadband subscriptions
in developing countries and almost 99% in Africa.58 By
contrast, fixed wireless broadband59 solutions currently
account for less than 0.5% of broadband subscriptions
worldwide.60 Networks that use Wi-Fi or other unlicensed
technologies can offer specific last-mile solutions to areas
with unique geographical, commercial and/or logisticalchallenges.61 However, they are unlikely to achieve
large scale in most countries, especially those lacking
a widespread fixed network. In those cases, improved
Wi‑Fi capacity is most likely to benefit users with anexisting home fibre or cable connection.

For example, see Katz et al (2021)
ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators (WTI) Database 2021
 ixed wireless broadband subscriptions refer to fixed wireless internet subscriptions with an advertised download speed of at least 256 kbps. This includes fixed WiMAX andF
fixed wireless subscriptions (whether they are supported by 4G, 5G or Wi-Fi). It excludes occasional users at hotspots.
ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators (WTI) Database 2021
GSMA (2019b) and GSMA (2020)

Appendix A

47

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Meanwhile, one of the main use cases of 5G is fixedwireless access (FWA), which has the potential toscale rapidly over the next decade. For example,
Ericsson (2021) forecasts just over 230 million FWA
connections by 2027, almost a threefold increaseon 2021. In particular, countries with limited fixed
networks, or where xDSL remains the predominant
fixed technology (including in several high-income
countries), are starting to see strong growth in FWA.62

This is likely to continue in markets where the cost of
deploying FTTH/B and cable networks are prohibitive
and where 5G FWA can enable the rollout of fast
(above 100 Mbps) and more cost-efficient fixed
broadband connectivity.63 Therefore, to the extent that
6 GHz could contribute to closing the digital divide, it
is more likely this would be achieved by assigning it forlicensed 5G than unlicensed use.

Use of high-band spectrum
The deployment of 5G in many countries is using – or is
expected to use – high-band mmWave frequencies (forexample in the 26, 28 and 40 GHz bands). High bands
are primarily effective at addressing specific areas withextreme traffic density and with very high peak data
rates.64 We therefore assume that, over time, 30% of 5G
traffic demand will be offloaded to mmWave.
High-band spectrum is also available (or is being
considered) for unlicensed use in most countries,
particularly in the 60 GHz bands, and additional bands
may be available for unlicensed usage towards 2035.
This means it could be used for Wi-Fi. Similar to 5G,
high bands for Wi-Fi can support connectivity forcertain high-capacity use cases, such as AR/VR and avariety of short-range devices.65
As part of our analysis, we look at the impactof assigning 6 GHz for unlicensed use under theassumption that up to 30% of Wi-Fi traffic is offloaded
to the high bands. We also model another scenario
where high bands are not used for Wi-Fi. As we show
in Chapter 4, the extent to which this spectrum is used
for Wi-Fi has a significant impact on the potential
benefits of assigning 6 GHz for unlicensed use. It
should be noted that not using the high bands would
represent an inefficient use of spectrum.

Timing of 6 GHz use
In most countries, spectrum in the 6 GHz band iscurrently used for fixed satellite services (FSS) and fixed
services (including mobile backhaul). Studies to ensure
co-existence with these services, and in particular withFSS UL (Earth to space direction), are ongoing in the
ITU towards WRC-23 and thus it is likely that 6 GHz will
be available for large scale 5G commercial deploymentsfrom 2024/2025 when WRC-23 has concluded. We
therefore assume that 6 GHz will be available for

62
63
64
65

48

licensed use from 2025 in our model. In terms of using
6 GHz for unlicensed use, we assume it would bepossible on a shorter time frame, starting in 2022, given
the availability of Wi-Fi 6E equipment. For the sake ofcountries that see the need for additional spectrum
towards 2030, we also ran the analysis assuming thatthe 6 GHz band would not be available for licensed use
until 2030. This did not impact our main findings, interms of the optimal policy scenarios.

GSMA Intelligence (2021)
For example, Coleago (2020) states that the cost of connecting a building with 5G FWA in rural areas is 50–80% lower compared to fibre.
See Coleago (2020 and 2021) and WPC (2021)
For example, see Broadband India Forum (2021), which highlights WiGig as one of the key use cases of V-Band spectrum. This can link devices at up to 7 Gbps over a distance ofup to 12 metres.

Appendix A

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Appendix B
Detailed country resultsfor house dwelling setting
Appendix B presents the results of the cost-benefit analysis for the three policy
scenarios in each country. Each chart presents a set of six results, based on thefollowing assumptions:• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 1 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable users, with up to 30% of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 5 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable users, with up to 30% of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 10 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable, with up to 30% of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 1 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable, with no Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 5 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable, with no Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 10 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable, with no Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.

Appendix B

49

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Figure B1

Summary of economic benefits by scenario and country – house dwelling setting
Proportion of expected GDP in 2035

BrazilWith high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

No high-band offload

With high-band offload

Argentina

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

With high-band offload

10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

0.0%

India
With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

With high-band offload
No high-band offload

1 Gbps0.0%

No high-band offload

With high-band offload
No high-band offload

5 GbpsAustralia

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

50

10 Gbps

Mexico1 Gbps0.0%

5 Gbps0.8%

Colombia

0.0%

1 GbpsAppendix B

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Japan
With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

No high-band offload

With high-band offload

Indonesia

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.8%

1 Gbps

1 Gbps

5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

No high-band offload

With high-band offload

ThailandWith high-band offload

Singapore

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

With high-band offload

5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

With high-band offload
No high-band offload

0.3%

France1 Gbps

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.2%

5 Gbps0.8%

Vietnam

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

Appendix B

51

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Italy
With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

No high-band offload

With high-band offload

Germany

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

With high-band offload

5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

With high-band offload
No high-band offload

1 Gbps

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

Qatar

0.0%

UAE
With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

With high-band offload

10 Gbps

Jordan0.0%

No high-band offload

5 Gbps

0.8%

Egypt

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

52

1 GbpsAppendix B

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

1 Gbps

1 Gbps

5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

No high-band offload

With high-band offload

Kenya

With high-band offload

Ghana

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

With high-band offload

10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

0.0%

0.1%

Kazakhstan
With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

With high-band offload

5Gbps

0.0%

No high-band offload

With high-band offload
No high-band offload

5 GbpsArmenia

No high-band offload

1 GbpsSouth Africa

1 Gbps

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

10 Gbps

0.8%

Nigeria

0.0%

5 Gbps

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

0.0%

0.1%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

The results represent the net present value (NPV) of economic benefits over the 2021–2035 period, expressed as a proportion of expected GDP in 2035 for each country. The fivesets of results adjust assumptions related to Wi-Fi and fixed broadband (the amount of 60 GHz utilised and the maximum speeds available). Therefore, the results of Scenario 1(where the full licensed band is allocated for 5G) are the same.
Source: GSMA Intelligence

Appendix B

53

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Appendix C
Detailed country results
for apartment dwelling
setting
Appendix C presents the results of the cost-benefit analysis for the three policy
scenarios in each country, based on an apartment setting. Each chart presents a
set of six results, based on the following assumptions:• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 1 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable users, with up to 30% of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 5 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable users, with up to 30% of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 10 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable, with up to 30% of Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 1 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable, with no Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 5 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable, with no Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.
• The maximum available fixed broadband speed is 10 Gbps to all FTTH/B andcable, with no Wi-Fi traffic offloaded to the high bands.

54

Appendix C

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Figure C1

Summary of economic benefits by scenario and country – for apartment setting
Proportion of expected GDP in 2035

BrazilWith high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

No high-band offload

With high-band offload

Argentina

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

With high-band offload

10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

0.0%

India
With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

With high-band offload

1 Gbps0.0%

No high-band offload

With high-band offload
No high-band offload

5 GbpsAustralia

No high-band offload

10 Gbps

Mexico1 Gbps

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

5 Gbps0.8%

Colombia

0.0%

1 Gbps

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

Appendix C

55

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Japan
With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

No high-band offload

With high-band offload

Indonesia

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

0.0%

1 Gbps

1 Gbps

5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

No high-band offload

With high-band offload

ThailandWith high-band offload

Singapore

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

With high-band offload

10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

With high-band offload
No high-band offload

5 Gbps

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

56

0.3%

France1 Gbps

0.0%

0.2%

5 Gbps0.8%

Vietnam

0.1%

Appendix C

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

Italy
With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

No high-band offload

With high-band offload

Germany

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

With high-band offload
No high-band offload

10 Gbps

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

Jordan

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

Qatar

0.0%

UAE
With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

With high-band offload

5 Gbps

0.8%

Egypt

No high-band offload

1 Gbps

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

0.0%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

Appendix C

57

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

1 Gbps

1 Gbps

5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

No high-band offload

With high-band offload

Kenya

With high-band offload

Ghana

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

With high-band offload

10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

10 Gbps
0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

0.0%

0.1%

Kazakhstan
With high-band offload

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 GbpsNo high-band offload

With high-band offload

5Gbps

0.0%

No high-band offload

With high-band offload
No high-band offload

5 GbpsArmenia

No high-band offload

1 GbpsSouth Africa

1 Gbps

5Gbps
10 Gbps
0.0%

10 Gbps

0.8%

Nigeria

0.0%

5 Gbps

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

Scenario 1: all to licensed

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1 Gbps
5 Gbps
10 Gbps
1 Gbps
5Gbps
10 Gbps

0.8%

Scenario 2: all to unlicensed

0.0%

0.1%

Scenario 3: 700 MHz licensed; 500 MHz unlicensed

The results represent the net present value (NPV) of economic benefits over the 2021–2035 period, expressed as a proportion of expected GDP in 2035 for each country. The fivesets of results adjust assumptions related to Wi-Fi and fixed broadband (the amount of 60 GHz utilised and the maximum speeds available). Therefore, the results of Scenario 1(where the full licensed band is allocated for 5G) are the same.
Source: GSMA Intelligence

58

Appendix C

THE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE 6 GHZ BAND

gsmaintelligence.com

Appendix C

59

gsmaintelligence.com