Weekly Wrap: Tensions in Brussels on DNA and spectrum sharing

This edition of the conference featured a fun poll exercise that neatly exposed the political sensitivity around the DNA. Attendees were asked: “How do you rate the success of 5G in Europe compared to other regions?” According to the results, 57 percent said Europe is on a par with other regions, 6 percent said Europe is ahead, and 35 percent said it is behind.

Now I’m not certain about the breakdown of spectrum conference attendees, but I dare say that about half of the room had a regulatory background. This suggests at least some disconnect between spectrum managers’ perception of 5G rollout and the operators’ narrative that Europe is “desperately behind”. That divergence matters because the Commission has leaned heavily on the idea of a lagging 5G rollout to justify its push for more centralised powers under the DNA. You can read my full breakdown of the RSPG’s opinion on the DNA here.

Secondly, spectrum sharing. Across several panels, the message is clear. Spectrum sharing is necessary and guidance on how to organise and regulate spectrum sharing is urgently needed. The RSPGRSPG stands for the Radio Spectrum Policy … is clearly at odds with the DNA on how to make it work. The Commission’s draft says that “new concepts of radio spectrum sharing require accurate, real-time data on frequency occupancy” and argues that a dynamic database could help identify underused spectrum and support more efficient sharing.

The RSPG says that spectrum sharing is “a necessary principle of frequency management” but warns that the DNA’s practical approach is “sometimes complex” and can create risks for critical systems. It also questions whether a centrally hosted database would bring real benefits, arguing that these are “better achieved at the national level.” The group further opposes applying the principle to military and security systems at the EU level.

Canada’s regulator, ISED, presented its 3900 MHz non‑competitive local licensing (NCLL) framework as one concrete, although traditional, example of spectrum sharing in practice. The scheme aims to support local and industrial deployments through licences with tightly defined geographic and technical parameters, in a band that also needs to accommodate other users. While Canada’s market and allocations differ from Europe’s, the NCLL approach is a good example that sharing frameworks do not have to be fully dynamic to create new use cases.

A different perspective comes from UNICEF (surprisingly). Not on stage, but during the coffee breaks, they are advocating for a “spectrum certificate” concept, which tries to tackle the mismatch between legacy licensing regimes and emerging, highly dynamic use cases. The pitch is that most current national frameworks were designed for a small number of operators, static assignments, and predictable uses. These are now struggling with the current environment of spectrum scarcity, LEONGSO, or non-geostationary satellite orbit… constellations, local networks, and short‑duration uses.

UNICEF’s proposal is a cryptographically signed, machine‑readable record of a temporary spectrum‑use authorisation, issued by a regulator to an operator. Each certificate is scoped by frequency, location, time, and power, with a defined lifecycle and a public verification path. The system is presented as a layer on top of existing licences, not a replacement; regulators keep full legal authority.

I’m not sure if there is much appetite for a crypto-based spectrum sharing solution, since previous PMSE-related crypto database tests haven’t generated much excitement. But since it’s being backed by UNICEF Giga, a joint initiative between UNICEF and ITUThe International Telecommunication U…, it certainly qualifies as food for thought.

Here’s what else PolicyTracker has covered this week:

• Research points to Moscow’s early warning constellation as the cause of navigation disruptions dating back to 2019
• FCC give Amazon Leo more time to launch its D2D constellation
• A new European Commission study looks into solutions for the impact of 2G/3G switch-off on eCall
• Ukraine’s regulator decides to optimise the use of the 2.6 GHz band
• RSPG disagrees on several key spectrum regulatory changes in the proposed Digital Networks Act.