44 JULY/AUGUST 2019 AIRFORCEMAG.COMHuawei, Spectrum, Global Competition, and the Future of 5G
Most mobile communication today takes place at spectrum
bands below 3 GHz, according to mobile technology chipmaker
Qualcomm. But 5G wireless networks in the US will operate
in the millimeter-wave band, between 30 GHz and 300 GHz,
a part of the spectrum set aside for this use in this country,
but not worldwide.
This issue is at the center of today’s struggle between the US
and China over 5G technology and the role played by Chinese
telecommunications technology provider Huawei.
In the millimeter-wave band, signals do not propagate well
over long distances, which poses a problem: While acceptable
for dense urban and crowded indoor areas, where positioning
additional antennae is relatively easy, the higher frequencies
are ill-suited to open areas where frequent placement of an-
tennae is impractical. There, bands below six GHz (“sub-6”)
are more effective.
The trouble is, that spectrum isn’t available in the US for
general commercial use—it’s reserved for the Defense De-
partment. DOD must now determine if and how to share it
with commercial users.
Some suggest the military should focus on higher bands.
“Access to the 5G millimeter-wave bandwidth will be critical
to operations in all warfighting domains, in particular, space
C2,” wrote Air University scholars in a 2018 report. “[Electro-
magnetic spectrum] experts assess that 5G market share could
be ‘locked up’ by US competitors in under three years with no
second chances to enter the race.”
The Defense Innovation Board, however, came to a different
conclusion. It called DOD’s focus on millimeter-wave spectrum
“fundamentally flawed” and “impractical.”
“The United States may choose to continue down the path
of mmWave, but the rest of the world is focused on building
out sub-6 infrastructure, with China in the lead,” the DIB wrote.
“Although mmWave components are typically more compact
than sub-6 components, mmWave requires many more base
stations positioned within close proximity of one another to
maintain connection (and even then, there is still the risk that
interference such as objects moving in front of the base station
or weather will interrupt the connection).”
The board pointed to a 2010 broadband plan that could
offer a blueprint for sharing the sub-6 part of the spectrum
with non-DOD users by giving DOD priority access while
allowing commercial users access when that spectrum is not
in military use.
The DIB raised concerns that crowding sub-6 could re-
duce system performance and create vulnerabilities, and
that tools built for certain parts of the spectrum would not
be compatible with tools built for the others.“In the current 5G competition, neither DOD nor the United
States writ large is in a position to dictate the content and
integration of the 5G supply chain—our focus on building a
mmWave 5G ecosystem leaves us out of the global supply
chain for the sub-6 5G ecosystem,” the DIB wrote. “This
mismatch will create serious security risks for DOD going
forward if the rest of the world accepts Chinese products
as the cheaper and superior option for 5G.”
The DIB issued three public recommendations and one
classified suggestion to DOD for moving forward on 5G.
■ First, come up with a plan for sharing parts of the sub-6
GHz spectrum that lays out how much—and which—band-
widths should be shared, when, and how it may affect DOD
systems. Stop focusing on the more limited mmWave and
instead think about how to coexist with civil operations on
the 5G network. Prioritize moving to the most developed
bands to make the jump faster.
“5G capability requires larger bands of spectrum, and
without that additional bandwidth, the United States will
not gain true 5G capability beyond the limited range that
mmWave can provide,” according to the DIB. “In the next year,
DOD is in the position to enable or inhibit 5G adoption in
the United States based on its use of sub-6 GHz spectrum.”
■ Second, the report predicts the US will likely lose wire-
less network dominance. DOD should funnel research and
development funds toward system security and resiliency,
including testing and experimenting on technology past
5G, and must assume that all network infrastructure could
be hit by cyberattacks.
■ Third, the DIB wants DOD to advocate for a stronger
supply chain that is rewarded for its security and punished
with heavy tariffs when faults are discovered. The DIB said
the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing partners (the US, UK,
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and NATO should
adopt the same tariffs, and allies need to protect their own
industrial bases as well.
Notably, the DIB predicts the move to 5G could also
increase the likelihood of offensive cyber operations as
defense gets harder.
Ready or not, 5G is coming—and the Pentagon’s innova-
tion advisers aren’t entirely optimistic.
“Gaining a competitive edge over China [in sub-6] would
require action at a rate and magnitude previously unseen
within DOD,” the DIB warned. “For this reason, it is proba-
ble that most of the world outside of the United States will
adopt a sub-6 5G solution, forcing DOD to operate on a
‘post-Western’ wireless ecosystem.”
—Rachel S. CohenUnder EITaaS, the Air Force is outsourcing IT services to
AT&T and Microsoft under three-year agreements ending in
September 2021. Instead of buying a specialized, overarching
IT system, the companies will design a more efficient and
secure data network using commercial products at Buckley
AFB, Colo., Offutt AFB, Neb., JB Elmendorf-Richardson,
Alaska, Hurlburt Field, Fla., Cannon AFB, N.M., and Maxwell
AFB, Ala., according to the Defense Department.
The bases involved should see 5G by 2021 or 2022, Leff said.
Leff expects bases will see a combination of existing 4G LTE
coverage across the installation, plus 5G connectivity in spe-
cific areas like the flight line that demand better connectivity.
By casting a wide enough net across its bases, the Air
Force is trying to structure its 5G service in a way that air-
men won’t feel the difference in connectivity. It also needs
to figure out how to keep people and items connected once
they leave the base.
“The problem space is not going to be on the base, it’s go-
ing to be off the base,” Konieczny said. “We’re going to have
clusters of bases that have 5G but it may not be widespread
enough outside of that.”
Pentagon leaders have started speaking publicly about
their considerations for the next decade in telecommuni-
cations, albeit in broad terms.