The Financial Express recently reported that the central government is considering allocating the upper portion of the 6 GHz band for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT), specifically for the deployment of 5G and future 6G technologies. The 6 GHz band spans from 5925 MHz to 7125 MHz, offering a total of 1200 MHz of spectrum. Of this, the Government of India (GoI) plans to allocate the upper segment from 6425 MHz to 7125 MHz, amounting to 700 MHz—a significant portion but still leaving 500 MHz unallocated.
To put this in perspective, the 3.5 GHz band currently allocated for IMT services in India ranges from 3300 MHz to 3670 MHz, offering 370 MHz of spectrum. The proposed 6 GHz allocation is nearly 1.9 times larger than the 3.5 GHz band, which may seem promising in addressing spectrum scarcity and easing capacity bottlenecks in the Indian mobile industry.
However, this raises critical questions:
- Will this additional spectrum truly alleviate network congestion and expand capacity for Indian telecom operators?
- How will consumers benefit from this new allocation, especially considering the current network configurations and the capabilities of existing 5G deployments?
- What level of additional investment will telecom operators need to make to utilize this spectrum effectively, particularly in terms of increasing tower density?
- Is this level of investment practically feasible, given the operational and physical challenges the industry already faces in expanding infrastructure?
This article will critically examine these questions by analyzing the propagation limitations of the 6 GHz band, evaluating the infrastructure challenges and financial implications of its deployment, and determining whether this spectrum is truly viable for mobile broadband or better suited for specialized use cases like Fixed Wireless Access (FWA). If the analysis indicates that the 6 GHz band is more appropriate for FWA, the article will also explore the additional policy measures and strategic steps the Government of India must undertake to fully harness the potential of this spectrum for high-capacity, last-mile connectivity solutions.
Can the 6 GHz Band Match 3.5 GHz Coverage?
As a higher frequency band, the 6 GHz spectrum inherently suffers from greater signal attenuation, causing radio waves to travel significantly shorter distances compared to the lower frequency bands currently used for commercial mobile networks in India. The closest operational band to 6 GHz is the 3.5 GHz band, which serves as the backbone for existing 5G deployments. Since telecom operators have designed their tower infrastructure to optimize coverage and capacity for the propagation characteristics of the 3.5 GHz band, it is practical to use this as a benchmark when assessing the impact of introducing the 6 GHz band.
By comparing the propagation range and coverage of the 6 GHz band with that of the 3.5 GHz band, we can estimate the scale of additional infrastructure—particularly the number of Base Transceiver Stations (BTS)—that operators would need to deploy. This comparison is essential for understanding how much more capital expenditure (CAPEX) and physical infrastructure expansion would be required to deliver seamless coverage to consumers that matches or exceeds the performance of existing 5G networks. Without this expanded infrastructure, it would be challenging for telecom operators to ensure consistent, high-quality service using the 6 GHz band.
Estimating the Additional CAPEX for 6 GHz Deployment
Deploying the 6 GHz band for mobile networks will substantially increase capital expenditure (CAPEX) due to its significantly reduced signal propagation range. Specifically, the 6 GHz signal can only cover 51.8% of the distance that the current 3.5 GHz band can cover. This sharp reduction in coverage is a direct consequence of the higher frequency of the 6 GHz band, which naturally experiences greater signal attenuation.
To quantify this impact, the Free Space Path Loss (FSPL) model was used. This model represents a best-case scenario for signal propagation, assuming ideal conditions with no physical obstructions, interference, or environmental factors. By comparing the propagation characteristics of the 3.5 GHz and 6 GHz bands using the FSPL model, we can clearly understand the scale of infrastructure expansion required.
The analysis shows that the increased path loss in the 6 GHz band leads to a much smaller coverage radius. Since the coverage area is proportional to the square of the radius, this reduction in distance results in an even more significant loss in coverage area. Consequently, to match the coverage of existing 3.5 GHz networks, mobile operators would need to deploy at least 3.7 times more towers. This dramatic increase in infrastructure requirements would drive up CAPEX considerably, posing substantial financial and operational challenges for telecom operators already managing high spectrum costs and operational expenses.
For readers interested in understanding the detailed mathematical calculations behind this estimation, please refer to the step-by-step breakdown provided below.
Can Relaxed EMF Threshold Rules Help Operators Mitigate CAPEX?
The short answer is no. As explained in my previous article, Electromagnetic Field (EMF) thresholds are determined based on the “worst-case principle.” This means that the maximum allowable power output from a Base Transceiver Station (BTS) is governed by the lowest frequency band operating at the site. In practical terms, this implies that even if higher frequencies like the 6 GHz band are introduced, the BTS’s overall power output is still constrained by the lower frequency bands (e.g., 700 MHz, 800 MHz, or 900 MHz) integrated within the same tower infrastructure.
Given that the 6 GHz band will almost certainly not be deployed in isolation but rather combined with these lower frequency bands, the power limits remain effectively capped. Although relaxed EMF regulations could theoretically allow the BTS to transmit more power—potentially increasing from the current 1 Watt to 5 Watts—this change does not translate into meaningful coverage gains for higher frequency bands like 6 GHz. The fundamental issue of higher signal attenuation at 6 GHz cannot be overcome merely by increasing power output due to these regulatory and technical constraints.
As a result, operators cannot rely on relaxed EMF rules to offset the substantial CAPEX required to densify network infrastructure for 6 GHz deployment.
Why the 6 GHz Band is Best Suited for Fixed Wireless Access (FWA)
Given the significant propagation challenges and high infrastructure costs associated with deploying the 6 GHz band for mobile networks, its most practical and effective use case lies in Fixed Wireless Access (FWA). In FWA deployments, the signal is delivered to a fixed receiver, typically installed outside a home or building. This receiver can utilize larger, high-gain antennas, which are far more effective at capturing signals than the compact antennas in mobile handsets. The larger antenna size and improved design significantly enhance the link margin, resulting in better signal reception and faster data download speeds.
Moreover, the 6 GHz band offers a substantial bandwidth advantage. Compared to the 3.5 GHz band, where operators typically have access to around 100 MHz of spectrum, the 6 GHz band could provide at least 200 MHz per operator due to its larger total spectrum availability. This expanded bandwidth enables much higher data throughput, supporting more users and delivering faster internet speeds.
Additionally, the higher frequency and shorter wavelength of the 6 GHz band allow for the creation of sharper, more focused beams through beamforming technology. This leads to more efficient signal targeting and reduced interference, further improving network performance. The smaller wavelength also reduces the size of transmitting antennas, making them easier and cheaper to deploy. This combination of increased capacity, sharper beamforming, and more efficient infrastructure makes the 6 GHz band highly suitable for FWA, offering a cost-effective solution for delivering high-speed broadband without the need for extensive tower densification.
Challenges and Opportunities for FWA Services in India
The critical question that needs to be addressed is whether India truly requires additional spectrum for Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) beyond what is already available. Currently, Indian telecom operators have access to 100 MHz of spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band and approximately 800 MHz to 1 GHz in the 26 GHz millimeter-wave (mmWave) band. However, the 26 GHz band remains largely underutilized due to its extremely limited coverage range and poor penetration capabilities. This means that the total spectrum available for FWA services today ranges from 900 MHz to 1,100 MHz.
Introducing an additional 200 MHz in the 6 GHz band could expand this capacity to 1.1 GHz to 1.3 GHz for market-leading operators. This additional bandwidth has the potential to significantly enhance download speeds for end consumers, providing a major performance boost over current network capabilities. However, this surge in network capacity introduces a new challenge—existing in-home WiFi routers are not equipped to handle such high-speed connections effectively. Most homes still rely on legacy 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz WiFi bands, which are inadequate for distributing ultra-fast FWA speeds throughout the house. Moreover, not all household devices can be connected via wired connections, further limiting the ability to fully utilize these faster connections.
To truly harness the enhanced FWA speeds enabled by the 6 GHz band, India must prioritize the adoption of advanced WiFi technologies, such as WiFi 7. These next-generation routers support carrier aggregation across multiple frequency bands and offer larger channel sizes, making them capable of managing the higher data throughput. However, this also calls for opening up additional unlicensed WiFi spectrum beyond what is currently available to ensure seamless indoor connectivity.
Unlocking the Right WiFi Bands: Why India Must Open the 6 GHz Spectrum for WiFi
To fully capitalize on the potential of high-speed Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) and future digital services, India must prioritize expanding its WiFi spectrum. One effective approach is to delicence a portion of the 6 GHz band, specifically from 5925 MHz to 6470 MHz, adding an additional 500 MHz for unlicensed WiFi use. This would significantly expand India’s total WiFi spectrum capacity, which currently stands at 680 MHz—with 80 MHz in the 2.4 GHz band and 600 MHz in the 5 GHz band. Introducing this extra 500 MHz would raise the total available WiFi spectrum to 1,180 MHz, substantially enhancing indoor connectivity. See figure below.
However, it is important to recognize a key practical limitation: WiFi spectrum cannot be directly compared to licensed mobile spectrum in terms of capacity. Licensed spectrum, like that used for 5G, is exclusively allocated to specific operators, allowing them to use the entire assigned block without interference. In contrast, WiFi operates on a shared, unlicensed basis, where multiple users and devices contend for the same frequency bands. This shared access means that even with more available spectrum, not all of it can be utilized simultaneously due to congestion and interference from other users.
By expanding the WiFi spectrum, India would increase the probability of devices finding clear, wide spectrum blocks necessary to handle the surge of bandwidth delivered by high-capacity FWA connections. Without this expansion, the massive data inflow from external FWA receivers—especially those powered by the high-capacity 6 GHz band—cannot be effectively distributed within homes and enterprises. Legacy WiFi bands (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz) are already congested and lack the bandwidth needed to support these ultra-fast connections.
In summary, unless India opens more spectrum for WiFi—particularly in the 6 GHz band—the potential of FWA and other high-speed services will remain underutilized. Expanding unlicensed WiFi bands is essential for efficiently distributing the vast capacity delivered by external FWA receivers, ensuring that the 6 GHz spectrum and future bands are not wasted but fully leveraged for enhanced digital connectivity.
Conclusion
India stands at a critical crossroads in its spectrum allocation strategy. While the 6 GHz band offers a substantial increase in available spectrum, its deployment for mobile broadband is neither practical nor economically viable. The harsh reality is that the 6 GHz band suffers from poor propagation characteristics, covering only 51.8% of the distance that the 3.5 GHz band can reach. Bridging this gap would require telecom operators to invest in nearly 3.7 times more towers, driving capital expenditure (CAPEX) to unsustainable levels—especially for an industry already burdened by high spectrum fees and operational costs.
Relaxed EMF thresholds provide no relief, as regulatory and technical constraints limit the ability to increase transmit power. Simply put, the 6 GHz band is ill-suited for nationwide mobile broadband deployment. However, it holds immense promise for Fixed Wireless Access (FWA), where targeted deployments using high-gain antennas can deliver ultra-fast internet to underserved areas without the need for extensive network expansion.
But even FWA’s success depends on India addressing a critical bottleneck: indoor WiFi distribution. The current 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz WiFi bands are already congested and insufficient to handle the surge of data that FWA can deliver. Without unlocking additional unlicensed spectrum—especially the lower portion of the 6 GHz band (5925–6470 MHz) for WiFi—the full potential of FWA and the 6 GHz band will remain untapped.
The government must make a strategic choice: force-fit the 6 GHz band into mobile broadband, burdening operators with crippling infrastructure costs, or wisely allocate it to FWA and unlicensed WiFi use, unlocking faster, more accessible internet for millions. If India is serious about accelerating digital connectivity, the path forward is clear: prioritize FWA deployment and expand WiFi spectrum access. Anything less would be a missed opportunity for India’s digital future.
