A major decision has been made in Europe. According to the (draft) recommendation of the RSPG, most of the upper 6 GHz band will be allocated to mobile networks, with only a small portion left open for a later decision. This effectively ends the long-running debate over whether the band should be given to Wi-Fi technologies or future 6G networks. This blog analyses the EU’s battle over the 6 GHz band – and what is actually changing. It’s not just about radio planning – it’s about where future service innovation will be born.

What are other regions doing?

Globally, the 6 GHz band has split into three camps:

  • The USA and Canada have opened the entire band for unlicensed use → for Wi-Fi.
  • Around 10 other countries have also opened the full band for unlicensed Wi-Fi use.
  • China is pushing the band for licensed mobile (IMT) use.
  • Many countries – such as India – favour a hybrid approach.

The EU is now choosing a path somewhere between these two extremes.

What does the Wi-Fi ecosystem lose?

For the past 20 years, the Wi-Fi ecosystem has been the largest enabler of digital innovation. If we look at where the services that transformed consumer and enterprise life emerged, the list looks like this:

  • Netflix → video-on-demand revolution
  • YouTube, TikTok → content creation and distribution
  • Spotify → music streaming
  • WhatsApp, Messenger → communications
  • Teams, Zoom → the foundation of remote work
  • Steam, PlayStation Network, gaming platforms → online gaming services
  • IoT and smart home → growth of indoor networks

The vast majority of these did not originate on top of mobile networks, but in the open internet/Wi-Fi environment – because that’s where innovation happens: cheap and fast, without operator agreements, enabled by global device volumes and located where people actually use data (homes, offices, campuses). Cellular networks play a critical role in coverage, mobility and national infrastructure, but historically, they have not been the source of service innovation.

With the USA and a dozen other countries opening the entire 6 GHz band for unlicensed use, it is expected that the next wave of indoor service innovation will emerge in the Wi-Fi ecosystem. Europe risks being left outside this wave.
Yes, the EU has opened roughly half of that capacity for Wi-Fi – a major expansion after 15 years – but much of it is still unused.

What does the cellular side gain?

For the 6G era, mobile networks gain:

  • Additional spectrum and capacity
  • Better opportunities to build industrial and public-safety networks
  • A strategic advantage for the European telecom technology sector
  • A competitive position against China and India

These are crucial infrastructure benefits, but they do not directly translate into new consumer services – at least not quickly.

Who will pay for the next investment cycle?

Allocating the upper 6 GHz band to mobile networks triggers a new investment wave for operators: new radio equipment, new base stations, new device generations and in some cases, denser networks.

This mirrors the transition from 4G → 5G, which did not deliver the expected economic returns or breakthrough services.

It is therefore reasonable to ask: Can operators’ cash flow withstand another investment cycle when 5G failed to deliver on its promises?

4G → 5G: Great networks, weak service innovation

The promises of 5G – autonomous vehicles, mass-market XR, ultra-low-latency applications – never materialized.
The actual outcome was: somewhat better speeds, more capacity, the same ARPU, very few new services.

Yet services are what change everyday life and create economic growth.

6G visions are sounding familiar – but now with AI sprinkled on top. Many of today’s 6G service projections come from AI-focused companies (e.g., NVIDIA) – organizations that clearly have a vested interest in increasing compute demand. This raises the important question: Are 6G visions truly market-driven, or is the industry repeating the 5G hype under a new label?

Where will more service innovation occur – Wi-Fi (open) or cellular (closed)?

This is the core question.

In the Wi-Fi world:

  • Fast, consumer- and business-driven innovation
  • Low barrier to experimentation
  • The USA drives global device and application ecosystems
  • Small companies and start-ups can innovate without operators

Conclusion: Most service innovation is likely to continue emerging in the Wi-Fi ecosystem – as seen with Netflix, Spotify, WhatsApp, TikTok, Zoom and many others. The USA will lead this.

In the cellular world:

  • Large but infrequent innovations (mainly infrastructure-based)
  • Very long investment cycles
  • New services rarely change consumer life directly
  • Conclusion: Cellular brings strategic infrastructure value, but not the same breadth of service innovation.

Final reflections

If Europe’s goal is:

  • to build a strong industrial 6G ecosystem → mobile networks need the upper 6 GHz band
  • to enable new, life-changing service innovation → Wi-Fi would be the stronger choice

With the USA opening the entire band for unlicensed use, the centre of gravity for service innovation is shifting further toward Wi-Fi. Europe may end up with excellent 6G networks, while actual service innovation happens elsewhere.

As a result, we will likely return to familiar arguments that content providers should pay for mobile network costs.
This debate has already surfaced in the EU under the “fair share” model, in which large content and platform providers would be required to contribute to network funding.

This is why the 6 GHz decision is not just technical. It is a decision about the environment in which Europe’s future digital services will be created.

Is the EU prioritising cellular industry protection over service innovation?

Although the EU’s official stance emphasises “balance”, “digital sovereignty” and “infrastructure development”, in practice the 6 GHz decision strongly suggests that cellular industry interests are being prioritised over the service innovation ecosystem.

European operators have been under financial pressure for years, and the EU has repeatedly stated that building and upgrading networks requires financially sustainable operators.
This is effectively a form of industrial policy aimed at ensuring Europe retains telecom and network equipment competitiveness against China and the USA.

Meanwhile, the services that define the modern digital economy – Netflix, Spotify, WhatsApp, TikTok, Teams, Zoom and many others – were not created by mobile network capabilities, but by the open ecosystem of Wi-Fi, cloud and the internet.

With the USA opening the entire 6 GHz band and creating a massive global sandbox for Wi-Fi-based innovation, Europe’s emphasis on infrastructure over service innovation may weaken its long-term competitive position.

In other words: even if the intention is not to “pick sides”, the practical effect is that EU spectrum policy favours the stability of the cellular industry more than the agile innovation environments where digital value is created.

 

Hannu Rokka, Senior Advisor
5Feet Networks Oy