The real value of slicing lies in its ability to logically partition network resources within a mobile operator’s existing licensed spectrum
Commentary contributed by Dean Bubley to RCR Wireless News earlier this week contended that 5G network slicing is overhyped, but the fact remains that slicing is underway and growing. The larger policy issue is the degree nations should allocate scare spectrum resources through competitive bidding, via ”beauty contest” allocation for unlicensed uses, or through managed sharing regimes.
It appears that policy preference for competitive bidding has won with the endorsement of Senator Ted Cruz’s spectrum modernization legislation by three of the Senate’s leading defense hawks and his proposal to reallocate 800 MHz of prime mid-band spectrum, including 500 MHz from underutilized Department of Defense holdings. This underscores the need for more efficient use of federal spectrum and signals growing recognition that the U.S. military must modernize its spectrum strategy and adopt advanced tools like 5G slicing. This article offers a review of active deployments and a broader understanding of 5G slicing’s role in the evolving wireless ecosystem.
Operational reality: Not just theory
Author Dean Bubley claims that slicing “does not translate to live networks.” Yet standalone 5G (5G SA), which enables slicing, is growing globally. Slicing leverages exclusive-use, licensed spectrum for manufacturing, broadcasting, public safety, defense and utilities, with guaranteed performance and security. To dismiss slicing because it’s deployed on some but not all 5G networks is like saying autonomous driving is a failure because not every road is mapped. As with any transformative technology, deployment is progressive.
The real value of slicing lies in its ability to logically partition network resources within a mobile operator’s existing licensed spectrum, enabling isolated and dedicated performance for use cases like public safety, critical infrastructure, broadcast, or enterprise services —without requiring more spectrum or hardware. It’s about creating efficient, secure and scalable service layers within one network. By contrast, shared spectrum like Wi-Fi offers an opportunity to share, but no guarantee of performance.
Launched with Tour de France in 2022, TV2 Denmark uses 5G wireless cameras to transmit live sports, a feat awarded with an engineering prize. Head of News for TV2 Morten Brandstrup explains, “On a commercial 5G network, we can achieve high video quality with latency as low as 250 ms, without optimization — bringing us close to the latency we see with our fixed fiber cameras.” T-Mobile’s “T-Priority” slice for public safety and Deutsche Telekom’s 3.6 GHz slicing for live broadcasting and industrial campus networks represent real-world implementation. Across Nordic nations, slicing has been tested at scale with more than 10,000 connected military units, showcasing its technical maturity.
Slicing vs. sharing: False binary
The RCR article claims slicing “cannot replace shared-spectrum models such as CBRS.”. Unlike CBRS, slicing avoids the complex bureaucracies and interference protections that inhibit shared-band usage. CBRS has been a useful experiment with 70 MHz, but its practical limitations are increasingly evident:
- Low Utilization: MNOs have not adopted CBRS as a primary serving layer, likely due to radiated power limits and interference concerns. Verizon uses it sparingly; AT&T proposed a reverse auction to relocate incumbents.
- Low Power: CBRS Category A devices are capped at 30 dBm EIRP; even Category B (47 dBm) is modest compared to licensed-band deployments. The FCC has not yet approved the more capable Category C.
- Low ROI to the American people: The CBRS auction raised $4.6 billion (est. $0.21 USD/MHz/pop.). Compare that to the C-band auction, which raised $94 billion with an estimated ($1.12 USD/MHz/pop.), the 3.45 GHz auction at $21.9 billion (est ($0.73 USD/MHz/pop.). The market has spoken.
CBRS was a compromise solution for a band the US Navy couldn’t or wouldn’t vacate. Its low energy and restrictive rules make it unsuitable for large-scale or mission-critical 5G. As soon as better spectrum becomes available, operators pivot. The DoD’s own reported interest in AT&T’s plan to repurpose CBRS underlines this reality. Indeed, Senator Cruz’s spectrum proposal for clean, unencumbered spectrum attests to the superiority of licensed, exclusive use spectrum, garnering a favorable Congressional Budget Office expectation of $85 billion in ROI.
Global relevance: A narrow view of the market
Cable networks are an important part of U.S. broadband competition but are not central players in wireless innovation globally. The DOCSIS roadmap may matter in North America, but most global wireless innovation is driven by 5G, including Fixed Wireless Access (FWA), slicing and mobile edge computing. No one outside the U.S. is racing to be first to DOCSIS 4.0.
Meanwhile, 5G FWA now accounts for all net broadband subscriber growth in the U.S. since mid-2022, according to OpenSignal and one-third of the global total by 2030. Consumers are voting with their wallets. Cable companies, recognizing the threat, now promote wireless MVNOs to compete.
The U.S. debate over slicing and spectrum is occurring in a context of policy stasis. The failure to authorize new auctions and fill the pipeline has forced satisficing: using CBRS because nothing better is available, even when it underperforms. But satisficing is not strategy — it’s inertia. Cable operators have a legitimate need for spectrum to meet evolving demands. This necessity supports the case for modernizing outdated ownership and consolidation rules and allowing greater integration between wireless and cable entities.
Slicing is a strategic asset
Bubley’s dismissal of slicing for military use is particularly shortsighted. Adversaries are already fielding 5G slicing for battlefield advantage — prioritizing communications, isolating units and operating across difficult terrain. The U.S. cannot afford to dismiss a tool that enables secure, mission-tailored performance without requiring new hardware, spectrum or regulation.
Indeed, slicing lets the military emulate the benefits of dedicated spectrum, using existing infrastructure, with guaranteed latency, throughput and isolation. That’s not science fiction — it’s an available advantage.
Conclusion: The debate we should be having
Network slicing and spectrum sharing aren’t either-or. Both have value in the right contexts. But slicing offers real-world capabilities without waiting for new spectrum or building parallel infrastructure. Instead of debating theoretical limits, policymakers should focus on enabling deployment of 5G SA and investment in scalable, efficient networks. Moreover, the U.S. should be leading on slicing, not lagging.
