CBRS and the uncertain future of spectrum sharing

As regulatory uncertainty looms and carriers recalibrate, CBRS — once the model for spectrum sharing — stands at a critical inflection point

In sum – what to know:

Policy ambiguity – CBRS sits in regulatory limbo between federal and commercial oversight.

Rural risk – Weakening the CBRS framework would hit small and mid-sized ISPs hardest. Bernhardt called the potential impact “massive.”

Shared-spectrum leadership – Dismantling CBRS would erode U.S. leadership in cooperative spectrum use.

The shared-spectrum model that once looked like the blueprint for wireless innovation is now at a critical juncture. For more than a decade, the 3.5 GHz CBRS band has served as a proving ground for rural broadband providers, private networks, and neutral-host operators alike. But as our recent coverage shows — including James Blackman’s deep dive on the topic — that promise is under threat.

A recent conversation with Richard Bernhardt, vice president of Spectrum and Industry at WISPA, reinforced two realities: CBRS remains one of the most compelling, flexible spectrum tools in U.S. telecom — and it’s facing seismic uncertainty.

The shared spectrum success story — and why it matters

Bernhardt pointed out that CBRS enabled countless rural ISPs to deploy fixed-wireless access that simply wouldn’t have been viable on traditional licensed mid-bands. He credited it with clean spectrum that delivers professional-grade performance at a fraction of the cost.

That democratization of wireless access dovetails with another narrative: private enterprise networks. CBRS has given airports, universities, and manufacturers the ability to harness 4G/5G-style capabilities without navigating the legacy carrier model.

“You have what was deemed an experimental band that has long since come away from being an experimental band that’s transitioned into an actively shared resource for very, very expansive amounts of uses,” he said.

But the ‘crisis’ isn’t just hype — and it wouldn’t be cheap

As Blackman detailed, carriers such as T‑Mobile US are scaling back their neutral-host CBRS participation — citing performance, licensing complexity, and strategic alignment with licensed mid-bands.

Bernhardt was frank about the consequences: Rural operators, neutral-host backers and clients alike face what he called “massive” risk if regulatory or policy shifts dismantle the shared-use model.

He warned that if this uncertainty lingers, investment will dry up. “Why would they invest in something if they don’t know the future?” he pointed out, adding that dismantling CBRS would come at an enormous financial and operational cost. Beyond the $4.9 billion from Auction 105, the government would have to compensate or replace countless stakeholders — SAS operators, GAA providers, private networks, and equipment makers — while disrupting millions of users. In his words, policymakers might “make a few bucks today and lose tens of billions tomorrow,” as dismantling the ecosystem would erase years of investment and progress without any ready alternative.

Signal for the future: Shared spectrum or back to exclusivity?

The stakes couldn’t be higher. CBRS has become a global example of how disaggregation and shared access can work — even without exclusive licenses. Yet if U.S. policy swings back toward sole-use auctions or if carriers deprioritize neutral-host architectures, it may signal the end of the “innovation band” era.

Bernhardt stressed that the technical successes — zero documented interference events between CBRS commercial deployments and federal users — show the model works when managed. But the question now is whether the business case and policy certainty will remain intact.

From the rural ISP serving underserved counties to the factory deploying private 5G, CBRS already powers value that extends well beyond traditional telco territory. As Bernhardt explained, CBRS isn’t clearly federal or non-federal — it’s shared. And that lack of clarity leaves operators, manufacturers, and spectrum managers all waiting to find out if they’ll still have a band to operate in.

He noted that part of the band, specifically the upper 50 MHz, “has no military or government aspect to it,” yet remains ambiguously classified. This ambiguity raises concerns that CBRS could be “removed and repurposed for auction” under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), as the NTIA and FCC struggle to determine which agency should oversee its future use.

With the neutral-host community watching, carriers realigning and regulators evaluating spectrum auctions, this moment could define whether shared spectrum continues as a growth engine — or becomes a cautionary tale.

“Get rid of the uncertainties,” Bernhardt urged federal policymakers. “If not, the government will lose its edge on sharing … and the trust of the commercial industry.”