The Federal Communications Commission’s recent spectrum auctions have materially reshaped the mid-band landscape that electromagnetic warfare practitioners rely on for sensing, training, and operational testing. Commercial winners consolidated large contiguous mid-band blocks and pushed previously federal spectrum into commercial hands. That shift improves civilian 5G capacity but constrains how and where EW systems can operate without close coordination with federal spectrum managers.
What the auctions changed, in plain terms
Two auctions are most relevant to EW planners. Auction 107, the C-band sale (3.7 to 3.98 GHz), transferred 280 MHz of mid-band spectrum to commercial carriers in early 2021 and produced roughly $81 billion in gross proceeds. This sale concentrated powerful terrestrial signals in a band that sits next to frequencies used by some aircraft radio altimeters and by various DoD systems.
Auction 110, which opened the 3.45 to 3.55 GHz range for flexible commercial use, concluded in January 2022 with about $22.5 billion in gross proceeds and 4,041 licenses awarded to a mix of national carriers and regional or investment-backed entities. The 3.45 GHz band had long hosted federal radar and EW-related uses, so its commercialization required relocation plans and sharing mechanisms in many operational areas.
Operational impacts on EW capabilities
1) Reduced contiguous federal mid-band real estate. Auctions that reallocate mid-band frequencies reduce the size of contiguous blocks where DoD can test high-power radar emissions, exercise wideband jamming tactics, or run multi-sensor EW experiments without risking harmful interference to commercial systems. That forces more complex geographic coordination, increases scheduling friction for ranges, and raises costs for frequency relocation or equipment modification.
2) Increased need for protection zones and exclusion areas. When carriers deploy high-power base stations in former federal bands, DoD and other agencies must ensure permanent protections around bases, shipyards, test ranges, and critical maritime lanes. Those protections tend to be carved out during rulemaking and transition planning, but they are rarely a full substitute for unconstrained spectrum access. The NTIA and DoD technical coordination that preceded the 3.45 GHz action emphasized the need for such carve outs and dynamic sharing mechanisms.
3) More complex interference environments for airborne systems. The C-band auction and subsequent commercial deployments highlighted how adjacent-band commercial operations can affect avionics, most notably radar altimeters. The FAA and aviation stakeholders documented potential interactions between C-band 5G and certain classes of radio altimeters, which in turn forced mitigations, testing, and equipment upgrades. Those same concerns translate directly to EW programs that operate airborne receivers or conduct flight tests near commercial deployments.
4) New spectrum ownership patterns. Auction 110 produced a mix of incumbents and nontraditional winners. Large carriers, satellite operators and investor-backed entities now hold overlapping and geographically patchy rights. That heterogeneity complicates spectrum access agreements for EW researchers and range managers who once coordinated with a smaller list of federal users or a few spectrum holders.
Policy and programmatic consequences for EW planners
The FCC’s auction authority and the political environment matter for long term planning. Across 2023 there was a notable pause and uncertainty around future auctions due to statutory authorization questions and interagency coordination pressures. That uncertainty affects the pace of DoD relocation planning and investment in spectrum sharing technologies. EW program leads cannot assume a steady pipeline of new spectrum or predictable timelines for future reallocations.
Practical mitigations and tactical recommendations
1) Map licenses against range footprints. EW range operators should maintain up to date licensing overlays for all nearby commercial holdings. Knowing which licensees control adjacent sectors and their planned deployment timelines lets range managers design exclusion corridors and negotiate mitigations early. Auction public reporting tools provide the raw license and bidder data needed for this work.
2) Push for dynamic sharing and SAS-style controls where feasible. Dynamic sharing frameworks reduce the need for wholesale relocation by allowing commercial systems to operate around protected federal users through real time coordination. For mid-band scenarios similar to the 3.45 GHz case, a properly engineered sharing system preserves commercial utility while protecting EW test activities. Technical studies that informed the 3.45 GHz transition favored time and location based sharing in many areas.
3) Harden airborne and test sensors to adjacent-band emissions. The C-band experience shows commercial rollout can create previously unconstrained interference moments. EW sensor designers should account for stronger adjacent band energy and incorporate front end filtering, notch capabilities, and software mitigation strategies into future platforms. Aviation retrofits and FAA directives around altimeters are a practical example of that need.
4) Maintain political and interagency engagement. Spectrum reallocation is a policy problem as much as a technical one. EW community stakeholders need to engage in FCC and NTIA rulemakings, provide test data when asked, and support funding mechanisms for relocation and testing. The congressional conversations around auction authority in 2023 created tangible scheduling uncertainty for agencies and industry.
5) Use commercial partnerships where helpful. Where spectrum cannot be preserved, consider partnering with licensees for controlled access windows or colocated testing facilities. Some regional and wholesale license holders who bought blocks in Auction 110 may be willing to negotiate controlled test access for a fee or reciprocal capability sharing.
Bottom line for EW practitioners
The FCC auctions that opened the C-band and the 3.45 GHz range to commercial use materially changed the operational landscape for electromagnetic warfare. Those changes are manageable if EW programs treat spectrum as an operational constraint to be planned for, not as a permanent entitlement. That means proactive mapping, hardening of sensors, smart sharing architectures, and continuous policy engagement. Expect more friction around mid-band testing and operations, and budget accordingly for relocation, filtering upgrades, and coordination overhead.