On 1 September 2026, Ofcom opened a call for input on UK preparations for WRC-27. Responses close on 24 November 2026. According to Bratby Law's summary and PolicyTracker, the UK is minded to oppose identifying IMT (mobile) in three of the four candidate ranges under agenda item 1.7. It would support only 7125-7250 MHz. The positions are provisional. I could not confirm the band-by-band positions on Ofcom's own web page, which does not list them, so they rest on that secondary coverage.
The case for Ofcom's caution
The strongest argument for Ofcom's stance is that mobile identification is not harmless. An ITU identification does not oblige any country to deploy. It does, however, shape equipment ecosystems and create pressure to clear incumbents. The incumbents here are real. Per the CEPT and ITU-R work, 4400-4800 MHz carries military systems, including in international waters and airspace. A WP 5D sub-group chair has reported no consensus on technical assumptions for radio altimeters in that band, and aircraft safety is not a place to run optimistic sharing models. The 7-8 GHz range hosts satellite earth stations and Earth observation downlinks. Satellite interests argue that sharing with IMT has not been shown to be feasible. Ofcom also says it is unconvinced that a clear case for more mobile spectrum has been made, and the UK opposed adding the item to the agenda in 2023.
That is a reasonable regulatory posture. Spectrum is not free, and mobile demand forecasts have a history of running ahead of operator capex.
Where the position is strong
The 7125-7250 MHz exception is well chosen. The UK has already decided outside the WRC process to make 6425-6585 MHz available for Wi-Fi and prioritise 6585-7125 MHz for mobile. Identifying the next 125 MHz would give a clean upper boundary and align the UK with the European position in CEPT. Aligning with the CEPT bloc matters because equipment scale, cross-border coordination and roaming all follow from it. It also keeps the UK from fighting every battle at once. A narrow, well-evidenced ask will carry more weight in Shanghai than a blanket refusal.
Opposing the military-heavy 4.4 GHz range is also the lower-risk choice. Consumer mobile gains there would be modest compared with the safety cost of getting altimeter protection wrong.
Where the position is weaker
The weakness is the framing that a clear case for more spectrum has not been made. Three points push back on it.
- Scale. The candidate ranges under Resolution 256 (WRC-23) span roughly 2.2 GHz of nominal bandwidth, counting 400 MHz at 4.4 GHz, 1,275 MHz at 7-8 GHz and 550 MHz at 14.8-15.35 GHz. At 125 MHz, the UK's one supported slice is about 6% of that. Backing so little leaves the UK with little influence over the technical conditions that will govern the rest.
- Opposition is not neutral. A "no" at the identification stage forecloses 6G capacity options for roughly a decade, because the next WRC agenda will not be set until after 2027. The costs of that fall on consumers and on UK operators competing for investment, not on regulators.
- Sharing is a technical question, not a binary one. The studies are not finished. The ITU-R work is about halfway through, and parts of the 7-8 GHz range, such as the 7750-8400 MHz sub-range in Region 1, are being studied separately from the whole. A blanket opposition to 7250-8400 MHz and 14.8-15.35 GHz risks ignoring sub-bands where protection conditions such as power limits, exclusion zones or out-of-band emission masks might make coexistence workable.
The pro-innovation test is not whether mobile gets everything. It is whether the regulator has published the evidence behind each refusal so that it can be challenged.
What the consultation should demand
Three things would make the final UK position stronger.
- Band-by-band evidence. Ofcom should publish the coexistence analysis behind each opposition, including the military and Earth-observation assumptions, so that operators and satellite firms can test it. Independent technical critique is the point of a call for input.
- Conditional language. Where studies are incomplete, the UK should oppose identification "unless specified protection conditions are agreed" rather than oppose outright. That keeps the door open without risking incumbents.
- A demand-side test. Ofcom should state what traffic growth or use-case evidence would change its view on mid-band capacity. Without it, "no clear case" cannot be falsified.
The approach also matters beyond the UK. Many regulators watching WRC-27 will take cues from Ofcom's technical depth. A position that is evidence-led and narrow, but open to revision, is a better template than reflexive refusal in either direction.
The bottom line
Ofcom is right that identification should not be handed out on hype, and right to protect aviation safety and satellite services. But a stance that supports 125 MHz and rejects the rest, justified chiefly by an absence of proof, shifts the burden onto mobile operators without telling them what proof would count. The call for input runs to 24 November 2026, and the conference itself is scheduled for Shanghai in late 2027. There is time to turn a cautious position into an accountable one. Respondents on every side, from operators to satellite firms to aviation bodies, should use it to demand published studies and explicit conditions.
One caveat: the item 1.7 studies are unfinished, and the UK positions are provisional. Both could move before the conference.