I was a bidder in Auction 97 back in 2014, and I watched Verizon make a decision that looked disciplined at the time: cap its budget at $10 billion and walk away from licenses it could have won. Eleven years later, the company is still paying for that decision.
That’s the real story behind this month’s flood of spectrum and space news, and it raises an uncomfortable question for rural broadband operators: what decisions are you making today that could still be shaping your business a decade from now?
For rural broadband operators, effective wireless spectrum strategy isn’t just about winning auctions, it’s about making decisions today that remain competitive as technology, markets, and customer expectations evolve.
A Reasonable Spectrum Decision, a Decade of Consequences
Let’s start with what actually happened, because the pattern matters more than the company itself. The lesson isn’t unique to Verizon. It’s about how wireless spectrum strategy can create long-term competitive advantages or long-term costs.
In Auction 97, Verizon stuck to its $10 billion budget and let licenses go. The public rationale was straightforward: mmWave spectrum and network densification would meet future capacity needs. The company believed in that strategy strongly enough to largely sit out the broadcast incentive auction.
This wasn’t reckless. It was a thoughtful strategy built on assumptions that seemed reasonable at the time.
Then physics got in the way. mmWave propagation proved far more limited than the strategy required. By the time Verizon adjusted course, the price of correcting that assumption had exploded. In 2021, the company spent $45.5 billion in the C-band auction, the largest spectrum investment made by any carrier, to acquire mid-band spectrum.
And the story still isn’t over.
In the AWS-3 re-auction that closed last month, Verizon spent another $3.16 billion, representing about 90% of the entire auction, concentrated in the very markets where it continues to face spectrum shortages.
Compare that with AT&T, which barely participated because it had already secured 600 MHz and 3.45 GHz spectrum through its EchoStar deal (a strategic acquisition that was an answer to Verizon’s large C-band holdings), outside the auction entirely. Or T-Mobile, which spent a relatively modest $278 million to fill rural coverage gaps.
Two carriers solved their spectrum challenges before bidding even began. One is still paying, twelve years later, to correct a decision that looked perfectly reasonable when it was made. That’s what makes wireless spectrum strategy so consequential: the cost of correcting a missed opportunity is often far greater than the cost of acting early.
That’s the lesson I keep coming back to. In this industry, strategic mistakes rarely announce themselves. They look like discipline. They look like focus. By the time the flaw becomes obvious, fixing it costs several times more than the original opportunity, and you’re bidding against everyone else who recognized it sooner. Whether you’re managing a national wireless network or a rural broadband business, the underlying principle is the same: today’s strategic assumptions shape tomorrow’s competitive position.
What Assumptions Are We Making Today?
That brings me to the rest of this month’s news. Rocket Lab agreed to pay $8 billion for Iridium, largely because of a spectrum position its CEO described as nearly impossible to recreate. SpaceX went public at a valuation that’s sending even more capital toward space infrastructure. Meanwhile, the FCC is scheduled to vote this month on upper C-band auction rules, with bidding expected in 2027.
For a rural broadband operator, it’s easy to look at all of this and think: “That’s not my business.” Different capital requirements. Different technology. Different customers. And, for the most part, that’s true.
But that’s also exactly what a reasonable decision with a decade-long tail sounds like when it’s first being made. The broader lesson is that wireless spectrum strategy isn’t just about spectrum itself. It’s about recognizing which market shifts could reshape your competitive position over the next decade. Rather than trying to predict the future, I’d focus on three questions.
1. What am I assuming about satellite that’s really an assumption about today’s satellite?
Verizon’s mistake wasn’t believing in mmWave. The mistake was building a long-term strategy around the technology’s limitations at that moment. The same risk exists today with satellite.
If your competitive plan quietly assumes LEO capacity, latency, and pricing will remain roughly where they are today, you’re making a similar bet.
The operators that succeed won’t be the ones who dismiss satellite, or the ones who panic about it. They’ll be the ones who honestly track how the technology evolves and understand exactly when those improvements begin affecting their subscriber base. The best wireless spectrum strategy isn’t built on today’s technology alone. It’s built on continuously challenging yesterday’s assumptions.
2. Am I treating wireless and spectrum as someone else’s business?
“We’re a fiber company” is a perfectly reasonable identity. It can also become a dangerous strategic boundary. Spectrum positions, whether through CBRS, partnerships, or leasing opportunities, are almost always cheapest before everyone realizes they need them. That’s one lesson every spectrum auction reinforces.
The spectrum you choose not to acquire rarely becomes less expensive later. Ask yourself what a coverage or capacity gap in your market could look like in 2032. Then ask whether you’d rather secure an option today or compete for it later when everyone else wants the same asset. For many rural broadband operators, wireless spectrum strategy is becoming an important complement to fiber strategy rather than a separate conversation.
3. If capital keeps chasing scarcity stories, what’s mine?
Rocket Lab didn’t spend $8 billion because of Iridium’s current revenue. It paid for an asset that is extraordinarily difficult to recreate. Many rural broadband operators own something with similar characteristics: a last-mile network serving markets where meaningful overbuild is unlikely.
But that advantage only matters if you know how to communicate it. When you’re talking with your board or your lenders, are you describing your business as a utility or are you describing it as a scarce infrastructure asset with a durable competitive position?
How you position your business influences how investors, lenders, and strategic partners evaluate its long-term value. The answer influences your cost of capital far more than many operators realize.
Key Takeaways for Broadband Operators
None of this means chasing the space story. It means respecting what Verizon’s twelve-year correction teaches: the most expensive decisions are the reasonable-sounding ones you don’t revisit. The time to stress-test an assumption is while it still looks obviously true.
The broader lesson is that effective wireless spectrum strategy requires regularly challenging assumptions before market conditions force expensive corrections. That’s true whether you’re evaluating spectrum opportunities, satellite competition, or long-term infrastructure investments.
For rural broadband operators, the goal isn’t to predict the future perfectly. It’s to build a strategy that’s resilient enough to adapt as technology, spectrum availability, and competitive dynamics evolve.
What assumption in your current plan would hurt the most if it aged the way mmWave did? I’d genuinely like to hear it.