GSMA report on low-band spectrum and rural connectivity

Table of Contents

Low-band spectrum improves rural connectivity

  • Sub-1 GHz spectrum is one of the most effective tools to improve the coverage and quality of mobile networks in rural areas.
  • The GSMA links each additional 50 MHz below 1 GHz with +7 percentage points of rural 4G coverage and +11 points in rural 5G.
  • Usage gaps persist: the rural population is 28% less likely to use mobile internet and 30% less likely to use online services regularly.
  • Rural users rely more on these frequencies: they spend more than twice as much time connected to low bands as urban users (in 4G and 5G).
  • Reducing spectrum costs and facilitating voluntary network sharing improves the business case for deployment in low-density areas.

The GSMA’s new report positions low-band spectrum—frequencies below 1 GHz—as the practical foundation of rural mobile connectivity. The reason is technical, but its effects are social and economic: these bands have better propagation characteristics, allowing the signal to travel farther and penetrate buildings more effectively than mid- or high-band spectrum. In territories with low population density, where each antenna must cover more kilometers and where infrastructure deployment is more costly, that advantage translates into broader coverage with fewer sites.

Greater rural coverage and penetration
A simple way to visualize it: the lower the frequency (sub‑1 GHz), the better the signal “stretches” over distance and the better it gets through common obstacles (walls, vegetation, gentle terrain) than mid/high bands. In rural areas—where there are fewer towers per km²—this often translates into fewer “dead zones” and a more stable experience indoors and on the move.

The GSMA argues that, even though coverage has advanced in recent years, network quality remains a brake on usage in the countryside. And that quality, to a large extent, depends on the availability of low bands in rural areas: when they are lacking, problems increase at the cell edge, where rural users are more likely to experience connectivity difficulties.

The report also ties this discussion to a larger goal: closing the rural digital divide is not just about “getting a signal,” but enabling participation in the digital economy and access to essential services. Better coverage and quality are associated with better opportunities for education, health, and financial services, as well as new economic possibilities for rural communities.

Inequality in mobile internet use between rural and urban areas

The GSMA’s diagnosis is clear: the rural-urban gap is not limited to

network availability; it is expressed in effective use. According to the report, rural populations remain 28% less likely to use mobile internet than their urban counterparts. And when recurrent use of digital services—such as messaging, banking, and education—is examined, the gap widens: rural residents are 30% less likely to participate regularly in these online activities.

Indicator (according to GSMA) Rural vs. urban gap
Likelihood of using mobile internet −28%
Likelihood of using online services regularly (messaging, banking, education) −30%

This inequality matters because it marks the real limit of digital inclusion. Coverage may exist on the map, but if the experience is unstable or slow, the incentive to use digital services falls. GSMA underscores that, where connectivity is available, network quality remains a key barrier to greater use. In rural areas, that quality depends critically on low bands, precisely because of their ability to reach farther and better sustain indoor connections and in weaker-signal conditions.

The consequence is a difficult cycle: lower use reduces the perceived value of connectivity and limits network benefits for society; at the same time, the lack of technical and economic conditions to improve rural deployments delays improvements in the experience. The report argues that reducing the rural-urban gap amplifies network effects and increases the overall value of connectivity for the entire economy.

Impact of access to sub-1 GHz spectrum on 4G and 5G coverage

The report’s strongest contribution is quantitative: GSMA states that there is a “strong and measurable” link between having more sub-1 GHz spectrum and better rural connectivity outcomes. Specifically, each additional 50 MHz of spectrum below 1 GHz is associated with a 7-percentage-point increase in rural 4G coverage and an 11-percentage-point increase in rural 5G coverage.

Variable (per +50 MHz sub‑1 GHz) Associated outcome in rural areas
4G coverage +7 percentage points
5G coverage +11 percentage points
Download speed up to +8%
Cell-edge congestion lower congestion

The relationship does not stop at coverage. The report also links greater availability of banlow bands with improvements in download speed in rural areas—up to an 8% performance improvement—and with less congestion at the cell edge. This last point is especially relevant in the countryside: users are usually farther from sites, so the coverage edge is a more frequent condition than in dense urban environments.

In terms of public policy, the message is that spectrum is not a neutral input: its availability and assignment can speed up or slow down the expansion of 4G and 5G in rural territories. That is why the GSMA argues that governments and regulators can move “quickly” if they prioritize the assignment of additional low-band spectrum and reduce barriers to network sharing among mobile operators.

Connection time of rural users on mobile networks

Beyond infrastructure, the report provides a behavioral signal: rural users already depend disproportionately on low bands. According to GSMA Intelligence’s analysis, they spend more than twice as much time connected to low-band frequencies as urban users, on both 4G and 5G networks.

Low-band dominance
How to read “they spend more than twice as much time connected to low bands”:
– Metric: proportion of the device/user connection time served by low-band carriers (sub‑1 GHz) vs. other bands.
– Practical interpretation: if the network “falls back” to low band frequently (due to distance, indoors, or cell edge), that band becomes the real backbone of the experience.
– Intervention signal: when that proportion is high in rurality, increasing capacity/resources in sub‑1 GHz tends to directly impact perceived stability and performance.

This data helps explain why the discussion about sub-1 GHz spectrum is central for the countryside. It is not just about “improving” one layer of the network, but about strengthening the part of the spectrum where a large part of the rural connectivity experience actually takes place. In practice, that dependence can be explained by the territory’s own conditions: greater distances, fewer sites, a higher likelihood of being indoors with weak signal, and greater exposure to cell edges.

The implication is direct: if low bands are the everyday backbone of rural connectivity, any limitation in their availability or capacity (for example, due to a lack of sufficient spectrum) has an immediate impact on perceived quality. And if quality is a barrier to use—as the GSMA argues—then time connected to low bands becomes an indicator of where it makes sense to intervene to improve the experience.

In other words, the report suggests that strengthening the “floor” of rural connectivity involves ensuring sufficient low-band spectrum, because that is where users

rural areas already are, most of the time.

Relationship between spectrum costs and improvements in rural networks

The report is not limited to the physics of propagation: it also addresses the economic incentive. The GSMA argues that lower spectrum costs strengthen the business case for deploying in rural areas. In particular, it finds that a 10 percentage point reduction in the spectrum-cost-to-revenue ratio is associated with “significant” improvements in rural networks, by enabling operators to invest more in extending coverage and improving quality.

Balance between revenue collection and investment
Typical trade-off in spectrum policy (especially in rural areas):
– Prioritizing revenue collection (high prices) can reduce the investment margin for sites, power, backhaul, and rural optimization.
– Prioritizing investment (prices more aligned with fundamentals) can accelerate coverage/quality, but requires designing allocation mechanisms and obligations that maintain efficiency and competition.
– Facilitating voluntary network sharing often lowers deployment costs, but requires clear rules to avoid operational friction and ensure that the improvement effectively reaches low-density areas.

The argument is consistent with the structural challenge of the countryside: deploying in low-density areas is usually more expensive per user and harder to monetize than in cities. If the regulatory cost of spectrum absorbs a larger share of revenues, there is less room for investment in sites, modernization, and network optimization. That is why the GSMA links spectrum affordability with the real ability to deliver better-quality 4G and 5G to rural territories.

In addition, the report suggests that the impact is amplified when spectrum policy is combined with other measures: reducing regulatory and site-access costs, and supporting voluntary network sharing. Taken together, these policies can substantially reduce the cost of rural deployment, making it more viable to expand coverage and improve performance where quality currently limits use.

Recommendations to close the rural digital divide

The GSMA sets out a roadmap centered on public policy decisions that can accelerate closing the rural gap. The first is to prioritize the assignment of additional low-band spectrum (sub-1 GHz). The report presents it as one of the most effective tools available to improve coverage, quality, and affordability in rural areas, with measurable benefits in 4G and 5G.

The second recommendation is to reduce barriers to network sharing among mobile operators. In rural areas, where the cost per kilometer covered is high, sharing infrastructure or capabilities can be a way to expar coverage and improve quality without duplicating investments. The GSMA frames it as an enabler to move faster toward closing the gap.

The third line is spectrum affordability: aligning prices with economic fundamentals to sustain investment. The report links reductions in the spectrum-cost-to-revenue ratio with improvements in rural networks, suggesting that the design of auctions, payments, and obligations should consider the goal of rural connectivity, not just revenue collection.

Finally, the GSMA mentions the importance of reducing regulatory and site-access costs, and of offering long-term regulatory certainty. The logic is that rural deployment requires long investment horizons: if spectrum access and rules change frequently, risk rises and investment slows. Taken together, these measures seek to turn low-band spectrum into a driver of digital inclusion and rural economic momentum.

Rural Deployment: Priority Steps
Actionable steps (in the order that usually unlock rural deployment fastest):
– Identify and schedule additional sub‑1 GHz spectrum for mobile services (with clear conditions of use).
– Design prices/payments that do not “eat up” investment capacity (looking at the spectrum-cost-to-revenue ratio).
– Enable voluntary network sharing with simple rules (what can be shared, how it is reported, how disputes are resolved).
– Reduce non‑spectrum costs: permits, site access, energy, and easements (where rural CAPEX/OPEX often gets stuck).
– Provide long-term certainty (renewals, terms, realistic obligations) so that the rural investment plan is financeable.

Conclusions on the GSMA report and its impact on rural connectivity

The importance of low-frequency spectrum

The GSMA report reinforces a central idea: in the countryside, mobile connectivity depends on fundamentals different from those in the city. Low density and long distances make sub-1 GHz spectrum especially valuable for its reach and penetration. The evidence presented —more 4G and 5G coverage for each additional 50 MHz, speed improvements, and less congestion at the cell edge— points to the fact that the availability of low bands is not a technical detail, but a determinant of outcomes.

It is also a discussion of equity. With rural populations 28% less likely to use mobile internet and 30% less likely to use digital services regularly, connectivity becomes a condition for access to opportunities. The GSMA explicitly links improving rural networks with better possibilities for education, health, financial services, and economic participation.

Closing the digital divide
“Reducing the digital divide between urban and rural communities allows us to give everyone the same digital opportunities, regardless of where they live.” — Luciana Camargos, Head of Spectrum at the GSMA (quoted in the February 11, 2026 press release on Spectrum and Rural Connectivity).

Recommendations to improve rural connectivity

The package of measures suggested by the GSMA combines spectrum, economics, and regulation: more low-band spectrum, prices that don’t stifle investment, fewer barriers to network sharing, and reduced regulatory and site-access costs. The overarching idea is to accelerate deployment and improve quality where today the experience limits use.

In that logic, the report leaves an operational conclusion for governments and regulators: if the goal is to close the rural digital divide quickly, low-band spectrum must occupy a central place in the national connectivity strategy, accompanied by rules that facilitate sustained investment and efficient deployments.

Suricata Cx: The Comprehensive Solution for Customer Experience in Telecommunications

Transforming Customer Support with Conversational AI

Suricata Cx is an AI-powered omnichannel customer experience platform, designed specifically for telecommunications operators and ISPs in the Americas and Spain. Its approach combines automation, conversational AI, and workflows with human oversight (human-in-the-loop) to scale operations without losing control.

In support, Suricata Cx automates high-volume and repetitive inquiries—such as billing, payments, incidents, service status, and account data—and routes to human agents when appropriate, with SLA-guided prioritization based on the reason for contact. The operational goal is to reduce cost per interaction and shorten response and resolution times, two critical points in high-demand environments.

Sales Automation and Lead Qualification

In sales, the platform uses AI agents to qualify leads in channels such as WhatsApp, webchat, and social networks. It can guide the user through the purchase journey, validate service availability, and offer preconfigured plans, increasing conversion without the need to proportionally expand the sales team.

This approach seeks to solve a recurring problem in telecom: scalability. When growth depends only on human support, costs rise and the experience becomes inconsistent. Automation oriented to real telecom flows makes it possible to standardize and accelerate without converturn the service into a “generic chatbot”.

Service Recovery and Payment Management

Suricata Cx incorporates conversational payment flows, automated reminders, and recovery journeys, with service reactivation after payment. This is supported by Pagoralia, a payment gateway specialized in ISPs and telecommunications, which enables recurring payments and industry-aligned collection logic, as well as integrations with ERP and billing systems.

The desired outcome is twofold: improve the user experience at sensitive moments (service cut-off, delinquency, reconnection) and accelerate collections, reducing friction and the risk of churn associated with service issues.

True Omnichannel Operations for a Unified Experience

Suricata Cx’s omnichannel approach aims to eliminate fragmentation between channels: WhatsApp, webchat, social media, and IVR/voice operate with a unified view for agents and supervisors. This enables full conversation traceability and continuity of context, a key factor in improving first-contact resolution and reducing repeat contacts.

In telecom, where the customer often switches channels depending on urgency (messaging, call, social), operational unification prevents each interaction from “starting from scratch” and reduces handling times.

Strategic Benefits of Implementing Suricata Cx

Suricata Cx positions itself as a CX operating system for telecom, not as an isolated bot. Its capabilities include conversational AI optimized for the sector’s use cases, an automation engine with external triggers (payments, human approvals, system events), human control with auditing, native integrations and an API-first architecture, as well as operational intelligence with metrics such as response and resolution times.

Strategically, the goal is to enable more efficient and scalable operations: lower operating cost, faster responses, better retention, greater commercial efficiency, and a CX architecture ready to grow without multiplying headcount at the same pace as demand.

From inquiry to agile resolution
Mini “before/after” flow (what it looks like in operation):
– Before: inquiry → wait → agent takes the case → manual validation → resolution/payment → closure.
– With Suricata Cx: omnichannel inquiry → automatic classification (reason/SLA) → guided self-service (when applicable) → handoff to a human with context (if needed) → resolution or payment → confirmation and traceability.

The GSMA Report on low-band spectrum and rural connectivity reminds us that closing the gap is not only about deploying coverage, but about sustaining a network experience that enables real use of digital services. FromFrom Suricata Cx’s perspective, that ambition is fulfilled when the service care and restoration operation supports rural communities with consistent responses across all channels, reducing friction precisely where connectivity quality and response times tend to be most decisive for usage.

Within this framework, the focus is on how structural decisions (more sub-1 GHz spectrum, costs aligned with investment, and voluntary network sharing) translate into operational and experience outcomes: less congestion at the cell edge, better perceived performance, and customer care capable of sustaining recurring use of digital services in rural environments.

The data and numerical quotations in this article are based on the GSMA press release of February 11, 2026, and on the analysis summarized in the dossier provided. The associations described by GSMA (e.g., for every additional 50 MHz) are presented as relationships observed in that analysis and not as universal guarantees applicable to all countries. No new figures were incorporated beyond those that appear in the dossier.