In article ,
Alric Knebel wrote:


You could have kept control over them like, oh say, the current
model of that very same part of spectrum. You could have allocated them
for free to public safety or some other worthy group. Any number of
other possibilities if they had wanted to go that way.
If you look at the history, the auction was largely a justification
for taking the spectrum away from TV and not staying with a dual system
for a few more years.

What do you mean, a dual system? I'm not up on the term you're using,
and since it's so specific, it must be critical to understanding your
point.

In the current system (during the transition) we have the old
system and the new both being used. At the timeCongress was considering
the changeover, we could have just as easily kept both going if there
was a desire on the part of Congress.



And what is the current model for controlling that part of the spectrum?
I thought that part of the spectrum was sold off?

The original part I was replying to was the alternatives available
when the Congress was making the law on how to handle that spectrum way
back in the day. Thus, they could have, if they wanted to at that time,
mandated that the spectrum remain in the control of the government and
that it licensed much like it was in the past. Legally (probably not
politically) they could probably suspend the auction by refunding
downpayments, etc., right up until the spectrum is actually vacated and
transfered next Feb.