Why is it that haters insist on there be a spectrum crunch BEFORE companies can act?
Because radio spectrum is finite and the available spectrum (except what's hoarded) is already being used by someone. If you have hurricane shutters, you wouldn't like it if the government said we have to take the hurricane shutters from your house because protecting this richer person's house is more important.
The problem is with the way the spectrum was allocated. If there weren't so many different frequencies and so many different types of service allocated on certain frequencies this would be less of a problem. It's not that the big duo doesn't have enough spectrum, it's that they don't have enough of what they want. T has some 2300 WCS spectrum that they don't have in use yet but they are probably waiting for the right company to swap that to so they can get better spectrum. Just the same as Verizon not using the AWS spectrum that they have. It's all over the place though and makes deploying and making equipment to use all these frequencies more expensive. --
A two year "Use it or Lose it" policy with the spectrum holder required to show significant, meaningful progress towards using the spectrum for its intended purpose would solve the whole squatting problem and the alleged "crunch". Unfortunately, since our government is the best that can be bought, don't expect anything like that to happen. -- Isn't it sad that those that raise their right hand and swear "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" are usually the ones most likely to trash it.