> there are many more low-frequency channels of a given width than high frequency ones, it's much easier to justify very wide channels at higher frequencies. R

> there are many more low-frequency channels of a given width than high frequency ones, it's much easier to justify very wide channels at higher frequencies. Right conclusion, wrong (mis-stated?) premise. There are more high-frequency channels of a given width than low-frequency ones. 700-800 MHz is a whopping 12.5% change, and it gets you 100 MHz to work with, but 5.725-5.875 is only a 2.5% change and gets you 150 MHz to work with.