It can instead be logically inferred that it must not be what he's arguing. Coase: “Or, alternatively, if this operator had the right to cause interference, he

It can instead be logically inferred that it must not be what he's arguing. Coase: “Or, alternatively, if this operator had the right to cause interference, he would be willing to desist if he were paid more than the costs of suppressing the interference or the decrease in the value of the service he could provide if interference were barred. And the operator whose signals were interfered with would be willing to pay to stop this interference an amount up to the decrease in the value of his service which it causes or the costs he has to incur to offset the interference.” Why would the operator have to pay to stop this interference if he owns that spectrum? If I go onto your land do you have to pay me to get me off of it? No, you have legal protection protecting that property right against non-consensual trespass. Similarly, we can then conclude the operator must not have a property right of that spectrum if he must pay to prevent trespass, otherwise the operator would be able to file a criminal injunction to prevent the interfering individual from continuing to disrupt his signal at little cost--as you would do for a land trespass. You're confusing the specific bill he mentions in the preceding section about the legal etiology of the FCC, which had proposed to do exactly what you're mistaking as the argument of Coase; where Coase thinks only that that specific bill shouldn't have been dismissed so trivially and as a resolve to the current situation where the FCC has already sold partial licenses--but leaves it thoroughly short of an advocation as he develops the case of no special regulation for broadcasting rights.