Disagree, this is a question of proportion. The "better technologies" argument applies to all users of the spectrum & is therefore not valid when reassigning portions of it.
Well, different applications have different requirements. With broadband wireless data, the goal is to get as many users as possible in a quantity of spectrum, while providing as much throughput as possible--in a two-way transmission stream.
With broadcast TV, your data stream is generally fixed, with a one-way transmission. It's comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, not YET. The future lies before us and I'm assuming that spectrum will be virtually impossible to get BACK once sold.
Under the current regulatory system, there's no incentive to launch a conventional station. The revenue stream for conventional stations is limited to advertising. Whereas with class 2 specialty stations, revenue is FFC and
advertising. Further, with the lack of transmitters, the operating costs for specialty stations are lower. And the programming limitations placed on conventional broadcasters are far more strict.
In other words, I don't see any future demand for OTA spectrum from new conventional players, as the potential revenue isn't there. In fact, I see the opposite, as evidenced by SUN TV's recent decision to change their format to all-news specialty--abandoning the conventional TV model.
Future growth, similar to what we've seen stateside, appears to be limited to secondary networks that buy into sub-channels (i.e. "Cool TV", RTV, etc). And that hasn't necessitated additional channel use.