I can't help but point out the elephant in the room here - 3.5Ghz for mobile broadband. Seriously ? In 2012 ?

Have the experiences with 2.1Ghz 3G not taught everyone how inadequate such high frequencies are for in building penetration and lack of long distance coverage outdoors ? 3.5Ghz will be that much worse again than 2.1Ghz, not to mention LTE as a technology doesn't have quite the same range as 3G for a given frequency. (Just like 3G doesn't compared to 2G)

The networks who will be buying a chunk of 800Mhz spectrum for LTE will have nothing to fear from a network who only has access to 3.5Ghz, as the requirements for a huge number of masts to get any sort of coverage, and the lack of decent coverage especially indoors will kill them. It would be like the early days of Three, but minus 2G fall-back.

As far as getting fast, affordable, ubiquitous mobile broadband into the hands of consumers goes, going even higher in frequency is a big backwards step...