This entire mess was so poorly thought out by Congress that it blindsided everyone who was following the legislation. Mind you all, a previous version had 430-440 up on the chopping block and was staved off by an ARRL rally to action with many outraged amateur radio operators contacting their legislators (myself included). That particular idea was proposed during closed-door sessions by a ham who works in the wireless industry, by the way. Before that, some factions within Congress wanted EVERYTHING below the D-Block given back, including ALL of VHF and ALL of UHF. The prevailing thought by some Members of Congress was that there had to be some kind of quid pro quo "give back" for this spectrum - and that public safety was too "needy," not efficiently stewarding all of its resources effectively.
The legislation failed to account for millions (perhaps billions) of dollars worth of business/industrial users who also have rights to the spectrum - nor did it account for television broadcasters who have a far more powerful lobby than public safety and business/industrial licensees could ever wish for. So, for the moment, when T-Band goes away, so does the investment these system operators (Read: American business people) have made in their businesses. It's the equivalent to an eminent domain taking of farmland by Congressional fiat. There's no place to put public safety with ceteris paribus spectrum, let alone business/industrial. AND, nothing was ever mentioned about broadcasters. The presumption is that they stay, making the spectrum non-ubiquitous nationally, and therefore, less desirable for auction. IF this dopey idea moves forward, T-Band may become the whitespace brokerage (a handful of people will make tons of money being arbitrators and brokers).
Look at the paradigm shift in communications: we go from independent nodes of communications systems which are more or less bought once and amortized over time to a recurring cost model where an agency constantly pays for the use of the system as it goes along. In exchange, it abdicates its systems components to a benevolent entity (FirstNet) who will be their representative before whomever the contracted service vendor will be. So, the carrier makes money on subscriber fees, the manufacturers make money on much shorter life-cycled subscriber equipment (18 mos. for a "smartphone" vs. 25 years for a JEDI portable), app developers make money with upgrades and technology refreshes track the state of the art in networked systems. It is an entirely new revenue ecosystem.
For those coming up in the IT world, this is a very progressive outlook, but IT has a poor success rate for last-mile survivability in acute situations where the network is either overwhelmed or impaired - EVEN WITH various government mandated priority schemes (TSP/WPS), while infrastructure independent systems that are not heavily networked are usually the last line until they run out of power. A network solution has thousands of nodes, each being a point of vulnerability. While IT folk tell me that their networks are robust (there's lots of paths around an impairment), it sucks to be in the area isolated from the network. It also sucks when the network is burdened to capacity by an assault or is penetrated by an unknown actor, even with oodles of layers of crypto.
There are so many dynamics at play here. Just a few I've been thinking about - infrastructure dependent vs. infrastructure independent; communications through the networked vs. unit to unit simplex independent of a network (or recurring costs); local node recovery by bringing in a satellite truck and C.O.W vs. putting an antenna on a mast, setting up a base or repeater with a car battery, and talking... you all get the picture. This makes sense to some people (stockholders, primarily), just not to most of us.