[aftbit]

Most unlicensed radio gear chooses between the 2.4GHz and 5GHz ISM bands. 2.4GHz offers longer range and better penetration of walls, but a lower available bandwidth (fewer/slower channels). 5GHz offers better bandwidth but lower range and less penetration. Perhaps 3.5GHz provides a happy middle ground for Amazon? Not to mention there is much less interference on that band because they don't have to put up with everyone's wifi, bluetooth, microwave ovens, etc etc.

[dboreham]

Generally you use whatever spectrum you can get rather than having the luxury to strike beard and decide which spectrum you would prefer.

When available for non-military use, 3.5GHz will be attractive because it will be empty of encumbant users. Therefore far more usable than 2.4 and 5GHz, provided the cost is reasonable. Also likely much cheaper than the other available P2MP bands (principally allocated to LTE in the US).

[chrisweekly]

"strike beard"?

[joshstrange]

Maybe "Stroke beard" as in " rather than having the luxury to stroke your beard and decide which spectrum you would prefer.".

I'm imagining like a cartoon evil villain stroking their beard/chin.

[gorbypark]

If it's free for everyone to use (on the "lowest" tier) like 2.4 and 5GHz, won't it be quickly saturated as well?

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Hopefully it'll be sliced into smaller channels than 2.4 was. Also, 3 frequencies gives more room than 2.