A fellow by the name of Claude Shannon wrote a book about it.

Ultra-Wideband doesn't create new bandwidth. It just re-uses the existing spectrum in a different way.

And by raising the general background noise it steals bandwidth from all the other users, so everybody is worse off.

Or to put it another way "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

Scarcity by itself doesn't seem a significant enough aspect to warrant the FCC regulation that we have though. Think of other scarce resources like platinum. If ultra-wide band (or similar) technology was used back in the 1920's, I don't think the push for regulation would have been as strong, since jamming / interference wouldn't have been a driver. I think we've got a technical solution to the original social problem, it is just that it arrived 100 years later.

https://www.shoretel.com/history-federal-communications-comm...

Scarcity in physical objects is rather different than spectrum. For one, market demand encourages things like recycling, more exploration, etc. for platinum. Spectrum scarcity encourages more efficient use, but until we get our promised physics-violation-devices, can't make/find more.

With spectrum, there's also a real-time use component. People who consume platinum generally don't consume it in a way that in any way resembles communication use. This is related to another key reason governments hold on to the control of spectrum allocation: military interests.

This is an interesting point. Using spread spectrum techniques would increase the cost of the radio hardware involved, and might hinder adoption.

Also, there would need to be regulations on signal quality, since a bad citizen in a shared-spectrum scheme adversely impacts others.