Yes. But the explicit premise in that section is that there are exclusionary property rights in the spectrum protected by traditional property and contract law, and that contiguous ranges of spectrum can be subdivided and sold exactly analogously to a piece of land. For example, he explains that while there are technical interference issues at the edges of spectrum bands whereby the user of one range could incidentally interfere with the user of another range, the same type of problems occurs with land (e.g. nuisance) and are similarly manageable with a traditional property rights regime.

In Coase's view the government shouldn't be auctioning spectrum for limited times or with strings attached, as we commonly do now. (What the FCC does now is a quasi-Coasean spectrum regime.) In Coase's view spectrum usage would be most efficient by selling all spectrum (from 0-infinity) in a one-time auction to the single highest bidder. That bidder could (and, crucially, would in Coase's view) then subdivide and sell the spectrum according to market demand.

Coase's logic is solid; it's the premises that are problematic. First, it ignores transaction costs, or at least assumes they're de minimis. Even before the Law & Economics field took off (which is the field Coase most influenced), it was understood that one of the purposes of legal rules was to minimize transaction costs. Sometimes a market is made more efficient by specifying a fixed rule, and even more often by specifying a fixed default rule, then by permitting perfect contractual freedom. Of course, this begs the question of when you can know whether to intervene. But that's the only legitimate question, not whether you should ever intervene. In Coase's time his argument was more practical as widespread independent and even individual broadcast usage wasn't a commercially realistic scenario; transaction costs would always be born by economic behemonths and therefore would be de minimis relative to their price. But that's not Coase's actual argument; his actual argument is categorical and absolute, and that's how most modern proponents (IME) apply it as well.

Secondly, the notion of spectrum rivalrousness is contentious. If something isn't rivalrous, a property regime is unnecessary and usually strictly inefficient.[1] Without getting into the science (and I'm not an electrical engineer so I'd just make mince of things), as a practical matter spectrum usage is only partly rivalrous (rivalrous mostly deriving from the technical environment, not from the fundamental character of spectrum, as with physical goods and real estate). Your ability to enjoy maximal channel bandwidth between two physical points is limited by how sophisticated your transmitter and receiver, and ultimately by computational power, not by coincidental usage, per se. (Not unless someone is actively trying to screw you.) As WiFi has born out, we're all in an arms race for buying and using the latest, greatest gear. In one sense this is just a convoluted price signaling scheme--the people most in need of bandwidth just pay for fancier equipment--that might be less efficient than a simple property regime. But arguably in practice this process plays out slowly enough (especially with moderate power limits, carve outs for emergency use, etc) that these transaction costs are far less than the transaction costs we see in a market where we expect Verizon's or AT&T's spectrum usage rights to trickle down to ad hoc groups and individuals of spectrum users in the same way William the Conqueror's lands in England were slowly subdivided until every Englishman could build his own castle.

Nobody will ever sell me rights to spectrum for use within a 10-meter or even 100-meter radius, even though it's possible and would open up a tremendous wealth of opportunities. Cordless phones (POTS, not cell) and WiFi could only have happened with unlicensed (i.e. unowned) spectrum, in contradiction to Coase's argument.

[1] Exception--if food wasn't rivalrous because we all had free Star Trek-style replicators I imagine obesity would be an even worse problem than it is today, we'd be more sickly, and so we'd probably want to impose costs to maximize aggregate wealth. (See soda tax.) And if we did that we might want to make those costs transferable (e.g. carbon credits) rather than centrally figuring out the most efficient price for each individual.