It's far more valuable to you for 2-way communications vs. Judge Judy.
There are a lot of really quite vocal, really quite elderly people who love, support and value CBS and the like. The pitch of enhanced communication, in whatever form, is much less appealing than Wheel of Fortune.
My startup is majority-owned by a broadcaster in a major market :) I'm very familiar with audience demographics.
Sometimes, decisions can't be democratically decided (moving spectrum from broadcasters to 2-way comms), as opinions ("I want my stories") shouldn't hold the same weight as facts (spectrum is far too valuable to waste on broadcast).
Valuable is still subjective, and is essentially an opinion. Valuable to who? Valuable in what way? Free, over-the-air television is still wildly valuable for many people in rural areas, much more valuable than a paid communications service.
"Sometimes, decisions can't be democratically. . ." I would love to hear your thoughts about the CIA story on the front page right now ;).
The balance comes down to how the spectrum is serving the public interest.
In the eyes of the FCC, free-to-air broadcast television serves a greater public benefit at the moment than does private subscription datacasting on that spectrum.
> In the eyes of the FCC, free-to-air broadcast television serves a greater public benefit at the moment than does private subscription datacasting on that spectrum.
There are a lot of really quite vocal, really quite elderly people who love, support and value CBS and the like. The pitch of enhanced communication, in whatever form, is much less appealing than Wheel of Fortune.