I do not accept the contention that Government ought to involve itself in valuing content as a means for allocating licenses, because spectrum is scarce and not everyone can use the airwaves to express their views. In our current technological environment, it can reasonably be argued that there is an abundance, not a scarcity of outlets for expressing one's viewpoint. In the traditional broadcasting arena, there are 1,207 commercial TV stations and 367 non-commercial stations. There are also some 5,000 TV translators and 2,000 low power TV stations. In addition, there are almost 12,500 radio stations.
Cable services are available almost everywhere in the country.
The average number of cable channels available on these systems is 32, with many systems offering more than 100 channels of programming. Other outlet sources include satellite services, microwave services, and, yes, Internet services. The reality is that outlets for expression are plentiful, not scarce, and will only grow with the advent of digital technology. In response to these indisputable trends, the scarcity proponents retort that broadcasting remains unique, because people still primarily rely on it for their news and entertainment. And, the argument goes, there are more people who want to use the public spectrum for broadcasting than is available.