If we assume the facts cited in the article are true: * 99% of households have access to cable * satellite could reach almost all of the rest * 10 million hous

If we assume the facts cited in the article are true: * 99% of households have access to cable * satellite could reach almost all of the rest * 10 million households rely on broadcast TV currently In terms of access (subscription fees aside), using radio spectrum to deliver television content is no longer necessary--i.e., obsolete. The question is about the opportunity cost of continuing to use this spectrum to deliver television content to American households. If we can make use of this spectrum in a way that provides an overall greater benefit (government revenue, new & better performing wireless services) than the benefit of providing free over the air broadcast television, then we should be seriously considering it, especially if some of the revenues (in the way of subsidies for satellite or cable hookups; and mandates for those services to provide low cost limited programming analogous to current over the air offerings) can mitigate any negative impact of taking these services away -- what's the problem? IMO access to free (as in beer) broadcast television is not a fundamental human right.