>>A) *Some* people have many TV options. Those tend to be
>the
>>most priveleged people.
>
>yeah, the top 86%

The issue is that it costs less than five dollars per person per year to support public broadcasting, providing options for all of us (I personally don't have cable and frankly can't afford it), especially for that 14%.

>>B) The airwaves remain publically owned, and it is only
>right
>>that they serve the public interest.
>
>If PBS is serving the public interest, why would most of the
>programs not survive if they had to rely on actual
>viewership.

Because "public interest" is about more than just money. Is the Robb Report more in the public interest than another magazine with the same circulation because it's readers are more affluent? It certainly makes more money for that reason. Is People more in the public interest than The Economist because it's readers are more numerous? Is USA Today more in the public interest than the Christian Science Monitor?

Public Broadcasting is a tiny financial commitment for the federal government, but it creates a huge positive difference across the country, with a disproportionate impact for the underpriveledged. That's the bottom line.