They say that soon, we will be able to receive more than 500 television networks on cable or by satellite. Some people think that it's useless to have that many channels. Their usual criticism  goes something like this: "I already get more channels on my TV than I have time to watch. No one needs to see that much TV. There's not enough time in the day to watch all that!"They also say that most of what's on television now isn't worth watching in the first place. I think they're missing the point. If the local library wanted to add another 5,000 books, would we say, "That's silly, we'll never have time to read all those books"? The point is that we would have more choices. I don't believe that most people should watch more television. And if we had 500 or even 1,000 channels to choose from, we wouldn't have to spend more time watching TV. We would, however, have more programs to choose from. That means that the quality of our viewing time would be improved. I think the more channels we have, the better. Give me more choices! If they're not worth my time, I'll just hit the "off" button. To make his point, the author compares the development of TV networks to that of   _  .
schoolyards computers libraries satellites