The introduction of Direct Broadcasting Satellites (DBS) in the United States sparked both government's regulatory development of domestic DBS services and the communication industry's efforts to implement a commercial DBS system. J. D. Slack's symptomatic causality and technological assessment models help to explain how these practices were encouraged. Both government and industry assumed that (1) implementing a DBS system would satisfy consumer demand for diversified video services, bring improved video service to rural areas, and promote competition in the video market; (2) the technological benefits were inherent in the technology itself; and (3) the technological development was irreversible. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) used the new technology to justify deregulation. Also the American liberal-pluralistic view of society valued the multiplicity of communication channels, and communication and market research legitimized the purposes of the new technology. However, the notion that freedom in American society underlies the argument of DBS as a new source of channel diversity is a myth because the ultimate consumers of the new communication technology had little involvement in the decision-making process. The FCC has shown no capability of or interest in distinguishing channel diversity from content diversity. Therefore, the notion that DBS is a source of diversity has proved an illusion. (JD)