"T i m" wrote
| Anyway, though all this debate and talking to a mate today *I*
| came to the conclusion the BBC should scramble their
| transmissions and let us pay for it if we want it?

Quite possible, and not that unlikely in the longer term, with digital.

| (Personally I think I'd go without .. )

There lies the crux of the matter. The BBC only works as it does because it
gets £whatever from 99% of households. If it were scrambled the argument
would be to make it a subscription service in competition with other
subscription services i.e. you could subscribe to $ky and *not* BBC if you
so choose. To provide the same level of programming (?) with, say, 1/3rd of
households subscribing would triple the subscription cost. There is also the
dilemma of how services such as radio would be funded. At the moment
everyone with a TV licence pays for radio, and as almost everyone has a TV
and almost everyone listens to radio at some time or another, there is no
great unfairness. However the theoretical 1/3rd of households subscribing to
BBCTV might be less willing to pay for radio -- or BBC management might be
less willing to divert funds from subscription TV to a lower profile
activity. And much BBC radio really is a jewel in the corporation's crown.

Owain