T i m wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:15:25 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"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.

I was thinking that as I wrote it ..

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

There lies the crux of the matter. The BBC only works as it does
because it
gets =A3whatever 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.

That was what I was thinking (rather than this blanket "you use a TV
therefore you pay *US*"?

To provide the same level of programming (?) with, say, 1/3rd of
households subscribing would triple the subscription cost.

If your guesstimate is right then wouldn't that reflect the perceived
'value' of their output and demonstrate why lots of people feel the
licence is expensive (as do I but still got one). We don't
'subscribe' to any services via our Cable box / no Sky etc.


It's still cheaper than even the most basic Sky package and far cheaper
than any Sky package with a reasonable amount of content comparable to
waht you get from the BBC.

MBQ