On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:44:28 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote
| 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

That's because the majority of people are really rather stupid. The point of
the BBC is that it is a public service broadcaster, not dependent on
recruiting viewers for its customers (the advertisers). It should be able to
do things on grounds of quality rather than commercial viability. I don't
think it does that well enough.

Can't speak for others but *I* don't believe I get good value from the
BBC for my £10 / month? *I* would rather subscribe to a couple of
cable channel packs *instead* (but don't have the choice). Something
that I find odd in itself in this day and age of choice and
flexibility. Paying for something you don't want or need with no way
to opt out without loosing every broadcast chan.? Like these mobile
phone SMS scams .. getting something you don't want and didn't ask
for and can't (easily) stop without turning your phone off and cutting
off the aerial. Everone is up in arms about that though?

| Again, I have spent what little time I actually listen to the radio
| (normally only in the car / bathroom) with Capital Radio' but now
| sometimes find myself with (as I get older g I'm 47) Radio1
| (especially when out of range of Capital).

I wonder what the average age of a Radio 1 listener is now.

Good question .. want to start a DIY poll Owain? ;-)

All the best ..

T i m