Re: The Proms tonight



In article <ga89hn$80o$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jerry wrote:
Here's another joke. If "Public Service Broadcasting" continues to
do
its utmost to make itself resemble commercial broadcasting, the
question may be raised as to whether public service broadcasting
itself
should be scrapped, and not just the present method of paying for
it.

But what you complain of is not PSB, it's the output of a
commercialised broadcaster that has PSB responsibilities at the very
hart of it's charter

As far as the viewers are concerned, it amounts to the same thing. It's a
broadcaster we are legally compelled to pay for if we want to watch any
television at all, on the grounds that it is performing a public service,
though it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern what that public
service is supposed to be. Judging by its present output, most of it is
the same as all the others, and it is absurd that anyone should be made
into a criminal for failing to pay for one broadcaster's crappy soaps,
sitcoms and quiz shows when the others can produce equally crappy
material without anyone being legally compelled to pay to watch it.

- if the BBC was to stop it's PSB roll then there
would be some other PSB provider set up and it would need to be funded
some how.

Would there really? Who would do this, and why? What financial incentive
would anyone have to set up such a thing?

Personally, I'd like high quality TV material to be available, and I'd be
prepared to pay a reasonable amount to watch some of it, but I'd like to
pick and choose what I want, just as I've always been able to do with
books, gramophone records, CDs, DVDs etc. I don't want to pay for other
people's rubbish as well.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

.