Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site crystal.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!crystal!pal
From: pal@crystal.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Paying for TV programs, here and in UK
Message-ID: <402@crystal.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 13:34:48 EST
Article-I.D.: crystal.402
Posted: Mon Feb 25 13:34:48 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 06:51:34 EST
References: <326@abnji.UUCP>, <4741@mit-vax.UUCP> <5085@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 21

> So Oded Feingold would rather pay a fee and not watch commercials, would he?
> Now, I don't have a television, and almost never watch the stuff at all,
> so correct me if I am wrong -- isn't this the way that PBS is supposed to
> work? And isn't PBS chronically short of funds? I guess that means that
> most people don't share his opinion. I doubt that we can pick up the

The problem with PBS is that it is possible to watch the broadcasts *without*
having paid your fee.  Incredibly, there are actually people who do so :-).
The BBC has the opposite problem: You pay a licence fee (annual, I think) for
owning a TV (or radio), whether you watch the BBC programs or not.  The nearest
thing to a direct market is probably a pay-cable operation like HBO, but there
is still some "bundling", in that you pay for the heavyweight boxing even if
you just want to watch "Star Wars", or whatever.  I don't know if there are
systems where you can effectively "pay as you watch."
> 
> Laura Creighton
> utzoo!laura


Anil Pal
U. of Wisconsin - Madison