From: "Mark" 

Yes Tony, I botched up that line. It's most certainly less per head here,
but still further removed from our consciousness as it's not a separate
line item from our general taxes.

"Tony Williams"  wrote in message
news:458b08d4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Mark wrote:
>> "Tony Williams"  wrote in message
>> news:458af83b{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Mark wrote:
>>>> You guys all have to pay involuntarily for the BBC, don't you?
>>> I wish I could pay $200 a year for 8 advertising-free TV channels here.
>>> Instead, I get to pay about $50 a month to be bombarded by adverts every
>>> 5 minutes.
>>
>> True enough, though I'm sure they have their separate cable bill to get
>> to their financed BBC and other channels.
>
> I don't know about that - it was all broadcast when I lived in England.
> Perhaps Adam or Phil can enlighten us on the state of cable vs. broadcast
> in the UK these days.
>
>> Too, I imagine on a per capita basis (i.e. if their were only 60M of us,
>> it'd probably $200 a head as well), we pay a similar amount indirectly
>> via the grants given to PBS by the government.
>
> I would have thought just the opposite. More people = less per-capita
> cost, surely?
>
> Regarding PBS, I'm afraid I rarely watch it, and when I do they always
> seem to be in the middle of a begathon; same goes for NPR.
>
> I may be in a minority, but I really think podcasts are the way of the
> future: on-demand, pausable, free, timely enough for all but breaking
> headlines. Fact is, I rarely use my iPod for music these days because I
> spend so much time listening to podcasts.
>
> --
> Tony

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5