Wow! Isn't that a slippery SLOPE! Sounds like you don't understand the television tax and you are jumping to conclusions. Quick history lesson: British Subjects have to pay a television tax, which is collected annually based on the number of televisions (and type) in each household. For example, a Brit watching a color tele would probably pay $192 (american) a year for his TV license. The television tax is the majority income source (outside ad time) of the BBC and funds the worlds access to the service.

Have you read the BBC Charter? ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/reg ulatory_framework/charter_agreement/royalcharterse aled_sept06.txt ) From this we can find:

You mentioned bit-torrent, the "non-licensed" public accessing the content, and the giving away of programming. Again, obviously you are speaking out of the wrong hole. The NEWS & ENTERTAINMENT industry is centered on delivering programing to the public. The BBC has an up on the rest of the market as they get a "TAX" subsidy from everyone that purchases a television. The rest of the market is operating on the basis of stockholder accountability, advertising rates, and pure nature of the market. The public has already paid for the programing, why not fulfill the charter? I believe you are attempting to apply Vivendi, Paramount and other major entertainment conglomerates response (or lack therof) to the internet in your argument against the BBC and free content. Unfortunately as you are beginning to see, hiding content from your audience does NOT help get the advertisers messages to market. Realistically, the BBC needs to find a "more fair" way of levying the tax. Many people own televisions and may not access the service. Offering the rest of the world the opportunity* to pay the tax..yeah we know how that goes.. INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE.