>>And yes, I'm not imagining - we had it. Can't say how it works now, because it's now a public service, pretty much BBC-like, funded by mandatory subscription (attached to your electricity bill) and still full of ads (worst of both).
>>
>>But what'd be wrong with that, to complement the rest? As much as state owned TV network was wrong - it wasn't wrong for what it did, but because it was a monopoly. Nowadays when the emission spectrum is for lease to the best bidder to fulfill a public need, there's competition. So, IIRC, Italy has RAI (state network) and a bunch of private networks (I know, we watched them... when I was in the service, on a hill on the coast... if you turn the aerial just right, you watch soft porn on Rete Quattro or Canale Cinque); UK has BBC and ITV and whatnot. So why is the US afraid of letting a public service into the mix? Something that would be just granted sufficient funding to be independent... from commercial interests. Which would then finally have some competition.
>
>In light of all this I am 100% with you and I think the future of broadband TV will do exactly what you are talking about and I welcome it. ( well, all except for Chomsky - I will pay extra for any content that promises to be Chomsky-free <g> )

OK, wake me up when it happens :).

As it is, I'm just disgusted that maybe one cent of what I pay goes to the channel that hosts Pat Robertson, but at the moment that's the price of having hurricane and snow warnings (which is pretty much the only remaining reason to have TV as a service).