TV wars 'hotting up in NZ,' according to the NZ Herald.

If the reports that 'competition' re the TV airwaves is accurate, something that is supposed to tbe 'darling of free enterpirse,' then maybe I shall adhear to that small part of economic theory that we are told is 'best for us.' Fot many year Sky Tv has virtualy had a mponopoly on the 'pay to view' sector of that industry. We have only being able to accpet 'bundles' of oferrings, having to pay for options that are of no interest to us and if we want a particular portion that suits us, then along comes agreat deal of stupid inane programming. Finally we are hearing about the possibility of receiving a platform that comes a little closer to puschasing just those chanells we wish to view. BUT---don't hold your breath for too long. These 'providers' have had it their way for far too long and with the slow running down of the 'free to view' platform, one is still trapped to a degree with the same old issues. Will we ever be able to 'select' one by one, a platform that only delivers those channels we want. For example, I have no wish ever to view Fox News and some other channels that I would never watch, even if you paid me to. Will we be able to get these channels as a package that is affordable? I suspect that they will still have us trapped, by inventing a way by which you can't have 'this, unless you have that.' My preference would be for the free to air version be much wider in its choices. I must admit, that the latter is way better, even in its presnent format than the days of old, when those of you old enough to remember the one station, in black and white that finished broadcasting at about 10.30, on a horrible old box in the corner of the lounge. OK---lets see what transpires and if we really do get choice at a reasonable price! BUT---please don't run down the state-owned option. www.authorneilcoleman.com