But if the £30 for a digibox is so insignificant, why not give every licence-payer one as part of his or her licence? Then there could be no argument about it.

Frankly I resent my television equipment, which I paid for, being made obsolete by a government-mandated analogue switch-off. The fact that the digibox is only £30 mitigates this somewhat, but there’s a principle at stake.

The point I was trying to make when I wrote the original post, last year, was that the promotion of digital services is a process of attrition. Everything I might want to watch has been moved to channels I can’t receive, and I’m continually told about it. When I’m still paying for it, I resent that.

You might as well describe the NHS as “intimidation-enforced” healthcare or the fire service as “intimidation-enforced” rescue services, for all that it makes sense.

And are you quite sure that BBC4 has “much advertising”?

And how is the BBC exactly restricting access to the BBC4 content? On the contrary, there is a strong argument that the vast majority of content on BBC4 wouldn’t exist at all if there wasn’t a defined place for it.

Look at cBeebies, another channel targeted to a specific audience. It is plainly obvious that without the kids’ channels, the amount of content for kids on the legacy channels would be considerably less. Putting like content in one place to enable better targeting is *the* defining feature of media fragmentation and has virtually nothing to do with removing functionality or value from an existing service or product.

Finally, at £30 for a digibox, the creation of new channels on digital only isn’t beyond the means of anyone in the UK. The only barrier to receiving more channels is coverage.