[andy_m]

If only paying for the channels you wanted meant the death of some of them then so what? At the moment they're surviving off advertising and other revenue falsely derived from a subscription base they couldn't hope to achieve if people had the choice not to subscribe to them. 10 or 15 channels of serious quality is surely preferable to 175 with the same content spread more thinly? The benefit to the consumer is obvious. The benefit to a myriad of broadcasters earning a disproportionate amount of money to the quality of their output is less so and, I suspect, therein lies the problem.