I SAW the headline 'Viewers pay too much for TV' (Sunday Morning Post, November 5) and thought that, at last, someone had realised the dubious nature of commercial TV as a consumer system. Consider this: everyone is charged a premium on goods and services in order to pay for the commercial spots and the advertisements which fill them; programmes are chosen to maximise the audience; if you never watch the service, you still pay for it; if you watch it, your time is stolen by commercials you never asked for and may not want. If we were restricted to a handful of camera shops in Tsim Sha Tsui which were kept in business by a levy on the whole population and which had the sole right to give away a limited range of cameras from which eight frames on every film turned out to be advertisements, what would the Consumer Council say about that? The issue of the future cost of multiple set-top boxes is important, but I suggest the council could better take up the question of whether or not the whole system provides value for money and freedom of choice. Your editorial takes the issue further and concludes that broadcasting policy desperately needs long-term vision. Although this is true, there seems to be no-one in Hong Kong who is in tune with the growing disillusionment that exists, in countries 'enjoying' multiple commercial channels. As quantity increases so does the realisation that the 'old' public service broadcasting offered more choice and higher quality at a lower societal cost. The stated policy of government in respect of broadcasting is 'to provide the widest possible choice of quality programmes to meet a wide range of interests and tastes, at a cost the community can afford', and ' . . . to maintain freedom of expression . . . '. However, the Secretary of Recreation and Culture insists that TV broadcasting - other than ETV - be largely provided by way of commercial stations. Whatever the merits of commercial TV, business alone cannot be expected to fulfil the stated policy. To quote Michael Grade, head of Channel 4 in the UK: ' . . . it should just do what it does best, which is to get the biggest audiences, spend as little as it can commercially on programmes, and make as much money for shareholders as possible'. This does not seem to be generally appreciated and, unfortunately, the non-starter issue of an access channel for minority production has only served to divert thought away from the need to debate the wider issue of providing means of viewer access to a richer source of programmes with less-than-maximum commercial value. Put another way, one would not expect non-commercial values of society to be part of business, but one might expect them to be part of the considerations of policy makers. In 1958, Ed Murrow said 'this instrument can teach, it can illuminate: yes it can even inspire. But it can only do so to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.' I would now add ' . . . high technology or otherwise'. Your comparison of the firm regulatory touch in telecommunications to the lack of coherent broadcasting policy perhaps points to a solution. The firm regulation came about because, as a policy secretary, Anson Chan realised that telecommunications could no longer be regarded as an appendage to the Post Office. Since then, the situation has been transformed beyond recognition by the import of a professional to lead its administration. One hopes that she might soon reach a similar decision about 'broadcasting' and all that this technologically inadequate word implies for the present and the future. ERIC SPAIN Lantau
