Reading the above posts (many thanks for the info by the way) had made me think again. I believe in quality not quantity and I think having just a handful of high quality channels would have been so much better in the 1990's and not the cr*p we have now. That's just my opinion of course
I believe there's a bit of rose-tinted glasses in this thread. It's human nature, we always assume what's gone in the past is better than what we're living through now.
But come on ... there's plenty for everyone out there now. The sports programming is a million times better than in the days of Screensport/Eurosport, the news channels have found their feet, entertainment offers you so-called quality programming from Sky Atlantic, Sky Arts and BBC4 that could not have been supported by the number of viewers back then to trashy stuff on ITV2. Something for every taste.
The two areas to suffer have of course been regional ITV - understandably, as that was always based on the logic of ITV paying the regulator back for a nigh-on monopoly - and music channels, which because there's so many of them don't have the live presentation they used to. But even then, with the latter, you've now got so much choice you will find a video you like, rather than being limited to two or three options.
But really, I lived through cable and satellite in the late 80s/early 90s. What we have now is far superior.
