"aims to ensure that promotion of the phone service never becomes the sole purpose of the programme."

Woohoo, no more X-Factor then,

channels like Babecast, where Horny Harry from London wants No 5 to wave her bottom to the screen while brushing her hair in a sexy way.

"Until that day Ofcom will be on hand to make sure the ad breaks are long enough to get the kettle on, and don't intrude into our programming."

I'm confused here, Reg - wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago (March 20th, fact fans - 'Ofcom says yes on more TV ads') that you reported that:

- two breaks instead of one would be permitted in a 30-minute show

- adverts shown immediately after the opening credits

- films to have ad breaks every 30 mins, instead of every 45 at present

- an overall increase in the number of adverts

So how exactly do these proposals 'not intrude into our programming'?

I hate Sky. Their programming is drivel: they're hideously expensive considering everything is funded by (it seems) Ocean Finance and Jamster adverts; they have a curious reluctance to develop any programmes of their own that aren't quiz shows or the worst Terry Pratchett books.

But thank the Lord that they introduced Sky Plus!

He is keeping Babecast running single handily.

What do you mean my jacket is missing?

When it comes down to basics, anytime you exhort people to spend money, you're subjecting them to advertising. This even holds true for charities - it's quite possible to advertise a charity, and by association the work it does.

While that may be a rather extreme view ("we only make a charge to cover our costs" as a BBC executive might bleat) it seems to me that you can't draw a line anywhere: one programme saying "spend £X and you'll get a benefit" is advertising, whereas another saying "spend £Y and you'll get a different benefit" isn't.

So let's have the time spent promoting competitions, phones-in's, votes and all the other ways of moving money from the viewers to the TV programmers classed as advertising time and contributing towards the time allowed for commercials. If your channel's franchise doesn't permit advertising, well too bad. Score one for the viewers.

I knew that was going to happen.

>>"So how exactly do these proposals 'not intrude into our programming'?"

Who needs Sky Plus? Adverts don't intrude into my viewing either.

Watching hardly anything live any more, and using the forward skip button on my Humax(*) to bounce across commercial breaks, I rarely see a TV advert these days.

((*) Readers are reminded that other brands of Personal Video Recorder are available.)

Does this mean we won't see Stephen Hawking anymore?

Mine's the one made of string (theory)

If you want to know intrusive, take a look at what happens in Oz.

Here we get:

- adverts running at the bottom of the screen (for other programmes on the channel)

- adverts every 6-8 minutes by the last third of the show.

- programmes run between 10 and 25 minutes outside their scheduled slots without any "live" events preceding them.

- the 9pm film on Saturday night will easily take you until midnight to finish.

I've given up watching live - I watch everything the next night. I've found the Mythical TV system which allows me to skip the rubbish.

Oops, product placement ;)

Tux, the power behind the Myth. Oh bother, more product placement...

"Readers are reminded that other brands of Personal Video Recorder are available"

Such as Sky Plus for example? :-)

>> Such as Sky Plus for example? :-)

Isn't Sky Plus rather tied to being a patron of Murdoch's wares?

For the humble terrestrial viewer, options are different (but don't involve ongoing contracts).

Please do, its my only enjoyment.

And i like no 5's bottom. and hair.

Will the credit crunch, indirectly scupper Sky?

Get thee to eBay and find yourself a TiVo - the one true PVR.