It would be like forcing every motorcycle to have a side-car

It would be like "forcing every motorcycle to have a side-car".Far be it from me to argue the technical points with someone who knows so intimately the strategy deployed by BSkyB in the UK, but does this really sounds like the views of someone who "holds no brief for Sky or Murdoch"?Mr Elstein spent no time at all discussing the political issues of digital television - particularly the need for regulation of the gateway, and the requirement that dominant positions in the marketplace be vigorously fought. These were some of the points made in a series of articles published recently in The Independent.You could argue that the close ties between Channel 5 and Sky (they are talking about joint programming as well as analogue capacity on satellite for the soon-to-be-launched service) are the main reason for Elstein's pro-Sky comments.But that does not excuse the fact that he broke some basic rules of courtesy - a virtual crime from a man normally so above gratuitous insults or personal attacks. He said that Polly Toynbee's knowledge of digital television "could be comfortably contained on the back of a postage stamp", adding, "The Independent's campaign has mostly served to damage its own credibility."I wonder, given the tone of his remarks, just whose credibility is damaged. Elstein is much respected in media circles, not least for his impeccable manners, his even temper, and his preference for debate over name-calling and for intellectual exchange rather than verbal fisticuffs.

What a shame he has stooped to this.The brouhaha over pay-per-view football last week - with some clubs claiming they wanted to move "as early as possible" to pay-as-you-go broadcasts and BSkyB insisting no discussions had yet taken place - served at least to bring into the open the most significant trend in British broadcasting bar none.Pay-per-view TV is going to make some people billions. The question is: who?BSkyB has relied on its exclusive broadcast rights to live Premier League football to power its spectacular growth. It earns the equivalent of pounds 8 a second out of its pay-TV operations, thanks particularly to its sport and film offerings.BSkyB is also a great believer in pay-per-view, which it has pioneered in the UK with two boxing matches. It would be pleased to offer the Premiership a separate PPV deal, in addition to its subscription contract.But why should the clubs necessarily stick with Sky? Certainly BSkyB made Premier League football work in this country, through its initial investments, its relentless marketing and its broadcasting innovations (better camera coverage, better commentary). But the real value of football is in the rights, and these are held by the clubs themselves.

Many other broadcasters (a handful of ITV companies, for a start) would be happy to do deals with the clubs on pay-per-view, perhaps as the main offering on the planned digital terrestrial television service, for which bids are now being solicited by the Independent Television Commission.But there is the little matter of the exclusive contract between BSkyB and the League, as both sides testily pointed out last week in response to the fresh round of newspaper stories on pay-per-view.As this column suggested last week, however, there must be at least a chance that the existing contract will be torn up at the insistence of the Restrictive Practices Court, which is reviewing the terms of the deal at the behest of the Office of Fair Trading. In that event, clubs will be free to strike their own deals on pay-per-view, and will seek the best terms they can get - from BSkyB or anyone else.In the end, the digital revolution may end up being a far more democratising influence on British broadcasting than many had first thought: greater choice, more competition, and a far more direct relationship between the consumer's desires and the cultural "products" he or she buys. Sir: Your "resident Greek scholar" might have pointed out that, besides being murdered by Clytemnestra, Cassandra was, rather more relevantly, a woman ("Predictions galore in Cassandra hunt", 16 November). Shouldn't your line-up of the usual suspects - Austin Mitchell, Tony Banks, John Garrett - therefore have included a woman or two? Dr ROSS KING Oxford. It all started at Agincourt. Before 1415 foreign invaders always had the advantage, as they swooped down on the British Isles with their superior battlefield technology The Romans did it with daggers, the Vikings with their navy.

But, as every English history student knows, when the fifth King Hal faced the mighty French army, it was the longbow that saved the day. Raining arrows down from a distance on the advancing foe, the longbow far excelled the little crossbows held by the other side. And so began the long British tradition of weapons manufacture and warfare success. For a nation with so few private arms, we do a great trade in publicly owned killing machines. Last night Parliament voted for new, tight restrictions on guns.

Dangerous weapons are to be kept safely out of civilian hands. Yet at the weekend we discovered that a British company has been cheerfully supplying Rwandan civilians with guns that would be illegal in Britain, facilitating genocide. At the same time Michael Portillo announced with pride a new pounds 500m arms deal with Qatar. Meanwhile last week Australia announced a pounds 1bn order for the Hawk training aircraft built by British Aerospace. Our Secretary of State for Defence is proud of his prowess, our trade unions applaud the retention of jobs, and our military industrial tradition continues. British companies make serious money from arms dealing; British manufacturers, along with the Americans, build the weapons of the world. We are second only to our friends across the Atlantic for arms exports. Given how low down other international league tables we fall (in output, export and manufacturing) this is quite an achievement.