It seems then that public service at least in Finland faces a three-dimensional challenge alone in the level of programming supply. First, the question is of diversification system-wide, so that the public service can balance out it commercial counterparts that just may compete with relatively similar programming, even if specialized. Second, as many have argued (e.g., Hujanen 2004), public service needs to secure a universal service at least within the public service channel system. If the universality principle is understood with all its dimensions (equal access, minority services, etc.), one of its more specific performance goals is the diversity of programme content or supply. In the dawn of possible and probable pay-tv services in the digital platform, diversification by YLE’s channels so that they together secure free and diverse programming is surely essential. Lastly, the diversity within a channel, i.e., the traditional full-service principle, might important if Ellis’ (2000) claim is taken seriously: Fragmented multi-channel supply, no matter how diverse overall, may leave a lone consumer surfs in specialized channels. Any more qualitative outlook is likely to point out that the public service task ensuring programme type diversity (including public service alternatives also in entertaining genres) should entail offering choice in themes, topics, actors, formats, modes and viewpoints.