Older Bermudians well remember the disastrous strike that crippled Bermuda Broadcasting Company in the mid-1980s and left the Island with no television and little radio for several months.

The silence on the airwaves then was akin to a national crisis. That contrasts with the current dispute today that has caused concern, but not uproar, in the community.

That's because the broadcasting picture in Bermuda today is entirely different than it was 25 years ago. Then, Bermuda had two television stations and not many more radio stations, only one of which was not in the BBC stable.

Today, Bermuda has around ten local TV stations, hundreds of other cable channels carried by two different providers and at least nine radio stations.

So the current strike at the BBC has much less impact than it did decades ago. But that does not mean it is not serious, nor that it should not be of concern.

Now more than ever, Bermuda needs independent commercial television, not least to provide competition for newspapers. But the fragmentation of the media sector in Bermuda makes it unlikely that any local TV station is making money, least of all the BBC, which has not been able to adjust to the modern environment.

At the same time, in a general economic downturn, advertising revenues inevitably fall, making the company's position all the worse.

It would appear that there is plenty of blame to go around in the current dispute.

Staff have every reason to be angry about the company's failure to meet its obligations, but it seems very unwise for them to walk out at a time when they of all people must be aware of the company's parlous condition. One can only imagine that they would only take this step if they thought the company is doomed anyway.

At the same time, management must take some responsibility, not least for the dismissal in January of chief executive officer Bill Craig, who seemed to be starting to get the company on the right track.

What is clear is that the BBC needs a combination of new investment in equipment and retrenchment to reduce costs. The layoffs which sparked the current dispute seem to have been an attempt at that, but were apparently mishandled.

Still, it would seem that more needs to be done. It was long believed that the company made money on its radio operations and lost it on television, so cutting back the TV channels would be one answer. It is understandable that ownership is unwilling to do this, but it may well be necessary.

However, all of this is in the future, and at the moment, what is needed most of all is to get the two sides talking, either voluntarily or through mediation.

Both sides should be trying to get to this point as a matter of urgency, because time is surely running out.

Chairman Fernance Perry says the company has lost money for 16 years and he has had to borrow money to meet the payroll. One wonders in the circumstances how much longer he is prepared to let the company bleed.

That question should be uppermost in all minds. If the 1984 strike weakened the company, and it did, and the advent of cable TV added further injury, then this dispute may be its death knell if a settlement is not reached.