And nothing of value was lost...
BBC Three fans seeking their fix of that ugly phenomenon chillingly known as factual entertainment will soon only be able to watch programmes commissioned for that channel on the iPlayer, Auntie has said. The Corporation confirmed rumours on Wednesday that suggested that BBC Three would be axed from our telly screens. It's …
Indeed. I'm trying to rack my brain over when I last watched the channel. It was probably for a Doctor Who or Merlin catch-up.
For me it was Mongrels, and then season 2 appeared, sigh...
As most of my viewing is BBC iPlayer I shall continue to not watch or download content linked to this channel.
I disagree, there has been a fair amount of good stuff on BBC Three. As well as those other examples that started on the channel Being Human and The Revolution Will Be televised spring to mind.
I don't think that there has been anything on TV recently that has called out the hipocrisy, corruption and double-dealing in the governemt and large commercial entities.
That said, they could easily fit all of thequality programmes and new experimental stuff on BBC 1 and 2 by cutting down on the number of repeats and examining the synopsis of the shows they have. If the word 'reality' appears in there, then chop the programme. Simple.
Just because YOU'RE not entertained by something doesn't necessarily mean it's crap.
Judge for yourself....
Borderline NSFW. It's the sort of thing that you'd find on BBC Three during an evening....
do we get a reduction in their tax now then?
Russell Howard good news? That alone justifies the channel :P
Tonight's viewing ...
19:00 - 20:00 Total Wipeout
20:00 - 21:00 Don't Tell the Bride
21:00 - 22:00 Festivals, Sex & Suspicious Parents
22:00 - 22:30 Ja'mie: Private School Girl
22:30 - 23:00 Bad Education
23:00 - 23:25 Family Guy
23:25 - 23:45 Family Guy
23:45 - 00:10 American Dad!
00:10 - 01:10 Festivals, Sex & Suspicious Parents
01:10 - 01:35 Ja'mie: Private School Girl
01:35 - 02:05 Pramface
02:05 - 03:05 Hair
03:05 - 03:30 Great Movie Mistakes
03:30 - 04:00 Pramface
There's been some very good stuff but these days it seems to be endless repeats, mundane tat and mostly crap. I'm above their target audience (16-34) so perhaps I just don't get it any more. But then I wasn't in their target audience when I thought it was good. It won't, for me, be much of a loss to see it go if it stays as it is now.
There's a few shows in there I really enjoy, interspersed with a large amount of feculence. If someone saw me watch BBC3 for a whole night they'd probably think I was a frequently bemused manic depressive.
Perhaps the Beeb are doing this to make a TV license necessary for using the interwebs.
You already do if it's in real time. iPlayer doesn't require it, but realtime streaming already does. How they monitor and control it is another matter however!!
"The BBC, which broke the BBC story, reported that the BBC will make an official statement about the BBC on Thursday on the BBC."
I think you could have got a few more BBC into that sentence.
Hah... still, it will make room in these 52p TV guides for another crappy sudoku
I was going to complement them on the number of BBCs they stuffed into that sentence.
Cheers, ladies and gentlemen!
You're new here I guess?
As long as they used protection.
...first aired on Radio 4 actually.
I think in this instance they were using "aired" as an abbreviation of "anyone cared".
Just like Mighty Boosh - but after that they needed a platform to see if a TV version would work. This is what BBC Three is for, to take risks with programming. some stuff will be rubbish, but then you'll get a few gems like Mighty Boosh. Bad Education isn't awful compared to the last series of Outnumbered as an example.
The money being saved (£30 million allegedly) isn't being directed at comedy either - its BBC One Drama (which I read as "Eastenders")and a BBC One + 1 service... Just what the licence fee payers wanted......
Surely if ANYTHING should be ditched in exchange for an online only version, it's +1 services!
I'm in the supposed target audience for BBC, but Radio 4 gets my leisure time. The programming on BBC3 is of little interest to me.
However, this could be a great opportunity: If they do genuinely move BBC3 to an iPlayer only channel as opposed to just not doing that kind of content anymore, they don't have to worry about filling up dead airtime with anything they can, and focus on a smaller, higher quality output.
The target audience of BBC3 has a huge overlap with the people that have the time, money, and technical ability to use an online viewing platform (And probably spend a good chunk of their leisure time on a computer/smartphone anyway), so it could be a great test platform for nailing on-demand viewing across a multitude of platforms, as I think everyone's in agreement that Over The Air live broadcasting will have a reduced roll going forward. I think we're a long way off even thinking about shutting down the Digital TV Platforms, but it never helps to look into future-proofing....
As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if BBC3 goes online only:
- The BBC will still be paying to produce BBC3 content.
- The BBC will essentially be paying for an empty channel since BBC3 simply takes over from CBBC in the evening.
Where are the savings supposed to come from?
> As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if BBC3 goes online only
And how will the BBC justify having a channel (SD/HD? never watched it, can't say) and a primo slot in the EPG lying used during TV prime time?
That sounds even more wasteful than broadcasting crap on BBC3 - even if it does save them a little money.
The follow-up story that will hit the site in a few hours will most likely be a rehash of this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26464007 where they are talking about a BBC1+1 and extending CBBC.
The BBC 1+1 is presumably to shoe-horn the Eastenders repeats that will be going with BBC 3.
It does also make it seem a bit pointless introducing the BBC3 HD channel at the end of last year.
@ David Austin: "I think everyone's in agreement that Over The Air live broadcasting will have a reduced roll going forward"
That's what they thought about FM 20 years ago too.
There's a lot to be said about a broadcast platform which means that everyone no matter where they are in the country and no matter what their income level and broadband availability is, can get a basic set of services for nominal cost (the cost of the TV nowadays with FreeView and FreeSat being built in).
Personally, I'd prefer if the bandwidth was used for OTA data where everyone had a PVR type device and all the programming was delivered as data. You could still have schedules - the box would manage that, and you get the benefit of not having to broadcast anything 2, 3, 4, or 10 times for the repeats. Considering how cheap storage is now, you could surely store a weeks worth of FreeView on a PVR?
Bandwidth is the problem with this idea. The target audience is distributed throughout the country...
That and iPlayers ("HD" in large quotes) picture quality isn't a patch on over the air.
If they'd let your download at broadcast quality however - I'd be more accepting - even having to wait over night to download a 30 min program.
I do like to watch American Dad and Family guy on BBC3 - great because no adverts. Wish SWMBO would not watch soaps, this is the only reason why we have a TV License
....ITV2 without the adverts.
...can be neatly summed up just by watching their respective 1-minute news summaries. BBC3 is professional and presented in a way that assumes the viewer is adult (despite it being followed by shite like that dire single-joke cross-dress Ja'mie import). ITV2 is all "Hiya!" "Awright" bezzie-mate style, presented by chatty truck-stop barmaids.
I honestly cannot remember the last time I watched anything on the BBC as a whole I do enjoy family guy however I buy the DVD box sets to get the non censored versions.
I quit cable/and sat TV for the same reason and never looked back.
I do however enjoy paying the TV license so that my wife may continue to watch coronation street -_-
tripe like Strictly Come Dancing, The Voice, Eastenders, Dr Who cost to make?
For that they could keep BBC3, BBC4 and bring back Formula One to the BBC...
If I come across the director general in a wine bar, I'm gonna chin him...
tripe like Strictly Come Dancing, The Voice, Eastenders, Dr Who cost to make?
A lot less than they earn by selling them abroad.
Do any of those programmes apart from Dr Who actually have a foreign audience?
Add to that list News 24. It's the same 5 minutes of news repeated all day at a cost of £50+ million per year. There are already regular news updates on the main BBC channels.
Well, when BBC America shows things, they cram in 20% ads, so things like Top Gear lose entire segments. As a result I torrent it anyway.
 People started *seriously* bitching and they started showing Top Gear in its entirety, plus ads, and so it ran an hour and 20 minutes.
20% of 60 != 20 minutes 20 minutes is 1/3 of an hour
Top gear is on netflix for $5/month
More old top gear is on UK netflix = $5/month for a VPN
New top gear is on iPlayer + $5/month for a VPN
They do get a lot from selling their TV abroad, The Voice however isn't a BBC original unlike the rest as they pay a stupid amount of money out each year to broadcast it -
"The BBC has splashed out an astonishing £22million on a reality entertainment show to take on The X Factor in the Saturday night ratings war.
BBC1 controller Danny Cohen signed a two-year deal to secure the UK rights for The Voice, which is already a success in the U.S. and Holland.
The cost to the Corporation is likely to be ramped up still further as it looks to sign up a big-name judging panel."
Shows like "Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps" started their tenure on BBC2 before being shoved to the new shiny BBC3. As already said, why not push the content for BBC3 and BBC4 back to BBC1 and BBC2. Most of the shows that are shiny and new on 3 and 4 end up repeated on 1 and 2 anyway. Cut out the endless repeats and show the new content on 1 and 2 at sensible times; then leave the endless re-runs to Dave, Drama, Yesterday, and Really (have I missed any?).
Of course, the question is then what to do with the dead air-time on the multiplexes. BBC3 and 4 take over when CBBC and CBeebies go off air. Are they to go 24-hour, or be scrapped as well?
A BBC repeat channel would actually be very useful for people who get BBC but don't have good enough internet access for iPlayer (yes, there are. A lot.). Especially in conjunction with a PVR/Satellite box that does series linking.
Or, in other words, you might thing BBC does lots of repeats, but they don't: the "another chance to see" stuff is now shunted to iPlayer. What they do do, and what this won't change, is string out popular properties like Come Dancing into endless spinoff and side shows that clog the schedules, but they're not repeats, just repetitive.
I can't remember last time I watched Three, but BBC Four (TV) accounts for about 50% of my TV consumption, so long may it continue.
If they just put all their content on iPlayer, forget repeating shows, then BBC3 & 4 would not be needed.
I've enjoyed documentaries on BBC4 & comedy on BBC3, but I now barely watch BBC2, which used to have loads of great stuff on..
Often I find at night I have 50 channels but nothing to watch...
On demand is the way forward, but Broadcast TV is still important.
"Especially in conjunction with a PVR/Satellite box that does series linking."
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you have a STB that does series linking and recording why do you need it repeated?
I'm having that issue where I need things repeating - there were a couple of weeks where there were 4 simultaneous things I wanted to record at 9pm. Luckily one was repeated and 1 was available on iPlayer.
I certainly remember watching "edgy" comedy of The Young Ones first time round on BBC2. Same with Red Dwarf, HIGNIFY and many other shows. Didn't Armstrong & Miller and the two Peep Show lads have their sketch shows on BBC2?
"Maybe I'm missing something, but if you have a STB that does series linking and recording why do you need it repeated?"
The comment below yours is one reason (too many simultaneous programmes, which is another problem with broadcasters - everything worth watching is on against everything else worth watching).
The other situation, that I really had in mind, is when you stumble upon a series at episode 4, discover that it's actually really good, but now you can't find episode 1,2,3 repeated anywhere. A "Catch-up" broadcast, even late at night, would be very handy for this situation, especially as TV producers are so in love with series-long story arcs these days.
And since they don't generally pay the license fee then its just tough luck. The BBC spends enough money on kids and adolescents already with CBBC , Radio 1, 1 xtra etc. Its time the money was spent on something more worthwhile. The kids can just go surf Myface or Booboo or whatever this week flavour of the month social loser site is and leave us adults to watch the telly.
And when those kids who have never bothered with the BBC grow up, why would they suddenly decide to start watching and pay the license fee?
You won't be around forever. The BBC need to get new viewers somehow.
"will soon only be able to watch programmes commissioned for that channel on the iPlayer"
There's been plenty of repeats on BBC3 recently, my little one is currently catching up on Dr. Who that I felt he was too young for a couple of years ago. It will be a shame if those go off air as I prefer him to see them on the freeview+ recorder than give him access to the PC, but I digress.
If the programmes commissioned for that channel continue to be made so that they can be seen on the iPlayer, as I infer from the quote above, there will be the ongoing production costs. The rest is just repeat fees ("residuals"?) which I assume apply regardless of the method of transmission and which might for some programmes increase as it is possible to tell how many people watch the more popular ones, and some incidental expenses for the off-screen continuity announcers.
Thus it would appear to my relatively uneducated eye that the only real saving is the cost of transmission. Assuming that Auntie is not selling of part of the multiplex, and IIRC earlier in the day that slot is used by one of the (younger, natch) children's channels, then apart from the electricity bill for the transmitters what is being saved.
Or have I misread this?
then apart from the electricity bill for the transmitters what is being saved."
The transmission network is operated by Arquiva, so yes, the rental fee for the multiplex slot is the main saiving quoted in the story. As an online/on-demand only channel, there will be no need to buy in imports to fill a schedule on a multiplex which they pay £millions per year for.
The freeing up of that multiplex slot will inititially be a loss on Arquivas books but I'm sure they are already touting that spare capacity around now for a commercial or subscription channel. It's a spare slot at peak viewing hours too.
Other annual savings will be the EPG fees for listing the channel which are nothing to be sneezed at either.
BBC Director General Tony Hall confessed last week that "tough choices" would have to be made to plug a £100m hole in the Corporation's finances.
And this is the best idea they could come up with?
No ideas about creating an online globally available subscription channel?
£3 pound a month for unlimited access to previous BBC programs say?
Maybe something like the "BBC Boxset" channel, where Doctor who fans could while away days watching all the old episodes.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017