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 …
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.
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.
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.
...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 -_-
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.
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."
This post has been deleted by its author
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
Globally online is a good idea, but at the very least it should be £5/Month
Hmmm I think they'd need to spend sometime seriously considering the price, price it to high and many people in many countries won't subscribe because it becomes an amount which is far to much for them annually, price it to low and they'll get limited returns on it.
I pitched it at £3 because I suspect Netflix have done some amount of reserach to set their monthly price and arrived at that being a price consumers are willing to bear, but I'm only guessing, maybe it should be more than that.
Loved Monkey Dust. The Peadofinder General rings even truer now than it did then, what with Operation YouWereOnTellyInTheSeventies being in full flight.
And yet, despite being an absolute gem, they only ever bothered to release the first series of Monkey Dust on DVD. Some of the S2 and S3 episodes turned up on iTunes though.
A year ago I might have upvoted you.
Not any more. CBeebies is that last hope of the end-of-tether dad attempting to cope after work with a supercharged 11 month old baby who wants to get in the oven while you're trying to cook his dinner because the mrs is on nightshift.
Now granted, the mere fact of knowing that Sir Derek Jacobi is singing the Iggle Piggle song is enough to make my soul scream but not so loudly that I won't take the welcome distraction it offers my horrible spawn.
I'll be interested to see what happens to Family Guy - it appears that it's not allowed on iPlayer, so I assume Auntie will either punt it onto BBC Two or give up the rights to it.
There's very little else on BBC Three I watch; Russell Howard's Good News and Bluestone 42 are really the other exceptions. And I'm in their target audience range. BBC Four however has some very good content, provided you enjoy being educated rather than being exposed to real life or actor peoples shouting at each other.
Agree. It'll be interesting to see what happens to Family Guy & American Dad - they are the only things I watch on Three. However as most of the funny references in those programmes probably arn't picked up by the target audience because of their age, it could probably be slotted to four.
I am fortunate enough to not have to pay the "fee" as I left the UK many moons ago.
Sadly the dodgy satellite feed coming into akeane towers now contains 3 BBC channels...
BB1: Unwatchable unless you like James Martin
BB2: Unwatchable unless you like James Martin
CBEEBIES: PINGU!!! Twice a day
So, of the entire BBC output I can receive the only things I can watch are PINGU (YAY!!!) or James Martin
(Don't get me wrong J.M. is somewhat tolerable until his chubby cheeky grin starts to become Richard Herring-ish, but he is never off the telly, ever...)
But ... PINGU
Now, time for bed so I can dream about Pingu and I teaming up with General Kroell to defeat the wicked James Martin and his evil schemes...
I automatically assume anything on TV is going to be dummed down to the point of painfullness. When was the last time Horizon was watchable compared to "In Our Time"?
About the last time TV compared to Radio4 was the port of Absolute Power.
Although a TV version of Cabin Pressure or Hut33 shouldn't be too expensive
Family Guy, American Dad, Russell Howard and bad education are the only things worth watching on bbc3 anyway, and the first two are just the same old episodes looped again and again, so no loss there really.
That bluestone army thing was embarrassingly bad as is most of the channels output (who the fuck watches gavin and stacey and thinks its funny, or even entertaining?).
And to those moaning about the bbc giving up formula 1, good riddance, after cricket, its probably the most tedious `sport` to watch. Id rather my licence fee went on something that didnt send me to sleep.
So... well I don't know where to start.
1) We are in the middle (well more like at the start really) of the rather enormous task of upgrading a good proportion of the UK to broadband speeds that are actually fast enough to use BBC iPlayer.
2) Unlike other parts of the world, quite a lot of UK broadband contracts are still capped at a download limit.
3) The BBC streaming infrastructure is already creaking at the seams, I can't actually remember the last time we successfully managed to watch an entire programme with no buffering or - even worse - no apparent buffering but after about 15 minutes suddenly being told "you have insufficient bandwidth to stream this programme". I know there are those of you out there who don't have a problem with BBC iPlayer, but I know loads of people who do. (Meanwhile Netflix can deliver 2 HD streams to us at the same time without a problem)
So apart from the points above, I wonder if the BBC are planning to subsidise broadband connections for those of us who will have to pay extra for going over the download limit? Maybe the BBC can convince ISPs to not count traffic to iPlayer as part of the download allowance?
While it's true that BBC3 is pretty dire, I think the same can be said of 1 and 2 which have several times the budget for their shows. BBC3 probably represents fairly good value for money given that, on average, they've turned out one good show a year over their lifetime. BBC1 would need to turn out 12 good shows a year to be the same value for money, and it sure as hell doesn't do that!
That being said, there's no reason whatsoever they can't can a few repeats and put the entire home-made schedule of 3 onto 1 and 2. Strip the repeats and the imports and 3 only has a couple of hours' programming.
Ah well, I'll fondly remember them for:
Monkey Dust, My Life in Film, Bad Education, Pulling, Being Human, Mongrels, The Fades, Nighty Night, Pramface (well, the first season), and The Mighty Boosh. Little Britain wasn't half bad at first too, but that sort of thing wears thin extraordinarily quickly.
The licence fee is up for renegotiation and the great and the good have been putting their oar in on how to preserve their nice fat income stream.
They have already seen the opportunity with iPlayer. You don't need a licence for catch up and so they are looking at ways to extend the reach of the licence fee.
So we close BBC3, put original content online and then the distinction between catch up vs live TV starts to blur.
Are those the bells of cash registers I hear?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019