Home cinema - BBC Three Kaput

HomeCinemaBanter (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/index.php)

- UK digital tv (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - BBC Three Kaput (http://www.homecinemabanter.com/showthread.php?t=74259)

"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:30:46 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:10:17 +0000, Mark Carver

wrote:

On 06/03/2014 13:35, UnsteadyKen wrote:

The BBC has lost the drama plot. It's either unbelievable ****e like
LOD or it's played for "laughs" as in Murder in Paradise/New Tricks,ho
****ing ho. Either way, it makes me appreciate the afternoon drama on
Radio 4 all the more.

Come on, don't sit on the fence, say what you really think

LOL

Without a picture he doesn't notice that they always use the same old
actors on
Radio 4 afternoon drama.

Well, I've heard it said; "You get much better pictures on radio."
Presumably on account the listener has full editorial control of the
'in head video content'.

As in that quote from "Educating Rita" - "in answer to the question 'How
would you stage Ibsen's Peer Gynt', I answered 'I would do it on the radio -
because the scenery is better'"... or words to that effect.

"Mark" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:22:00 +0000, Clem Dye
wrote:

On 05/03/2014 14:26, JohnT wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089

Not that much of a loss, to my mind. There's very little that I watch,
if anything, on BBC3 now -- how many more times can they re-run old
Family Guy episodes?

I don't recall ever watching BBC3.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

White Van Man - good - got canned - probably because it appealed to the
wrong demographic i.e me - over 35 male not under 35 male

Cuckoo - interesting - been commissioned for a second season - EXCEPT that
the eponymous character isn't going to be in it - How the flip does that
work then?

tim

"Martin" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:09:20 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
. ..

In article , Mark Carver
wrote:
On 05/03/2014 15:32, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 15:07:57 +0000, Mark Carver

Hopefully BBC 4 HD will now be promoted to PSB 3 (to be available for
all of the UK)

I hadn't realised that BBC4 HD isn't available for all of the UK. Do
you mean via Freeview?

Yus, it's only available on COM 7 which is still being rolled out, but
even when it has been (by June this year) it'll only be 30 transmitter
sites (about 70% population coverage)

Do you think they will renumber the channels or is the next step to
merge BBC 2 and BBC4?

Dunno, to be honest I'm surprised by this move (and I speak as someone
who never watches BBC 3) but I suspect this could all be a publicity
stunt to promote the channel, already there are 'save BBC 3 campaigns' on
Twitter etc. Remember when they attempted to close 6-Music Radio a couple
of years ago, big fuss, big increase in listeners, and it's still there,
after the BBC Truss saved it.

and, in any case, the main cost is making the programmes. Switching off
the Freeview version is only going to save peanuts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought that as well

Can't see that saving on broadcast costs is going to achieve anything
meaningful

According to a news item on BBC News stopping all transmission of BBC TV
channels would save less than £90 million. I've forgotten the exact figure.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to one of today's papers, stopping it as a broadcast channel is
going to: give the BBC an extra 50 million to spend on BBC1 drama, allow
them to extend CBBC for an extra hour and give them the band-width for BBC1
+1

So broadcasting BBC3 on some DTV band-width costs 50 million and
broadcasting BBC1+1 on the same bandwidth costs zero then?

Don't believe it myself

tim

"David" wrote in message ...

When this BBC3 closes does that mean the children's programs closed too on
the daytime that shares with it?

-----------------------------------------------------

seems not

(that's one of the reasons why the savings don't make sense)

tim

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...

BBC 1 plus 1?
Anyway, one can now see one of the reasons they wanted to cancel Sky at
night. They are running out of our dosh. Perhaps its time to get a new
model. Surely the BBCs job as a public service broadcaster is to cater for
things the commercial folk cannot as they cannot sell adverts in it. Then if
any of the stuff gets popular, they should have a commercial wing that can
carry on making sid shows and put them out with adverts to help with funding
the rest of the BBC.

That way surely eveyone wins. However that pre supposes that commercials
actually work. My guess is that now so many people are getting their content
via other means which enables editing of the adverts, that commercial
funding is going to be a decreasing revenue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

You obviously didn't see the report that I linked a week or so back

despite the trumpeted success of streamed media, 98.5% of TV is still
watched as "live" broadcasts.

tim

On 06/03/2014 16:55, tim..... wrote:

So broadcasting BBC3 on some DTV band-width costs 50 million and
broadcasting BBC1+1 on the same bandwidth costs zero then?

Don't believe it myself

Nor me

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"charles" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
BBC 1 plus 1? Anyway, one can now see one of the reasons they wanted to
cancel Sky at night. They are running out of our dosh. Perhaps its time
to get a new model. Surely the BBCs job as a public service broadcaster
is to cater for things the commercial folk cannot as they cannot sell
adverts in it. Then if any of the stuff gets popular, they should have a
commercial wing that can carry on making sid shows and put them out with
adverts to help with funding the rest of the BBC.

The problem with this idea is that the licence fee should provide
programmes for everybody. If the BBC doesn't provide programmes for hoi
polloi, then they won't pay the licence fee. As a senior BBC man once said
in my hearing to a question from a journalist whoa sked who were the
programmes aid at: "We're publicly funded, who do you suggest we miss out?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That justifies why they make "low brow" programs

but it doesn't begin to justify why they think that they need to pay market
leading salaries to celebs to front said low brow programs

tim

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:42:59 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

That way surely eveyone wins. However that pre supposes that commercials
actually work. My guess is that now so many people are getting their content
via other means which enables editing of the adverts, that commercial
funding is going to be a decreasing revenue.

Commercials do not work with people like me. They put me off buying
the product.

Steve

--
Neural Network Software http://www.npsnn.com
EasyNN-plus More than just a neural network http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN Prediction software http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN Just a neural network http://www.justnn.com

Exactly, its surely got to be more than that then. Is it perhaps staffing?

Really though if you look at the bbc tv output and how often there are
repeats on them. They only need to cut the repeats to cover all the stuff
they now use channel three for in any case. After all they repeat Dr who,
Eastenders, Lots of the railway journey stuff and lots of other things.
Interestingly, the UK gtv network seems to be getting Dr Who now so does
this mean that repeats will be over there in future? Maybe some of those not
on freeview but free on the sat could be put on the freeview channels
vacated by 3.

Personally, I feel the whole broadcast mess needs a bit of rethink.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"tim....." wrote in message
...

"David" wrote in message ...
When this BBC3 closes does that mean the children's programs closed too on
the daytime that shares with it?

-----------------------------------------------------

seems not

(that's one of the reasons why the savings don't make sense)

tim

Brian Gaff wrote:
Maybe some of those not
on freeview but free on the sat could be put on the freeview channels

Seems that space is destined to be taken by BBC 1+1

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.