BBC cuts: Times item today

"Scott" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:06:19 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg

A few comments:

1. If many potential viewers are asleep between 10.35 and 6 am and
Question Time is a 'flagship show' then wtf is QT broadcast at 10.40?
2. The idea of transmitting HD programmes in the early hours makes
sense but I thought that was what the HD channel did anyway.

Eh, how does showing HD programs overnight make sense when showing SD
programs doesn't?

Maybe
they mean merging BBC2 with BBC HD throught the night. I would have
thought the savings there would be minimal.

As the broadcast standard is different how does this work?

4. I assume there is no saving in transmission costs by shutting a
channel when they are part of the same multiplex. I don't imagine
there is much original programming shown through the night, so where
are the savings?

That's what I was thinking

Is this saving from transmission costs or program costs.

I've just had a look at the overnight schedule and most of it is repeated
programs or rolling news (presumably from News 24) so it deosn't seem very
expensive to me

Is BBC3 or BBC4 at risk?
Dunno!

tim

On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 19:27:40h +0000, Charles wrote:

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:

The BBC has a duty to "inform, educate, and entertain" by virtue of its
charter;

regretfully it doesn't.

And what is your justification for that unsupported rebuttal?

It clearly states at

http://www.bbc.co.UK/aboutthebbc/purpose/

QUOTE

Our mission

To enrich people's lives with programmes and services
that inform, educate and entertain.

UNQUOTE

This is based directly from the charter issued to the BBC by
Brenda's command in 2006

QUOTE

5.How the BBC promotes its Public Purposes

the BBC's mission to inform,educateand entertain

(1)The BBC's main activities should
be the promotion of its Public Purposes through theprovision
of output which consists of information, education and entertainment ...

UNQUOTE

"Clem Dye" wrote in message
...
On 23/03/2011 17:06, Bill Wright wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg

Bill

Yeah, there was something similar in the Telegraph. TBH, I don't have a
problem with some programmes being repeated on another channel later in
the week -- I'm not a fan of iPlayer and I can't be arsed to connect my TV
et al to the internet. I would however object to BBC2 becoming a part-time
BBC News channel. IMHO, if the BBC needs to make cuts, get rid of BBC
Parliament and BBC News. I think that their news coverage on BBC1/2/4 etc.
is more than adequate -- BBC News was only launched as a spoiler to Sky
News anyway. If push came to shove, get rid of BBC Three too -- that was
supposed to fend-off the likes of E4, but as E4 shows largely dross
nowadays there's not a lot to choose between them. I have watched a few
programmes on BBC Three, but given the high number of repeats now there's
more than enough free airtime on the other channels to take the few good
programmes that do appear on BBC Three first, such as Being Human. Cut a
few radio channels too, come to think of it.

I've always thought [1] that the BBC should not be competing in the local
radio market, but I suspect that the saving from this is minimal in the
great scheme of things

Tim

[1] well after independent radio became established





Clem

In message on Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:38:25 -0000
tim.... wrote:

"Clem Dye" wrote in message
...
On 23/03/2011 17:06, Bill Wright wrote:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/BBC%20cuts.jpg

Bill

Yeah, there was something similar in the Telegraph. TBH, I don't have a
problem with some programmes being repeated on another channel later in
the week -- I'm not a fan of iPlayer and I can't be arsed to connect my TV
et al to the internet. I would however object to BBC2 becoming a part-time
BBC News channel. IMHO, if the BBC needs to make cuts, get rid of BBC
Parliament and BBC News. I think that their news coverage on BBC1/2/4 etc.
is more than adequate -- BBC News was only launched as a spoiler to Sky
News anyway. If push came to shove, get rid of BBC Three too -- that was
supposed to fend-off the likes of E4, but as E4 shows largely dross
nowadays there's not a lot to choose between them. I have watched a few
programmes on BBC Three, but given the high number of repeats now there's
more than enough free airtime on the other channels to take the few good
programmes that do appear on BBC Three first, such as Being Human. Cut a
few radio channels too, come to think of it.

I've always thought [1] that the BBC should not be competing in the local
radio market, but I suspect that the saving from this is minimal in the
great scheme of things

Tim

[1] well after independent radio became established





Clem

I can't remember the precise figure but I'll think you'll find that all BBC
local radio combined costs the licence payer less than 50 pence ...

--

Terry

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:36:05 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 19:27:40h +0000, Charles wrote:

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:

The BBC has a duty to "inform, educate, and entertain" by virtue of its
charter;

regretfully it doesn't.

And what is your justification for that unsupported rebuttal?

It clearly states at

http://www.bbc.co.UK/aboutthebbc/purpose/

QUOTE

Our mission

To enrich people's lives with programmes and services
that inform, educate and entertain.

UNQUOTE

This is based directly from the charter issued to the BBC by
Brenda's command in 2006

QUOTE

5.How the BBC promotes its Public Purposes

the BBC's mission to inform,educateand entertain

(1)The BBC's main activities should
be the promotion of its Public Purposes through theprovision
of output which consists of information, education and entertainment ...

UNQUOTE

Exactly.

The BBC has a duty to provide output that entertains all licence payers,
both high-brow and low-brow.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 20:13:45h +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:

The BBC has a duty to provide output that entertains all licence payers,
both high-brow and low-brow.

Which it does most effectively for the latter in the form of Eastenders,
Casualty, The One Show, Homes Under the Hammer, Britain's Empty Homes,
Cash in the Attic, Bargain Hunt, Escape to the Country, and
"Would I Lie To You?" to name just a few examples.

In fact, most of the schedule of BBC-1 network.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:28:08 +0000, lid wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:18:48 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:10:35 -0000, "Doctor D"
wrote:


The BBC needs to realise that it should not be competing with other channels
for ratings by showing more and more rubbish, but using our money to produce
and show progarmmes that are in the public interest, of public relevance and
are those which won't be produced by the other channels.

That is one point of view. Another is that the BBC has a duty to all
licence fee payers to provide them with the material they want.

When independent TV was introduced in the UK it was so that the new
companies would provide competition for the BBC. That was the political
justification for independent television. Such competition cannot exist
if the BBC stops competing with the independent sector.

Come off it!
That was 'one' of the arguments for ITV at the time. But a hell of a
lot has changed in the past half century.

Look at it another way.

The TV licence fee is a subscription which pays for BBC output. Because
it is a compulsory subscription all licence payers have a right to be
treated equally and to get the sort of programmes they want.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article ,
tim.... wrote:



I've always thought [1] that the BBC should not be competing in the local
radio market, but I suspect that the saving from this is minimal in the
great scheme of things

Tim

[1] well after independent radio became established


who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the
commercial stations appeared

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 21:10:15h +0000, Charles explained:

The BBC started local radio before the commercial stations appeared

Long before in fact: 2LO in the City of Westminster, 5IT in Birmingham,
2ZY in Manchester, 5WA in Caerdydd, and 5SC in Glasgow.

But did these stations every carry commercials?

charles wrote:
In article ,
tim.... wrote:



I've always thought [1] that the BBC should not be competing in the local
radio market, but I suspect that the saving from this is minimal in the
great scheme of things

Tim

[1] well after independent radio became established


who is doing the competing? The BBC started local radio before the
commercial stations appeared

BBC Local Radio generally was a dire peak hours only service listened to by
few, (even after it was able to broadcast on MW from '72) until ILR came along
and forced it to wake up.


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

www.paras.org.uk