BBC Three Kaput

On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:15:28 +0000, Mike O'Sullivan
wrote:

On 05/03/2014 16:04, Martin wrote:

Yes, I wonder what the freed up bandwidth will be used for, they must
have some plan for it already ?

More Sky channels?

No, we need more shopping channels.

BBC Enterprises channel, flogging boxed sets of all those programmes
we didn't get to see properly when they were broadcast because of
on-screen graphics and some pillock talking over the end credits.

Rod.

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

What would **** me off is if BBC4 gets the chop. I really value the
foreign language programmes that the channel frequently airs. If it gets
merged with BBC2, as has also been suggested, then I suspect that all of
that 'innovation' will be lost.

Same here, but the unexpected popularity of the most improbable
material (e.g. Danish politics for goodness sake) just because it's
foreign with subtitles, has actually become a bit of a cultural
phenomenon itself which has been mentioned in other media, and
probably means it's reasonably safe. I hope so anyway.

Rod.

In article ],
Another John writes:
In article ,
"JohnT" wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089

Let's hope they don't start shunting the stuff that comes out on BBC3 (I
never watch it, but we do get the Radio Times!) on to BBC4.

J.

It wouldn't be a very good fit. I'd guess that a few of the most popular
BBC3 programmes, such as Family Guy, might move to BBC1.
--
John Hall "He crams with cans of poisoned meat
The subjects of the King,
And when they die by thousands G.K.Chesterton:
Why, he laughs like anything." from "Song Against Grocers"

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:22:00 +0000, Clem Dye
wrote:

What would **** me off is if BBC4 gets the chop. I really
value the
foreign language programmes that the channel frequently
airs. If it gets
merged with BBC2, as has also been suggested, then I
suspect that all of
that 'innovation' will be lost.

Same here, but the unexpected popularity of the most
improbable
material (e.g. Danish politics for goodness sake) just
because it's
foreign with subtitles, has actually become a bit of a
cultural
phenomenon itself which has been mentioned in other media,
and
probably means it's reasonably safe. I hope so anyway.



Nah. Inspector Montelbano is way ahead of them on the list!


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

On 05/03/2014 19:35, David Kennedy wrote:
On 05/03/2014 18:07, Michael Chare wrote:
On 05/03/2014 14:26, JohnT wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089


If they are going to stop transmitting the programme in a manner that
I can
receive it, I think it only reasonable that they reduce the licence fee.


That would mean that when the council reduce rubbish collections they
would also reduce your council tax*


No, everybody the council collects rubbish from gets treated the same.

You may be able to watch internet TV if you have a good broadband
connection, but there are many who don't have this, and it should not be
a requirement to watch live BBC TV.



--
Michael Chare

On 05/03/2014 22:35, Michael Chare wrote:
On 05/03/2014 19:35, David Kennedy wrote:
On 05/03/2014 18:07, Michael Chare wrote:
On 05/03/2014 14:26, JohnT wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089


If they are going to stop transmitting the programme in a manner that
I can
receive it, I think it only reasonable that they reduce the licence fee.


That would mean that when the council reduce rubbish collections they
would also reduce your council tax*


No, everybody the council collects rubbish from gets treated the same.

Different areas have different councils with different charges and different
services...

You may be able to watch internet TV if you have a good broadband connection,
but there are many who don't have this, and it should not be a requirement to
watch live BBC TV.





--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

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.

If the BBC wants to save money then getting rid of BBC3 to move it
online is OK with me, but they could also scrub BBC News and BBC
Parliament whilst they're at it. To my mind, BBC News was only ever a
knee jerk reaction to Sky News anyway.

What would **** me off is if BBC4 gets the chop. I really value the
foreign language programmes that the channel frequently airs. If it gets
merged with BBC2, as has also been suggested, then I suspect that all of
that 'innovation' will be lost.

Agreed. BBC4 seems to get all the decent Science programmes now and
BBC2 just dummed down ones for the "plebs".

If they just removed the DOGs from BBC4 I would be happier.

With any luck, BBC3/3HD will go online only and BBC4HD can take its
place, to get round all of this messing around with BBC4HD on Freeview
now, using out of group frequencies to transmit it -- take Emley Moor,
for example. The main transmitter site is Group B, so the powers that be
stuck BBC4HD on a Group A channel.

I guess that we'll have to see I suppose. One thing's for sure -- we
licence payers won't get much of a say about it.

How true.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:03:56 +0100, Martin wrote:

There's a lot of oddities. There was a recent article in the DM about MS being
linked to the contraceptive pill. I went to an MS website to check the article
there was a more formal better written version of the information that was in
the DM article with the source of the information attributed to the DM!

So much information on the internet appears to be going round and
round in circles that it can sometimes be very difficult to find where
it came from. I wonder how many people are getting all their learning
from this system, believing it to be reliable?

Rod.

What no more Snog Marry Avoid?
I was a bit confused about all this.
They said make it an on line channel, well maybe but if the idea is to save
money, how does that work? Best bet in my view is to rename 4 to three
quarters, and put on only the best of the stuff from both.
Seriously though haw can you have 1, 2, and 4? That would be silly.

What will happen to the channel allocations for this channel. BBC1 plus 1
perhaps?


Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"JohnT" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089

--
JohnT

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.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"NY" wrote in message
...
"JohnT" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26447089

An interesting decision. If any channel was to bite the dust, I'd have
expected it to be BBC Four. Thankfully BBC have made the right decision:
BBC Four has programmes I watch; BBC Three has none. I wonder what will
occupy Three's space in the DVB-T and DVB-S multiplexes.