BBC Television programmes  permalink

SCRAP BBC3 - NOW! and keep BBC4

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 43 of 43
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by smiler (U16020137) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    Please keep BBC4 - scrap BBC3, programmes are utter rubbish!.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    Please keep BBC4 - scrap BBC3, programmes are utter rubbish!. 
    That's just what seems to be happening (though BBC3 is going to be available online).

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    Surely, having a channel called BBC4 makes no sense if there's no BBC3?

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    Surely, having a channel called BBC4 makes no sense if there's no BBC3? 
    They can just call the next new channels they open BBC8 and BBC16.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by old git at 70 (U14213449) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    Please keep BBC4 - scrap BBC3, programmes are utter rubbish!. 
    That's just what seems to be happening (though BBC3 is going to be available online). 
    As Far as I can see , the only savings will be transmission costs to all
    it will still have production costs ( unless it only going to be repeats) , and any costs putting it on I-player

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    the only savings will be transmission costs to all
    it will still have production costs ( unless it only going to be repeats)  

    There's new information here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/e...

    The BBC3 programme-making budget is going to be heavily cut -- and some of the savings used for BBC1, though looking at their relative budgets I'd have thought it would be a bit of a drop in the bucket.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by heterodox (U14291406) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    'Please keep BBC4 - scrap BBC3,'

    I can't see the point in keeping either if you are still showing 'Dad's Army' as part of Saturday evening viewing and the schedules are full of cooks, antiques dealers and estate agents. Surely this dross indicates that there is not enough good material to fill two channels and so why have channels 3 and 4?
    I'm not saying there are no good programmes on BBC4 (I don't watch BBC3) but there are not a great many and they could easily be shown on BBC 2 to the exclusion of the rubbish which is shown now.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    Yes, because the BBC should clearly only show programmes that you, personally, like. Everything else is "rubbish".

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by lluncoolj (U7676659) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    ... - scrap BBC3, programmes are utter rubbish!. 

    from Twitter this morning;

    'BBC3 has won more awards since Feb 2003 than Sky1, Sky Living, E4, ITV2, Channel 5 & Comedy Central have combined in 25 years!'

    Not bad for a station whose programmes you think are 'utter rubbish'.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Juvia says goodbye (U15993513) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    Yes, because the BBC should clearly only show programmes that you, personally, like. Everything else is "rubbish".  I don't think that that is what he is saying. He is saying that there is a lot of repetition of programming and duplication of format. It would be just as easy to reduce that and use the money and space to show programming that would otherwise have been made for BBC Three and BBC Four. It is not as if there would not be outlets for some of that programming; there is the whole UKTV network, for example.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by purwil (U14677803) on Thursday, 6th March 2014

    Yes, because the BBC should clearly only show programmes that you, personally, like. Everything else is "rubbish".  But you really don't need more than Gardener's World, one British and one World cooking programme, Top Gear and a programme about the current property market. Make Antiques Roadshow half an hour and match it with a show about what antiques generally are fetching.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by heterodox (U14291406) on Friday, 7th March 2014

    'I don't think that that is what he is saying. He is saying that there is a lot of repetition of programming and duplication of format.'

    Thank you for that. I always think that a bit of reserve is called for when you write anonymously.
    Yesterday's (Thursday's) BBC 3 schedule giveas a good example of my point because, of the nine hours broadcast only ninety minutes were marked as 'New'. One programme was shown three times in that period and another twice.
    The same pattern was apparent on BBC4 except that the New was reduced to thirty minutes and two of the repeats had been as recently as last Monday.
    With this paucity of new material I don't think you can justify whatever extra costs are involved in running separate channels.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Juvia says goodbye (U15993513) on Friday, 7th March 2014

    I am not as troubled as many over the change. In "Delivering Quality First" the Trust very clearly set out a vision for BBC Three as what Mark Thompson at the time said meant that BBC Three would become more of a feeder channel for BBC One. Programming would be tried out on BBC Three, and the good stuff would go over to BBC One. An example of this sort of thing happening in the past, prior to that, would be 'Little Britain' (and similarly, BBC Four would become a feeder for BBC Two). In recent statements, it has already been made clear that the good BBC Three stuff will shift.

    Danny Cohen - who some seem to think is the villain of the piece - is only the messenger, I think. Yesterday, he seemed to say that what is happeing to BBC Three would have happened anyway, just sooner.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by anglepoison2 (U14475655) ** on Friday, 7th March 2014

    I said in this very forum 3 years ago when the same subject arose that the obvious thing to do was not scrap BBC3 or 4 but to amalgamate them as they clearly didn't have enough new unique material to justify either's individual existence.

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    I still stand by this as better solution than the one now apparently going ahead.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Friday, 7th March 2014

    the obvious thing to do was not scrap BBC3 or 4 but to amalgamate them as they clearly didn't have enough new unique material to justify either's individual existence.  
    I think they'd make sense as part of a larger miscellany of minority interests (in other words, old-style BBC2), but just the two of them would be an odd mixture.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by MrT (U15054385) on Friday, 7th March 2014

    I am finding it hard to keep up when there are multiple threads on this. The main one is here:

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Juvia says goodbye (U15993513) on Friday, 7th March 2014

    I know; I have posted on all the threads. I am not terribly worried about multiple threads, especially when it is something that has exercised people so much, and new posters come and start up threads. Dee recently said something on the subject on her thread.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by jodie (U14366548) on Friday, 7th March 2014

    I watched the founder of bbc 3 on the news channel last night answering questions at Radio 1 by Radio 1 listeners and i thought the reason given that 'Younger' views would transfer easier online to watch bbc3 than say older bbc4 viewers was a credible answer.
    There was some who questioned that by saying they didnt want to watch a computer screen to view programmes after looking at a screen all day at work but it was pointed out that you can still view bbc3 on a TV via a cable or box which again is a credible answer so why everyone keeps saying the channel is Axed is rediculous

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by anglepoison2 (U14475655) ** on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    No it isn't being axed but there are still large numbers of people who don't have BB or a fast enough BB connection to be able to use iPlayer. So some people it will undoubtedly mean BBC3 is effectively being axed.

    If we all had internet connected TVs and fast BB then this annoucement would be almost irrelevant. But most of us don't and as we're all licence fee payers the BBC indulging itself by funding a channel that some of us won't have access to is questionable.

    Another question I have is: why is broadcasting a TV channel online rather than directly through the airwaves actually that much cheaper? Isn't most of the costs involved spent on the rights to broadcast and/or funding the production of the programmes shown on that channel?

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    why is broadcasting a TV channel online rather than directly through the airwaves actually that much cheaper? Isn't most of the costs involved spent on the rights to broadcast and/or funding the production of the programmes shown on that channel? 
    BBC3's programme-making budget is also being heavily cut (more than two-thirds, I think), which will be rather bigger than the savings from not broadcasting it.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Sunday, 9th March 2014

    why is broadcasting a TV channel online rather than directly through the airwaves actually that much cheaper? Isn't most of the costs involved spent on the rights to broadcast and/or funding the production of the programmes shown on that channel? 
    BBC3's programme-making budget is also being heavily cut (more than two-thirds, I think), which will be rather bigger than the savings from not broadcasting it. 
    Sign the petition people. Save BBC3. The BBC should be providing programming for the whole of the nation giving the same access to the whole of the nation. BBC3 and it's demographic should not be dumped on the iPlayer.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by MrT (U15054385) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Please keep BBC4 - scrap BBC3, programmes are utter rubbish!.  Obviously BBC3 should be abolished rather than BBC4 if a choice has to be made.

    The target demographic will continue to be served by BBC1 and 2. The Voice (primetime BBC1) seems to be aimed at 16-34s though I am sure many others enjoy it (and I expect many don't).

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by dave (U2043922) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Surely the demograhic for BBC3 will more likely use their phones and tablets to watch BBC3 ? A win win ?

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by CannotResistThisOne (U15930232) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Buffer the demographics. Most demographics don't fit real people. They do it by computers and viewing figures, extrapolating policies based on assumptions. I once worked for a company which extrapolated from a reponse of 2 (one said yes, one said no) that 50% of the people wanted the thing they were paid to examine. Government policy resulted.

    Never mind the quantity, feel the breadth.

    https://www.change....

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by dave (U2043922) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Buffer the demographics. Most demographics don't fit real people. They do it by computers and viewing figures, extrapolating policies based on assumptions. I once worked for a company which extrapolated from a reponse of 2 (one said yes, one said no) that 50% of the people wanted the thing they were paid to examine. Government policy resulted.

    Never mind the quantity, feel the breadth.

    https://www.change.... 
    Exactly they will be using their computers smiley - smiley

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by theweenie (U14409604) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Please keep BBC4 - scrap BBC3, programmes are utter rubbish!.  BBC 3 has been responsible for some brilliant comedy. Cuckoo, Uncle, and Bluestone 42 to name just a few. All channels have their fair share of trash.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Andrew-Junkcatcher (U15602162) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Culling BBC3 makes real sense, the BBC has to concentrate on its core channels, BBC TV as a whole entity actually needs do a complete re-think on what content is broadcast where and when. I suspect CBeebies or CBBC may also end up on iplayer but that might not be such a disadavantage.

    The BBC needs to also rethink other parts of the organisation BBC World News which imho unlike the BBC (radio) World Service falls far short of what it could and should be.

    TV delivered via superfast broadband has thrown a complete spanner in the works of broadcasting but is a bigger headache for the satellite broadcasters than traditional terrestrial broadcasters and the BBC is in a good position to take advantage of the toe-hold iPlayer has given it in the sector.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by CannotResistThisOne (U15930232) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Buffer the demographics. Most demographics don't fit real people. They do it by computers and viewing figures, extrapolating policies based on assumptions. I once worked for a company which extrapolated from a reponse of 2 (one said yes, one said no) that 50% of the people wanted the thing they were paid to examine. Government policy resulted.

    Never mind the quantity, feel the breadth.

    https://www.change.... 
    Exactly they will be using their computers smiley - smiley 
    And getting rubbish!

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Andrew-Junkcatcher (U15602162) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Buffer the demographics. Most demographics don't fit real people. They do it by computers and viewing figures, extrapolating policies based on assumptions. I once worked for a company which extrapolated from a reponse of 2 (one said yes, one said no) that 50% of the people wanted the thing they were paid to examine. Government policy resulted.

    Never mind the quantity, feel the breadth.

    https://www.change.... 
    Exactly they will be using their computers smiley - smiley 
    More likely viewing via a smart TV or a low cost internet set top box (dongle) plugged into any TV with a HDMI port.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by CannotResistThisOne (U15930232) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Not sure what HDMI means but it sounds impressive.

    I could probably afford one - if I wasn't already forking out for a licence fee which already pays for a lot of stuff I don't watch. I object very strongly to having to pay out even more to watch the bits I do watch. Still thinking about ditching the whole kit and caboodle and going back to books. Got till next Autumn next to brood on it unless they come to the senses. Even the Muskateers will turn up on DVD eventually. Most everything does.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Andrew-Junkcatcher (U15602162) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Not sure what HDMI means but it sounds impressive.

    I could probably afford one - if I wasn't already forking out for a licence fee which already pays for a lot of stuff I don't watch. I object very strongly to having to pay out even more to watch the bits I do watch. Still thinking about ditching the whole kit and caboodle and going back to books. Got till next Autumn next to brood on it unless they come to the senses. Even the Muskateers will turn up on DVD eventually. Most everything does. 
    If you have a flat screen TV there is a 99.99% chance you already have HDMI.
    If you already have a reasonable unlimited broadband connection, it can cost as little as £10 to get the free services as as iPlayer, ITV Player 4oD Demand5 on your TV.

    You just plug the box into the back of your TV then make connection to your Wifi Internet after that sign up to get a used ID.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    A Blu-ray player can be a useful investment for a number of reasons.

    It will allow you to stream the internet through your TV via (as long as you have a Wi-Fi connection and connect it with an HDMI cable).

    It allows you to play Blu-Ray film DVDs in 1080 HD quality.

    It upconverts your exisiting non-HD DVDs to near HD quality.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by CannotResistThisOne (U15930232) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    See you're wrong. Have small flatscreen TV which I had to replace about 5 years ago which doesn't have internet access. My old second-hand one packed up. Unlimited broadband you have pay by direct debit. Won't do that because my income is tiny and I would be horrified if they suddenly (which did happen in the past with an internet provider) decided to take more out without telling me and I didn't have the cash in the bank to cover it - never been overdrawn in my life and not going to start now. Wouldn't trust direct debit again. Would prefer to just give up the TV and the internet altogether if forced but obviously no skin of their noses and would save me a lot of money. Getting more appealing by the day.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Andrew-Junkcatcher (U15602162) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    why is broadcasting a TV channel online rather than directly through the airwaves actually that much cheaper? Isn't most of the costs involved spent on the rights to broadcast and/or funding the production of the programmes shown on that channel? 
    BBC3's programme-making budget is also being heavily cut (more than two-thirds, I think), which will be rather bigger than the savings from not broadcasting it. 
    Sign the petition people. Save BBC3. The BBC should be providing programming for the whole of the nation giving the same access to the whole of the nation. BBC3 and it's demographic should not be dumped on the iPlayer. 
    The petition looks as if has been subject to some kind of major rigging the numbers of petitioners went exponential too quickly especially when compared with the half million BARB rating even the most popular shows on BBC4 score.

    As for BBC4 programme making budget being reduced the only BB4 programmes attracting substantial audiences are bought in.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Not sure what HDMI means but it sounds impressive.

    I could probably afford one - if I wasn't already forking out for a licence fee which already pays for a lot of stuff I don't watch. I object very strongly to having to pay out even more to watch the bits I do watch. Still thinking about ditching the whole kit and caboodle and going back to books. Got till next Autumn next to brood on it unless they come to the senses. Even the Muskateers will turn up on DVD eventually. Most everything does. 
    If you have a flat screen TV there is a 99.99% chance you already have HDMI.
    If you already have a reasonable unlimited broadband connection, it can cost as little as £10 to get the free services as as iPlayer, ITV Player 4oD Demand5 on your TV.

    You just plug the box into the back of your TV then make connection to your Wifi Internet after that sign up to get a used ID. 
    If you are a BT customer or a Talk Talk customer, convert to You View. It's freeview with the ability to be able to use the BBC iPlayer along with the ability to be able to record. As this is the BBC, other service providers are available.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    why is broadcasting a TV channel online rather than directly through the airwaves actually that much cheaper? Isn't most of the costs involved spent on the rights to broadcast and/or funding the production of the programmes shown on that channel? 
    BBC3's programme-making budget is also being heavily cut (more than two-thirds, I think), which will be rather bigger than the savings from not broadcasting it. 
    Sign the petition people. Save BBC3. The BBC should be providing programming for the whole of the nation giving the same access to the whole of the nation. BBC3 and it's demographic should not be dumped on the iPlayer. 
    The petition looks as if has been subject to some kind of major rigging the numbers of petitioners went exponential too quickly especially when compared with the half million BARB rating even the most popular shows on BBC4 score.

    As for BBC4 programme making budget being reduced the only BB4 programmes attracting substantial audiences are bought in. 
    Barb figures are only an estimate aren't they...based on a small representative sample of the population. Maybe just maybe, the audience for BBC3 is bigger than first thought. I've signed it once and once only.

    Keep signing the petition. A clear signal needs to be sent to Auntie...and indirectly, to the government who is starving the BBC of money.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by CannotResistThisOne (U15930232) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Thanks for the tip Myles. Tried it on their broadband checker - not enough bandwidth unfortunately. However, good suggestion as it can be bought one-off retail £169 which would have avoided the direct debit problem. Still feeling paying extra licence fee for content I can't get at.

    Simpler solution - don't scrap BBC3 until we've all got the bandwidth. Some people don't even have broadband yet.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Myles4291 (U14634500) on Monday, 10th March 2014

    Thanks for the tip Myles. Tried it on their broadband checker - not enough bandwidth unfortunately. However, good suggestion as it can be bought one-off retail £169 which would have avoided the direct debit problem. Still feeling paying extra licence fee for content I can't get at.

    Simpler solution - don't scrap BBC3 until we've all got the bandwidth. Some people don't even have broadband yet. 
    I'm with Talk Talk. They gave me a You View box for nothing. That said, I understand the issue you raise regarding broadband speed. I think that this issue, along with the uproar at the loss of the linear channel (BBC3 on the TV) will force the BBC Trust to reject the proposition. The BBC has to be accessible to all. If only some of the audience can access BBC3 via the iPlayer...well that is no good. It goes against the whole public service / universality ethos.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 11th March 2014

    Yes, because the BBC should clearly only show programmes that you, personally, like. Everything else is "rubbish".  But you really don't need more than Gardener's World, one British and one World cooking programme, Top Gear and a programme about the current property market. Make Antiques Roadshow half an hour and match it with a show about what antiques generally are fetching.  Who says that's all you need? Some people like the programming on BBC3.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by purwil (U14677803) on Tuesday, 11th March 2014

    Yes, because the BBC should clearly only show programmes that you, personally, like. Everything else is "rubbish".  But you really don't need more than Gardener's World, one British and one World cooking programme, Top Gear and a programme about the current property market. Make Antiques Roadshow half an hour and match it with a show about what antiques generally are fetching.  Who says that's all you need? Some people like the programming on BBC3.  Heterodox was referring to the 'rubbish' on BBC2 so I was suggesting how that channel could be slimmed down. BBC3 only comes into it as a possible source of programmes for my new svelte BBC2.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by lluncoolj (U7676659) on Tuesday, 11th March 2014

    Solved it. Put BBC3 on 301 and change the name of 301 to BBC3, maybe even move the channel up the order to a now vacant 7.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by heterodox (U14291406) on Tuesday, 11th March 2014

    'With this paucity of new material I don't think you can justify whatever extra costs are involved in running separate channels.

    And what a cost is involved here.
    My reading seems to show that BBC3 costs £50 million. I can hardly believe this and I wait in the probability that someone is going to tell me that I'm wrong.
    If I am right, surely a better use can be found for what seems to me to be a huge sum spent with so little return. I would spend the whole lot on better programmes on the main channels and not spend £20million providing the on-line version of BBC3.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Geometry_Man (U12739007) on Tuesday, 11th March 2014

    'With this paucity of new material I don't think you can justify whatever extra costs are involved in running separate channels.

    And what a cost is involved here.
    My reading seems to show that BBC3 costs £50 million. I can hardly believe this and I wait in the probability that someone is going to tell me that I'm wrong.
    If I am right, surely a better use can be found for what seems to me to be a huge sum spent with so little return. I would spend the whole lot on better programmes on the main channels and not spend £20million providing the on-line version of BBC3. 
    Alison Graham has a similar view in the RT mag. out today. She says yes divert the £30 million to BBC1 drama - but make sure it's well spent - and the other £20 million to BBC4, totally ditching BBC3 on any platform.

    Have to say I pretty much agree with her, as usual, although she puts the anti-BBC3 case more scathingly than I would - any pro-BBC3 people reading it will be frothing at the mouth. The RT does say though that most of its postbag from readers on the subject is in support of BBC3 - expected I suppose, as they are the ones that now have to try and change the decision.

    Report message43

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.