BBC3 Consultation Launches

24567

Comments

  • roadshow2006roadshow2006 Posts: 1,768
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What a joke, 503 errors all of the time! Didn't they plan for this?
  • Surferman1Surferman1 Posts: 920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What a joke, 503 errors all of the time! Didn't they plan for this?

    If you just hit back button on your browser, you don't lose any of what you have written and you can try submitting as many times as it takes. But i agree they should have predicted it when there is an online petition with over a quarter of a million signatories on it! Not sure if they will make their 3 month deadline with such volume.
  • HelixHelix Posts: 1,485
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Its quite easy to fill in, you can just point out all the inconsistencies with the previous proposal you have just answered questions about. They have really left this open to be ripped to pieces.
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I also know that Avalon and Hat Trick have signalled their interest in buying BBC Three but the BBC selling a channel to the private sector sets a precedent. If one channel gets sold off, it'll allow a case to be presented in a future licence fee agreement for other (perceived populist) channels to be sold off. I can't see UKTV (who currently run a fair number of BBC Three programming on its channels) and BBC Worldwide agreeing to that idea either.

    The fact that the consultation is showing the 503 HTTP status is a good sign in a way - it means there is a lot of attention on the consultation and that people are responding en masse. I hope it doesn't dissuade people - there is 28 days left so no rush or major urgency in responding.
  • roadshow2006roadshow2006 Posts: 1,768
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They can't run a bloody online consultation so how can they run an online TV channel? :D
  • Surferman1Surferman1 Posts: 920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I also know that Avalon and Hat Trick have signalled their interest in buying BBC Three but the BBC selling a channel to the private sector sets a precedent. If one channel gets sold off, it'll allow a case to be presented in a future licence fee agreement for other (perceived populist) channels to be sold off. I can't see UKTV (who currently run a fair number of BBC Three programming on its channels) and BBC Worldwide agreeing to that idea either.

    Yes, well it's a no brainer, who wouldn't want to buy a TV channel with double the audience share of Sky One that has had a billion quid of investment put into it and which has had an incalculable amount of cross channel and platform promotion and avertisement? All the hard work of start up and investment has already been done and all they need to do is maintain it and rake in the rewards. Obviously, product placement, endless ads and tacky high ratings reality shows would be eventually added, but for now there will only be mention of how wonderful to preserve the PSB channel for the youth of the nation.

    The Tories and the slimy culture secretaries, both the present and the past will both be rubbing their hands with excitement. A private company offering to buy a BBC channel as it is about to be taken off the air. It's almost as good as a snog with Rupert himself.
    The precedent will be set, and you can be sure that a Tory manifesto (published after the general election of course) will be all about the selling off of the juicy assets of the BBC in piecemeal parts staring with Radio 1, and obviously, as with previous form, to the highest bidder. Then a few months later as Cameron meets old Rupe at a media gathering and is warmly shaken by the the hand and congratulated, he sees the former BBC DG Tony, now Head of PSB4 (named after the only TV channel he now manages) across the room and mouths "sorry" to him just as his hero, Margaret Thatcher, did to a previous television boss all those years ago. But being sorry didn't bring back an ITV committed to public service broadcasting, and nor will it bring back the BBC as we know it.
  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pointed out by a516 elsewhere and something that just makes me want to cry...

    Two groups of people (older children to young teens and young adults) who are perceived as tech savvy and consume their video content via the Internet:

    One group is keeping a broadcast channel and having their broadcast hours extended by two hours;
    One group is seeing their broadcast channel axed and programming severely curtailed, if not abandoned in the long term?

    How is this not ideological?
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,373
    Forum Member
    Surferman1 wrote: »
    Yes, well it's a no brainer, who wouldn't want to buy a TV channel with double the audience share of Sky One that has had a billion quid of investment put into it and which has had an incalculable amount of cross channel and platform promotion and avertisement? All the hard work of start up and investment has already been done and all they need to do is maintain it and rake in the rewards. Obviously, product placement, endless ads and tacky high ratings reality shows would be eventually added, but for now there will only be mention of how wonderful to preserve the PSB channel for the youth of the nation.

    The Tories and the slimy culture secretaries, both the present and the past will both be rubbing their hands with excitement. A private company offering to buy a BBC channel as it is about to be taken off the air. It's almost as good as a snog with Rupert himself.
    The precedent will be set, and you can be sure that a Tory manifesto (published after the general election of course) will be all about the selling off of the juicy assets of the BBC in piecemeal parts staring with Radio 1, and obviously, as with previous form, to the highest bidder. Then a few months later as Cameron meets old Rupe at a media gathering and is warmly shaken by the the hand and congratulated, he sees the former BBC DG Tony, now Head of PSB4 (named after the only TV channel he now manages) across the room and mouths "sorry" to him just as his hero, Margaret Thatcher, did to a previous television boss all those years ago. But being sorry didn't bring back an ITV committed to public service broadcasting, and nor will it bring back the BBC as we know it.

    It is, by any standards, a popular digital TV channels and there are no valid and reasonable grounds for taking it off air. It's an insane proposal by an out-of-touch old fogey who is, unfortunately, the head of the BBC. He should be defending BBC3 instead of trying to destroy it.

    Hopefully, there will be a huge response to both the consultation and the petition.

    Link: http://savebbc3.com/
  • Surferman1Surferman1 Posts: 920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Pointed out by a516 elsewhere and something that just makes me want to cry...

    Two groups of people (older children to young teens and young adults) who are perceived as tech savvy and consume their video content via the Internet:

    One group is keeping a broadcast channel and having their broadcast hours extended by two hours;
    One group is seeing their broadcast channel axed and programming severely curtailed, if not abandoned in the long term?

    How is this not ideological?

    I'd suggest that this is not so much ideology, more convenience and expedience. I fully sympathise with the position the BBC exec find themselves in. A forced effective 26% cut in income and trying to manage cuts that come from that. They don't want to 'salami slice' every service and make everything poorer quality, so instead opt to cut a service that they probably thought would cause the least outcry. Personally, I think they misjudged that.
    I actually think they should wait until after the general election and see what the political landscape looks like and then make a decision. Effectively, that may even happen given the volume of responses to the BBC Trust today causing the server to crash.
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,373
    Forum Member
    Surferman1 wrote: »
    I'd suggest that this is not so much ideology, more convenience and expedience. I fully sympathise with the position the BBC exec find themselves in. A forced effective 26% cut in income and trying to manage cuts that come from that. They don't want to 'salami slice' every service and make everything poorer quality, so instead opt to cut a service that they probably thought would cause the least outcry. Personally, I think they misjudged that.
    I actually think they should wait until after the general election and see what the political landscape looks like and then make a decision. Effectively, that may even happen given the volume of responses to the BBC Trust today causing the server to crash.

    I think this move is wholly premature. If the BBC Charter discussions and the next set of licence fee discussions had both gone against the BBC then consideration of drastic options might have been understandable but that hasn't happened yet so there's just no excuse for axing a perfectly good and popular digital TV channel right now.
  • Surferman1Surferman1 Posts: 920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think this move is wholly premature. If the BBC Charter discussions and the next set of licence fee discussions had both gone against the BBC then consideration of drastic options might have been understandable but that hasn't happened yet so there's just no excuse for axing a perfectly good and popular digital TV channel right now.

    Completely agree. I do wonder if there is some posturing going on here to help focus politicians minds? Having said that the submissions from the BBC exec are very comprehensive and look like they mean business.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,548
    Forum Member
    Charnham wrote: »
    I dont favour selling off BBC channels or radio stations, however its worth looking at.
    Not if it's never going to happen; which it isn't :)
    Paddy C wrote: »
    It IS closing.
    Really? Please cite your source for this statement of fact because, as this consultation proves, no decision has actually yet been made by the Trust.
    hendero wrote: »
    Who pays for these BBC Three Consultation lunches? That's right Johnny TV Licence Payer, funding the fat cats gorging themselves on sandwiches and cream teas. I am outraged.
    Where has anyone been invited to a "Consultation lunch"? :confused: Stop talking complete cobblers.
  • Surferman1Surferman1 Posts: 920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Not if it's never going to happen; which it isn't :)


    Really? Please cite your source for this statement of fact because, as this consultation proves, no decision has actually yet been made by the Trust.


    Where has anyone been invited to a "Consultation lunch"? :confused: Stop talking complete cobblers.

    Most of these guys haven't got a clue about what they are talking about. It's not even worth replying. They don't seem to know the difference between the BBC exec and the BBC Trust and the consultation process, so ignorance just abounds.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,548
    Forum Member
    I know :(

    You would think that anyone wanting to discuss a subject might at least try to learn a little something about it before attempting to do so; but apparently not.
  • THOMOTHOMO Posts: 7,446
    Forum Member
    What a joke, 503 errors all of the time! Didn't they plan for this?

    I've been trying to post my responses all this evening and I've had 503 errors all evening.
    Ian.
  • Surferman1Surferman1 Posts: 920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I know :(

    You would think that anyone wanting to discuss a subject might at least try to learn a little something about it before attempting to do so; but apparently not.

    I believe that's what identifies people as the more obvious trolls
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,373
    Forum Member
    Surferman1 wrote: »
    Completely agree. I do wonder if there is some posturing going on here to help focus politicians minds? Having said that the submissions from the BBC exec are very comprehensive and look like they mean business.

    I assume it's down to Hall trying to some extent to appease the anti-BBC High Tories with the axing of the 'yoof' channel but a) they sure as hell won't be satisfied with just that and they'll still want more anyway and b) that lot might very well be gone by May 8 this year so again it's premature.

    It's also bonkers financially. It'll still cost tens of millions to run BBC3 online only plus it'll cost millions to extend CBBC's hours and it'll cost millions to broadcast BBC1+1 so they might as well just keep BBC3 going as a linear channel anyway!

    A combination of mass popular support and the use of rational arguments saved the 6Music radio station and I'm hopeful that the same can apply to BBC3 too. :)
  • ocavocav Posts: 2,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lettice wrote: »
    Completed.
    Putting it Online is fine by me, watch Tv many ways in my household now anyway so no big deal and with smart Tvs, chromecast, tablets/phones via hdmi and pvrs and sky boxes, quite easy to watch via catchup/online via a TV if you so wish.
    BBC Three is not a channel I watch that much (and not in their quoted age range!), but occasionally it does have the odd Glastonbury, repeat or BBC main channel continuation that I have watched.

    As for +1, all they do is clog up the EPG in my view. The Sky epg is just a mess now with all the +1 and 7day channels that I make no use of at all.
    I plan my viewing, make good use of my sky hd box and use the many catchup options that I have available and enjoy it that way with the portability of it too.

    I guess you didn't read the proposal, it said on the page "no guarantee that the service would be available on Smart TVs
  • pburke90pburke90 Posts: 14,753
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Really? Please cite your source for this statement of fact because, as this consultation proves, no decision has actually yet been made by the Trust.
    Calm down, dear! I meant that in the context of the BBC constantly saying that the channel, if it moves online, will not be closing. Did you read all of my post or just the first 3 words? I was stating that it will be closing in the sense that it would no longer be a linear service with trailers, continuity etc. it would simply be selecting programmes like on iPlayer/Netflix. Read my post again and understand the context in which it was written. You don't seem to have picked up on that.
    Surferman1 wrote: »
    Most of these guys haven't got a clue about what they are talking about. It's not even worth replying. They don't seem to know the difference between the BBC exec and the BBC Trust and the consultation process, so ignorance just abounds.
    ...and I suppose you know everything, right? The irony in your post about ignorance is delicious to read. Perhaps adjust the attitude a little bit there, sweetheart, before you wade in shooting your mouth off, huh? There's a good lad. :)
  • THOMOTHOMO Posts: 7,446
    Forum Member
    I've managed to send my responce by post at long last. I think the best time to try to post a responce is after midnight as it's much quieter the on-line traffic then
    Ian.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The proposed budget for this online BBC is not enough for the quality of content we expect. The minumum a decent quality drama would cost would be 500k an episode. over 10 episodes thats 5million which is half the budget. Cant see them filling a channel for 5 million even if it is just reruns.
    Isn't the proposed budget £30 million, not £10 million (as referenced in the BBC Executive Application document, page 7 - http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/service_changes/bbc_three_application.pdf)?
    Although BBC Three’s content budget (excluding other originations e.g.
    news and sport) will be roughly half of what it used to be (falling from around
    £60m to around £30m), ........
    And don't forget Family Guy fans. The BBC are NOT going to be showing that or American Dad on the new online BBC3 as Fox will not allow it.
    1) Have Fox or the BBC said that publicly?

    2) How about a transfer to another channel?
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It is truly amazing how anyone 40 and older managed to make it through their teens and twenties without a TV channel specially dedicated to their perceived interests. Maybe we'll have another round of riots if/when BBC3 goes online only. Poor dears.
  • Keith_13Keith_13 Posts: 1,621
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why can't iPlayer just have BBC1 programs ready to go an hour after they finish?
  • Surferman1Surferman1 Posts: 920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    hendero wrote: »
    It is truly amazing how anyone 40 and older managed to make it through their teens and twenties without a TV channel specially dedicated to their perceived interests. Maybe we'll have another round of riots if/when BBC3 goes online only. Poor dears.

    Yes, and we should never have invented the mobile phone, microwaves or high speed rail because carrier pigeon, the stone oven and the horse and cart were perfectly good enough.
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,312
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Keith_13 wrote: »
    Why can't iPlayer just have BBC1 programs ready to go an hour after they finish?

    There may be some issues for live programmes .. remember that IPlayer is over a thousand different versions of the same programme....

    But audience reasearch showed that BBC one + 1 was very high in the viewer want list....
    So here is the bbc listening to viewers .. And Doing What they say....
    But remember the last time they did that... The jubilee river pageant !!!!!

    this proposal is complex being driven by a lack of money but trying to get the best out if the situation.
Sign In or Register to comment.