Nothing mentioned by the BBC Trust has indicated that the BBC Three brand would disappear, so I'm not sure why people think BBC Four would be an unsustainable numeric in the 'family of channels' on offer (especially as it started when BBC CHOICE was still broadcasting).
Having 'one', 'TWO', 'Three (online)' and 'FOUR' is no more illogical than ITV removing the numeral from their premier channel and yet retaining 2, 3 & 4.
I'm sorry but I disagree. ITV comes before ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4. BBC3 comes half way through a sequence of BBC channels. I really feel BBC4 should have been rebranded. Though to be honest will BBC4 also disappear in the near future?
Neither scenario is ideal. But having ITV, 2, 3 and 4 is more sensible than having BBC 1, 2 and 4. Plus nobody liked "ITV1" anyway.
It think you missed the point I was making: the BBC Three brand isn't disappearing, so why should there be a need to rename BBC Four?
Furthermore, I don't think the general population had much of an opinion either way on ITV or ITV1. People noticed the absence of their regional name rather than the tinkering with a national network brand.
BBC3 is disappearing as a TV channel though, yes it's going online but that's (a bit) like a TV station transferring to Radio but keeping the original TV name. I suspect it wouldn't happen in that example and I feel it shouldn't be happening with BBC3 going online. Methinks BBC4 should be rebranding too.
As for ITV, they had been known by both Regional and the network name on screen since at least the 1970's (around the time of one of the strikes) though generally not at the same time.
On the Internet, you're reading Rijowhi!!!