BBC to close Red Button service

I'd wait to close the sub-opt services on DSAT until internet connections are fast enough to handle the iPlayer streams in rural areas, where satellite can be the only way of getting a television service.

As an aside, I'd also like to see capped data allowances using ADSL/VDSL scrapped in time for an increased use of VoD/IPTV.

The irony being that in order to save the over 75s their licence fee they may have to end up paying far more to enjoy the services they currently get.

Just wondering how many here can access either Red Button + or the BBC Sport/News/iPlayer apps through their TV, and also if you're broadband speed is sufficient to use them.

Personally I can get the apps on all of our three TVs, the full Red Button+ through a Youview box used for BT and the main apps via the BBC channels on my Smart TV, but not the full Red Button + service. Only had Fibre since the summer though - before then it was pushing the limits of my 2mb connection. Somedays it would work fine - others it was just unwatchable.

Also fully aware that it's easy to assume your personal circumstances reflect the nations - for me felt cutting the red button streams down to just one back in 2010 was too early. Still feel it's too early to cut the red button stream completely, though a more flexible approach with no 24/7 stream but one or two available for events like Wimbledon, Glastonbury may be the way forward - but not sure how viable that is long term. Certainly don't think they should cut anything back until after the Olympics next year, where they will presumably have at least two 24/7 streams (using BBC Parliament again) and the BBC3 stream from the evenings. I think to viewers would expect everything to be broadcast live via the Connected Red Button, though wouldn't be surprised if they cut back and don't bother with the streams with no British .interest.

It's not just rural broadband that has low speeds. City centre of Sheffield is low speed, mainly because BT are scared of business customers who pay lots of money for dedicated lines would all switch to ADSL services if they implemented FttC. People three streets from my house have 4x+ speeds simply because they don't have a city centre postcode.

As a result, none of the internet based services are usable in my house. This won't change until BT are forced to upgrade speeds.

How much money would they saving by closing BBC Alba? Waste of money for its tiny viewership.

I don't get what that means

For events like Children in Need and Comic Relief plus the Euros/World Cup and Olympics the BBC still commission the 4 episodes of EastEnders for the week and reschedule them. By simply not commissioning those episodes money would be saved. They can't quite make their mind up with Casualty - I think they do commission less now but the odd episode still ends up on a Sunday.


Back to sport and wonder if they're predicting a more difficult market with Eurosport now officially partnering the IOC for their Olympic Channel. It does look like Eurosport are more in it for themselves now and may be less willing to partner with PSBs on events moving forward, though I still think the money they've paid for the Olympics themselves is much more about them recouping costs through on-selling the rights than through exclusivity.

What he is meaning is that they commission 4 episodes of EastEnders for every week, even when football is on, or Children in Need, Comic Relief etc, meaning these episodes have to be shoved in somewhere else often to low ratings. They could save by not making these episodes.

Same with Casualty where they sometimes have to double up with an episode on Sunday like during Eurovision week.

How much it would save is up for question.

You explain what I mean much better than I do.

I'm a big fan of Casualty but think it would be better with fewer episodes a year to avoid the soap crap it's falling into.

What you're failing to understand or choosing to ignore is the cost behind an episode of EastEnders compared to half an hour of any sport programme on BBC1. It is an expensive cost centre but then it delivers 104+ hours of prime time content yearly, and it's the sort of rolling production where taking 2 or 3 hours off that yearly total isn't going to instantly bring down the yearly production cost much/at all.


The cost of sport content has absolutely rocketed in the last 20 years. To expect the BBC to absorb that disproportionate increase in cost is ludicrous. I've said it before, and I'll say it again I'm sure - the BBC has to make a point of not playing that game so that the sporting bodies can understand that ultimately the choice for them is exposure or upfront cash.

BBC Three is a pretty easy target because of its shrinking audience, and the likelihood of that demographic to actually not even care that it's going. I genuinely believe there'd be more uproar if UKTV took Dave off Freeview.

Cutting 8 episodes of Casualty would save around 2.2m. Replacement programming would then be needed. You won't get a cheap panel show for less than 200k an hour these days. So you're effectively saving 400k and then because of the reduced "economies of scale" the cost of the remaining series of Casualty will marginally increase.
The soaps, are the cheapest things they make. It would make no financial sense to cut them back. They're even cheaper than many of the bigger factual shows

In fairness, I wasn't suggesting that for cost saving. I think it would just do the programme some good!