BBC Four to become archive channel (p15)

I agree with you. Streaming is very cost effective. Yes, BBC 3 and 4's output is repeats and would be better off on streaming. What I was saying was that the linear stations need to be kept mainly for that feeling of familiarity. Switching everything to streaming would fragment the BBC's audience.

Something like Normal People may not have rated that well on BBC1 and been watched by twice as many on the iPlayer, but would it have reached that audience on the iPlayer without the promotion it got across the BBC channels. If linear TV was truly dead then Netflix, Disney+, Amazon and Now TV would not be heavily advertising on it. Television will always need some kind of curation.

Yes - though broadcast on satellite and terrestrial (cable is different as it doesn't cost UK mainstream broadcasters money) is a fixed cost however many people watch (so the "pence per viewer minute" costs decrease the more people who watch) - whereas broadcasters have to pay (either through CDN fees, or for scaling up their own CDNs) for each separate stream on streaming services (and the "pence per viewer minute" cost remains fixed). ITV and C4 may be able to offset the potential increased costs of streaming by selling more targeted adverts (they require a login so know more about you to target adverts at you)

The real cost benefit for moving away from linear to a 'chose what you want to watch' VOD system is that you don't have to fill a linear schedule - and can reduce your costs by simply making or commissioning fewer programmes. That was how the BBC Three cost-saving happened - the costs of distribution and playout were a relatively minor portion of that saving. The bulk of the savings were from no longer having to attempt to fill a 7 day schedule... (BBC Three was already quite repeat heavy - but post-budget cuts it would have really struggled)

Quality over quantity? Yes, I can see how that would be cost-effective. But I can't see that happening until a point in time comes when linear channels become archaic.

This makes me wonder if a solution could be for BBC Three and Four to timeshare the same linear stream. So, for example, BBC Four on air Monday to Thursday evenings, and Three on Friday, Saturday and Sundays. Maybe a slightly messy solution, but perhaps it could work?

Unless the BBC sell the capacity to a third party, CBBC and CBeebies still need somewhere to broadcast... CBeebies time-shares the same capacity as BBC Four, CBBC used to time share with BBC Three.

(I know CBBC has extended into the old BBC Three 1900-2100 window, but that could surely be mitigated)

My thinking was that both BBC Three and Four would use the airtime currently used by BBC Four, so neither would eat into CBBC or CBeebies time. So essentially, BBC Four would give up three or four days of its airtime to allow for a limited linear return of BBC Three, but also allowing BBC Four to continue on a reduced budget.

They might as well use the streams they have though if both are linear, just with less content.

Would be interesting to know actually the amount of new programming content both BBC3 and BBC4 have produced over the last year.

Fair point, although whichever channel used the same stream as CBBC wouldn’t be able to go on air until 9pm unless CBBC’s hours were cut back.

How about a compromise. BBC Four shares with CBBC and goes on air at 8pm. Both lose an hour, but the first half hour on BBC Four is a News simulcast anyway, isn't it? Cbeebies would then share it's space with the relaunched BBC Three, which would go on air at 7pm.

Why would BBC3 need to be on air earlier than BBC4?

Reverse the question. Why would BBC4 need to be on air earlier? Like I said, the first half hour is a simulcast - not necessary when everyone can access the news channel. BBC3 on the other hand would be showing new programmes.