BBC Three axed as a TV channel

I'm not saying they should be cut. I'm saying that their content would happily sit on other commercial Children's channels like Nick Jr, CITV, Cartoon Network etc etc,

BBC Three goes and money goes into drama at a time when the BBC is talking about producing Agatha Christie dramas. If I didn't know better I'd say the corporation had a metrocentric and out-of-touch view of young people as those who don't watch TV and 'only watch their YouTubes', whereas in fact the reality in much of the country outwith London is very different. It doesn't help you've got a former chief of the Royal Opera House in charge, it adds to a perception of an out-of-touch BBC chief.

It does seem there is a twin-track to this announcement. Saving cash, yes, but it's also for other reasons:
* They're trying to push the iPlayer so they will use this to give it exclusive content - which is lovely, but you don't need to pay the licence fee to watch the iPlayer. Also, there will be a problem in promoting these shows if you don't have the base of BBC3 in existence in the first place.
* Using the bandwidth for BBC1+1 is cynical. It has nothing to do with public service broadcasting and everything to do with ratings. It makes you wonder how much of this is actually to do with that.
* It's politically an easy target - BBC3's audience aren't MPs, they don't read The Guardian, they aren't media commentators and they don't generally engage with the political protest, so they're less likely to complain to the BBC Trust or raise hell in the way 6 Music listeners did. Mind you, many of the commissioners are...

Here's a very simplistic point also. As far as many viewers see it they will be losing a TV channel and therefore paying for less. Good luck getting an increase in the licence fee any time in the near future.

You do need to pay the licence to watch the I player

Why would MP's have any say on a purely commercial decision? It's Sky's Freeview space, they can do what they want with it.

Sky News is very valuable to Sky, but not in purely financial terms

No you don't. The licence fee doesn't cover catch up TV.
https://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_bbc_iplayer/tvlicence

They should have BBC Four on Two after Newsnight - because if the BBC Trust allows this to go through I'm fairly certain that within a year the same will happen to BBC Four.

According to Private Eye, management was excluded from DQF and other cost reviews. Maybe its time they took a deep look at whether they need so many levels of managers and see how much could be saved that way, rather than slashing at programming.

"I can't rule out it being the last change to our programmes or services."

Wrongly phrased as I assume he meant "I can't rule out further changes", but assuming the BBC quoted him right it's perhaps a telling slip of the tongue of what he's expecting will happen...

I wonder if there's more politically to this than meets the eye - reducing BBC Three's budget to the point where it is a non-service, and tagging that important public service to a service (iPlayer) that isn't directly funded is a good way to argue for increasing the license fee over making savings. I doubt the Trust or CMSCommittee would be so easily fooled, if that is the case, but threatening BBC Three will generate a lot more controversy (and, therefore, political pressure) than threatening BBC Four or a non-tv service. Maybe, rather than fighting that, Lord Hall's actually banking on it...

Unless, of course, threatening such an audience directly forces it to become vocal, at which point the channel's detractors are proportionally less powerful. Equally, threatening Six Music was the best PR campaign the channel could have hoped for.

Even down to the channel's clearly planned demise being hinted at weeks before, with the press office giving comments that force the story to live on ('nothing's planned, but it could well happen. Maybe, maybe not. Got that?'), then the decision being leaked in such detail the day before the announcement, then the months of consultations and news reports... It is, actually the best way the BBC has to forge a defence. It can't be accused of not trying to live within its means, or of being aspirations, or of 'living in a bubble', while pushing the external pro-cuts lobby to the side. Young people might not always be politically vocal or powerful, but are the BBC Trust or MPs really likely to ignore potential viral twitter petitions and protests? Perhaps not...

a few thoughts here might include merging bbc 3 and bbc 4 in some really odd way as sort of a bbc 1 + 2 extra possibly, the other way is to sort management out and get rid of them especially the overpaid ones. will this get past the bbc trust who knows. also money will be saved if scotland goes independent and the bbc no longer boradcasts there saving a fair amount of money and then reduce the budget equally across all services. Why more drama not comedy are these the types of programming the younger adult who mighto ne day be a decision maker want to view to extol the virtues of the licence fee system. Also if it does move not much would move family guy or american dad might go to itv 's new forthcoming coming reorientated itv 2 or similar - eastenders repeat wont be needed , but the indie productions like dont tell the bride etc will end up being broadcat elsewhere which leaves only hte documentaries which dont really fith the ilk of bbc 1 or bbc 2 but will probably be spliced on to these services after a period of iplayer exclusivity . one other thought bbc 4 will need renaming as you cant have 1 2 4 without a 3 can you - overall against but if it does happen its grim and bear it time but the trust probably wont back it but we ll see like scottish independence .

From the other thread:

You can't blame BBC Three for this though, when you see that BBC One and Two have had Miranda, Mrs Brown's Boys and Ben Elton's The Wright Way amongst their recent commissions, along side the reality trash of Traffic Cops and Pound Shop Wars all airing in evening peak. If anything, this makes BBC Three's Good:Bad ratio rather impressive.

Most of the programmes you've mentioned are immensely popular and fit into BBC One's remit, even though they may not be to your taste.

So there spending £25m, but moving £40M to BBC one Thus there only Saving £15m whats the point?