BBC Three axed as a TV channel

Axing BBC Three to save money is one thing, but then using half that saving to "pump into BBC1 drama" is bizarre. BBC1 drama is probably the main genre that is doing ok for itself and is already well funded and extensive. Middle of the road drama for middle aged people is ten a penny all over the place.

Every time the BBC make a cut they always tend to remove a unique service that nobody else provides and ring fences a service that is isn't unique.

Tonight's BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat was a good quality production with a live debate, Danny Cohen as the guest along with a panel of viewers, and strong questioning from the presenter Chris Smith.

I also don't think encouraging the use of online only content which would ultimately end up phasing out of a linear schedules is something the BBC should be doing. This would eventually end up with a select group of 'event programmes' being watched and a lot of other stuff going unnoticed, as its difficult to happen upon a new series when you have to physically click on it to watch, rather than it just coming on after your favourite programme.

This is the strangest thing about it. Drama is already well served on the BBC, and on commercial channels too. It would be the last thing I'd invest more money into.

If they did that, how would people watch BBC Three without Internet?

It wasn't that long ago that Tony Hall was talking about extending the Newsbeat brand to BBC3. Does make you wonder how late a decision this was as I just can't see how if one had to go you'd ever conclude axing BBC3 makes more sense than axing BBC4.

A former colleague of mine who now works at the channel said they only found out about the plans last week.

Over 114,000 people have now signed the change.org petition to save BBC Three. Surely this means something to the BBC?!
www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/to-the-bbc-trust-save-bbc3

From previous experience no, no it won't. Anyone can take five seconds of their life to sign a petition.

Now if the BBC Trust gets 114,000 letters of objection then you might be on to something.

114,000 of letters they'd probably ignore. 1 sole voice on the other - they'd rip up the rule book.

I'm putting my faith in the BBC Trust not being as stupid as the DG. It's a long shot.

Does anyone else thinks this is a red hearing? it makes no since, and BBC trust still hast to found another £85m to save.

From what I've read regarding how much the BBC will really save doing this, how 6Music's potential closure gave it a listening boost, and from what gottago has posted, I'm inclined to agree.

Part of me thinks this is the BBC's way of pushing the Government to increase the Licence Fee when they see the public outcry from the loss of services.

Am I right in thinking that the BBC didn't ask to have BBC Parliament, they just got it by default as it there is a defined public service need to provide such a channel but The Parliamentary Channel couldn't make it work commercially and no one else wanted to try? In which case it can't be axed. That said, when all it shows is footage from Parliament using equipment which is there anyway and archive programming to which the BBC hold sole rights, I can't see it costing much anyway.


I completely agree. I argued in the original thread that if they have to close anything then it made more sense to close BBC3 rather than BBC4, but I don't agree with how they've done it. They should have clearly moved the remit (and the remaining budget) onto BBC2, not plunged money into an area of BBC1 which is already well funded.

I also believe that it should be a clean break and closure rather than this bizarre attempt to make it live on as an on demand service. I've got a nasty feeling we're going to end up with some stupid 'iplayer exclusive' strategy where BBC3 branded programming made on a shoestring budget debuts first on iPlayer and then has to wait for a repeat on BBC1/2. That's not the way to do it and that IS poorly serving the demographic group they target BBC3 at.

Much as I love on demand TV, IMO its strength is in catchup and archive programming, which will take away the need for the huge extended channel portfolios that have been building up for the last 10-15 years. But I really think we're a long way off from moving away from traditional linear TV channels as the vehicle for first exposure to new programming.

Politically, it's also going to be very difficult to justify a significant programming budget for BBC3 on iplayer when there is no basis in law to charge a licence fee to people solely using on demand services. They're going to put themselves in the position when people with the equipment to watch iplayer can get material first with no licence fee whilst those who do not but are licence fee payers have to wait to see it.