TV Home Forum

BBC+1 Channels mentioned on Points of View

Plus some behind the scenes shots at the Broadcast Centre (October 2012)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
GE
thegeek Founding member
Steve Williams posted:
The general point about this discussion, given one of the correspondents, is that the phrase "BBC3 and BBC4 can't broadcast during the day, they share with CBBC and CBeebies" should be printed on every page of the Radio Times and in the manual of every television, until people finally get it into their heads.


No it shouldn't. There's really no reason for normal people to know about it. An occasional explanation on PoV or somewhere on bbc.co.uk/reception should suffice.
WP
WillPS
Markymark posted:
WillPS posted:
Markymark posted:
Mike W posted:
Stuart posted:
VMPhil posted:
They basically explained that whilst there would be capacity available on satellite, there wouldn't be enough to broadcast them on Freeview in all areas. I think they probably should have mentioned more about the Live Restart, he didn't really explain it well.

At a time when the BBC is slashing red button services to save money, it's quite astonishing that they even uttered the notion of +1 channels.

BBC IPlayer is the most widely available catch-up service, and it really dispenses with the need for any +1 channels.


Except for those who pay for only television and their phone line and haven't joined us in the 21st century...


i player is unusable for the millions who have sub 2 Mb/s internet connections. And don't forget 20-25% of homes still have NO internet connection (or computer).


You don't need a computer; and I'd suggest if you don't have one then you are limiting yourself.

I used iPlayer (SD) with no particular issues on my dodgy countryside 1.25Mbps when I had to deal with it; and there's always the downloader if streaming is a no-go.


Yes, of course there are ways around a poor connection, but you're assuming IT savvy users. Shock horror, most people are not, regardless whether they have a slow or fast connection.

And yes, many TVs now have a network port, or wifi and can be connected to t'internet for i player etc, but again folk get daunted by the idea.

You need to step out of your IT Savvy bubble, and view things from a different perspective


I'm not in any bubble - my argument is the solutions are there, and if you choose not to take them you can hardly complain about missing stuff (which is surely the only argument for +1 channels).
JO
Joe
It's not just for missing stuff, it's quite nice to be able to 'flick through' stuff from an hour ago as well. Of course, it's hardly essential, or as important as being able to catch up, but catch up services do miss that ability to flick through.
SE
Square Eyes Founding member
Joe posted:
It's not just for missing stuff, it's quite nice to be able to 'flick through' stuff from an hour ago as well. Of course, it's hardly essential, or as important as being able to catch up, but catch up services do miss that ability to flick through.


Indeed, I'd rather have the option of a +1 and a catch-up service.

Really useful when you stumble on something that's already well in, and particularly useful for films - as they aren't on catch-up services.
WP
WillPS
Square Eyes posted:
Joe posted:
It's not just for missing stuff, it's quite nice to be able to 'flick through' stuff from an hour ago as well. Of course, it's hardly essential, or as important as being able to catch up, but catch up services do miss that ability to flick through.


Indeed, I'd rather have the option of a +1 and a catch-up service.

Really useful when you stumble on something that's already well in, and particularly useful for films - as they aren't on catch-up services.


It's not feasible. As already stated, commercial broadcasters use +1s as an easy bit of extra revenue; with carriage as the only cost they can easily get an extra 5-10% on their ratings.

Leave alone the space issues on Freeview/Sky, the BBC would effectively have to double the amount of channels they broadcast; and double their carriage fees. Economies of scale don't really come in to it.
MI
Michael
WillPS posted:
It's not feasible. As already stated, commercial broadcasters use +1s as an easy bit of extra revenue; with carriage as the only cost they can easily get an extra 5-10% on their ratings.


I believe this is a wee bit of a fallacy. Instead of getting extra viewers, I believe +1 channels merely spread existing viewers out. People are not fussed about missing a programme (not that there's much appointment-to-view TV any more) because they know that they can "catch it on +1".

cf Virgin running shorter but more frequent rail services when switched from LHCS and HST to Voyagers. Same number of passengers, approx same number of seats, attempt to spread out commuters from hourly to half hourly trains. (Never worked mind!)
DO
dosxuk
Michael posted:
cf Virgin running shorter but more frequent rail services when switched from LHCS and HST to Voyagers. Same number of passengers, approx same number of seats, attempt to spread out commuters from hourly to half hourly trains. (Never worked mind!)


Doesn't this prove the opposite to your point? The extra services generated that much demand for seats that the services were quickly overwhelmed.
DA
davidhorman
Michael posted:

I believe this is a wee bit of a fallacy. Instead of getting extra viewers, I believe +1 channels merely spread existing viewers out.


Doesn't the very proliferation of +1 channels prove you wrong on that one? Why would anyone bother if it got them no extra viewers?

David
BU
buster
davidhorman posted:
Michael posted:

I believe this is a wee bit of a fallacy. Instead of getting extra viewers, I believe +1 channels merely spread existing viewers out.


Doesn't the very proliferation of +1 channels prove you wrong on that one? Why would anyone bother if it got them no extra viewers?

David


It's probably more a case of the +1s shoring up a few extra viewers to counterbalance the falling shares on the main channels.
BA
bilky asko
Has everyone forgotten about the humble PVR? People who can afford Sky, Virgin, and even Freesat, should be able to afford a PVR of some sort. Older people can still use their old VCRs if they're connected to a Freeview box. Whilst +1 channels do have other very slight advantages over this (watching things that were shown an hour ago, that you had no particular intention of watching, but can watch because of a +1, for example), the combination of PVRs, internet catch-up, and repeats means that +1 is a bit of a waste of money for the BBC. Just because few people realise it'd be a waste of money doesn't mean it's not.
DV
DVB Cornwall
Back to the substantive matter, the only conceivable case for a +1 BBC Channel would be if a DQF II was required, resulting in a closure of two of either CBBC, CBeebies, BBC Three or Four. The introduction of a BBC ONE +1 on Freeview to fill the mux space would seem a reasonable idea, whether a further squeezed BBC would be inclined to use the bandwidth released on Cable and Satellite for +1, I doubt, saving carriage costs being the sensible option.

Newer posts