Delivering Quality First

Yes, arguably BBC3 fulfils it's remit more than any other BBC channel - it's public service is essentially to deliver the less-PSB aspect of the BBC output. It does need certain restrictions lifting though - especially those surrounding "original" programming which considers the 77th repeat of Little Britain or Two Pints to be "original" as it was commissioned for BBC3 but a quick turn around repeat of the latest series of say Outnumbered or Extras not to be. Basically just as BBC1/2 will rely on repeating more BBC3/4 content, the opposite should apply too.

But arguably one that is adequately served by the commercial sector in the forms of ITV2, E4, Sky1/Living; the key differentiator being the acclaimed 16-25 targeted documentary series (Our War, Junior Doctors, etc.) broadcast on Three as per the charter agreement.

Could they not be suitably rehoused on BBC One and/or Two?

What do you imagine the BBC would actually be selling if they were to 'sell' BBC Three?

The programming is either BBC in-house productions which would be reallocated to other outlets (primarily BBC Two, but potentially also BBC One and Online) or content from third-party production companies which the BBC wouldn't be entitled to sell. Much of the content produced is either part of an existing BBC property (such as EastEnders, Doctor Who Confidential, Strictly: It Takes Two etc), or just isn't distinctive or compelling enough to be worth buying when a potential buyer could come up with equally middle-of-the-road ideas for themselves (Young, Dumb And Living Off Mum; Great Movie Mistakes etc). Existing agreements for third-party content would have some value, but obviously only for the remainder of those agreements, and only if the broadcast rights contracts are transferrable; it doesn't necessarily follow that just because you buy a channel that you automatically inherit all of its broadcast rights - some rights agreements include renegotiation or termination clauses if the licensee is sold or liquidated.

There are no studios to sell off with the channel, and no broadcast or transmission equipment to be sold as this is largely third-party as well.

Any original formats worth anything would be retained for sale/licence to other broadcasters in order to extract maximum value from those properties, rather than being sold outright.

The brand wouldn't be worth anything but it's inextricably linked with the BBC; the third channel in the BBC's portfolio. Anyone buying the channel would obviously have to remove the BBC branding, and 'Three' as a standalone brand has no marketplace equity, in the way that 'Choice' might have had if the BBC prefix were dropped from it. For the same reason, the channel website wouldn't have any real value as it's integrated with the BBC site and the existing channel branding; the cost of replacing this design would outweigh its purchase price.

BBC Three costs tens of millions a year to run, but that doesn't mean it's worth anything like that once you've removed it from the ecosystem that it's currently part of.

Sounds awful, I feel that one of BBC Local Radio's biggest assets is it's 'biased' local commentary...

That's a trial in the West region. It's been universally panned internally and won't save any money anyway.

The wording of the report seems to send the message that the BBC Two nations really are living on borrowed time. There is a big problem in that BBC Wales and BBC Northern Ireland are midway through a contract to show Celtic League rugby and games are screened in prime time on Fridays and Saturdays right when BBC One's flagship programming is being broadcast. BBC Wales are committing to keeping live rugby coverage so I'd love to know how they plan to square that circle. (I suspect in BBC Wales case it would involve moving coverage to S4C who also have rights to the league).

As I said elsewhere there are other problems with airing domestic "high culture" programmes on BBC One as it goes well outside BBC One's more populist remit. Moving all regional opt-outs to BBC One would also mean more chances for BBC One's prime time programming to be displaced (not just by sport, there's also elections, events of local importance etc).

Frequently I have problems replying to posts due to the lack of an avatar properly displaying the level of disgust and contempt I feel for a post. So instead I shall utilise this photograph.

Why not, surely having 1 set of commentators is cheaper than having 2?

Indeed, it was like when Absolute Radio supposedly offered to buy 6 Music when that was threatened with closure... the BBC's channels aren't stand alone entities and wouldn't do what the same programming if they were commercially motivated

Yeah good points. I was really thinking out loud in that post and I guess I didn't follow through.

My idea was essentially a commercial 'Three' which just had the low-budget crap like Snog, Marry, Avoid and imports like Family Guy. Flipside content would then sit on BBC Choice or whatever BBC Four became. Not my best idea.

It's going to be a logistical nightmare - frequently the commentator throws to a report from another match at a convenient point in the game when the ball goes out of play. That's going to be awkward to do with one commentary on two stations in a way that doesn't involve fading up the commentary after the report and it sounding like you've missed some of the action at the commentary game.

The Saturday afternoon sports sequences are routinely presented from the ground by the commentator. That will all have to change for away matches, and the commentator will presumably have to be available for previews with the away team's station before the match.

No opportunity to trail ahead to other games coming up on your station

Rights issues - who is going to commentate on Leeds United matches? Radio Leeds can't broadcast commentaries so whoever they send to matches at Elland Road will just be doing a limited number of reports per half of the game. And who will do reports from away games into Radio Leeds while the local commentator is commentating.

It's not going to work without sounding crappy and amateurish.

Something I'm surprised doesn't appear to have got the chop - the live ball by ball cricket coverage available online.

My local BBC sometimes offers about 3 or 4 different commentaries online and on it's various FM and AM outlets.

You may have Worcester Warriors Rugby on one frequency (would this come under the same rules as the football?), Hereford United on another frequency, Kidderminster Harriers on one frequency and either non-league Worcester City or the country cricket club on AM and online. There are also loads of reporters at various non-league football and rugby games. How much of all this will remain? Nothing really tells me.

It's ridiculous to place the same restrictions on a station like BBC WM covering big urban areas and Premier League sides and somewhere like BBC Radio Devon which has a few football league sides. The level of importance to a League One side in Devon would be much higher than it would in Brum, so WM may not be providing commentary in the first place, so is WM expected to provide a full commentary team for Devon or will Devon be able to send people when the home station can't provide?

And of course there is all the problems with the commentators throwing to various different grounds for live updates.