Tories: We would shut down BBCi & Three

They're fully off - and the last person to call me 'dear' got slapped five seconds later!

5....4....3....2....1

* SLAP *

Ouch !!

Ooooh kinky

ITV do not care about the quality of TV on their channels. They exist to make money from advertisers. It would be terrible if ITV had a monopoly on the terrestrial TV market as there would be NO INNOVATION . There would just be shows to please the lowest common denominator - so lots of home improvment crap and Coronation Street. No more serious documentaries, no more well produced dramas, and lower quality factual programmes. Obviously this would be a bad thing.

In a world with the BBC and ITV there is competition. The BBC have a charter to produce a range of different type of shows for different groups of people, which leads them to producing a diverse range of programming. In this world ITV HAS TO INNOVATE to compete with the BBC to gain viewers in order to gain money from advertisers. This, in turn, leads the BBC to up the ante to stay on top of ITV. Competition increases quality for everyone and is therefore a good thing. Clearly competition is needed so the existence of the BBC is justified.

I hope my CAPITALISATIONS and underlinings are appreciated!

I'm sure someone here said the BBC should become too mainstream and become more popular than ITV...

Well did anyone stop to think that one of the reasons they may have got more popular is actually because ITV have become worse and worse of late?

Or that in fact ITV still beat the BBC in primetime, where it matters at the end of the day.

Discuss.

Stu

no.

However your post was perfectly accurate. ITV - especially under the control of that moron Pickard - is just getting worse and worse. The 5pm slot is now dreadful with continuous You've Been Framed and that utter rubbish "I want that house." Plus Pickard's fantastic new show that he axed Crossroads for will be..... a makeover show. Great.

I don't know what it's like now, but in the past (and I do mean years ago), Eurosport used to cover the race too. Potential channel swapping to avoid missing action there?

Anyway, on the website issue I totally disagree with IDS. The BBCi website is a very valuable resource and not something to be removed.

But, I do agree that some of the BBC's services need reigning in. One of the most negative things about digital TV is this assertion that just because the capacity for channels has ballooned, that broadcasters must all rush to use it.

Every main broadcaster is now obsessed with building a huge portfolio of digital channels in spite of the fact that they aren't really needed, and the BBC (both through their domestic services and through UKTV) is one of the worst offenders in this respect.

In 1997 they launched News 24 ahead of the impending launch of digital television. Fair enough (although some questions about how something can cost so much and yet look so bad to have to be asked). Then they wanted BBC Choice as a new entertainment channel. Also fair enough, and at first it wasn't actually a bad channel either. Then they wanted BBC Knowledge. Maybe overkill to have yet another channel, but even so it cost peanuts to run and did actually provide a public service in that it was the only free channel to provide stimulating programming during the day. And yes they did also 'launch' BBC Parliament but in fact it just fell to them by default after The Parliament Channel went bust - they didn't ask for it.

But since then, they've completely lost the plot. In the last 18 months, they've launched BBC3, BBC4, CBBC, Cbeebies, BBC 5 Live Sports Extra, BBC 6 Music, BBC 7, BBC Asian Network and BBC 1Xtra. When is it going to end?

Each of those services costs a fair amount of money to run, but very few of them are worthwhile.

BBC4 has been a total flop from the start. There was no market for a channel which only operates in the evenings providing such high brow material. I realise that viewing figures aren't everything, but when they are this low they have to count for something. They can't spend the money of tens of millions of people on a service whose ratings are often so low that they don't register any viewers at all.

BBC 1Xtra and BBC Asian Network were nothing more than PC publicity stunts.

BBC 7 suffers from the same problem as BBC4. No one is questioning the quality of it's content, but when bugger all people listen to it, why should it receive licence fee funding?

The CBBC channel wasn't a bad idea - but it's flopped spectacularly, with again abysmal ratings. It shouldn't be allowed to continue.

And then there's their latests venture, BBC3. A channel which is just trying to be what BBC Choice was supposed to be, and spending even more money doing it. Much of it's better programming is shown on BBC1 anyway, and much of the rest is still barely watched.

BBC3, BBC4, CBBC Channel, BBC7, BBC Asian Network and BBC 1Xtra should all go. They cost too much money for the number of people who make use of them. There's providing a valid public service, and there's catering to the tastes of thousands of people when they are supposed to be catering to the tastes of millions. There is room for high quality in the BBC, there is room for innovative and risky programming in the BBC, there is room for the occasional programme that is aimed at a select group, but there is not room for complete broadcast operations which just aren't going to be watched.

The other big thing which needs to be reigned in is interactivity. Interactive TV is the biggest gimmick since the soda stream drinks maker. There are a few genuinely useful services out there. Commercial ventures are using it to exploit people, but where does this leave the BBC? If they want to dabble in it (and there are some genuinely useful services I admit) then all well and good, but some of their decisions over it, such as using licence fee money to purchase an additional multiplex on DTT only to waste most of it on silly BBCi capacity on a platform which can't support interactivity (indeed, they've used so much of Multiplex B for BBCi that BBC Parliament can only broadcast with a quarter screen image), do need to be questioned.

I welcome calls to reign the BBC in and strongly back the closure of many of it's new services, but sadly IDS has gone too far in trying to include the website in it too and for that reason I can't support him. But the spirit of what he is saying, that the BBC has too many services, I think is entirely valid.

Well quite frankly - who cares about BBC Parliement? I don't even think the BBC do. Remember that it's not the BBCi channels that are taking up the space it's the radio stations. Plus that second MUX was purchased as the BBC would be not sticking to the Freeview guidelines (4 channels per MUX) if they didn't have it and the two BBCi channels were there before they moved to the second BBC MUX.

An excellent contribution there I feel cwathen, at last somebody recognising the need to bring this empire building under control.

However, on the issue of BBC Online, what I still don't understand is how a tax levied on receiving a television signal can be put towards funding a website. That does not compute with me.

But it also pays for Radio doesn't it.

Sorry but i would rather at least have the option to watch / listen to these services than have a licence fee reduction. There are some good programmes on BBC Four, although I've yet to see anything worthwhile on BBC Three / asian network / 1extra. I think those three services should be curtailed.

Since ITV is just utter crap most of the time (apart from the odd film, and the odd feature length drama which they don't make anymore), Imagine the choice of viewing without the BBC's grand options. BBC One is turning slowly into the tripe that is ITV1 anyway. Just because the BBC Operation is large, and some of the channels don't get massive audiences you can't chop them away. Granted, BBC Three / asian network / 1extra won't be missed, but I watch less and less of BBC One.

The BBC's just digital serves are also a major factor in people taking up Free to Air Digital, and the Online services are most useful.

I know the principal of the Licence is what is being debated here, but the reality of the breadth of quality output for the money makes it worth £2.50 per week. Its cheaper than renting one video.

Because of someone in my building moving the communal aerial, I have only been able to watch BBC's 1, 2 and 3 for the past few weeks. No other DTT channels or BBC 4 available, although I did want to watch the Restoration Secrets series on it. I cannot envisage being able to make do with ITV's 1 and 2 for that duration.

An excellent contribution there I feel re-it-er-ate, the only two reasons I keep ITV1 on my telly are the only two shows worth watching on it; Millionaire and The Machine.....