Tories: We would shut down BBCi & Three

Although some might say the quality of news it provides far outways the pres it delievers...



I don't think this is the license fee funded anyway? Moving on...



Hmmm it ended upon the launch of BBC Three - it will be very hard for them to justify launching anything more now.



And if it was getting 200,000 viewers per show it would be accussed of duming down and being to commerical. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.



Actually BBC 7 is very popular, and a good factor in bringing the older part of the generation to Digital TV.



Have you seen the viewing figures recently? It's 8 times more popular now than on launch and is doing very well of late...



Hmmm yes not all of it is perfect, but then again where else can you get TV of the quality BBC Three gives you in the *Multi Channel World* and for *Free*.



Ummm the platform does support interactivity, and will do so even more when MHEG 1.06 gets released.

The BBC will be introducing more to the platform soon, for instance BBC News Interactive. BBC Parliament was made ¼ screen to accomodate the Radio Channels I think.

The problem that lies here is the same one as normal, the BBC are damned id they do and damned if they don't. They have to help the uptake in Digital TV, as per the governements request, so they've launched channels to do so. All I'd say do have a place in the BBC portfolio. Yes not all of them are perfect, but hey is ITV, Channel 4 or Five? We still pay for them at the end of the day...

Coming back to the point you made about UKTV - I don't think we should really moan about this (or any other BBC Worldwide activities) as they do help to keep the license fee down, believe it or not.

The BBC wanted to introduce a Digital Only License Fee which would have been the fair way of doing it, but they weren't allowed too, so I don't think we should argue that point.

At the end of the day the BBC is extremely good value. Works out at about 32p a day, which in my maths is roughly 1.5p an hour for 6 24hr TV channels (working on the assumption of 4 24hr and 4 Time Sharing). Yes thats 1.5p. So working out how much each TV channel costs on average per hour would give the you the price of 0.23p an hour or so - so if you watch a film it's basically cost you 0.66p or something like that.

And to be honest it's even cheaper than that when you've bought each radio station etc into the occasion.

And if you only watch say 12 series a year it's cheaper to do so on the BBC than buy them on DVD...

Bargain...

Don't get me wrong, I don't love the BBC and everything it does - I don't think somethings are as good as they are, but overall it's 100 times better than paying for Sky - look how much you get in the Value Pack (£12.50 a month) and compare that to what the BBC gives you for that price.

Stu

EDIT: Adding to the ITV debate, I can't even get it or ITV2 on my TV and I don't miss it at all... Is it any wonder ITV's viewing share has dropped by 50% in the last 20 years!

Oh how predictable, here you go again with your small minded mentality. ITV1 does not constitute the whole of commercial television. We are talking about the television tax and funding of the BBC, this is not a BBC vs ITV argument, however much you may wish to turn it into one to divert attention away from the very valid arguments.

Blind, blinkered buffoon.

Some might.




They wouldn't have been dammed if they didn't. The programming which appears on Four (and Three) could easily fit onto BBC Two. They've wasted a lot of time launching two channels which they don't need.



By "very popular", you mean in comparison with the other BBC digital radio stations, which have done very badly.



Again, what do you mean by "very well"? Its ratings are well below its rivals, which is shocking when you consider the money spent on it. How is providing a service to 7-14 year olds in the daytime good use of license fee payers' money?



That's a really silly question there, as if a commercial channel was providing the same type of programming, BBC Three wouldn't have got the go ahead. What you should be asking is "where else can you get the type of programming BBC Three gives you on the BBC?" The answer to that is BBC One and BBC Two.



Interesting. Last time I checked my DTT box all I could do was read a few pages of text. That's not what I'd call interactive.



That's only because they have a knack of 'doing' and 'don'ting' at the wrong time.

BTW AFAIK It's not up to the BBC to encourage the uptake in DTV - they've just assumed that role.



Erm, you need to look at the figures for the BBC aswell.

[/quote]
Yet again another argument comparing a single channel to an entire corporation. As you also say BBC1 is 'slowly turning into ITV' anyway, so what highbrow material BBC4 show is irrelevant in an argument against ITV. If you are going to have a go at ITV, you can only do BBC1 v ITV1 and BBC3 v ITV2.

The BBC is extremely good value for money, provides an excellent public service throguh a range of TV and radio channels and through its website. Can you seriously imagine life without the BBC? And I mean seriously. ITV is lucky to still exist after the ITV Digital fiasco. Advertising rates are down leading ITV to make more crap and lazy shows and less quality dramas and documentaries. The BBC has to show a diverse and varied range of programming through the contract it has meaning there will always be plenty of high quality shows that may not have been made in a fully free market situation. I could go into economic terminology about why this is the case but can't be bothered. But clearly, despite launching some struggling digital services the BBC provides an unbeatable service on the whole.

It's hard to tell if you agree or disagree on this point, but I think it'd be very shortsighted to watch a News station for it's pres - it'd be like me reading a Newspaper just because it's printed in a nice font...





I disagree, both BBC Three and Four can devote more time to programming than BBC Two would be able too - and it also gives a chance for new and upcoming programs to given a fair chance at the airwaves that the latest episode of Eastender does.





I've not got access to RAJAR figures, so I can't comment on this one...





Well I mean well in the fact that on the W/E 17th August it was the highest rated Childrens channel - and with the top 5 programs all achieving 200,000 or so viewers... and compare it's 0.8% share to this time last year which was 0.2% it just goes to show how well it is doing.

Well in the daytime it shows Schools TV doesn't it - so thats a good use of the license fee as far as I can see - and even when school is on there are kids legimately off - illness, staff days, holidays at different times of the year (Scotland or Private etc etc etc)





Ah but there isn't anywhere else that provides that kind of programming on Multi Channel TV for free (or some may even argue if you pay extra for Sky and Cable)

It will take the channel time to improve - it's only been on for 6 months - looking at how CBBC has done in 18 months, the same should apply to BBC Three - look at Five - on launch it had 2.5% of the viewing share, and was slated, now it's at almost 7% and is well respected... But no-one thought that would happen, because it was an easy target. So is BBC Three at the moment, so give it time...





The BBC (and any other broadcaster) are limited by the Technicial Specification of DTT reception - as I say things will vastly improve when MHEG 1.06 is released by the box manufacturers etc.

The BBC do a good job with what is avaiable mind. I've heard cable don't get all that much and that is a superior platform technicially.





I'm almost sure all the PSB are repsonsible to a degree to help the uptake of Digital TV - ITV get a digital rebate, and BBC/CC had Freeview OKed as it was obviously the best proposal in which would help the numbers of people going to Digital... And it's starting to work too





Ummm yes I'm well aware of this, but the BBC hasn't lost audience share as much as ITV has - in 1982 the BBC had 38% to ITVs 50% - now it's BBC 26.2% / ITV 24.1% (2002 figures)

Stu

So why did you comment on it then in the first place?




The ratings for the channel have improved over the summer holidays, but they're still not as high as the likes of Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon.



Not when schools programmes are already being shown on BBC Two. That's a waste of the license fee.



There's not supposed to be anywhere else that provides that kind of programming! That was the reason the BBC Three eventually got the go ahead - it had to be unique.




Don't involve Freeview in this debate, as it really has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

What you are saying is true - it is the responsiblity of ALL PSBs to help the uptake of DTV. However, the BBC is trying to be the savour of DTV by launching all of these services, which are really not needed.

According to 2001: A Space Odyssey , should we not be up to BBC-10 (tv) by now?

Well i've just trawled through this thread... a lot of random hot-air spouted amid some very valid points.... i thought i'd add my tuppence

- All this issue over how many viewers channels like BBC3/4/Parliament, whatever, get. Does it matter? It's called choice (well, BBC3 used to be called that ) - as with any channel, watch it if something good's on, if not, don't. The beauty of the BBC's funding means it can afford to launch and run these channels, and it costs us no extra (unless the Government increase the licence fee) - if it was ITV or Sky, then it would...

- Remember that WE ALL pay for ITV every time we buy something. Companies need to pay for the advertising... on that basis, with every product we buy, we pay for them to advertise. Like some people claim the licence fee is a tax, well, so is paying for advertising. It's something you can't avoid paying. The difference with ITV launching numerous channels is that their income from advertising fluctuates, and as we know at the moment is rock bottom, hence the affordability of supplying the services is lacking severely. Hence the reasons that ITV (and ILR, for that matter) are gradually being de-regionalised by companies like Granada, Carlton et al "running the show", as it were.

- Don't even get me started on BBCi. Totally invaluable. A complete mine of information.

Oh, and one more thing. Can i light the peace pipe to stop the thread turning into Square Eyes v Katherine round 437. Might be nice...

That was a knee-jerk reaction when people pointed out that most of their target audience wouldn't be around for most of the time that the channel is broadcasting for. Those schools programmes weren't there at first.

But in any case, there is no evidence that these schools programmes are being widely used.

During the 80's, most schools invested a lot of time and videotape in recording pretty much every episode of every schools programme they were ever likely to use. My old school had a special room crammed full with thousands (literally) of VHS tapes, containing every conceivable schools programme which anyone could ever want.

Newer programmes may have been made, but in many cases the content of them hasn't changed at all (or rather, is still valid enough for what teachers want to use it for). And with the class gathering around the television set being a rarer and rarer occurance in the face of newer information resources, they won't have much cause to bother replacing the huge resource they allready have.

In 1999 we were watching a Biology series so old that it came with an ATV frontcap. The teacher warned that it was 'a bit old' but he saw no point in recording one of the newer programmes because the old one was still fine for his purposes.

And most schools do still teach from 15 year old recordings of schools programmes.

Ironically, about the teachers who still regularly use current programmes are those teaching KS1 children - outside of the CBBC Channel's age range anyway.

Saying 'CBBC during the day is justified because it has schools programmes' is not really any sort of an argument.

I fail to see why you're getting so worked up at what seems to me, to be one of the least harmless taxes we adults pay. There are people that die as a result of paying cigarette tax, (one of my friend's mothers is dying from 'inoperable' lung cancer attributed to passive smoking) people die from alcohol tax and so on and so forth. Yet nobody's died from television tax. The fuss you're making about television tax makes you soung like you're dying from it, but you're not.

Be happy and look on the bright side - you don't die from paying this form of tax.

Oh honestly, what a bizarre argument. So, I should be grateful because the BBC isn't slowly killing me ? Well, have you every watched an episode of Fame Academy ?

We don't pay taxes in order for us to kill ourselves, most of us pay National Health Service contributions in order to stay alive. Anyway, it's all about choice. Paying of the cigarette tax is based on consumption, the same can't be said for the BBC.