Slashdot Mirror


End of an Era As Pioneering BBC3 Becomes an Online-Only Station (betanews.com)

Mark Wilson writes: 13 years ago, BBC3 launched in the UK. Last night, the TV station broadcast over the airwaves for the last time. In a bid to slash expenditure, the youth-oriented channel that launched countless comedy careers is now only available online. The likes of Being Human, The Mighty Boosh, Gavin and Stacey, and the like will live on, but only on the web — which the BBC is spinning as an opportunity to be freed from the constraints of regular scheduling. The change has been known about for some time now, and there have been a number of campaigns and petitions to try to get the BBC to change its mind.

85 comments

  1. Too bad by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is so sad that they have moved down to a medium which nobody knows or cares about.

    I mean, this makes the television antennas in all of our phones practically useless now....

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:Too bad by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      The kids of today will never figure out how to find the BBC3 on this Interwebs thing.

    2. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I found my old dial-up server list, but none of them are named "Bulletin Board C3", is this one of the ones where I need to find a different area code's server list?

    3. Re:Too bad by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      They won't sell us phones with ATSC tuners here in the US.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    4. Re:Too bad by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      I couldn't find anything about it on Gopher.

      I'll check out the CompuServe chat rooms.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    5. Re:Too bad by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and you need to use 8 data bits, no stop bit.

    6. Re:Too bad by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Ain't no one stopping you: www.aliexpress.com

    7. Re:Too bad by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Side note, apropos of nothing: Alibaba will sell to people in much of the U.S., but not to those of us who live in Washington state!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:Too bad by ncc74656 · · Score: 0

      I mean, this makes the television antennas in all of our phones practically useless now....

      What's a TV antenna doing in your phone? Wouldn't it be useless without also having a tuner of some sort in there?

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    9. Re:Too bad by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      ahhhh, *that's* why it never worked... Here I was adding tinfoil to the telescoping antenna and everything...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    10. Re:Too bad by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      You can buy a tuner that plugs into the bottom, with an expandable antenna if you want that model.

    11. Re:Too bad by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      From what I can find there is no cellphone with support for ATSC. I see that I can get an ATSC adapter that will allow me to watch tv but that's hardly the same.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    12. Re:Too bad by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I'll check out the CompuServe chat rooms.

      They were FORUMS, not "chat rooms".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. This is what happens when govt runs media by mbeckman · · Score: 0

    "If you like your BBC3, you can keep you ur BBC3.,

    1. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      As it is in so many other contexts, Fox is even worse!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As it is in so many other contexts, Fox is even worse!"

      That comment makes no sense. There is no comparison between a government monopoly that seizes taxes by force to pay for media content it and only it deems appropriate, and a free market content delivery service that is beholden to both viewers and advertisers. Far from being "even worse", Fox (and CNN and NBC, etc) are infinitely better than the hare-brained British license-by-duress system. Just Google (another free-market service) the phrase "TV license" to see how the friendly UK government extracts license fees by assaulting its citizens.

      The real tragedy is Obama has gone one worse than the UK, by putting the IRS in charge of healthcare. So the U.S. has its share of government intrusions. But that's no reason to pillory free enterprise.

    3. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That comment makes no sense.

      No, you're just an ignorant dumbass.

      I was referencing the fact that Fox cancels bunches of good shows. In other words, with Fox, "If you like your shows, you can keep your shows" is less true than it is for the BBC.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 0

      The simpsons? X-files? 24? A lot of shows that saturate popular culture came from Fox. Nevermind that the BBC actually recycles a lot of US content, which in many cases ends up being more popular than the domestic content.

    5. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The simpsons? X-files? 24?

      Fox news! You're talking about fictional entertainment, right?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, you libertarian dumb bastard, let me give you an easy-to-digest argument.

      The Government is a corporation with an ownership interest in all the land within its jurisdiction.

      Each citizen owns one share.

      Landlords are permitted to set terms of use on their land.

      This includes the collection of rent money.

      If you don't like the terms, get off the land.

    7. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Think more along the lines of "if you like your Firefly, you can keep your Firefly."

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nevermind that the BBC actually recycles a lot of US content, which in many cases ends up being more popular than the domestic content.

      Example please? The Beeb aren't renowned for licensing shows. Quite the reverse in fact; what's far more common is that BBC shows are exported to the US, where they are remade for American tastes and so end up being absolutely awful (e.g. Red Dwarf, The Office).

    9. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those shows went out on Sky 1, another subscription channel and owned by Murdoch. Ooh, let's guess what other channel he owns...

      All three of those listed died years ago. Bringing them back is pure desperation to cash in on the nostalgia money before we're all too old.

    10. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      I think the comment means that the BBC buys in some overseas programming, rather than "recycles". Personally I like to see some foreign TV, the Walter Presents collection is quite interesting.

    11. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the comment means that the BBC buys in some overseas programming, rather than "recycles".

      Still waiting for an example of a programme the BBC have syndicated. Bonus points if it came from the US.

      As for Walter Presents, it's a) with Channel 4, b) mainly dramas and thrillers and c) doesn't show any US programmes (mostly just variations on the Scandinavian crime shows that were in vogue a year or two back).

      The only time I recall seeing a US show on the BBC was The Simpsons, and that was easily over a decade ago.

    12. Re: This is what happens when govt runs media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The govt doesn't run the media. The BBC is publicly owned but is not a government body. The current right wing government is trying to reduce the BBC's income because they see the BBC as being too critical of their policies.

      Funnily enough, it's a trope in right-wing circles that the BBC has a left wing bias, and the lefties think that the BBC has a right wing bias. This suggests that on the whole the BBC does a good job of staying neutral.

    13. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I don't know everything BBC broadcasts, however I do know that they presently air Family Guy and American Dad, both of which are from Fox.

    14. Re:This is what happens when govt runs media by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      Aren't they showing the O J Simpson one? And the Walter Presents was a less specific comment to the effect of that there's plenty of interesting TV throughout the world and restricting a channel to just the output of its home country seems a waste.

  3. Trojan Horse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, as they've a live channel on teh interwebs, they'll be wanting a TV license from all those refuseniks who just stream the stuff, rather than watch it over the air...
    (Up till now, they've gotten away with not paying for a TV license, naughty, naughty little refuseniks...Auntie Beeb doesn't like that...)

    1. Re:Trojan Horse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what happened in Germany. When their TV license revenue was dropping, they first tried to charge every PC and Internet users. When people widely ignored the fee, they just imposed a charge on every household regardless of usage.

  4. Oh wow, downhill fast. by Afty0r · · Score: 3, Funny

    I really hope Netflix doesn't copy this model - it could be fatal for their business!

    1. Re:Oh wow, downhill fast. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I've tried every position on the dial, from 2 to 13 - but I can't find this "Netflix" anywhere!

      Wait... is it in the UHF band?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  5. Launched "countless" careers? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> 13 years ago, BBC3 launched...that launched countless comedy careers...

    In the words of John Oliver, settle down people. It's only been around 13 years. Surely, the number of people who are still working in comedy after working on that channel is finite. Here's a list of the most famous, I guess: http://www.theguardian.com/med...

    1. Re:Launched "countless" careers? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      They didn't mean "countless" but "count less", as in "you don't have to count much".

  6. What are "airwaves"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do large number of people still watch broadcast tele in Britain? In America the number of people watching over the air broadcast is low, and the number watching cable is shrinking quickly. Online is the place to be, especially for a channel for young people.

    1. Re:What are "airwaves"? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      OTA is growing in the US. And for me, the picture quality beats Netflix almost every time.

    2. Re:What are "airwaves"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTA + Netflix/Amazon/PlayStation Vue/Crackle

      OTA is growing majorly, its the non-cable source of local news.

  7. I'm in my 50s... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    ... and even I hardly watch any "over the air" television anymore. Most of the shows I watch are available on Hulu or Netflix (including at least a few of these particular BBC3 shows, which aren't otherwise available to me as a non-Brit). Surely a "youth-oriented" channel can somehow manage to survive the move to an Internet-only presence.

    I'm sure the BBC's primary motivation here is indeed to save money - but I don't see how this move has to be construed as a negative one.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I'm in my 50s... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If BBC wants some money, they should open up iPlayer as a subscription service to the US. Obviously, any show they manage to license to a cable network would not be included in the subscription, but everything else is just sitting there untapped. I am not going to buy cable just to get BBC America.

    2. Re:I'm in my 50s... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like this - https://store.bbc.com/

  8. I still miss BBC's truly seminal work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, while there is (well, I guess now "was") some good stuff on BBC3, I still miss their seminal work "Titty Titty Bang Bang" the most. Not. (I tried to like it, because the critics said I should. Couldn't do it ... the show absolutely sucked balls).

    Despite a few good shows, there was a lot of crap on BBC3, and I'm not at all surprised they got the axe first, what with all the Tory cuts to funding and the resulting budget crunch. Not ideal for fans of Being Human/I like myself, but better than losing BBC1 or BBC2. And as others have noted, the streaming model works pretty well for other content providers (Amazon Prime, Netflix, Vudu, etc.).

    1. Re:I still miss BBC's truly seminal work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..Despite a few good shows, there was a lot of crap on BBC3, and I'm not at all surprised they got the axe first, what with all the Tory cuts to funding and the resulting budget crunch. Not ideal for fans of Being Human/I like myself, but better than losing BBC1 or BBC2.

      Firstly, to get this out of the road, I'm not a Tory.
      Secondly, I pay the TV license.
      Thirdly, BBC1,2,4 can go the same way as BBC3 as far as I'm concerned..it would be no great loss.

      Talking about the demise of BBC3, a straw poll at work and out of 20 colleagues only 2 regularly watched any significant content on any of the BBC channels, the rest - mostly streams/downloads of non-BBC content and occasional use of iplayer. The last thing I actually went out of my way to watch on a BBC channel was Young Montalbano, made by RAI.

      BBC News 24 can go to hell as well, it's naught but a biased propaganda outlet nowadays (maybe it always was, I didn't have ready access to so many other news services in the past to cross check their takes on the same stories) even their 'flagship' investigative arm Panorama, whilst marginally better that their usual standard of reportage, is a shadow of what it once was.

      If I have to pay a mandatory License in the future for their online crap as well (and I see that one coming in the light of this BBC3 move), I would like to see a legally binding set of options, even something simple as a checkbox list of program categories that my portion of the BBC License fee shouldn't fund and which would be then be locked out of the iplayer (In an ideal world I'd also like a list of people who shouldn't be paid anything out of my fee - currently the shithead Chris Evans is at the top of that one..and no, I wasn't a fan of Clarkson either),

  9. Re:Title by Maritz · · Score: 2

    People will point to the odd thing that surfaced on BBC3 that was good. They forget that the occasional good thing was buried in an avalache of absolute shit.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  10. It's an experiment in the future of "Television" by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 1

    Everything is ultimately headed over IP. BBC3 is a good brand with which to pioneer this with it's relatively young and tech-savy demographic. Once "smart" TVs start living up to their name you'll be able to watch it just as you do now over DVB.

  11. Crazy or fraud? by dhaen · · Score: 1
    The BBC claim that this will save £30M /year, by moving on-line. This does not add up.

    Transponders and multiplex slots don't cost a fortune to rent. You only have to look at all the garbage channels to know that it's cheap. In any case, it shares a transponder with a kids channel, so should only pay half. The programme costs will be the same whatever the distribution method. Furthermore there is a cost to streaming to the internet, which I wouldn't mind betting is similar to the transponder costs.

    I personally have no interest in the channel, but since it it being paid for by licence fee (tax), I want to know that my money is being spent wisely, and accounted for properly.

    1. Re:Crazy or fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience on both Satellite and digital terrestrial the BBC plexes are several db stronger than the rest of the plebs, so I'm guessing they are either paying a premium or sunning some of the kit themselves. If you want to try this for yourself get a free-sat box that gets the BBC, and see if you can manually add something like EWTN, unless your dish is cock-on you probably wont get it, and it'll be the first thing to get rained off.

    2. Re:Crazy or fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electricity to run transmitters is far from cheap in Europe.

    3. Re:Crazy or fraud? by Xest · · Score: 2

      The whole country since the recession has been in cost cutting mode, and the 60+ generation is basically that which has been protected from everything in every way both in government and elsewhere.

      BBC3 has been cut because the BBC has decided to cater almost in it's entirety to the 60+ demographic, and this is highlighted by the fact that the average age of a BBC viewer has crept up from just under 50 to 59 since the recession started and cuts began.

      But it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy for them, they've cut everything for the younger demographics, and so the younger demographics have stopped watching, and in turn they justify further cuts by pretending the younger demographic just isn't interested.

      The net result is that you've got a majority of license fee payers no longer being catered to by the license fee. The BBC still churns out the odd age-neutral show that younger viewers can enjoy, but honestly, every time I'm bored and I stick the TV on to see if there's anything worth watching it's either a boring medical drama, a boring poorly acted costume drama, a shit talk show, or Clare Balding doing something entirely uninteresting.

      And it pains me because I've always loved the BBC, but I'm genuinely having a hard time justifying continuing with the TV license. It's £120 or whatever it is now each year that I simply no longer need to spend, that no longer serves me, but the government is talking about legislating so I need the TV license even if I never watch broadcast TV ever again but watch things like Netflix, and Amazon Instant Video which I already pay for separately. The license fee is turning into an actual tax on watching video all because the BBC has failed to keep earning it by doing it's fucking job and catering to a broad audience and so has been losing fee payers like no tomorrow.

  12. Pioneering? by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

    The channel was meant to cover "young people" as the BBC, in its wisdom had decided that they weren't watching enough TV (as if that was a bad thing). However, the BBC's idea of "young people" was a rather arbitrary age range of 16 - 34 year olds. That is a group defined by the advertising industry, but since the BBC is advert free, it's not really relevant to them and can hardly be said to be a "demographic".

    Given that most 16 year olds are spotty children, living with their parents who still snigger when someone says "fart" and 34 year-olds are generally on their second baby, with a partner, mortgage, job and a car or two - it's a pretty wide range to please, So it's no surprise that the target audience (who weren't watching enough TV) stayed away. Sure, in the eyes of those people who made a living from BBC3, it was "pioneering" or "innovative". However those people were generally, themselves, not exactly target-audience material, either.

    When the TV "digital revolution" (i.e. replacing the small number of wide-band analog stations with a large number of digital ones) started, there was a plethora of new stations. Most of them had very little content that was either new or worth watching. Most of these, especially the new ones that the BBC started, can be considered failures. BBC3 is just the most high-profile failure and probably won't be missed, except by those middle-aged 34 year-olds who still wish they were spotty children - or who are still living with their parents.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Pioneering? by dhaen · · Score: 1

      A concern of mine is that this is just the thin end of the wedge. BBC4 will be next (not online but closed). They'll push the more popular programmes back to BBC2 (where that came from originally) and ditch the rest. I know it runs a lot of repeats but it it is our only channel with any cultural value IMO.

    2. Re:Pioneering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely not pioneering. It's just the stuff they used to put on BBC2, plus filler shit. It's also aimed at the very demographic that rarely bothers with broadcast TV. Who have moved on to streaming from youtube and netflix for their viewing fixes.

      The BBC have been increasing their empire for years. This was just another attempt. It failed - thank fuck.

    3. Re:Pioneering? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The BBC has plenty of good content for its channels, it just won't show it. BBC 4 is full of modern crap, when they could be showing great documentaries from the 60s, 70s and 80s. From the time before the great dumbing down.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Pioneering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..BBC 4 is full of modern crap, when they could be showing great documentaries from the 60s, 70s and 80s. From the time before the great dumbing down.

      Reasons why they wont:
      1. because it shows up the fact that the quality of the content of programming has deteriorated
      2. repeat fees, there's probably some equity agreement still in force which precludes showing them again.
      3. BBC Worldwide or a.n.other actually own the rights to show them thanks to some shady dealings.
      4. They've wiped the tapes to record cricket or something equally as highly important to the prats who run the organisation. (most likely).

    5. Re:Pioneering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A concern of mine is that this is just the thin end of the wedge. BBC4 will be next (not online but closed). They'll push the more popular programmes back to BBC2 (where that came from originally) and ditch the rest. I know it runs a lot of repeats but it it is our only channel with any cultural value IMO.

      I hope your concern doesn't pan out. I live in the US, but always watch BBC4 (via Freesat) when I visit family in Ireland. I especially enjoy the late night music, science & history documentaries. If this goes online only then I suspect that'll cut out the folks in Ireland.

      On a brighter note for us poor sods stuck with US TV, it sounds like the Beeb is planning to launch a new subscription streaming service for us. If we can get access to all the "cultural value" you mention then sign me up. (Dr Who & Eastenders ... meh). There's already acorn.tv, but the value is that the Beeb has a huge catalogue of shows ... IMO the whole point of a streaming service is to allow each customer to pick & choose what they want to watch, not to pick the "Top 10" or "Top 100" shows. PBS here does its best & I applaud them, but being able to access every BBC show would be like totally awesome ( oh dear, I've been here too long! ;-) )

  13. never had any sense to it by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Given the number of repeats shown on BBC1 and BBC2 there was always plenty of space in the schedule for new, innovative and interesting material.

    There still is.

    Forget putting BBC3 online, shut it down entirely. Anything that's good enough can be shown on BBC2 - it's got to be better than endless repeats of Coast, daily doses of Flog It and whatever the fuck they call that atrocity that's on at 7pm.

  14. No good original programming for several years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While some good stuff did start off there at one time, they haven't had a homegrown hit on that channel for several years. The only thing I've watched on BBC 3 in the last few years was Family Guy and American Dad re-runs.

  15. Re:Title by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Funny

    So, in England...they only had 3 channels...and are now down to 2 on TV?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  16. Boring British Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The BBC stopped being relevant when they fired Jeremy Clarkson. Good riddance!

    1. Re:Boring British Crap by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Not really - BBC produces amazing Nature documentaries with David Attenborough.

      I also miss seeing Ground Force.

      And soon we'll have the Orangutan back with Captain Slow, and Pearly white. Never thought I'd get Amazon Prime - but to see the trio in Action again is worth it.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    2. Re: Boring British Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeremy Clarkson stopped being relevant 20 years ago. It's only spotty virgins who think that cars are an acceptable subject for small talk who would disagree.

      He's a racist, sexist violent Tory climate change denier who is best friends with a pig fucker and a phone hacking hack. He thinks criminals should go unpunished as long as they commit their crimes behind the wheel of a car. He is woefully unfunny yet surrounds himself with baying idiots who find exploding caravans the height of humour.

      Viz got it right years ago when they had Roger Mellie fill in for Clarkson and he ended up fucking the exhaust pipe of a sports car.

      Clarkson can fuck right off and when he gets there he can fuck off again. I'm glad my license fee is no longer paying for his shit denim and coke habit.

  17. Re:Title by Grench · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not sure if serious, so I'll answer anyway.

    No - the BBC is not the only game in town when it comes to television and radio in the UK. The BBC is uniquely-funded through a "television license" which anyone who watches live broadcast television must pay, regardless whether they watch the BBC's channels or not. There is no commercial advertising on the BBC when watched in the UK (though I understand this is not necessarily the case with the versions of the BBC that are shown internationally).

    But there's also the commercial broadcasters:

    ITV (a regionalized network of broadcast companies) operates a number of channels

    Channel 4 (also broadcasts E4, more4, Film4 (which makes original film content as well as screening Hollywood and independent films)

    Channel 5 (again, they operate a few channels).

    Sky (satellite TV provider, which has its own channels, but also broadcasts channels from overseas, typically US channels - their set-top boxes also have access to a streaming catch-up service with access to download TV show box sets for you to watch. Sky is hideously expensive, though)

    There's the usual assortment of TV shopping channels and adult entertainment

    The BBC also has its 24-hour news channel.

    Telephone giant BT also has its own service, but it's a streaming service that is (as far as I know) only open to BT Broadband (DSL) and BT Infinity (FTTC) customers.

    And we can watch Netflix and Amazon Prime here too. Just not with as much content as the US gets (this is true of Netflix everywhere though).

    --
    He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
  18. It 2016.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...still waiting for BBC12

  19. There's a BBC3? by Idisagree · · Score: 1

    Since I didn't know it even existed, nothing of value was lost. :)

  20. Re:Title by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    So, like every other channel then. Well, I'd say the hit/miss ratio on BBC3 was a bit above average.

    Since I don't have a smart TV and won't watch on my phone/tablet/laptop that's basically the end of BBC 3 for me. You don't need a licence to watch iPlayer (except the live stream) so maybe I won't bother renewing now, as that was basically the only thing other than news I ever watched live (in bed) anyway.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  21. Fox News is generally criticized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In American political discussion (is slashdot still considered an American website?) Fox News is regularly criticized, especially when compared to other news channels, CNN, BBC, al Jazeera . Many people consider BBC to be a high quality source of news.

    I guess the big television networks don't have the stature they used to have.

    1. Re:Fox News is generally criticized by Dins · · Score: 1

      Fox =/= Fox News

  22. Re:Title by Jamu · · Score: 1

    I was expecting at least BBC12 by 2001...

    --
    Who ordered that?
  23. Re:Title by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Informative

    So, in England...they only had 3 channels...and are now down to 2 on TV?

    Pre-digital, there weren't many. We only hit 4 in 1982 and were up to 5 by the nouglties: 2 BBC (public), 1 ITV (commercial), Channel 4 (public-owned-commercial) and the unimaginatively named Channel 5.

    Now, on terrestrial digital, The BBC (public, no ads) had 8 channels (BBC1,2,3,4, BBC News, BBC Parliament & 2 kids channels) although 3, 4 only run from 7pm, before that the kid's channels use the same bandwidth. Then there's a shedload of non-BBC channels: ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 now each have 3-4 digital channels, not counting '+1's and HD versions, plus numerous others (I've lost track of who owns what). Of course, the advent of digital also created a 5-fold increase in the available license fee and advertising revenue, to fill this plethora of new channels with premium content :->

    Sadly, we also have shopping channels. Prize for the biggest waste of bandwidth (savour this blow by blow):
    QVC (a shopping channel, if you need a stretchy fat-dissolving bra with integrated pressure washer )
    QVC HD (See the stretchy fat-dissolving bra with integrated pressure washer in glorious 1080i)
    QVC HD +1 (time shifted by an hour in case you'd missed out on that stretchy fat-dissolving bra with integrated pressure washer on regular QVC).
    I don't want to live on this planet any more.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  24. Re:Title by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yes. Even with death panels pruning out the no-hopers socialised medicine is so expensive that even 2 is stretching the budget.

    And of course all TV channels are government run, which is what happens if everybody doesn't have a gun.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  25. Re:Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Care to name any of these hits? The only things I personally can think of are Gavin & Stacy, 2 Pints and The Mighty Boosh which was rewarded with a prime time slot and every 14 year old ran around screaming "I'm Old Greg")

    That's 2.3 half decent shows per decade by my maths. Teleshopping channels have a higher strike rate.

  26. Re:Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Channel 4 isn't a commercial broadcaster, it's just a Public Service broadcaster that is allowed to show ads.

  27. Re:Title by RDW · · Score: 2

    The only things I personally can think of are Gavin & Stacy, 2 Pints and The Mighty Boosh

    Cross Two Pints off your list!

    Add:

    Little Britain
    Being Human
    Torchwood
    The Fades (shamefully axed after 1 series)
    In the Flesh (managed 2 series before the chop)
    Our War

    I didn't watch 'Nighty Night', but a lot of people rated it.

  28. Its not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The BBC licence fee has been frozen (Govt interference!) for a number of years now due to intense lobbying by the likes of Sky and the newspapers. Its not just the Conservatives, Labour under Tony Blair were happy to be in the Murdochs pocket too.

    In real terms this means that the amount of money they get is not enough to cover running the channels they had 13 years ago, is not enough to make/commission more than a few new programme ideas and is not enough to compete with Sky for high profile sports programming. Added to this, the BBC has been saddled with funding a government benefit, the provision of "free" tv licences for the over 75s, and with the number of 75 year olds growing, that means a continuous drop in licence fee income.

    The BBC used to produce ALL their own programmes. Under successive licence fee settlements, they have been required to commission from outside production companies. The number of BBC production studios has shrunk dramatically. Ther BBC only has the right to rebroadcast shows or obtain extra income from overseas sales when they make the programmes themselves. Otherwise future income goes into the pockets of the production companies or other rightsholders.

    Other income streams like BBC Publishing have also been stolen and sold off in the name of the great god "competition" and the BBC is in danger of losing much of their web content because of johnny-come-lately newspapers who have seen their own print readership evaporate and want to appropriate the online digital content pioneered by the BBC.

    BBC 3 wasn't a failure. Over its lifetime it aired ground-breaking comedies and dramas. Having it shunted into the on-line abyss is yet another nail in the coffin of strong, independent programming from the BBC.

    1. Re:Its not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > yet another nail in the coffin of strong, independent programming from the BBC.

      Which is probably the intention. More eyeballs time for Sky and ITV but also Netflix and other streaming services.

  29. Re:Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    QVC HD (See the stretchy fat-dissolving bra with integrated pressure washer in glorious 1080i)
    QVC HD +1 (time shifted by an hour in case you'd missed out on that stretchy fat-dissolving bra with integrated pressure washer on regular QVC).

    These two channel were best suited for cable/satellite, not freeview; what a waste of bandwidth.

  30. BBC 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm, what happened to BBC 4???

  31. Re:Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's also a few +1 channels which show programmes an hour later than on the other channel.

  32. TV Station ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who watch TV anyway ?

  33. Re:Title by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Don't forget about Virgin Media

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  34. Re:Title by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    There's also a few +1 channels which show programmes an hour later than on the other channel.

    I'm just waiting for them to come up with -1 channels!

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  35. This Has Been BBC3 by idontgno · · Score: 1

    It's just gone 8 o'clock and time for the penguin on top of your television set to explode.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  36. Streaming the good tuff by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    So when will I be able to stream "My Word" and "My Music", auntie Beeb?

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  37. Channel 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a state-owned commercial broadcaster with a public service obligation. It has to meet certain public service criteria in it's charter but is mostly self-funding (some license fee revenue is sent its way to cover part of the cost of meeting its public service obligations).