All posts by Briantist
Below are all of Briantist's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Tony Hill: BBC Alba is funded by the Scottish Government in the main part, so it will just get a new name.
| link to this comment |
trevorjharris: The saving are coming from the cutting the costs of content creation.
BBC three won't have a schedule: it will be on demand.
| link to this comment |
trevorjharris: Looking into it more closely, the BBC is "gifted" multiplex A (or PSB1) and are required to use it for BBC services. They need the stream that BBC3 uses for the daytime children's CBBC service, so the BBC three "evening slot" would have to be used for some BBC service.
That would be either a red-button stream or BBC One+1, in my estimation.
Let's see. They are doing the proper announcement tomorrow.
| link to this comment |
MikeP: it would be BBC one plus one HD that would move... Not the full time BBC one HD!
| link to this comment |
Oh, it seems that I was right!
BBC - Media Centre - BBC announces plans to close BBC Three as a TV channel in 2015
"The freed up spectrum being used to extend CBBC by an hour a night and to provide a BBC One +1 service."
| link to this comment |
Tax Waste: To be fair, the TV LIcence is optional.
No one is forcing you to have a television set.
| link to this comment |
Richard E: The majority of people don't have a PVR, and only 3% of viewing hours is online.
| link to this comment |
Ian: Interesting you should say that, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism [1] have a report by Patrick Barwise and Robert G. Picard
What If There Were No BBC Television? The Net Impact on UK Viewers
Well worth the read: https://reutersinstitute.….pdf
"A central issue is the 'crowding out' effect of the BBC. Some competitors, economists, and others have long argued that the presence of the BBC, funded by a compulsory licence fee, distorts the market, making it hard for commercial broadcasters to prosper and meet consumers' needs.
Although this argument has been widely made, none of its proponents has to our knowledge provided any empirical evidence to support it or tested the presumption that a free market without the BBC, funded by subscriptions and advertising, would meet consumers' needs better than the current mixed economy. This report is a first attempt to do so, assessing what would happen to TV industry revenues and content investment if there were no BBC and the likely net impact on viewers. The analysis is based on recent financial data and realistic best- and worst-case scenarios of the likely outcome"
some examples
"Its viewing share of 33% gives it a low average cost per viewer-hour - over 40% less than for commercial TV as a whole. Removing it or scaling it back therefore seems unlikely to improve the overall efficiency of UK television.
A 25-50% net reduction in investment in first-run UK content would also be a severe blow to UK production companies.
Another important explanatory factor is that, without the BBC, most of the growth in commercial revenue would have to come from consumer subscriptions. Advertising revenue would increase relatively little and might even decrease. But the cost per viewer-hour of subscription TV is about 25p, 2.7 times the 9.2p cost per viewer-hour for BBC TV. In other words, we would largely be replacing a relatively low-cost source of TV content with a relatively expensive one."
[1] Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism / RISJ Reports
| link to this comment |
Dave Lindsay: http://www.tvlicensing.co….pdf says
have a PVR (ie, not a "majority").
| link to this comment |
Wednesday 5 March 2014 11:35AM
Richard: You probably find that they might just not get mentioned.
Like the way that BBC Scotland's weather forecast maps don't have England on them?