BBC Four to go online only

[french frank]

I think that the BBC FOUR/Radio 4 Extra demographic is quite likely to be fairly iPlayer/Sounds savvy, on the whole.

Well the BBC Trust report of 2015 expressed the view that "BBC Three audiences are more likely to use online than other groups"; nevertheless, the BBC admitted that "the audience numbers would drop". It's not entirely a matter of how savvy audiences are as much as how they prefer to watch programmes. The BBC's consultation suggested that a substantial majority preferred linear television, not withstanding the fact that a growing number are happy to watch/listen On Demand.

[Serial_Apologist]

Hmm. One of the things the BBC admitted at the time was that putting BBC Three online would result in some loss of viewers. But that younger demographic is precisely the one the BBC has been trying desperately to attract - and BBC Three returned to television. I imagine a loss of the older demographic won't bother them quite so much.

Precisely my above point.

[muzzer]

I too thought Oh No (actually wtf) but if it’s available on the iPlayer on tv then what is the difference? My tv is easily a decade old now and has coped, with the mere addition of a £20 fire stick. Bit of a dead cat from the Beeb DG. He should be scrutinised for some of the appallingly alarmist news reporting going on (monkey pox for example).

[hmvman]

I think that this is the part of the BBC statement, somewhat tacked on in the hope that no-one would notice, that we should be focussing on a bit more from our perspective.

What does 'alternative funding' mean? Sponsorship? This needs clarification as to what is meant exactly. Who's going to sponsor all the BBC orchestras in a looming recession? It looks like code for the axe to me.

I agree that this is the bigger worry from yesterday's announcement.

[oddoneout]

Can you not get iPlayer programmes?

When I first saw this thread I thought "Oh no...!!" and then thought - "But we watch everything on line now anwyay."

It would only affect us if they pulled the plug on programmes streamed via the iPlayer. We hardly ever watch programmes live now, other than news programmes.
For us the Negroponte switch started years ago, and is continuing.

Don't have the necessary kit. At some point I will have to do so, but for now such an outlay isn't high on the list of priorities. My internet would also need to be better than it currently is, although that is something which will have to be addressed before long anyway as my contract will be ending and I will have to change providers.

[oddoneout]

I think that this is the part of the BBC statement, somewhat tacked on in the hope that no-one would notice, that we should be focussing on a bit more from our perspective.

What does 'alternative funding' mean? Sponsorship? This needs clarification as to what is meant exactly. Who's going to sponsor all the BBC orchestras in a looming recession? It looks like code for the axe to me.

BBC4 going online only has been on the cards for quite a while and I've not got that much of a problem with it for similar reasons as outlined by Bryn and Dave2002.

Well I guess this sort of initiative won't survive such an approach? https://www.orchestraslive.org.uk/ne...dency-yarmouth
I know non-BBC orchestras do outreach - the RPO has a long standing relationship with Lowestoft - but such things don't come cheap and are easy targets for "savings".

[french frank]

I know non-BBC orchestras do outreach - the RPO has a long standing relationship with Lowestoft - but such things don't come cheap and are easy targets for "savings".

No, a cheaper "outreach" strategy is to blur distinctions between, say, R3 and 6Music to persuade 6Music listeners to turn to Radio 3 and therefore hear … 6Music

[EnemyoftheStoat]

I think that this is the part of the BBC statement, somewhat tacked on in the hope that no-one would notice, that we should be focussing on a bit more from our perspective.

What does 'alternative funding' mean? Sponsorship? This needs clarification as to what is meant exactly. Who's going to sponsor all the BBC orchestras in a looming recession? It looks like code for the axe to me.

BBC4 going online only has been on the cards for quite a while and I've not got that much of a problem with it for similar reasons as outlined by Bryn and Dave2002.

I'm in agreement that this is more worrying than BBC4 going online. The wording 'alternative funding' is so vague as to allow for all sorts, whether it's about commercial sponsorship or regional funding for the performing groups, or contracting them out to do stuff like 'backing group' activities. I suspect the BBC management will be looking at places like this board for ideas - there you go, AD! - as they flail around... Next step: chucking a vast sum at some consultancy for them to do studies and surveys.

[Dave2002]

Don't have the necessary kit. At some point I will have to do so, but for now such an outlay isn't high on the list of priorities. My internet would also need to be better than it currently is, although that is something which will have to be addressed before long anyway as my contract will be ending and I will have to change providers.

Various factors. If your TV isn't too old than it's probably possible to buy a small and relatively cheap device to link either by wire or wirelessly to your modem. If the TV is really much older then options may be limited. We have one TV which we use a lot, and "in its day" it was very good. It doesn't have all the inputs which might be needed by some add-on devices. There are TVs which still have SCART sockets - but even they can be made to work with digital add-on gadgets - though whether that's worth doing is another matter. If the sets are still good, then yes - but otherwise perhaps time for a new one.

Getting good internet can be relatively costly - but it depends what you want. If you are a very light user and only use email, then cheap deals are still available I think, but won't really support TV or media applications. Better/faster internet tends to cost at least £20 per month, though most offerings these day should be reasonably OK for broadband TV. The comms companies will try to maximise profits by selling all sorts of extra add ons which you might not want or need - more add on gadgets - films on demand - channels you hardly ever watch etc. Deliberate segmentation and Balkanisation of the marketplace to boost profits.

Re the very specific issue of BBC4, we watched Hitchcock's Suspicon last night. Apparently that's the only one of Hitchcock's films which had an Oscar winning performance - Joan Fontaine for Lina.
I very strongly recommend that it should be put on the scrap heap of history, along with The Lady Vanishes, which was worse.

If this is the kind of material you want the BBC to keep showing, then I'd be fine with it relegated to some digital backwater.

However I agree that other things which have been on BBC4 in recent years would be worth keeping.

[LHC]

I'm rather less sanguine than others about BBC4 going online only.

Many of its programmes appeal to an older demographic, some of whom will be less familiar with using IPlayer and other streaming services than the viewers of other BBC channels.

In 2019, the BBC tried to show the heats of the Cardiff Singer of the World heats online, there was an outcry from people who were expecting to watch it on BBC4, and either could not access IPlayer, or were unfamiliar with its use. My 78 year old mother, who had never used a computer and was not online, was very upset that she couldn't see the heats. Indeed, the outcry was such that by the Tuesday night when the second heat was due to be shown the BBC relented and changed the schedules so the rest of the heats were shown on terrestrial television.

I have other relatives in their 90s who are also not computer literate and do not have internet access. They enjoy watching the proms and the art history programmes on BBC4, but this will now be denied to them.

I suspect that there a many people who enjoy BBC4's output, but will find it difficult to go online (almost certainly more of BBC4's audience will be in this category than, say BBC3's).

From a purely selfish point of view, I can currently record BBC4 programmes in HD and save them to Blu-ray when I want to (for personal use only), but this is not possible from Iplayer (no doubt the BBC will see this as a benefit).

If the BBC need to save costs, it would surely be better to admit that putting BBC3 back on TV was a mistake (audiences are apparently still very low as most of its target audience watch online), and return it to online only, rather than keeping BBC3 as a TV channel and getting rid of BBC4.

Having said all that, I also agree that the implicit threat to the future of the BBC orchestras is more concerning.

[ardcarp]

We bought online a very cheap gadget (that not many seem to know about) that you plug into your mobile...and a mains USB charging port.. The other end goes into one of your TVs HDMI sockets. Then everything on your mobile screen appears on the telly. It streams programmes beautifully, and you can also look through your photos at a reasonable size.

https://www.wowcher.co.uk/deal/shop/electricals/accessories/e/iphone-lightning-hdmi-adapter-cable?st_cid=GoogleShopping&ito=GoogleProducts_RevenueMarketing_19424442&gclid=CjwKCAjw7cGUBhA9EiwArBAvogiVKIoL9wPKuRcOqmfgaekbk2pnOk9PQBSowLTSzkhHpjz5CrdV_hoClSQQAvD_BwE

You sometimes get a pop up saying that the device isn't 'authorised' but you just press 'dismiss' and all is well. We find it much quicker and easier than scrolling through options on, for instance, an Amazon Firestick

[oddoneout]

Various factors. If your TV isn't too old than it's probably possible to buy a small and relatively cheap device to link either by wire or wirelessly to your modem. If the TV is really much older then options may be limited. We have one TV which we use a lot, and "in its day" it was very good. It doesn't have all the inputs which might be needed by some add-on devices. There are TVs which still have SCART sockets - but even they can be made to work with digital add-on gadgets - though whether that's worth doing is another matter. If the sets are still good, then yes - but otherwise perhaps time for a new one.

Getting good internet can be relatively costly - but it depends what you want. If you are a very light user and only use email, then cheap deals are still available I think, but won't really support TV or media applications. Better/faster internet tends to cost at least £20 per month, though most offerings these day should be reasonably OK for broadband TV. The comms companies will try to maximise profits by selling all sorts of extra add ons which you might not want or need - more add on gadgets - films on demand - channels you hardly ever watch etc. Deliberate segmentation and Balkanisation of the marketplace to boost profits.

Re the very specific issue of BBC4, we watched Hitchcock's Suspicon last night. Apparently that's the only one of Hitchcock's films which had an Oscar winning performance - Joan Fontaine for Lina.
I very strongly recommend that it should be put on the scrap heap of history, along with The Lady Vanishes, which was worse.

If this is the kind of material you want the BBC to keep showing, then I'd be fine with it relegated to some digital backwater.

However I agree that other things which have been on BBC4 in recent years would be worth keeping.

As I've mentioned before yes my TV is old - 35 yrs and CRT old. It didn't like the new digibox I had to get when the Digital switchover happened so I doubt, despite the SCART sockets being present, it would take to further add-ons. At some point it will stop working but until then it does what I want in the way I want - just about, although the digibox faff makes it slower, but that ship's sailed long since, now it's all waiting for the signals to catch up. Progress! I've got to the stage where all modern equipment is so full of itself that it doesn't do what I need in the way I want and my reaction is to whimper "stop the world I want to get off". The internet provision is similar - accept the cheapest workable offer through gritted teeth just to get access to email and browsing facilities, presumably subsidising those who want all the bells and whistles equally cheaply.
I have no issue as such with all this new stuff except that more and more it seems to "offer" things I don't want, while not doing the things I do want or not in the way I want. Having to accept superfluous t 'xyz' in order to have needed/wanted 'a' isn't choice in my book.
As far as BBC4 is concerned if it goes online before I've joined the 21st century equipment-wise my world won't fall apart; I would miss the things that I currently enjoy that offer a window onto the wider world or a chance to extend my knowledge but I wouldn't be left with nothing to replace the viewing time, in the same way I've adapted to the general lack of TV programmes of interest.

[alywin]

I'm rather less sanguine than others about BBC4 going online only.

Many of its programmes appeal to an older demographic, some of whom will be less familiar with using IPlayer and other streaming services than the viewers of other BBC channels.

In 2019, the BBC tried to show the heats of the Cardiff Singer of the World heats online, there was an outcry from people who were expecting to watch it on BBC4, and either could not access IPlayer, or were unfamiliar with its use. My 78 year old mother, who had never used a computer and was not online, was very upset that she couldn't see the heats. Indeed, the outcry was such that by the Tuesday night when the second heat was due to be shown the BBC relented and changed the schedules so the rest of the heats were shown on terrestrial television.

I have other relatives in their 90s who are also not computer literate and do not have internet access. They enjoy watching the proms and the art history programmes on BBC4, but this will now be denied to them.

I suspect that there a many people who enjoy BBC4's output, but will find it difficult to go online (almost certainly more of BBC4's audience will be in this category than, say BBC3's).

I quite agree. Plus, there's another point to be noted in these days of ever-spiralling electricity prices: as my sister says, why should you pay to run 2 devices (if you need to) to watch something you were previously watching on one? And why on earth should she be forced to run a screen to listen to Radio 4 Extra instead of just using a radio?

I spend way too much time in front of a computer anyway: the last thing I want to be doing is having to watch my TV that way as well.

[Bryn]

I quite agree. Plus, there's another point to be noted in these days of ever-spiralling electricity prices: as my sister says, why should you pay to run 2 devices (if you need to) to watch something you were previously watching on one? And why on earth should she be forced to run a screen to listen to Radio 4 Extra instead of just using a radio?

I spend way too much time in front of a computer anyway: the last thing I want to be doing is having to watch my TV that way as well.

Well, I know that at 74, I do not fall into the aged category being referred to here, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I feel the older targer audience of BBC FOUR is rather likely to be pretty familiar with the technology required to access the iPlayer and BBC Sounds. As to running two devices simultaneously, why? On the currently rare occasions that I watch or listen to the BBC's streaming services 'live', I turn off the television or radio and watch/listen via a computer. If I do not need to view the screen during a BBC Sounds programme, I turn the screen off (most modern computers offer some way or other to do this).