BBC 3 to be taken off air.

[Bryn]

That's the children's television Channel BBC Three, of course. It is to become a 24 hour online only service, and its frequency allocation is to be re-assigned to BBC1+1.

[french frank]

What's more: "Programmes like Snog, Marry, Avoid and Don't Tell The Bride are likely to be jettisoned in favour of harder-hitting content." So, what about Family Guy?

[Bryn]

Perhaps Family Guy is just what is meant by "harder-hitting content".

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't very often tune in to it, but whenever I have it has been for stimulating, often no holds barred discussions on issues of contemporary import aimed unpatronisingly at drawing in a young audience.

[mercia]

I still don't understand how this saves so much money - they will still be making programmes (which cost money) for the new online channel ?

[french frank]

I still don't understand how this saves so much money - they will still be making programmes (which cost money) for the new online channel ?

Similarly, I don't really understand why digital-only radio stations cost so much less than the FM+digitals: in 2013/14, 6 Music had the highest content spend of the BBC digitals - £7.9m; Radio 2 spent £47.8m, Radio 3 £40.8m and Radio 1 £40.2m, just to quote the music stations; Radio 4 spent £91.8m.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

There's no sense at all in this -

Moving a complete channel online so they can broadcast another one twice.
Far better to move the repeat of BBC1 online. But wait a minute: they've already done that. So what are they playing at?

[Lento]

I have heard good reports of "Our War", a serious programme about Afghanistan.

[french frank]

There's no sense at all in this -

Moving a complete channel online so they can broadcast another one twice.
Far better to move the repeat of BBC1 online. But wait a minute: they've already done that. So what are they playing at?

If they say it saves money, I presume it saves money (as the figures for digital radio might suggest). There would be little point in putting the BBC One +1 online if that's not the way a significant number of the audience are likely to access it. If younger audiences are using YouTube, mobile phones to access BBC content, it does make sense, doesn't it?

" ... moved not just to BBC iPlayer but to the social media sites Tumblr, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. It will also target youthful web sites such as Buzzfeed, by producing 20 per cent of its content in short videos and interactive content ...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

My point was that BBC1 is already available online for youthful (64) people like me to access.

I think the real problem is the limited number of channels available on Freeview. Possibly the BBC could continue all channels on Freesat, but limit those on Freeview.

Just thinking aloud.

[french frank]

My point was that BBC1 is already available online for youthful (64) people like me to access.

Yerzzz - I'm a drop-out and don't really understand about all these different things - can you get 'online' on a television screen?

[mangerton]

Yerzzz - I'm a drop-out and don't really understand about all these different things - can you get 'online' on a television screen?

Yes, with the right sort of TV, and with other ancillary equipment.

[french frank]

Yes, with the right sort of TV, and with other ancillary equipment.

So what's the big deal for the BBC Three viewers?

[mangerton]

So what's the big deal for the BBC Three viewers?

Goodness knows.

[Flosshilde]

" ... moved not just to BBC iPlayer but to the social media sites Tumblr, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. It will also target youthful web sites such as Buzzfeed, by producing 20 per cent of its content in short videos and interactive content ...

I suspect that that's the real reason - they think that today's yoof will only watch short items & want to 'interact', which isn't very suited to standard broadcasting.

(I should point out that ff is quoting from the BBC (?))