Let's hope they show the test card

Interesting there's no mention of News 24 - no is there mention of what they would do with programming like Panorama on BBC1.

(name removed) and (name removed) write this website, which is maintain by Rob the God.

Delete away, Rob.

Who said they were doing anything with bb1 or bb2 or did i not really read that article. I think that that would be really sad, they should leave it as it is.

>Who said they were doing anything with bb1 or bb2 or did i not really read that article. I think that that would be really sad, they should leave it as it is.

Fact 1: nothing is going to happen for years.
Fact 2: nothing is set in stone.
Fact 3: 'general' channels do less well in multi-channel homes, while 'genre-specific' channels do a lot better. It therefore would make sense for the BBC, if it wants to remain relevant, to go more 'genre specific'. This can be achieved in two ways:

1) Waiting until the sizable majority of the public have digital.
2) Set up a seperate system for digital viewers and have a 'highlights' packagae for analogue viewers which would essentially what BBC ONE and TWO are now.

1) would seem the sensible option.

None of this will work until digital is more mainstream, and hence it will be years before anything like this happens. However it makes sense to start planning.

I refuse to go digital.

Doing that would mean paying a monthly fee to Murdoch (boo!) or Carlton (boo!) or having to buy expensive equipment (boo!)

... or Messrs Telewest and ntl: ...

Who said you will have to? just wait till you want a new TV and then buy an IDTV - you'll just get the free-to-air channels and the option to pay more for ONdigital/PPV/Porn if you want to.

This may be an expensive option now, but wait till prices come down a little

>I refuse to go digital.

Okay, no TV for you in about 15 years time!
>
>Doing that would mean paying a monthly fee to Murdoch (boo!) or Carlton (boo!) or having to buy expensive equipment (boo!)

You think OnDigital and Sky are making a profit from subscriptions? No! They are losing millions from it. You can get a FTV box from Sky for £100 sans subscription.

>Fact 1: nothing is going to happen for years.

Well, not exactly -- from what I can gather BBC Choice and BBC Knowledge equate near enough to BBC 3 and 4 proposed so I think the name changes at least will happen quite soon to get people used to it, it'll also encourage more people to go digital (the 3 and 4 tags are more "sellable" than the present names).

>Fact 2: nothing is set in stone.

That's true.

>Fact 3: 'general' channels do less well in multi-channel homes, while 'genre-specific' channels do a lot better.

Is this true? Certainly in our house the underfunded, tacky themed and lifestyle channels hardly get watched. And UK Gold, Granada Plus and Sky 1 for example(all fairly generalist channels) get much higher ratings than the like of Granada Breeze, Carlton Food or Bravo.

>2) Set up a seperate system for digital viewers and have a 'highlights' packagae for analogue viewers which would essentially what BBC ONE and TWO are now.

To reduce the reach of BBC1 to a "highlights" channel would be suicide for the BBC. Themeing channels is a good idea but BBC1 should always remain an exclusively generalist channel because, like it or not, even when digital does become the norm the majority of viewers will still press "1" or "3" on their TV's to switch them on and leave them there. Significant numbers of people never hardly ever even look at BBC2, C4 or C5, never mind the others. It would make sense to assume that BBC3/4/News 24/ITV2 or anything else that comes along will only ever be able to achieve the status of Channel 5 in viewership terms, and to aim higher is not a good idea.

>I refuse to go digital.
>
>Doing that would mean paying a monthly fee to Murdoch (boo!) or Carlton (boo!) or having to buy expensive equipment (boo!)


Analogue can't be turned off until the sizable majority have gone digital. Not everyone is interested in pay TV - I'd say at least 50% of the country aren't. There will have to be a digital route that doesn't involve pay TV that is cheap and affordable to make sure it happens. Hang on a few years and it will happen. MArk my words.

>Well, not exactly -- from what I can gather BBC Choice and BBC Knowledge equate near enough to BBC 3 and 4 proposed so I think the name changes at least will happen quite soon to get people used to it, it'll also encourage more people to go digital (the 3 and 4 tags are more "sellable" than the present names).

Hm. You do have a point there, but there is no real point in rebranding until the whole ideas are fleshed out and the market conditions are right. Is there any point is setting up a highbrow arts station when you're still going to have to have most of the content on BBC ONE and TWO. As for THREE - well whats the point in renaming Choice until the budget is there. Shurly better to wait for the money and the viewers to increase, then rebrand. If you start BBC THREE now, then it's just CHOICE under a different name. Is that really going to be worth it?

>>Fact 3: 'general' channels do less well in multi-channel homes, while 'genre-specific' channels do a lot better.
>Is this true? Certainly in our house the underfunded, tacky themed and lifestyle channels hardly get watched. And UK Gold, Granada Plus and Sky 1 for example(all fairly generalist channels) get much higher ratings than the like of Granada Breeze, Carlton Food or Bravo.

To be fair, all the stations you've mentioned that do well, are pretty 'entertainment' based with little serious programming - so they have some genre. The 'traditional' general channels (analogue stations) aren't doing as well in multi-channel homes...

>>2) Set up a seperate system for digital viewers and have a 'highlights' packagae for analogue viewers which would essentially what BBC ONE and TWO are now.
>To reduce the reach of BBC1 to a "highlights" channel would be suicide for the BBC.

I think 'highlights' is the wrong term to use really. What I meant was that analogue customers could get two channels featuring the 'best' of the four and would be akin to what 1&2 are now - and that digital viewers would get that programming, and the current digital programming on four channels. I can't see this happening at all meself though.

> As for THREE - well whats the point in renaming Choice until the budget is there. Shurly better to wait for the money and the viewers to increase, then rebrand. If you start BBC THREE now, then it's just CHOICE under a different name. Is that really going to be worth it?

No, you're right there. But Choice and Knowledge are having very little reach because of their rather non-descript titles. It's a bit of a catch-22 situation. Traditional BBC viewers -- the very people the BBC will want to watch their digital channels -- are being turned off because they think of Choice and Knowledge as just cheap versions of Sky 1/UK Gold and Discovery. Which to an extent they are.

I'm going to be bold here, and suggest that the BBC do the rebranding sooner rather than later, and pump disproportionate amounts of cash into these channels, showing showcase productions on them first, moving to 1 and 2 later. And I'll be even bolder by suggesting that limited advertising be allowed on these stations (NEVER for BBC1 or 2 though).

>>Certainly in our house the underfunded, tacky themed and lifestyle channels hardly get watched. And UK Gold, Granada Plus and Sky 1 for example(all fairly generalist channels) get much higher ratings than the like of Granada Breeze, Carlton Food or Bravo.
>
>To be fair, all the stations you've mentioned that do well, are pretty 'entertainment' based with little serious programming - so they have some genre.

But that's just because they're cheap. Channel 5 is generalist but it has virtually no programmes of any substance either because it's low-budget.

> The 'traditional' general channels (analogue stations) aren't doing as well in multi-channel homes...

I disagree here. BBC1 and 2, and Channel 4 are not doing too badly at all. ITV is being hammered, but that's mainly because it's not on the digital platform. And research has shown that it's only really Sky viewers that are switching off digital services, because they tend to be the "lower-class" viewers in comparison to On-Digital which for some reason seem to be attracting a higher class of viewer. Presumably because On-D subscribers are those which don't watch as much TV in general, and tend to be more discerning, so they can't be bothered with dishes, etc.

>I'm going to be bold here, and suggest that the BBC do the rebranding sooner rather than later, and pump disproportionate amounts of cash into these channels, showing showcase productions on them first, moving to 1 and 2 later.

That's going to mean a substantial change in attitudes - the proportion of the license fee that currently goes into digital (including BBC Online) is roughly the same proportion of the population who has digital television services - about 10% or so. And some people are already moaning that this is too much (the analogue community). It would be very contraversial to pump even more in. When we get to about 30-40% I'd say it's got to be done.

One thing is certain - the presence of quality BBC channels on digital will help persuade people to come over. And will set a benchmark in quality terms.

> And I'll be even bolder by suggesting that limited advertising be allowed on these stations (NEVER for BBC1 or 2 though).

Hmm... It's like people saying "Oh yes, privatise Radio 1 and 2, but you can't do it for Radio 4". In my mind, it's either none or all.

>But that's just because they're cheap. Channel 5 is generalist but it has virtually no programmes of any substance either because it's low-budget.

C5 had a very interesting programme on architecture on Sunday lunchtimes about a month ago. Very well made - just goes to show that they aren't always stuck in the gutter :)

>I disagree here. BBC1 and 2, and Channel 4 are not doing too badly at all.

Actually I've just checked the figures and they aren't too bad at all. Oh well...

>That's going to mean a substantial change in attitudes ... controversial...

Yes, but that's my point! What is the BBC there for if it doesn't push the boundaries? People are always going to whinge about the Beeb anyway.

>One thing is certain - the presence of quality BBC channels on digital will help persuade people to come over. And will set a benchmark in quality terms.

And they need to remain completely Free-To-Air. No deviation. And I also think that the government should be subsidising the move to digital.

>Hmm... It's like people saying "Oh yes, privatise Radio 1 and 2, but you can't do it for Radio 4". In my mind, it's either none or all.

Yes, but the new digital channels are a *new* medium. The BBC already have commercial TV channels (BBC Prime and World). Granted Prime is sub-contracted but the principle still applies.

>C5 had a very interesting programme on architecture on Sunday lunchtimes about a month ago. Very well made - just goes to show that they aren't always stuck in the gutter :)

About bloody time ;)

>> And I'll be even bolder by suggesting that limited advertising be allowed on these stations (NEVER for BBC1 or 2 though).
>
>Hmm... It's like people saying "Oh yes, privatise Radio 1 and 2, but you can't do it for Radio 4". In my mind, it's either none or all.

The difference is that Radios 1 and 2 are a much bigger part of the Radio market than BBC Choice and Knowledge are of the TV market. People who want to privatise R1 and 2 just think they are pop stations and are the same as commercial stations.

But aside from that, I would hate to see advertisements on Choice,News 24 or Knowledge, let alone one and two. maybe for BBC Online, though I'd prefer not. But if it is necessary, well, I'd sooner see it on Choice than elsewhere. Having said that, putting ads on a BBC-branded channel may be the thin end of the wedge and bring calls for a totally advertising-funded BBC. And that would be a sad day.

>> And I'll be even bolder by suggesting that limited advertising be allowed on these stations (NEVER for BBC1 or 2 though).
>
>Hmm... It's like people saying "Oh yes, privatise Radio 1 and 2, but you can't do it for Radio 4". In my mind, it's either none or all.

The difference is that Radios 1 and 2 are a much bigger part of the Radio market than BBC Choice and Knowledge are of the TV market. People who want to privatise R1 and 2 just think they are pop stations and are the same as commercial stations.

But aside from that, I would hate to see advertisements on Choice,News 24 or Knowledge, let alone one and two. maybe for BBC Online, though I'd prefer not. But if it is necessary, well, I'd sooner see it on Choice than elsewhere. Having said that, putting ads on a BBC-branded channel may be the thin end of the wedge and bring calls for a totally advertising-funded BBC. And that would be a sad day.

RE C5 not in gutter.

C5 have been showing quite a few quality progs early afternoon on Sundays.
Currently they doing architecture. Previously they've done the history of the nude from art form to photography to film (the surprise being it was informative and not titillation.)
Prior to that they went through the different styles/factions within art, Pre-Raphaelite, Surrealists etc.

Interruption over, you may continue.

Some weeks ago, Tomorrow's World showed a clip from the eighties about Satellite TV. They said that the BBC would be providing 3 channels, but later dropped the idea and the technology was franchised to BSB.

Anyone know what the channels were going to be, given the fact that at that point BBC channels didn't even run all day, let alone all night.

>And they need to remain completely Free-To-Air. No deviation. And I also think that the government should be subsidising the move to digital.

The government stands to be in a win situation when analogue gets turned off. So yes, I agree.

>Yes, but the new digital channels are a *new* medium. The BBC already have commercial TV channels (BBC Prime and World). Granted Prime is sub-contracted but the principle still applies.

BBC Prime, BBC World and BBC America (and soon BBC Canada) are different because they are not broadcast in the UK. Internationally the BBC brand can be used in the TV world for commercial profit, but not in the UK.

As Richard says, if it happened on just one channel, it wouldn't take long for them to happen to all. It would be unstopable because a precedent had been set.

>But aside from that, I would hate to see advertisements on Choice,News 24 or Knowledge, let alone one and two. maybe for BBC Online, though I'd prefer not.

Me too. I really don't want BBC Online spoilt by adverts.

It could be a thorny issue...

I don't particularly want them either. I just thought if it were done in a controlled manner it would strengthen the channels (attached to a note to the advertisers "we call the shots, we do things our way, there'll be no dumbing down to get more cash etc etc"). I take your point though -- slippery slopes and all that...

>Hope I'm not going over ground elsewhere on the forum, but have you seen this?:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_868000/868015.stm
>
>It looks as if Choice will be 3 and Knowledge will be 4, with a few adjustments
>
I'm worried that the beeb are going to alter channel names to make them all sound similar, so that they will be "forced" to put DOGs on BBC1 and 2 in order to help their more stupid viewers to work out what they're watching. - JR

>I'm worried that the beeb are going to alter channel names to make them all sound similar, so that they will be "forced" to put DOGs on BBC1 and 2 in order to help their more stupid viewers to work out what they're watching. - JR

They would be absolutly stupid to even try it on 1 & 2 seeing as they've already once climbed down on that one. The only reason they can get away with it on Choice England, News 24 and Knowledge is that no bugger watches them. Trouble is by the time people do watch them, the DOGs will have been there for years and they can just go "But hey, they've been there years".

Trust me, if you want any hope of a dog free future, complain now. Complain like mad if you have to.

>The only reason they can get away with it on Choice England, News 24 and Knowledge is that no bugger watches them.

Maybe for Choice and Knowledge, but Surely News 24 has a large viewing audience? I have to say though, I don't mind them for a news channel, but they really annoyed me at Christmas when they were showing 'The Major Years' and there was a friggin news 24 DOG plus the clock. From time to time they removed one, the other, or both, but it was often not DOG-free.

When you say dog, do you mean, er... dog?

>When you say dog, do you mean, er... dog?

Is that a channel ident (like Channel 5 display, top left hand corner of the screen)?

>BBC Prime, BBC World and BBC America (and soon BBC Canada) are different because they are not broadcast in the UK. Internationally the BBC brand can be used in the TV world for commercial profit, but not in the UK.
>

..and that's what UKTV's for. BBC channels (yeah, and flextech) with ads, so it can't be branded BBC.

>>When you say dog, do you mean, er... dog?
>
>Is that a channel ident (like Channel 5 display, top left hand corner of the screen)?

Digital Onscreen Graphic.

You could be forced to watch one for the channel ident, one for the name of the programme, one used as a clock, one to tell you the programme is Live (as if anyone cared) and one to advertise BBC Online. And last, but least, there is the programme itself.

>>>When you say dog, do you mean, er... dog?
>>
>>Is that a channel ident (like Channel 5 display, top left hand corner of the screen)?
>
>Digital Onscreen Graphic.
>
>You could be forced to watch one for the channel ident, one for the name of the programme, one used as a clock, one to tell you the programme is Live (as if anyone cared) and one to advertise BBC Online. And last, but least, there is the programme itself.

Why not simply cover the whole screen with twenty special icons telling me what sort of programme would have been there instead of the icons? That would save a lot of bother for everyone.

For example, The Naked Chef would have the icons for:

* BBC2

* Home/Cookery

* Youth-related

* Presenter is a cunt

>Why not simply cover the whole screen with twenty special icons telling me what sort of programme would have been there instead of the icons? That would save a lot of bother for everyone.
>
>For example, The Naked Chef would have the icons for:
>
>* BBC2
>
>* Home/Cookery
>
>* Youth-related
>
>* Presenter is a cunt

I've seen the Sainsbury's ads. I agree with the last statement!!!!

You've forgotten 'shit mockney accent'

>
>For example, The Naked Chef would have the icons for:
>
>* BBC2
>
>* Home/Cookery
>
>* Youth-related
>
>* Presenter is a cunt

Thank god I'm not the only one who thinks that.