BBC News Channel Considering to Move Online Only

[rkolsen 1684]

I really don't know what to make of this considering it sounds like they would just move the program stream online.

 

 

Here are some figures about what it takes to run BBC News Channel. It costs £26.8m to produce the channel, £21.2m to gather the news, £48.7m on content, £8m on distribution and £9.5m on infrastructure.

 

To be honest if they continue with a linear stream £8m to send it out OTA and on FreeSat does not seem that much in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if this is correct but I heard that the BBC cannot charge cable and satellite companies a penny to redistribute their channels. In fact I believe Sky does not even uplink the BBC channels rather they take the FTA feeds BBC uplinks for FreeSat customers.

[skbl17 188]

I've heard way too much bad news with regards to the BBC over the last few months, from election craziness to the parliamentary report to the upcoming 1,000 job cuts. The rumor that the TV license will be decriminalized and the fact that the BBC (not HM's Government) now has to cover license fees for those over the age of 75 only increases the urgency with which the BBC's fiscal status must be examined.

 

If I was the Director General, I'd merge BBC Two and BBC Four. At its launch in 1967, BBC Two's original mission was that of a current affairs, drama, arts, and history channel (it's remit even contains the term "knowledge building programming"), but in recent years it's moved more towards the mainstream. Meanwhile, BBC Four is launched in 2002 as a current affairs, arts, nature, and history channel...sound familiar? Gut BBC Four and move its programming to the directionless BBC Two; that way, BBC Two's original mission is restored and the costs of running a fourth terrestrial channel are cut. After that, things get a bit more complicated. BBC Three already plans to go online-only, but the channel shares digital multiplex (MUX) space with CBBC. Personally, I think all three of the separate operations aimed at young people (BBC Three, CBBC, and CBeebies) should merge into a new BBC Three channel, which then stays on Freeview on its existing MUX space. That would likely lead to the elimination of separate branding for CBBC and CBeebies, unfortunately. Also, why not just spin off BBC Parliament into a separate C-SPAN like channel funded by Parliament, the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and even larger municipal bodies like the Greater London Council?

 

Frankly, I think it was a shortsighted idea to freeze the license fee, yet increase the amount of stuff that has to be funded by said fee (digital switchover, broadband rollout, the World Service, etc.). Broadband rollout costs are not the responsibility of the BBC; it's not their fault that BT can't get fiber rolled out quicker! Digital switchover ended in October 2012. The WS was previously funded by grants from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, but now the BBC has to shoulder 100% of the costs. The parliamentary report "Future of the BBC" already went into detail on financing the broadcaster.

 

But still, moving BBC News online? Nah, I would be fine with sharing more content between BBC News and BBC World News rather than "onlineization" of BBC News.

 

- an uninformed Yank

[rkolsen 1684]

But still, moving BBC News online? Nah, I would be fine with sharing more content between BBC News and BBC World News rather than "onlineization" of BBC News.

 

- an uninformed Yank

BBC News already simulcasts 8 hours of World News already.

 

I read on DigitalSpy that there'd be a lot of complaints if the BBC merged CBEEBIEs and CBBC. Apparently it's very popular for parents to sit their kids in front of the TV and not do any real parenting. That being said I don't know why they DONT merge the channels with CBBC content being wasted on young kids are at school. BBC Three could easily then take over at 8PM until the next morning when most kids are supposed to be sleeping.

 

I agree with you that the BBC is being required to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less.

[Action Newsroom 1281]

 

If I was the Director General, I'd merge BBC Two and BBC Four. At its launch in 1967, BBC Two's original mission was that of a current affairs, drama, arts, and history channel (it's remit even contains the term "knowledge building programming"), but in recent years it's moved more towards the mainstream. Meanwhile, BBC Four is launched in 2002 as a current affairs, arts, nature, and history channel...sound familiar? Gut BBC Four and move its programming to the directionless BBC Two; that way, BBC Two's original mission is restored and the costs of running a fourth terrestrial channel are cut. After that, things get a bit more complicated. BBC Three already plans to go online-only, but the channel shares digital multiplex (MUX) space with CBBC. Personally, I think all three of the separate operations aimed at young people (BBC Three, CBBC, and CBeebies) should merge into a new BBC Three channel, which then stays on Freeview on its existing MUX space. That would likely lead to the elimination of separate branding for CBBC and CBeebies, unfortunately. Also, why not just spin off BBC Parliament into a separate C-SPAN like channel funded by Parliament, the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and even larger municipal bodies like the Greater London Council?

 

- an uninformed Yank

 

I agree on all of these ideas:

-I've always said that Four should've been the one channel to go, not Three. Because two channels showing the same content is so, so redundant, and that Three should've still gotten some space. But no, apparently two channels doing the same content (even though one is more mainstream) is better than one with one channel for teens and young adults in the fray. *sigh*

-CBBC and Ceebeebees merging space isn't a bad thing (at least it shouldn't) because both of their content are for kids, and parents don't have much shit to throw since they probably don't what they watch anyway. And they don't have to change channels every day, too.

-And spinning off Parliament is a risky move, but could definitely work like C-SPAN. I can see it that way.

 

 

I read on DigitalSpy that there'd be a lot of complaints if the BBC merged CBEEBIEs and CBBC. Apparently it's very popular for parents to sit their kids in front of the TV and not do any real parenting. That being said I don't know why they DONT merge the channels with CBBC content being wasted on young kids are at school. BBC Three could easily then take over at 8PM until the next morning when most kids are supposed to be sleeping.

 

I agree with you that the BBC is being required to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less.

 

Again, parents shouldn't complain because they probably don't care about what their kids are watching. Nobody in America said a damn thing about Cartoon Network and Adult Swim sharing space, so why do so about these two here? It's a waste of time. And it should be no problem doing so, because kids'll have no problem watching the same channel for kids content, especially in the case of a kid and a baby in the same family.

 

The Beeb can do so much with so less. If they can bring these ideas to life.

[TheRolyPoly 2415]

If this becomes true, then I will see BBC News Channel as a failure and Sky News as a success, because at Sky News will remain on the air as the ONLY UK television channel, once BBC News moves online.

[nickp 337]

ITN scrapped its news channel in 2005

[TheNewsFan 1]

I don't think so. The BBC NC should not be closed, but the VD programme should move to BBC2, in order for the NC to broadcast more news.

[TheRolyPoly 2415]

 

... but the VD programme should move to BBC2, in order for the NC to broadcast more news.

 

Well they put that programme on that channel for a reason. The News Channel is suffering loads of cuts, programming and budget-wise and therefore, decided to broadcast less local news bulletins, in favor of more specialty-produced, news/talk and international news bulletins.

 

As long as the BBC is suffering in cuts and job losses to save money, The News Channel could be showing less and less domestic news bulletins in the future.

[rkolsen 1684]

Well it looks like the whole idea of moving BBC News Channel online was scrapped today per The Guardian. The BBC realized that an online only move would only save £15-16 million.