• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

BBC Three is back

Status
Not open for further replies.

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,347
Location
Yorkshire
BBC TWO seems to have gone downhill recently, often showing old music programming à la BBC FOUR, Monday’s quizzes were originally on other channels (BBC ONE, BBC FOUR and er GRANADA).
BBC THREE had some entertaining programmes when it first started but the Monday evening repeats on BBC ONE don't look appealing to me.
BBC FOUR seems to be continuing its remit of providing some culture, foreign language programmes and European feature films at reasonable times 9 pm not in the middle of the night.
I assume your Granada reference is to University Challenge- a show that is produced by Granada Television on behalf of the BBC. In a previous life it was an ITV show, the BBC revived it in 1994 with it still being produced by Granada- who are a production company as well as a regional ITV franchise. The current episodes have never been shown on any service other than the BBC.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JRT

Member
Joined
11 Nov 2020
Messages
385
Location
Bradford
I assume your Granada reference is to University Challenge- a show that is produced by Granada Television on behalf of the BBC. In a previous life it was an ITV show, the BBC revived it in 1994 with it still being produced by Granada- who are a production company as well as a regional ITV franchise. The current episodes have never been shown on any service other than the BBC.
Thanks, yes I am aware that the current University Challenge has always been on BBC, the point I was making was that the quiz programme could be moved to another channel, then BBC TWO might as well close down, with Newsnight transferred to the BBC NEWS 24 channel.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,887
Location
Fenny Stratford
The channel has nothing but weird shows on the extreme, only trying to push abnormal views and never mentioning traditional views
Could you offer an evidenced example?

while also paying their staff in some cases more than cabinet ministers for un-important roles which cheaper staff could accomplish.
Again, could you offer an evidenced example? In particular I am interesting in the "un-important" aspect of this. Could you, when offering the example, explain how you have decided it is an unimportant role?

BBC3 has rubbish shows, there are no crime dramas, there are no science shows, there are no comedies that are family friendly, there are no soaps
You best not watch the BBC news channel. That hardly ever shows cop shows.

BBC4 is just art snobs being snobbish.
Canal boat diaries and Fred Dibnah's buildings of Britain sound very snobby. There are on tonight followed by snobby art programmes ( others may think educational and enlightening).
  • Tomorrow doesn't even feature an programme about art! It does have Keeping up appearances that might interest you being a family friendly comedy ( personally I think it is awful but each to thier own)
  • Wednesday: No art.
  • Thursday has Rio Bravo & the Searchers on ( two classic westerns).
  • Friday seems to be music night.
  • Saturday doesn't have any art but it does have a lecture on Persa. Going to be snobby that.
  • Sunday seems to be a about theatre and will be chock full of awful middle class types banging on about culture.

I am not sure your definition is accurate for the BBC4 schedule this week.

The whole lot is utter rubbish
Perhaps you could set out what you would like to see more of.


Do you think Match of the Day, is value for money though?
I do actually: A thoroughly professional programme covering, in detail, all of the premier league games that day. It has improved vastly since they went to full coverage of every game.

and yet we all subsidise three pundits who sit in comfy chairs with plenty of hindsight
What should football pundits do instead then? Perhaps you could explain. I think that the best ones are some of the women they have on as they seem much more articulate than some of the male experts.

they are supposed to be a public service, they are not supposed to try and get the most expensive people just to hurt ITV.
I don't really understand what this means. Could you explain/clarify?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I also think that BBC2 has gone downhill recently. It used to have some really good quality documentaries and drama but I don’t watch it very much these days.
I think that is indicative of a coarsening of society generally, the need for the BBC to be seen to focus on things that "sell" and a popular thanks to governmental direction setting and a reduction in funding meaning risk taking in programming is less acceptable.

if something plays well on BBC2 ( say Peaky Blinders) it will move to BBc1 to drive a more successful return and higher audiences. I am not sure that happened as often in the past.
 
Last edited:

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,254
Location
Grimsby
What the hell is your problem with completely attacking every single thing I say just because you love the BBC?
Could you offer an evidenced example?
You wanted examples of weird shows, their schedule includes Eating with my Ex, Stacey Dooley Stalkers, Zen Motoring, Glow Up Make Up Stars, Gypsy Queen and Proud, Drag Race versus the World, Famalam, Kurupting the Industry, etc etc. If those aren't weird shows in your opinion, could you offer an example of what is?
Link from the BBC you believe https://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/bbcthree
Again, could you offer an evidenced example? In particular I am interesting in the "un-important" aspect of this. Could you, when offering the example, explain how you have decided it is an unimportant role?
Okay, Gary Lineker is an evidenced example, salary from the BBC of £1.4 million, his role is clearly replaceable as others take his place on some match days, and of course there are usually two co-presenters beside him, clearly a role which is not essential for a programme to function. Link from your beloved BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57722068
You best not watch the BBC news channel. That hardly ever shows cop shows.
I was saying BBC3 had little entertainment value, you know full well I wasn't asking for cop shows on news channels, you are just wasting my time by moaning about everything, some of us have work and little free time you know.
Canal boat diaries and Fred Dibnah's buildings of Britain sound very snobby. There are on tonight followed by snobby art programmes ( others may think educational and enlightening).
  • Tomorrow doesn't even feature an programme about art! It does have Keeping up appearances that might interest you being a family friendly comedy ( personally I think it is awful but each to thier own)
  • Wednesday: No art.
  • Thursday has Rio Bravo & the Searchers on ( two classic westerns).
  • Friday seems to be music night.
  • Saturday doesn't have any art but it does have a lecture on Persa. Going to be snobby that.
  • Sunday seems to be a about theatre and will be chock full of awful middle class types banging on about culture.

I am not sure your definition is accurate for the BBC4 schedule this week.


Perhaps you could set out what you would like to see more of.
I love Fred Dinah and all his shows, but those shows are very old repeats, and they are repeated again soon after, it is not a channel adding any new substance any more, therego not worth extra funding from license fee payers, very few people watch the channel.

If you have bothered actually reading my comments you would find I am not asking to see more of what I'd like, but just the basics.
If BBC added a channel for Sci-Fi, a Dinosaur action movie channel, and a Horror Channel, and a load of other niche channels, it would be an obscene waste of public funds which should not be wasted at a time when finances are stretched.
I do actually: A thoroughly professional programme covering, in detail, all of the premier league games that day. It has improved vastly since they went to full coverage of every game.
Care to give an example of why it's value for money or vastly improved?
What should football pundits do instead then? Perhaps you could explain. I think that the best ones are some of the women they have on as they seem much more articulate than some of the male experts.
Those women get paid less than the men for the same job by the BBC and get given less important roles.
I don't really understand what this means. Could you explain/clarify?
The BBC design their schedule to cause conflicts with ITV, it's been the case since ITV did the News at Ten, The BBC often copy schedules that ITV pioneers and the opposite happens as well to the detriment of the viewers.
I think that is indicative of a coarsening of society generally, the need for the BBC to be seen to focus on things that "sell" and a popular thanks to governmental direction setting and a reduction in funding meaning risk taking in programming is less acceptable.

if something plays well on BBC2 ( say Peaky Blinders) it will move to BBc1 to drive a more successful return and higher audiences. I am not sure that happened as often in the past.
Not sure there should be government direction in an organisation pretending to be neutral.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,429
The BBC design their schedule to cause conflicts with ITV, it's been the case since ITV did the News at Ten, The BBC often copy schedules that ITV pioneers and the opposite happens as well to the detriment of the viewers.

Would that be the ITV News at Ten, which they moved to 11pm to free up more of their primetime schedule, with the BBC subsequently moving their 9 O'clock News to 10pm to take up the vacated slot? Only for the ITV News at Eleven to be a complete ratings disaster and the launch of the ITV News at When? becoming that unpredictable that it was an even bigger disaster, eventually resulting almost a decade later with the re-instatement of News at Ten. Is that the copying you're referring to?

Or maybe it's the copying which means EastEnders / Coronation Street / Emmerdale are never on at the same time, even when there are short notice changes to one of the channels' schedule?

It's very rare that either channel deliberately schedule things in conflict with each other, because as you point out, it really annoys viewers. People are still bitter about the well trailed last episode of One Foot In The Grave ending up with a special edition of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire featuring the first million pound winner being scheduled in by ITV.
 

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,254
Location
Grimsby
Would that be the ITV News at Ten, which they moved to 11pm to free up more of their primetime schedule, with the BBC subsequently moving their 9 O'clock News to 10pm to take up the vacated slot? Only for the ITV News at Eleven to be a complete ratings disaster and the launch of the ITV News at When? becoming that unpredictable that it was an even bigger disaster, eventually resulting almost a decade later with the re-instatement of News at Ten. Is that the copying you're referring to?
If you read what you quoted from me, you would see I said "the opposite happens as well".
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,113
Location
Elginshire
What the hell is your problem with completely attacking every single thing I say just because you love the BBC
What the hell is your problem with completely attacking everything we say just because you hate the BBC? ;)

We've already established that BBC 3 is not your thing. Don't watch it! It's not for you to decide what others should or should not watch.
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
17,168
Canal boat diaries and Fred Dibnah's buildings of Britain sound very snobby.
They're not, as it happens. "Canal Boat Diaries" (a trip along the Trent and Mersey canal tonight) is currently airing on BBC4, and the presenter (Robbie Cumming) is about as unpretentious and down to earth as you can get.

What these programmes are, however, are repeats that have been broadcast umpteen times of recent; don't believe that there's ever all that much on BBC4 that hasn't previously been aired elsewhere, and certainly nothing that's on the channel tonight!
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,887
Location
Fenny Stratford
You wanted examples of weird shows, their schedule includes Eating with my Ex, Stacey Dooley Stalkers, Zen Motoring, Glow Up Make Up Stars, Gypsy Queen and Proud, Drag Race versus the World, Famalam, Kurupting the Industry, etc etc
I didn't ask for examples of "weird shows". I asked for examples of programmes which trying to push abnormal views. Which of these programmes are trying to push "abnormal" views views? Is it the drag race?

What the hell is your problem with completely attacking every single thing
I asked you to back up your assertions. You haven't, really, done that then got annoyed when challenged to do so.

Okay, Gary Lineker is an evidenced example, salary from the BBC of £1.4 million,
I knew it would be Gary Lineker. I wonder if the issue is not so much his salary and more that he says things on twitter you don't like/your favoured media commentators tell you not to like.

Care to give an example of why it's value for money or vastly improved?
There is a book recently published by the former editor of MOTD. That will answer your question in detail although it is really about the number of cameras at each game ( I think 13 at least now), the time given to each game, the quality of the recording facilities, the live commentary at each ground, the analysis of each game etc etc. All done in one 90 minute live show every week.

In the past there was main game with 2/3 cameras and then one fixed camera round up for each game. In the distant past it wasn't even that good!

Those women get paid less than the men for the same job by the BBC and get given less important roles.
They seem to be used fairly evenly on radio 5. I would like to see them more on TV. I cant comment on how much they get paid as pundits. I suspect Gaby Logan is paid less than Gary Lineker and she shouldn't be really.

I love Fred Dinah and all his shows, but those shows are very old repeats, and they are repeated again soon after, it is not a channel adding any new substance any more, therego not worth extra funding from license fee payers, very few people watch the channel.
Now your argument has changed from it being all snobby snobby to it is all repeats. Which is it?

If you have bothered actually reading my comments you would find I am not asking to see more of what I'd like, but just the basics.
no, that is exactly what you are asking for. You want this channel "cancelled" because you don't like it. The channel isn't designed to deliver the "basics" as you see them as they are covered elsewhere on the BBC but to appeal to a particular demographic who the BBC feel are under represented elsewhere.

The BBC design their schedule to cause conflicts with ITV, it's been the case since ITV did the News at Ten, The BBC often copy schedules that ITV pioneers and the opposite happens as well to the detriment of the viewers.
Not sure I understand this point. It seems to be that the BBC shouldn't complete. You complain they spend money then complain they try to earn money/viewers! It cant be both.
Not sure there should be government direction in an organisation pretending to be neutral.

But there is and always has been government direction towards the BBC. The issue now is that the Johnson regime are determined ( and overtly determined) to neuter the BBC and ensure they only offer commentary approved by them. That seems to be what you want to.

BTW - I wouldn't say I love the BBC, I value the BBC and think the kind of world you want to see in broadcasting would be very bad for our national debate, intelligence and understanding.

They're not, as it happens. "Canal Boat Diaries"
I know. I found them very calming at a time when I needed some calm.

EDIT - did i not read BBC 4 was for the chop?
 
Last edited:

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,429
There is a book recently published by the former editor of MOTD. That will answer your question in detail although it is really about the number of cameras at each game ( I think 13 at least now), the time given to each game, the quality of the recording facilities, the live commentary at each ground, the analysis of each game etc etc. All done in one 90 minute live show every week.

26 cameras is now the standard rig for a Premier League match, although it varies a bit depending on grounds. BBC, along with BT Sport and Sky produce full live coverage of every match for the Premier League, and then get access to that footage for their own programming, regardless of who actually filmed it. While the BBC don't have the rights to live Premier League matches, BBC Sport are producing live coverage of it every week in exchange for their highlights rights.

EDIT - did i not read BBC 4 was for the chop?

There's discussions going on about the future of BBC Four - the new licence fee settlement means another round of cuts are coming and there's not much left that can be cut from BBC Four's without just giving up. Now it's entire schedule is based around repeats and not art snobs being snobbish, the channel has lost its main backers so it really wouldn't be surprising to see it cut. Arguably the repeats schedule would always have been a better fit for an online-on-demand channel than BBC Three ever was.
 

LOL The Irony

Established Member
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
There's discussions going on about the future of BBC Four - the new licence fee settlement means another round of cuts are coming and there's not much left that can be cut from BBC Four's without just giving up. Now it's entire schedule is based around repeats and not art snobs being snobbish, the channel has lost its main backers so it really wouldn't be surprising to see it cut.
I think radio should be looked at before television. There are 4 (FOUR) Radio 1 stations you can listen to.
Arguably the repeats schedule would always have been a better fit for an online-on-demand channel than BBC Three ever was.
The closing of bbc three was a stupid decision from day 1.
 

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,254
Location
Grimsby
We've already established that BBC 3 is not your thing. Don't watch it! It's not for you to decide what others should or should not watch.
The problem there is that I am not allowed to watch any live TV without funding it, it's not an issue of simply don't like don't watch. Imagine if there was an Internet licence that sent all the funds to Wikipedia even though you may not like it.
I didn't ask for examples of "weird shows". I asked for examples of programmes which trying to push abnormal views. Which of these programmes are trying to push "abnormal" views views? Is it the drag race?
It was all the ones I listed. I don't know about you, but I consider a show about getting to know stalkers and their side of the story is abnormal.
I asked you to back up your assertions. You haven't, really, done that then got annoyed when challenged to do so.
If nothing I have said means anything at all, please just tell me what evidence would be acceptable that BBC3 and the other BBCs are not superb in every single way?
I knew it would be Gary Lineker. I wonder if the issue is not so much his salary and more that he says things on twitter you don't like/your favoured media commentators tell you not to like.
The salaries of most programmes are over-inflated, the newscasters like the royal correspondent for example, who does less than an hour's worth of TV time a week for decades on so called news stories such as "the palace has released a new picture". I don't use Twitter or follow any media commentators in any way.
Now your argument has changed from it being all snobby snobby to it is all repeats. Which is it?
Looking through the schedule again, BBC4 is mostly repeats everyday, but they did have a lot of shows about classical music when I had live TV a couple of years back.
no, that is exactly what you are asking for. You want this channel "cancelled" because you don't like it. The channel isn't designed to deliver the "basics" as you see them as they are covered elsewhere on the BBC but to appeal to a particular demographic who the BBC feel are under represented elsewhere.
I want ideally, people to be able to watch TV freely. As that is not the case, the compromise is that people should only have to pay for TV channels that they actually use. BBC3 is funded by every TV licence holder and very few will ever watch it.
Not sure I understand this point. It seems to be that the BBC shouldn't complete. You complain they spend money then complain they try to earn money/viewers! It cant be both.
You are right there, it can't be both, however the BBC is trying to be both a public service broadcaster, one which is funded by the public for various reasons, while also trying to be a commercial network earning vast sums by selling products back to their other UKTV channels with adverts, charging for former Iplayer shows on Britbox, etc, which is damaging to the rest of the domestic TV sector while they are guaranteed funding anyway.
I know. I found them very calming at a time when I needed some calm.
BBC1 does have a rather calm edge to it, until Eastenders time I guess.
The Wright Stuff on Channel 5 was the extreme opposite. I find calm in my old video games (Civ3 for example), it is needed in this hectic world of scary news like WW3 looming, bills going to skyrocket etc.

I respect that you feel calm from them, and I am glad you do.
My ultimate point is that the BBC should be slimmed to one entertainment channel, a few radio channels, and the news channel to reduce costs to the public, repeat airings, low quality programs, and the BBC should either make their money through the licence fee or through commercial ways, not both at the same time.
Just respect that when I get letters through my letterbox threatening me with £1,000 fines when I never watch live TV or Iplayer, I lose my sense of calm.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,471
Location
Glasgow
The channel has nothing but weird shows on the extreme, only trying to push abnormal views and never mentioning traditional views.
I'll go one further. Please detail the exact views that you consider to be "abnormal".
 

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,254
Location
Grimsby
I'll go one further. Please detail the exact views that you consider to be "abnormal".
I don't think platforming stalkers is normal, nor shows encouraging the use of heavy make up when so many have anxiety over their looks, if you disagree then I assume that means I am wrong on all counts and BBC3 only puts on normal TV shows you could find on any other channel every day.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,113
Location
Elginshire
I don't think platforming stalkers is normal, nor shows encouraging the use of heavy make up when so many have anxiety over their looks, if you disagree then I assume that means I am wrong on all counts and BBC3 only puts on normal TV shows you could find on any other channel every day.
Could you at least have the decency to name the programmes that you find so objectionable?

So far it has all been vague waffle, and if you'd actually get to the point of what you're trying to say we could avoid this pointless going round in circles!

For someone who complains so much about BBC 3, you seem to have a fairly in-depth knowledge about what it's broadcasting. :)
 

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,254
Location
Grimsby
Could you at least have the decency to name the programmes that you find so objectionable?

So far it has all been vague waffle, and if you'd actually get to the point of what you're trying to say we could avoid this pointless going round in circles!

For someone who complains so much about BBC 3, you seem to have a fairly in-depth knowledge about what it's broadcasting. :)
I listed the shows already (post 34, virtually everything they show except that I missed out Gavin and Stacey repeats, all of which are also not quality and not worth paying out for), I've said the point of what I'm trying to say already (end of post 42, that the BBC should be reduced to the basics for cost and schedule reasons), the reason why I know about what it's broadcasting, is because in this country it is considered heresy to not like BBC without providing a full report with evidence and pictures to prove it, or at least that how it feels, so I had to look it up online, and that still wasn't good enough. Everyone posted their view, I posted mine as everyone else, and I only replied to those quoting me with questions about my post, I never quoted someone else's post that didn't quote me on this thread saying their view was wrong, apparently my view is the only angle not allowed. One reply even tried to imply I must be a racist bigot because of not liking BBC3 for some reason, and now you are saying I must like the BBC. You are all just trying to bully anyone who doesn't share your own view with nasty personal remarks.

What do you want me to do? Answer the same repeated questions all week, delete all my posts because they are not praising the sickening company, or lie and say "sorry I was wrong, BBC3 is the best thing ever and well worth public money being spent on it instead of important essentials".

You are the reason we are going in circles, not me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
3,398
A lot of people forget why there's a TV licence. It's to fund programming that is not commercially viable. That means there will be some stuff broadcast that you have no interest in but still have to pay for. But conversely there will be programmes broadcast of great interest to you, but probably not to many others. BBC Four has been home to various railway programmes in the past. I doubt they'd have seen the light of day if they had to try and attract sufficient advertisers or subscribers.
 
Last edited:

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,471
Location
Glasgow
One reply even tried to imply I must be a racist bigot because of not liking BBC3 for some reason, and now you are saying I must like the BBC. You are all just trying to bully anyone who doesn't share your own view with nasty personal remarks.

What do you want me to do? Answer the same repeated questions all week, delete all my posts because they are not praising the sickening company, or lie and say "sorry I was wrong, BBC3 is the best thing ever and well worth public money being spent on it instead of important essentials".
Oh please - spare us the persecution complex :rolleyes:

You made a post including the following sentence:
The channel has nothing but weird shows on the extreme, only trying to push abnormal views and never mentioning traditional views.
and have just now referred to the BBC as
the sickening company
but you refuse to elaborate on what you consider to be "abnormal" beyond vague references to 1) a program about stalkers and 2) the wearing of make-up.

You're the one who has consistently chosen to present your opposition to the entire BC in terms of morality, so if you want to avoid a situation where people assume that you are offended by absolutely everything they do the onus is on you to explain what it actually is that so offends you.

If all you'd done was say "I'm not interested in their content" you'd have been left alone, other than to note that that fact alone still isn't a good justification for arguing that the entire organisation should be vigorously shrunk.
 

greatvoyager

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
2,426
Location
Exeter
I'm happy to see BBC3 is back as a proper channel, I was a bit disappointed when it closed.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,956
Location
York
Well, now we know why they were so insistent on making the over-75s pay the BBC-tax once again!
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
17,168
Is the Mighty Boosh back on yet?
Give it time! Won't be too long before it's back on again!

And the way BBC3 seems to be scheduled, the same episode will then be on twice the same night, before being repeated again a couple of nights later!
 

EastisECML

Member
Joined
26 Sep 2018
Messages
198
That's fine, because I could listen to the eels song that many times anyway. Eels....eels....eels....join in if you know the words.
 

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
2,474
Location
Edinburgh
You wanted examples of weird shows, their schedule includes Eating with my Ex, Stacey Dooley Stalkers, Zen Motoring, Glow Up Make Up Stars, Gypsy Queen and Proud, Drag Race versus the World, Famalam, Kurupting the Industry, etc etc. If those aren't weird shows in your opinion, could you offer an example of what is?
Link from the BBC you believe https://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/bbcthree
In what way is Drag Race a weird show?

It's became incredibly mainstream and has versions all over the world. Really it's just a reality/talent show but people are doing drag in it? There's nothing weird about it. I find it extremely entertaining.

Stacey Dooley Stalkers isn't a weird show either, if anything it highlights the dangers. The rest are all just comedy, reality or an insight into someone else's life. I'm pretty sure ITV 2 broadcast similar.
 

Ashley Hill

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
5,574
Location
The West Country
Given that BBC 3 and 4 don’t start until 1900 why are they not used to show daytime sporting events. The Winter Olympics are a current example where the daytime schedules on 1 and 2 are interrupted.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,382
Location
London
Given that BBC 3 and 4 don’t start until 1900 why are they not used to show daytime sporting events. The Winter Olympics are a current example where the daytime schedules on 1 and 2 are interrupted.

Because their Freeview capacity is shared with CBBC and CBeebies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top