Low viewing figures mean that BBC Three and BBC Four are poor value, according to a review carried out for the government. The independent report says the channels should broaden their appeal.
However, it concludes that the BBC's digital channels largely meet their remit and have a limited impact on commercial competitors.
CBeebies and CBBC, which is aimed at six- to 13-year-olds, both received praise in the report.
Do you watch BBC Three and BBC Four? Are they poor value for money? How do they compare to other digital channels? Should the BBC's charter be renewed?
This debate has now closed. Thank you for your comments.
Your comments:
 | SUGGEST A DEBATE This topic was suggested by Maria P, Kent, UK  Are BBC3 and BBC4 poor value for money?  |
Much of the rest of the world is very jealous of the BBC and would love to have decent quality non-commercial stations such as those provided by the BBC. Why do you think the BBC World Service and now BBC World are so popular? The licence fee hasn't gone up since the advent of BBC 3 and 4, so I don't know why people are complaining. We'd be paying the same amount if it was commercial - we'd just be paying for it via subscription and higher prices on products with huge advertising budgets. We'd miss the BBC if we lost it - it is a piece of our history to be proud of and we shouldn't let it go just because not all of us don't watch all of the programmes on all of the channels all of the time.
Katherine, London, UK
I'm an expat - and after 30 years abroad have only just acquired BBC1 and BBC2, thanks to cable TV. I would love the opportunity to see BBC3 and 4 so I could comment. I'd like, however, to make a comment on BBC TV in general, which I was so much looking forward to seeing after all these years. I suppose the changes have occurred gradually, so are largely unnoticeable to UK viewers, but to me, after 30 years, they come as quite a shock! There are so many "lifestyle" programmes, and so little real entertainment! Documentaries, for which the BBC were once world-renowned, are now dumbed-down. But the worst, for me, is the constant advertising of coming programmes! It's like having commercial TV but with none of the creativity of ads (which are an art form in themselves) and all the repetitive irritation! Come on, dear BBC! Surely you can do better than this!
Rita Kitto, Geneva, Switzerland I seem to remember similar comments about the birth of BBC2, it needed a new TV set up, and carried 'different' programmes. I suspect that BBC3 and 4 will soon settle down to be part of the normal choice for viewers. At present like all TV channels 3 & 4 carry some good, much mediocre and some bad content. Since I have no interest in PAYG TV the current licence system suits me fine, I receive several channels from the BBC with a good range of quality programmes, and a scatter of advertising led programming from the others. What more can I ask for?
Barry P, Havant England
BBC1 is almost unwatchable nowadays, 2's ok every now and then. BBC3 and 4 are where the decent British TV is being shown - Jonathan Miller's series on atheism is quality and should be shown on BBC1 on a Sunday at about 10.30am. Grease Monkeys is already a classic and will go from strength to strength. Nighty Night is the best thing the BBC has produced since Our Friends in the North. I would give up BBC1 before the digital alternatives. There is something to be said for not pleasing everybody.
Rico, Sheffield, England
I barely watch a couple hours a week of BBC1 and 2 programming and BBC4, although for my taste a bit too top-heavy on the documentaries, is just perfect for me. I particularly enjoyed the BBC4 session with Gillian Welch recently and it depresses me to think that this channel is considered poor value because it doesn't pull in the punters who would be happier watching Big Brother. Leave BBC4 alone!
Helen, Plymouth, UK We watch little TV these days - there just isn't much worth watching any more, as far as we are concerned. It is BBC4 which most consistently has interesting programmes. E.g. Jonathan Miller's series on atheism looks quite excellent. In fact, it was BBC4 that persuaded us to go digital. The only problem is, BBC4 broadcasts are not sufficiently advertised. It is pretty hard to find out any details of its broadcasts at all, let alone sufficiently far ahead to plan our time accordingly.
Mike Arnautov, Flackwell Heath, Bucks. UK
The BBC digital output (including the radio services via Freeview) are by far the best free-to-air digital-only services, and better than most of the trash filled subscription channels (e.g. Sky1, Bravo, E4 etc). In fact if you take away the quality American imports from Channel 4 and Five, they are producing little to compare with the likes of Little Britain, Pulling Moves, Swiss Toni, BBC4 World Cinema and it's music output. Not to mention Balamory and The Fimbles.
Ian, Northern Ireland
As keen rugby fans we grudgingly pay for the full Sky package to watch club and international games throughout the year (thank goodness for Scrum V on BBC2 Wales digital by the way). For non rugby viewing, I'm very happy to pay for BBC3 and 4, they both offer excellent programming most week nights when all that can be found on the hundreds of other channels is reality tv, diy/property shows and Anne Robinson ad nauseum. I do think though that the UK desperately needs a regular technology programme, 30-45 minutes per day, covering consumer computing and technology issues such as anti-virus software, firewalls, home networks, etc for the leading 2/3 most popular systems. The format could include live phone-ins for technical help, tutorials on popular softwares, the scope is endless. If BBC3 or 4 could lead the way in this they would truly be offering a public service.
Daisy, London, UK
I'm a 29 year old ranter who shouts at the tv more than I watch it. For me BBC 3 & 4 are the best on the box hands down. What does value for money mean in this case? I thought the extra digital channels were costed within the existing frame of the licence fee. On the premise of something for nothing 3 & 4 are excellent. Curb your Enthusiasm is fantastic, Body Hits is a good watch. Until familiarity breeds contempt the repeats of Little Britain are a welcome alternative. And the territory covered in A Brief History of Disbelief, has been crying out for attention for years.
However I don't agree with the principle of sock puppets as stock children's entertainment. Pre-school TV is a watered down pop industry. Teens get 4 or 5 Irish lads leaping about to music. Tots get 5 clowns in costume leaping around to music. Anyway don't fiddle with 3 and 4 just for the sake of change. They are niche channels, that's what their remits state. For once I have channels (not just programmes) that I like.
Steve Scott, London
But, seriously, who actually watches BBC4? It's insulting that a channel takes our money (via a mandatory extortionate licence), and makes a channel that clearly only a minority (in some cases, nobody!) watches. A waste of money indeed....
Graham, Essex
BBC3 is the best channel around for comedy and the midweek movie is nearly always worth watching. BBC4 however is just a televised form of a sleeping pill. CBeebies and CBBC I am not really bothered about as I only watch them when I have a hangover from going out the previous night. Teletubbies rules though they should have a channel of there own
Michael Greenhalgh (17), Verwood, Dorset, UK
| As a parent of a four year old I think Cbeebies is superb value on all levels |
As a parent of a four year old I think Cbeebies is superb value on all levels. At least the Beeb's digital channels offer a variety of new and original programmes compared to channels full of endless repeats or dedicated to the lowest common denominator
Simon, Spain BBC4 is brilliant, I don't want to watch everything but it has some gems of programmes which are just not seen anywhere else. BBC3 on the other hand has way too many repeats and worst of all has been infected by Eastenders and reality programming. While 60 second news, why bother when I can get 24 hour news. But I agree with the comment below, why can't we have BBC world instead of the appallingly repetitious news 24?
Mike , Oxfordshire
For me, BBC3 and 4 are excellent value, for the music coverage alone. BBC4 has carried some excellent folk and jazz coverage, genres poorly catered for elsewhere, while BBC3's coverage of Glastonbury has been excellent (Colin and Edith apart). Keep up the good work.
John Coote, Holmes Chapel, Cheshire
Every time I watch TV, which I must admit is less and less often, I'm stunned by the grindingly low quality of what I see. If 3 and 4 are worse than BBC 1 or 2, then they must be unspeakably dreadful indeed.
Steve, UK
I for one applaud the BBC for it's digital channels. Both BBC Three and Four offer excellent quality programs, especially BBC four. In this age of dumb down TV, these channels are very welcome, and in my opinion present excellent value for money. Low viewing figures should not be the only benchmark used to value these channels.
Garry Arkle, Leeds, UK
What exactly are 'free to air' programmes? I've never seen any of those. We're forced to pay a hefty licence fee for the BBC's terrestrial channels. As an older single viewer, without children at home, the CBeebies and CBBC channels are of little viewing value to me.
Heike Bley, Glasgow, Scotland
I agree that the news programmes on 3 & 4 are unnecessary. Also why inflict us with a 10pm repeat of Eastenders? But please, no general broadening of appeal! We need niche programming for those of us who just don't want soaps and 'reality' TV. BBC3 & 4 and the Parliament channel make TV worthwhile. You could scrap the 'homeland' 24-hour news channel and replace it with the excellent BBC news channel you can pick up abroad. But please don't confuse a remit to provide for everyone with a remit to try to provide for everyone all of the time.
Niall Clarke, Manchester, England I think that these channels are the best programming on terrestrial TV. Programs such as "The trouble with black men" are thought-provoking, controversial and might not otherwise be aired. I would be dismayed if the BBC were forced to replace these programs with Game shows to achieve "broader appeal"
Paul Williamson, Cambridge, England
| Let BBC3 and 4 continue to make programmes that appeal to a minority |
I disagree. Why is there this constant focus on viewing figures? Leave that to the commercial channels and let BBC3 and 4 continue to make programmes that appeal to a minority. If you want to watch soaps, makeovers and the rest of the trash that seems to be on at the moment then you know where to go.
Gregor, Reading, UK I don't watch BBC Four, so can't comment on its quality, but BBC Three was well worth buying a �40 Free view box for. Programmes like Little Britain and Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps (even the repeats) are unmissable in our household and we regularly watch Little Angels and Trauma too. Having recently married, Wedding Stories also has me gripped at the moment and it's so handy to catch Eastenders later on in the evening as I often miss the 7.30pm or 8pm episodes. All BBC Three needs to do now is continue to think up ideas for programmes that are just as good and better than those already mentioned and aim to target a wider range of audience, not just the 20 and 30-somethings.
Natalie, West Yorks, UK
We finally took the plunge with Freeview for the Olympics, to get the extra BBC 'red button' coverage. It was well worth the �100 I spent on a receiver. Since then, we've probably watched about 10 hours of programs. In other words, great for the special occasions, but not for the day-to-day viewing.
Alan, Chelmsford, UK
| They are bold enough to try things that are a bit different |
At least they are bold enough to try things that are a bit different. Little Britain is one of the best comedies in years. Also very impressed with Swiss Tony and Monkey Dust
Ian, Huddersfield I know it's not fashionable to think that the BBC does a good job but it seems it really can't win. Not only does it receive endless criticism for 'dumbing down' and airing popular shows but it also gets chastised for broadcasting a channel with too many arts programmes. Good luck Mr Grade, you'll need it.
Ben, London, UK
Much of BBC3 is trite, facile and decidedly puerile. Only occasionally does BBC4 produce anything worth watching so, no, the new digital channels are not good value for money.
William van Zwanenberg, England
Bring back Liquid News
Ann Cooper, Putney, London
We now seem to watch BBC4 more than any other channel, analogue or digital. Perhaps the report says more about the British television viewer than about the programmes or channels. I really don't mind being part of a minority audience and feel that BBC4 on its own was worth the investment in a Freeview box. Keep up the quality programming, that's what the Beeb is there for.
Ian, Plymouth, England
I think the BBC's digital channels are excellent value for money. My children love CBeebies and CBBC and I love them because they are advert-free. Digital channels have allowed greater experimentation by BBC programme-makers and have given us gems like Little Britain, Nighty Night and The Alan Clarke Diaries. They are a last refuge from all the commercial rubbish on most other channels.
Alex Roebuck, Guildford, England It seems as if BBC 3 has been a kind of experimental channel to hold popularity polls for programs such as Little Britain. As soon as the program "takes off" in the way Little Britain did, they put it on BBC 1 and 2 to "milk it".
Toby Woodbine, London, England.
Isn't this the purpose of the BBC to show entertainment and public service programmes that would not make it to commercial TV stations? Perhaps BBC3 could get a PC/Computer show on? I've been wanting something like that for ages!
Jonathan, Bedford, England
I can't receive digital TV - so how about a reduction in the licence fee? I can get broadband though - why not make digital programmes available online (perhaps delayed by a week) like the excellent 'listen again' radio on the BBC site?
Geoff, Milton Keynes
The use of taxpayers' money I object to is this so called consultancy on how good the channels are. The Prof is obviously a Philistine; what value is his opinion, particularly? If they're such bad value, how come so many free view boxes are sold largely on the back of these channels? In point of fact the lead time before material goes on the terrestrial channels is minimal, and much excellent material has resulted (Little Britain, the BBC Four documentaries, Alan Clark, all contributing heavily to BBC2). BBC Four in particular often has the only good material put out of an evening by the BBC, especially European cinema that BBC2 (formerly home of 'film international') no longer shows, and that Channel Four has shipped off to subscription, where it carries them at all.
David Brown, East Kilbride Yes. A waste of money. The children's TV channels are a continuous loop so you see the same stuff about 3 times a day. A BBC sports channel (or 2) - now that would be worth investment
Rob UK, Slough
BBC3 and BBC4 not giving good value? Rubbish they are the only channels on free view that ARE delivering a different type of programming - although the BBC3 7 o'clock news is not a patch on channel 4 news
Drummond, Edinburgh
Their impact on the commercial sector is only negligible because their audiences are so small. It does not get away from the fact that they operate in areas that should be left to the commercial broadcasters and not the BBC.
Jeremy, Berkhamsted, England
The forerunner to BBC 3 - BBC Choice - was much better. Since BBC 3 launched the programmes are much less appealing. What happened to "Queer as Folk USA", for example? On the other hand, BBC 4 is one of the best channels available. Thought provoking, excellent world cinema, intelligent AND entertaining. What we really need is a BBC Classics channel where all the repeats can be shown, leaving 1, 2, 3, and 4 to broadcast new shows.
L J Staggs, Orpington, Kent, UK 2001: The government denies BBC3 a licence because its programming plans are not distinctive enough. 2004: The government says that BBC digital services aren't value for money, because not enough people are watching them. So, they have to be both distinctive AND popular at the same time - a very hard balance to strike. Personally I watch BBC3 and BBC4 regularly and find many of their shows to be informative and entertaining. But I suppose now they'll have to be dumbed down in order to get the masses tuning in (and me switching off!)
Steve Smith, Nottingham, UK
I see a lot of complaints here from people who don't want to pay for the equipment to get digital television. Frankly the outlay is tiny for most budgets even with a new aerial. When colour was introduced everyone had to buy a new TV to get it - the only difference was the licence was higher for colour sets. Perhaps the license for digital homes should be raised to supplement these cheapskates and give them free set top boxes?
Paul, Manchester
It is scandalous that we are forced to pay a compulsory TV licence to support a monolithic BBC that the majority do not watch.
Jon, UK
| I would like to know why BBC3 programmes are advertised on Terrestrial TV |
I live less then 2 miles from the BBC's new studio in Leeds. Can't get Free view here! I have asked my MP why I have to pay the same licence fee as people who get it. I would also like to know why BBC3 programmes are advertised on Terrestrial TV from a transmitter that is not digitally enabled - pure stupidity...
Richard, Leeds, UK Well worth remembering (as I do) that BBC2, Channel 4 and Channel 5 all had audiences so small they could not be measured when the channels first started for exactly the same reason -- not everyone could receive them at first. I can remember asking relatives in rural Hampshire whether they would be able to receive channel 4 in 1982 and they replied that they did not get BBC2 yet! I can also remember we had "Rediffusion wire" -- a primitive cable system -- back when BBC2 started. We could get it but none of the neighbours could. My younger brother was dragged in from the garden to watch Playschool whether he wanted to or not!
Mike Byford, Uckfield UK
We've got two arguments here. The first, extremely valid, argument is not really to do with the content but more to do with the availability. Clearly digital terrestrial needs to be improved to make it available to more of the country. Speaking as one of the lucky ones who can (most of the time) get a signal through Freeview, I think BBC4 is excellent. No, I don't watch it all the time but there certainly is a place for it. It seems that all the interesting stuff has left BBC2 and gone to BBC4.
As far as 'broadening their appeal' is concerned - stuff and nonsense! 'Appeal broadening' has given us gardening, make-over, reality television, etc. Clearly this stuff is popular and that's why it is and should be broadcast. But it doesn't have to be broadcast everywhere. Leave us something that's not low-brow...
Peter,
Having recently purchased a Freeview box, I am hard put to it to find anything worth watching on any of the channels I am able to receive and it seems a bit odd to me that BBC3 and BBC4 do not start until 7.00 p.m. and then seem to show a lot of repeats. The timing is a hark back to the 1950's when after children's TV there was a closedown until the news at after 7 p.m.
Heather Cooke, Lincs/Cambs border CBeebies is great, especially the large amount of output with sign language support. My daughter has hearing and speech problems, and she particularly enjoys the programmes with signing, particularly "Something Special".
Mark Thornton, Papworth Everard, UK
I don't have Freeview because I'd have to replace my elderly television as well as buying the set top box. I'd love to be able to see the films that are screened on BBC4 instead of all the mindless Hollywood pap that is normally screened on 1 & 2. I think that describing shows like Little Britain and the Alan Clarke Diaries as BBC3 and BBC4 productions is slightly disingenuous. They would have been made for BBC 2 anyway.
Hephzibah Herd, Manchester
Re: Hepzibah Herd in Manchester. You don't have to replace your TV to see Freeview. You can buy the box and connect it to the aerial socket on the back of your current set. What's more, they're getting cheaper - I got mine for just �40! An absolute bargain.
Maurice, Belfast
| BBC Four is by far the best channel of all |
BBC Four is by far the best channel of all, and for an intelligent viewer, it's the best value for money. I could do without most of the other pap-filled channels. Low viewing figures are no indication of quality of content - merely a sad reflection on the low mentality of the majority!
W S Wilcox, London, UK All of the digital channels are value for money. CBBC and Cbeebies are much better than commercial alternatives. BBC Three offers good comedy, drama and added content for programmes on BBC One/Two. BBC Four is also good providing many documentaries and "The World" is an excellent news programme.
David Williams, Bristol
I think it's shocking that they don't broadcast during the day. Like E4 and some of the other channels they are only available in the evening. The BBC must have thousands of hours of archived TV that they could show, instead of the dead airspace?
Susie, Oxford, UK
BBC3&4 are both new boys in the park, given time I'm sure they will establish themselves well. Remember how Channels 4 & 5 started with only a handful of viewers, now the big boys are seeing their share of the audience reducing. Come on BBC3 & 4 shake yourselves and show the rest what you are made of.
John Graham, Edinburgh, Scotland
| I suspect the reason digital channels have little impact on commercial competitors is because few people can access them |
I had a feeling that I wasn't alone in being unable to view these channels. It's strangely reassuring to see that I'm in good company, as indicated by the majority of contributors. Like the others on this message board, I'm annoyed that although I pay the licence fee, some of the proceeds of said fee go to finance channels I can't access. That isn't Public Service Broadcasting! I suspect the reason digital channels have little impact on commercial competitors is because few people can access them. Incidentally, what is this DAB radio all about. I know what it means but does anybody actually own a DAB radio, and if they do, do they regard it as money well spent?
Alan Carter, Exeter, UK I find BBC4 to be very good value with excellent, serious programmes of the type that used to be shown on BBC2 before it was dumbed down.
Richard, Cirencester, UK
Well I think I found something worth watching on one of them once. By and large though, I think the money would be a lot better spent making BBC 1 and 2 better.
Andy, Norwich, UK
Why use a term like value? The BBC is not supposed to be a commercial operation, so why look at these channels in these terms? Their market share is much higher than many other digital channels. I think the question should be, do these channels provide a service not available commercially? Three has worked as an experimental comedy channel, where ideas can be tried out and transferred to the mainstream channels if successful (viz Little Britain) whereas Four shows some excellent documentaries which (in the scheme of things) are actually very good value for money, and make British factual programming the envy of many other international broadcasters.
Charles, London
I agree wholeheartedly with the report. I only ever tune in to BBC3 & 4 if there is a good film on, which I'm afraid is always a rare occurrence. However, I think the main problem is repeats, which I don't think are being done properly. What I mean by this is that there is no need to air 'Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps' nearly every day of the week. Instead why don't the BBC take advantage of their huge programme archive and show an old episode of Eastenders every once in a while. Or even show 'Operation Good Guys' again? Now that's what I call a decent comedy.
Jonathan Ingram, Hastings, UK I don't know where the other people commenting have been hiding. I watch BBC3 & 4 all the time. The programming is interesting, intelligent and imaginative. I often find nothing to interest me on other terrestrial and cable channel but can find a thoughtful programme or a quality movie on these channels. I don't know what my TV viewing would be like without them.
Susan Fraser, Glasgow, Scotland
Yes they are poor value, they are on for a limited time at night and also often show programs which conflict with similar programs on the other BBC channels. As for the so called Comedy... Please No More!
Bob Knox, Alnwick England
| Of course you will get smaller viewing figures the more channels there are available |
BBC4 is the only channel with decent arts programmes, but they are few and far between and there are so many repeats. It does also show interesting documentaries and films. BBC4 mustn't be dumbed down to appeal to more people - sometimes you need more substantial food for the mind than the usual nonsense on TV. I thought digital was all about choice - of course you will get smaller viewing figures the more channels there are available and the more specialised the programming. My licence fee is still paying for all the programmes I don't watch on BBC1 and 2!
Debbie, Surrey I'm a big critic of the BBC. I find the licence fee very bad value for money, but I feel BBC 3 and BBC 4 to be the best channels the BBC have. BBC 4 especially provides fantastic programming, the Saturday films are especially good. The two children's channels are excellent too. I tend to give news 24 a wide berth though.
Craig Andrew, Rochdale, England.
I love BBC3, Headjam, Little Britain and the brilliant 2 Pints of Lager & A Packet of Crisps - to name but a few! There do seem to be a lot of repeats though, which I find very annoying. A few more original comedies, maybe some more films would make the channel more worth while. I've never watched BBC4 so have nothing to say about it - which is probably saying quite a lot in itself.
Aimee, Inverness
I think BBC 3 does have too many repeats, but seems to be getting a little better of late, however BBC 4 is one of the only alternative to the mass market tabloid TV that we have everywhere else. If viewing figures are the only measurement of value for money, then it is this measurement that needs to be looked at. It looks to me like another opportunity for Tony to have a go at the BBC, something he is all too keen to do, as they are the only real opposition he faces at present, simply by their reporting of the factual whole story.
Ian, London
| I would be really sad and angry to see them disappear |
I think they're great and I would be really sad and angry to see them disappear. At the moment I am enjoying Jonathan Miller's series on Atheism. The best thing about these channels is the lack of adverts, which is rare for Sky channels. On this note, I do think Sky channels should be banned from charging a subscription AND showing (5 minute long!) ad breaks so can you start a debate about that next? Thanks
Cath Davis, Leigh, UK My children love CBeeBies and CBBC. The programmes are of a very good quality and quite balanced. BBC 3 and 4 can be improved tremendously but this should be in tandem to improving BBC 1 and 2. All four primary channels should be in balance with each other. They should restrict the news to BBC 1, 2 and BBC NEWS 24 and Newsround for the children. It is telling that my children rarely watch ITV1 or 2, channel 4 or 5.
Gary Russell, Peterborough, England
I wonder if the people moaning about not being able to get digital would have moaned about having to buy a new set to pick up the new-fangled BBC2? Or having to buy a colour TV to understand snooker? Get real, digital is the future, and you'll get it sooner or later. BBC3 and BBC4 aren't perfect, but they'd be better if the government didn't interfere, setting impossible targets for BBC3. The report's author is right about more cash for BBC4, though.
Bobby, London
The output of the BBC digital channels appears to be far superior to the trite, inane 'opium for the masses' that BBC 1 thrashes out almost constantly. But clearly the BBC broadcasts too many channels and is spreading its talent too thinly. The BBC should revert to having less channels and better quality programmes.
Robert Willmington, Croydon
| I have found BBC Four a revelation |
I have found BBC Four a revelation. The documentaries are thought-provoking and do not dumb down, a real relief in a world of trash telly. Watching this channel is not passive viewing, and I certainly do not think it represents poor value for money. Value for money shouldn't be judged on viewing figures, if this is the measure then we may as well saturate the screen with soaps and reality TV (which I also watch, but don't think that populist programmes should be all that's on offer). The BBC's charter should be renewed, even the Dali Lama watches it in the belief that it reports in a balanced way! (He said this when talking to Michael Palin on "Himalaya").
Susie Smith, London Isn't there something wrong with forcing people to pay for programmes that, by choice or location, they don't have access to. The current licence fee advertising campaign is disgraceful.
George Henry Death, London
BBC3 has some great shows (not least of which is Little Britain); of course they turn up on "2" soon enough, proving that more channels mean more repeats. BBC4, CBeebies and CBBC? Never watched 'em, so a complete waste of money so far. Axe the lot (why not include BBC1 too?) and cull the rubbish and then there might be enough good stuff to make one decent channel.
Phil G, Warrington, UK
I hardly think that any channel that names its biggest stars as Matt Lucas and David Walliams can consider itself as 'high quality'! Whenever I catch a glimpse of BBC3, I see cheap, down-market, vulgar comedy, which seems to have been written by (and for) smutty-minded adolescents. Complete rubbish. BBC4 has some excellent stuff such as the 'Art in the 60's' documentaries. Please don't 'popularize' it by introducing make-overs and celebrity gardening shows!
Andy, Manchester, England.
I don't know if they are poor value because we ain't got them, but what I do know is that if they are funded from the licence fee then it is maddening to see endless trails for them on terrestrial TV, whetting the appetite (they look great, lots of them). Terrestrial viewers are the poor relation and, despite having contributed to their making, we have to wait until the BBC deigns to put the programmes on 1 or 2 some months later.
CCC, England
BBC3+4 are excellent value!. The arts programmes are great, excellent documentaries, and what's the obsession with broadening appeal, surely there is some room for intelligent television, not the dreadful dumbed down stuff we find elsewhere?
David, London
| The BBC should concentrate all resources on the established BBC1 & BBC2 |
It's one too many channels. I have never sat through an entire programme shown on BBC3 & 4 (the same applies for many of the other channels on satellite). The BBC should concentrate all resources on the established BBC1 & BBC2 channels instead. Quality over quantity is more important.
Ketan, Neasden, UK I wouldn't know if they are good value or not, since I belong to that happy band of people for whom watching these channels means purchasing a satellite dish for vast sums of money. Freeview does not work in my area without the purchase of a large aerial and a booster - more expense. Yes, I would like to watch programmes like Little Britain on 3 but am not able to. I think it is grossly unfair.
Alison, Margate, UK
When BBC3 and BBC4 show new comedy and interesting, intelligent programming they are excellent. They are, however, poor value when they show repeats, which unfortunately seems to be the scourge of all television channels.
Becky, Oxford, UK
| More television for "tiny audiences" |
More arts programs please. More television for "tiny audiences". We have 5 terrestrial channels of "aimed at the masses" television and a disappointing waste of space it mostly is. More documentaries, more politics, more music and no more brightly coloured, ever-so-cheerful, polystyrene TV. Please!
Dave Hands, Birmingham Yes, they are poor value for money. No-one I know watches them. It's not enough just to make them the same as BBC1 & 2 but with different programmes (& repeats, by whatever name you give them). They need to be a viable alternative, something different from what the BBC already transmits on terrestrial TV. Compared to most channels on Digital TV, these channels fall woefully short.
Shane, Winchester, England
No, I don't watch them and having looked at the Schedule for BBC 3 tonight it looks like populist trash ('Sex Warts and All Down Under' shown four times). Do we really NEED so many TV channels?
mark, Glasgow, UK
No-one's ever asked me what I watch on TV. I have to question how the ratings are obtained. Because they don't show trashy American sitcoms, it seems they automatically get lower ratings.
Nick, Milton Keynes, UK
Chance would be a fine thing. I live in Northamptonshire which is just about as central as you can get in England. No mountains or even hills to speak of! Can we get a digital signal? No chance! Even though we pay a full licence we can't get most BBC channels. Free to air my foot!!!
John Abbott, Higham Ferrers, UK Frankly, yes. And so are the wall-to-wall children's head-emptying channels that share the airtime with them. I think the BBC should use the licence fee only for BBC1, BBC2 and the basic radio stations, and charge a subscription for the rest. What is more, Sky should be prevented from charging subscriptions for channels with advertising, and from blocking the issuing of free cards for free-to-air channels on satellite.
Bob Harvey, Lincs, UK
Compared to other channels available I don't think they are poor value for money at all. I wouldn't watch everything that is on them but they often schedule intelligent and amusing programmes and I'm waiting eagerly for the new series of Little Britain! Any channel which doesn't show constant makeovers, game shows, reality TV and other mindless rubbish has my vote. Keep them going I say!
Vik, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
