I understand that AM and FM broadcasting involves costs for maintenance,
and plain electricity.

But for FreeView (and presumably FreeSat) vs. "online", especially if
other channels are being broadcast ...

Obviously there _are_ costs involved - presumably fees to (I forget the
name of the company - begins with A). But are they vastly more than
"online" - that cant be free; I imagine the server capacity costs a
pretty penny.

Presumably online _is_ cheaper, though - though I'd like to see figures; however, I feel there are underlying reasons other than cost that they
want to do it. Certainly, bringing BBC3 back to air and then taking BBC4
off seems very weird, given what I think are the demographic each is
aimed at.

If FreeView (etc.) _is_ expensive, then there definitely needs to be a
look at simulcasting across channels - I mean the amount of it; one
_presumes_ the cost of a static card is much lower than a continuous
stream, otherwise why do (for example) Smithsonian cut to a card at 3 a.
m. (they have programming after that, just not on FreeView: the cut is
often in the middle of a word). Similarly many of the +1 channels. Thus
when BBC simulcast across, say, BBC1 and BBC News (and sometimes BBC Parliament), one or other should be a card - they could presumably
fairly easily use the "red button" mechanism, so people didn't need to
type in a number. (I'm not talking of the short periods where one of
them carries signing, but the many hours where they're identical, apart
from a second or two's delay.)

As for PMQs - not that the BBC can do much about the others: that's
usually on at least six channels identically (sometimes different bottom banners)! BBC News, BBC Parliament, sometimes BBC1, Sky News, Al
Jazeera, and that other news channel! Seems very unimaginative. In the
case of the BBC, yes, have it on Parliament - but not the main news
channel. If something is said that's of significance, report it after a
few minutes: why does it have to be live? (In general, why does so much
have to be live, often rudely interrupting something else? I've seen
plenty of cases in the last few years where recording the event that was switched to, thus allowing something [often more interesting anyway] to
finish, and then playing it back a minute or two later, would not have
hurt anyone. In fact, in many cases, it's "sorry, got to cut you off
rudely as we want to go over to someone arriving. Right. Oh, he/she's
not arrived yet? Ho hum ..." - which could be cut out if it was
recorded.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

My movies rise below vulgarity. - Mel Brooks, quoted by Barry Norman in RT 2016/11/26-12/2

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)