News - BBC refuses to commit to 3D format

[HEXUS]

Won't pick sides until future is more certain.

Read more.

[Mike Fishcake]

Good. I don't want to see them wasting loads of money on what has the potential to just be another novelty that the public gets bored of anyway.

(My God that sounds grumpy )

[GheeTsar]

Agree - it's too much of a gamble in the short term.

[Biscuit]

BBC know what they are doing, the only times they jump on the bandwagon early is when they are driving!
I wouldnt expect anything less and until they decide what they are doing, i wont be even looking into 3D hardware.

[HW_90]

Good. I don't want to see them wasting loads of money on what has the potential to just be another novelty that the public gets bored of anyway.

(My God that sounds grumpy )

they're already wasting money

name the programs you watch on a BBC channel which can't be watched elsewhere

and then think is it really worth paying £140 odd quid a year for them

[jim]

Not their job to innovate, in my eyes.

If they can do something relatively cheaply, and see how it goes, then fine - I'm not going to complain. But investing in expensive Tomorrow's World technology on the off-chance it takes off, and until then providing for 0.1% of viewers? Nah, let's leave that to someone else please.

[jim]

they're already wasting money

name the programs you watch on a BBC channel which can't be watched elsewhere

and then think is it really worth paying £140 odd quid a year for them

Top Gear, Doctor Who for my girlfriend, Match of the Day, Have I Got News for You, Mock the Week, Never Mind the Buzzcocks, QI, Not Going Out, the entire BBC website.

Yep, completely pointless.

[young_one]

I have to agree with HW_90 a little, £145.50 for the BBC is pretty terrible in my eyes and there is no other choice but to pay it. If it was about half that price I wouldn't begrudge it at all.

Back on topic - Good for the BBC, its only a experimental technology and so should let others develop it.

[AGTDenton]

there is no other choice but to pay it

I know not a popular or practical choice for many but I choose not to pay it. I decided to fund a gym membership instead which keeps me from siezing up and having a jelly belly.

[Jimbo75]

I won't be paying it when my latest one runs out. Simply put, it's bull**** and anything I really want to see I can go to my mates house and watch it. That would be the F1 and Doctor Who, and no it's not worth £150 a year to me while the rest of the time it collects dust.

I do believe in the BBC and the ideology behind the licence, I just don't believe in the **** they put on tv and force us to pay.

[Terbinator]

I won't be paying it when my latest one runs out. Simply put, it's bull**** and anything I really want to see I can go to my mates house and watch it. That would be the F1 and Doctor Who, and no it's not worth £150 a year to me while the rest of the time it collects dust.

I do believe in the BBC and the ideology behind the licence, I just don't believe in the **** they put on tv and force us to pay.

Sterling point there my friend.

[Andaho]

"It's not what you show, it's how you show it"

I don't quite understand what that smaller headline means in the article... But I couldn't disagree more! I'd rather watch a cam-recorded rip of Batman on a 14" black and white TV, than Bridget Jone's diary in 3D on a 60" plasma on blu-ray.

If the BBC were to start putting money towards 3D later down the line, I would certainly sign a petition against it.

[BullDogg]

"It's not what you show, it's how you show it"

I don't quite understand what that smaller headline means in the article... But I couldn't disagree more! I'd rather watch a cam-recorded rip of Batman on a 14" black and white TV, than Bridget Jone's diary in 3D on a 60" plasma on blu-ray.

I absolutely agree with you. However, it was meant to be a play on "it's not what you say, but the way that you say it". Perhaps should have put a "?" at the end to make it more clear.

I'll be the first to admit I'm astonishingly bad at coming up with titles and headlines.

[MonkeyL]

they're already wasting money

name the programs you watch on a BBC channel which can't be watched elsewhere

Short of iPlayer, which will come under the license fee at some point, there isn't anywhere you can legitimately watch BBC content without a license.

and then think is it really worth paying £140 odd quid a year for them

Absolutely, by far the best value for money of any service I currently pay for. Long may it continue.

[Gunbuster]

A few good reasons for this non-decision:
- 3D might not be that big of a deal, but it eats up bandwidth
- No easily spot-able winner in 3D
- Keeps SKY off their back by not moving into virgin territory like they did with Iplayer.

FYI on the License Fee, it does not just pay for the BBC; but for Freeview, Freesat, Public service broadcasting on ITV/C4/C5 and the terrestrial broadcast network.

If you hate the cheap commercial crap on the BBC then why would cutting funding help any? Also Britain isn't some special case with the only TV license in the world. Go ask a New Zealander how much like their broadcasting now the license was scrapped.

Edit: Man I was in a grump today. Sorry guys. Maybe I should cheer the hell up

[Biscuit]

Your right though Gunbuster, all these people moaning about 150 odd quid a year (which is about £12 a month) and they clearly have no idea what that actually entails and what the consiquences would be if we took it away.