« Topics
1234...54555657...707172
Si-Co2,013 posts since 2 Oct 2003
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Local programming was pooled between Yorkshire and Tyne Tees, and the ITC at one point did raise concerns according to an article about Tyne Tees continuity, on Transdiffusion.


Apparently Tyne Tees were made to apologise on air for the mess that was continuity in 1993. Snippets of YTV idents were often seen, and their announcements sometimes heard at the same time as Tyne Tees were making theirs.
Cut out the coupon in your TV Times!
ttt406 posts since 15 Aug 2015
Good point about GMTV. I don't know what the financial situation was around the ITV network post '93 but one has to wonder that the ITC didn't/wouldn't ask them to hand over the keys for fear of beaten franchises (or constituents thereof) kicking a up a storm and demanding the franchise being reoffered.


Can you imagine Branson or Gyngell doing that Shocked


Ironically Gyngell ended up running two franchises that probably should never have won themselves.
Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Television. I know Tyne Tees couldn't afford their payments, which is how Yorkshire were able to buy them out, but what was Yorkshire's problem? If they had the same problem they wouldn't have been able to buy Tyne Tees. Confused


The ITC were on the fence with YTV as well. The two of them winning their respective licences was pretty much predicated on the merger taking place. Neither company would have been healthy without it, and indeed even the merged company had serious cash flow problems in 1993/4.
ttt406 posts since 15 Aug 2015
Local programming was pooled between Yorkshire and Tyne Tees, and the ITC at one point did raise concerns according to an article about Tyne Tees continuity, on Transdiffusion.


Apparently Tyne Tees were made to apologise on air for the mess that was continuity in 1993. Snippets of YTV idents were often seen, and their announcements sometimes heard at the same time as Tyne Tees were making theirs.


Indeed, although this wasn't the reason the ITC got involved. The presentation problems at the start of 1993 (caused by YTV sending a partially dirty feed to TTT and putting YTV elements to air without proper warning - they'd play out a TT branded promo then cut back to the YTV feed before TT had chance to opt out being one example) were enough for the ITC demand that TTT apologised several times per day during April/May 1993.

These problems were mostly fixed by around April of that year with YTV sending a mostly clean feed (there were some issues with unsynched switching of sources, which were made much worse when Bilsdale was used to test the new Leeds pres suite, and the TT feed was sent to the transmitter through Leeds resulting in sound and vision glitches every time the sync was lost). There were further teething problems when the Leeds centre opened but that's a different story.

However it was the failure to fulfill key licence commitments, coupled with moves to switch off key departments in Newcastle and a complete mess made of ad-sales which put the company in breach of rules, that resulted in the ITC threatening to revoke licences and demanding changes at the company, which resulted in Ward Thomas coming out of retirement to steady the ship.

The irony was that YTV's plans were no different to Granada's proposals when they bid for the NE franchise.
Last edited by ttt on 15 December 2018 2:42am
1
Si-Co gave kudos
Markymark6,382 posts since 13 Dec 2004
Meridian (North) South Today
Yes but with "favourite" options available on tv and various receivers plus catch-up services ahoy ITV would quite easily maintain its market share.


Yes, I tend to agree. As online viewing increases over the coming decade, ITV may well reach a tipping point, and perhaps throw away their PSB duties. The problem is revenue. ITV Hub is a clunky mess to view compared with iplayer and Netflix, primarily because of the adverts that are forced in. With PVRs and easy ad skipping for ‘broadcast’ TV, ITV will probably have to find a new finance model, perhaps an ad free version of ITV Hub in return for a subscription fee. How much would folk be prepared to pay for that I wonder ?
Neil Jones4,997 posts since 23 Dec 2001
Central (West) Midlands Today
With PVRs and easy ad skipping for ‘broadcast’ TV, ITV will probably have to find a new finance model, perhaps an ad free version of ITV Hub in return for a subscription fee. How much would folk be prepared to pay for that I wonder ?


There is such a thing as ITV Hub+ which promoted as Ad-free, Watch abroad, Download on iOS, Unlimited on demand, 6 live channels and Full series boxsets for £3.99 a month. Excludes live TV.

However when you consider you can get most of this in subscription TV channel packages (such as with Sky which gives you everything above bar the iOS, abroad and maybe some boxsets) I suppose it depends how much you really like ITV's programmes to justify giving ITV £4 a month in order to watch Corrie while up the Himalayas.
Riaz561 posts since 6 Jan 2016
They could have. But common business sense prevailed and reductions agreed. The value of the licences has reduced year on year, even now. At some point the licence holders might decide it makes business sense to continue in the future as non-psb broadcasters - the cost of the psb licences, and perceived advantages thereof, being outweighed by the cost savings of not paying for the licences and the obligations that go with them. Think how much ITVplc would save by closing all its psb news provision, we are not talking peanuts here.


Some time ago I mentioned the concept of an ITV company quitting ITV and becoming a satellite or cable channel. It's something that never happened but could it have happened had regional ITV still existed in the early 2000s?

There is the issue of the EPG position but this could be outweighed by high costs for the licence and PSB requirements as well as being tied to the ITV schedule of networked programmes. A strong brand should theoretically succeed regardless of its EPG position.
noggin14,160 posts since 26 Jun 2001
I do wonder how PSB broadcasting will develop in an all-IP future. If there is a nationwide multicast system and still a concept of linear channels (rather than unicast narrowcasting) - there may still be an EPG etc. - and still payments to the platform operator (or government if they manage it) in return for nationwide access.

However with no 'gifted spectrum' in return, it does raise the question about whether ITV will continue to have PSB responsibilities. (Answer - I suspect they won't)

Long term I can see a future where the BBC/Public Service broadcasting is funded via a household tax or a separate personal 'public service' tax (as Germany and Sweden respectively).
Riaz561 posts since 6 Jan 2016
I do wonder how PSB broadcasting will develop in an all-IP future. If there is a nationwide multicast system and still a concept of linear channels (rather than unicast narrowcasting) - there may still be an EPG etc. - and still payments to the platform operator (or government if they manage it) in return for nationwide access.

However with no 'gifted spectrum' in return, it does raise the question about whether ITV will continue to have PSB responsibilities. (Answer - I suspect they won't)

Long term I can see a future where the BBC/Public Service broadcasting is funded via a household tax or a separate personal 'public service' tax (as Germany and Sweden respectively).


The first question that needs to be asked is exactly what constitutes PSB, and why.

It is debatable whether ITV should have PSB commitments today or in the future or whether they are an analogue anachronism that should be abolished. ITV is in a funny situation of being a privately owned media corporation with PSB commitments in return for it's EPG position. Should we even have a referendum on the issue?!
bluecortina756 posts since 26 Jul 2012
I do wonder how PSB broadcasting will develop in an all-IP future. If there is a nationwide multicast system and still a concept of linear channels (rather than unicast narrowcasting) - there may still be an EPG etc. - and still payments to the platform operator (or government if they manage it) in return for nationwide access.

However with no 'gifted spectrum' in return, it does raise the question about whether ITV will continue to have PSB responsibilities. (Answer - I suspect they won't)

Long term I can see a future where the BBC/Public Service broadcasting is funded via a household tax or a separate personal 'public service' tax (as Germany and Sweden respectively).


The first question that needs to be asked is exactly what constitutes PSB, and why.

It is debatable whether ITV should have PSB commitments today or in the future or whether they are an analogue anachronism that should be abolished. ITV is in a funny situation of being a privately owned media corporation with PSB commitments in return for it's EPG position. Should we even have a referendum on the issue?!


ITV is a publicly owned company.

As to the future, my guess would be that ITV will not want to continue it's PSB service, but and it's a big 'but', who else would take the licences on? If ITV can't make money out of it I think it unlikely anyone else could.

The elephant in the room is the PSB News provision, the Government would find itself in the middle of a huge storm if ITV gave up PSB broadcasting and no-one else stepped up to the plate. PSB news provision is crucial in our multimedia age where the truth and provenance of any story can be questioned and the public know they can turn to the PSB broadcasters and likely get to the truth at all times.. The Government couldn't weather the storm of actually reducing PSB news provision in the UK through the application of broadcasting licences that were financially onerous.

My guess would be the licences will be offered free to the existing ITV holders on the proviso that they are PSB licences. The 'Kudos' of being a PSB does add to ITV's reputation. Just my thoughts of course.