« Topics
1234...78910...404142
Steve in Pudsey10,372 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
So is that why TCF had the contractor name not the transmitter name as on C, because say Emley Moor and Belmont had to share the output of one colour slide scanner rather than having their own?

Did they have to book a circuit specially or were the distribution circuits arranged so that feeds to other main transmitters went through the CCR?
Write that down in your copybook now.
1
Closedown gave kudos
Markymark7,229 posts since 13 Dec 2004
Meridian (North) South Today
So is that why TCF had the contractor name not the transmitter name as on C, because say Emley Moor and Belmont had to share the output of one colour slide scanner rather than having their own?

Did they have to book a circuit specially or were the distribution circuits arranged so that feeds to other main transmitters went through the CCR?


It’s a good question. I can remember the Southern TV TCF, it made no mention of the transmitter name. Probably because with UHF there were often two or three other main UHF stations, and they were usually off air fed from the primary one.

I read in some IBA blub that Dover’s CCR was actually situated at Chillerton Down, co sited the ‘Rowridge’ one. Made sense seeing as the Dover transmitter was fed from Southampton anyway ( and the Dover studio came into Southampton on a contribution circuit) See, who says Chiswick is a new idea ?!😎
1
Steve in Pudsey gave kudos
Riaz614 posts since 6 Jan 2016
That’s not quite the case, don’t believe everything you read on Wiki, the IBA had a much firmer grip on things, approved all the programme schedules for starters, and could even comment on the companies’board of directors to an extent I think?

Regulator is the wrong word to describe them really


They were very close to being a publisher broadcaster.

The 1963 Television Act makes it quite clear that " .. the authority obtains its programmes through contracts with programme companies which derive their income from advertisements ..". I can't see the IBA pouring petrol on the flames of an already incendiary situation.


I haven't had time to comb through this act for details but were there any particular sections that covered large scale industrial action within ITV companies / programme contractors, and what the IBA could and couldn't do in such situations order to provide a service as they were the broadcaster?

Would have been difficult and expensive to get the signal from Jersey to the mainland. Back then it would have required rigging a microwave link into France, and then injecting that into the Eurovision network. What have cost a fortune, and you might have come up against French union resistance ( or perhaps not !)


CTV and the IBA could have played it imaginatively in a smart way if they wanted to. Set up a temporary CTV studio and playout centre somewhere on the mainland with an output that feeds into the entire ITV network all the way to the local transmitters, then beams CTV to the Channel Islands via Stockland Hill.

Considering that most CTV material broadcast during the ITV strike was pre-recorded then this would have been quite easy to implement in practice.
Si-Co2,200 posts since 2 Oct 2003
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
Another example here from later in the strike - I believe the Channel management went over to the mainland and filled up a van with reels of film from other ITV companies.





And an interview with a retired member of Channel staff who was there during the strike





Going back to this tweet, and the original schedule that didn’t appear because of the strike - did CTV normally close down for 30 minutes after schools programmes (not showing the two children’s programmes that were networked at noon)? I know they tended to start up later than other regions, but when starting up at 9.30 for schools programmes what was the benefit of closing down again afterwards and, of all things, pre-empting educational/children’s programming? Did a generation of Channel Islanders miss out on Zippy, Bungle and George?!
Cut out the coupon in your TV Times!
Inspector Sands13,921 posts since 25 Aug 2004

CTV and the IBA could have played it imaginatively in a smart way if they wanted to. Set up a temporary CTV studio and playout centre somewhere on the mainland with an output that feeds into the entire ITV network all the way to the local transmitters, then beams CTV to the Channel Islands via Stockland Hill.

Considering that most CTV material broadcast during the ITV strike was pre-recorded then this would have been quite easy to implement in practice.

Oh yes, sounds very easy! Shocked

Even without the logistics of doing that, they'd never have committed to such a plan as for all they knew the strike could have finished at any time.

Also the main reason it wouldn't have happened is because only reason Channel was left broadcasting was because the unions agreed that it would have gone bust if it had gone off air. Turning it into a national broadcaster, and with government help, rather negates that agreement
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 30 June 2019 7:26am
3
UKnews, Steve Williams and bilky asko gave kudos
nwtv20038,396 posts since 5 Jan 2003
Granada North West Today
Quote:
Going back to this tweet, and the original schedule that didn’t appear because of the strike - did CTV normally close down for 30 minutes after schools programmes (not showing the two children’s programmes that were networked at noon)? I know they tended to start up later than other regions, but when starting up at 9.30 for schools programmes what was the benefit of closing down again afterwards and, of all things, pre-empting educational/children’s programming? Did a generation of Channel Islanders miss out on Zippy, Bungle and George?!


I believe Channel still had Broadcasting hours restrictions imposed on them at this time. I’m not too sure on the in’s and out’s of it, but they were pretty much gone by the time TV-am started.
steve
steviegTVreturns
Riaz614 posts since 6 Jan 2016
Also the main reason it wouldn't have happened is because only reason Channel was left broadcasting was because the unions agreed that it would have gone bust if it had gone off air. Turning it into a national broadcaster, and with government help, rather negates that agreement


Did the unions hold the same power and influence in CTV as they held in UK based ITV companies because the Channel Islands are not part of the UK so they have separate legislation?

tightrope78 makes a valid point about "there’s a serious lack of knowledge and understanding of the history of industrial relations in this country in this thread and how much the fabric of social history has changed in the past 40 years". Does anybody here have knowledge of the finer details of industrial relations in the Channel Islands during the 1970s and how they compared with the rest of the UK?

It could be argued that if CTV had provided a minimalist ITV service for the UK then it would have outwitted the unions, and even provided a frightening snapshot of an alternative future for ITV. In more recent years corporations have deployed tactics of outwitting unions and unionised staff by moving operations to foreign countries; dismissing staff and hiring non-union (and sometimes immigrant) staff; or outsourcing to other companies.
Markymark7,229 posts since 13 Dec 2004
Meridian (North) South Today
Also the main reason it wouldn't have happened is because only reason Channel was left broadcasting was because the unions agreed that it would have gone bust if it had gone off air. Turning it into a national broadcaster, and with government help, rather negates that agreement


Did the unions hold the same power and influence in CTV as they held in UK based ITV companies because the Channel Islands are not part of the UK so they have separate legislation?

tightrope78 makes a valid point about "there’s a serious lack of knowledge and understanding of the history of industrial relations in this country in this thread and how much the fabric of social history has changed in the past 40 years". Does anybody here have knowledge of the finer details of industrial relations in the Channel Islands during the 1970s and how they compared with the rest of the UK?

It could be argued that if CTV had provided a minimalist ITV service for the UK then it would have outwitted the unions, and even provided a frightening snapshot of an alternative future for ITV. In more recent years corporations have deployed tactics of outwitting unions and unionised staff by moving operations to foreign countries; dismissing staff and hiring non-union (and sometimes immigrant) staff; or outsourcing to other companies.


I think you’re overthinking it all. Channel was a tiny company, with a tiny level of staff. The local branches of the unions realised that any sort of action would quickly lead to bankruptcy for the station.
5
UKnews, bilky asko and 3 others
  • Steve Williams
  • Ne1L C
  • Inspector Sands
gave kudos
Inspector Sands13,921 posts since 25 Aug 2004
Riaz posted:

Did the unions hold the same power and influence in CTV as they held in UK based ITV companies because the Channel Islands are not part of the UK so they have separate legislation?


The laws in Jersey are kind of irrelevant, during and after the strike Channel were still be relying on UK based unionised ITV staff. Imagine the attitude they would have to Channel if they had run a 'black' service during the strike. Also those at Channel who were Union members wouldn't want to 'scab'. The agreement was that Channel could keep going, nothing else
4
UKnews, bilky asko and Steve Williams gave kudos