Scottish pres discussion Thread

Hi Gavin,
You're absolutely right. If ITVplc handed back their C3 licences they'd almost certainly end up somewhere else on the EPG. But provided the number they had was sufficiently prominent and sufficiently well promoted, I'm not sure if it would be a devastating disadvantage.

However our chums at Ofcom seem so determined to please ITVplc, I could almost imagine them eventually agreeing to let them stay on C3 in England and Wales but being given another, poorer slot within the STV and UTV regions.

When it comes to Sky and cable, I'm not completely sure about Ofcom's powers. If I remember from 1998, Sky itself agreed to let the PSBs take up the first five places because it was in its own interests to do so. You'll remember how 103 was blank for a long time - even before ITV had any intention of going on Sky.

In the case of cable, it's worth noting that Virgin Media in Cardiff has refused to put S4C on 104 and there doesn't seem to be much anyone can do about it.

By the way Gavin, I'm sorry if it often sounds as if I'm disagreeing with you. I actually think our hearts are in the same place and what we'd both like aren't that different. I'm not generally a negative person but I am very pessimistic about where I see ALL commercial tv heading. What I wish would happen and what my personal assessment of where things are going leads me to believe may happen aren't necessarily one and the same!!!

Actually I'd forgotten about 103 being dark - but surely Sky would have put Sky 1 on there if it could have.

STV may not have millions to spend right now, nonetheless I don't think they'd shy from a massive legal battle if they had their franchise pissed about with by the regulator for the betterment of a larger plc. Nor should they.

And for what its worth, I've been enjoying our discussions very much.

Phew, that's a relief! lol

If I remember correctly, the BBC and C4 took a stategic decision to make their digital services available on all platforms. Their view was they would be "platform neutral": ie accept that most people would only invest in one digital option and that it was in their best interests to make their services as widely available as possible.

Sky for their part were delighted and agreed to give 101 to BBC1, 102 to BBC2 and 104 to C4 in the negotiations which followed. Initially BBC Choice and BBC Knowledge got pretty rubbish slots... and, of course, the BBC and C4 were paying Sky. (Five, you'll remember, was also on the analogue Sky system.)

ITV in contrast opted to support DTT - probably because of Carlton and Granada's stake in On Digital. It was an active decision not to go on Sky. Sky realised that the ball was in its court and deliberately left 103 free - the idea was to help, er, persuade ITV to get on board.

I don't think there was any regulatory reason to put the PSBs on slots 101 to 105. I think Sky just realised that this made sense and added to the appeal of the platform. Certainly the ITC had no regulatory role in it. Indeed when you think about it, different managers at the BBC or C4 could have decided to join ITV in concentrating on DTT. Certainly Rupert Murdoch and Sky started making far sweeter sounds about the role of PSBs within a mixed ecology about then... after years of wishing they didn't exist.

Cable's another matter. You'll remember that some cable systems, like the old Aberdeen Cable, gave the PSBs pretty rubbish numbers - BBC1 was on 17 if I remember. Virgin, of course, now gives the PSBs slots 101-105 but I don't think it's obliged to. Virgin in Cardiff puts C4 on 104 and has S4C way down and has refused requests to swap them round. Presumably if Ofcom had any power over this, it would state that by rights S4C should be on 104 in Wales.

Glad we weren't the only Cable viewers to have that awkward numbering, BBC1 was on C4, BBC2 C6, ITV C8, Channel 4 C12 and Channel 5 C38, more oddly Sky Sports 3 was on C1!

Just checked Virgin Media's website.

It seems they're only required to give the PSBs due prominence.... exactly where they go is another matter. So theoretically, ITVplc could remain on 103 on Virgin if it handed back its Channel 3 licences and launched a national service.

http://www.virginmedia.com/about/working-with-us/epg-listing-policy.php

One could (and you know I will!) argue that the highlighted section is a tacit agreement that C3 will appear on 103 - as that is what the customer would anticipate.

But of course it isn't "prescriptive".

So - there would have to be something in it for Virgin to put ITVplc as a general entertainment channel on 103 instead of the PSB C3 "ITV Network".

And my feeling is they would be unlikely to do that when, on those same terms, they could just as easily put Virgin 1 there.

And that's what's fascinating and so open to interpretation... clearly the ball's in Virgin's court rather than Ofcom's. (It seems S4C is actually on something like 168 in Cardiff - hardly due prominence - although, in fairness, it's not really a Welsh speaking area.)

One big question is how much a national non-PSB ITV1 service would differ in practice from ITV1 in England at the moment.

While, of course, it's theoretically possible Simon Cowell could take The X Factor to the replacement Channel 3 franchisees the "new" ITV1 would still have all the programmes from ITV Productions and I suspect most of the indies.

All I can imagine being different in the short term are...
* No regional news at all and no obligation to do national news and current affairs.
*The same volume of advertising as non PSB channels.
*No stipulations about the proportion of UK content or how much should be out of London.
*Possible freedom from CRR.

(Of course, ITVplc is pretty much lobbying for all of these anyway!!)

So in practice, initially at least, it would pretty much be ITV1 as it's known in England - apart from the regional output. So if it's the place to see Emmerdale and Corrie, it could be argued that the consumer expects the service on 103.

Should this scenario arise it'll be interesting to see what happens. A great time to see how much the regulator can really influence the market.

Perhaps, for clarity, we should start to call ITVplc's hypothetical gen-ent channel, "Carlton 1" - as there's little chance they would be allowed to keep trading under the ITV banner. They had to seek permission from the other ITV providers (STV/UTV) to use the name for their digital family of channels as well as their website. I can't imagine approval from them would be forthcoming.

On that basis, having Corrie and Emmerdale on Carlton 1 would be, in effect, no different from Lost or Prison Break moving from Sky 1 to Channel 4 (or the other way round) - consumers are used to this type of movement in popular programming; which would negate the argument that their expectation would be to find them on 103.

Looking at those viewing figures earlier in the thread, Corrie and Emmerdale are the two big deals for the channel - and their yearly highs come almost exclusively from Cowell shows.

That's not a massive portfolio of successes to gamble slipping up the EPG, especially when you don't own the biggest hits - so yes, I can imaging they would lobby hard to retain their EPG location. But my gut instinct tells me it would be futile.

If there were no notes of interest from other broadcasters for the PSB burdened C3 franchises, then Ofcom's decision would be an easy one, certainly.

But they would have to go through the process of offering an abandoned franchise up for bids - unless they decided to tear up the Broadcasting Act.

Hmmm.

Fascinating times, to be sure.

STV has now replaced ITV gameshow..
with Postcode challenge, I dare say this is so STV can bring us live theLockerbie bomber getting released at 1pm

well done STV!

also we have a LIVE CA ( no idea who it was!)

I was surprised that Border Scotland didn't take the STV News Special .

Interesting piece in this morning's Herald.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2526589.0.Bronte_classic_blacked_out_by_STV_in_latest_row_over_fees.php

On the point about whether or not ITVplc could use the name ITV1 for a UK-wide service, I think the corporate lawyers on both sides will already be thinking "kerching".

I've a feeling that the use of the name "itv" may have been resolved at the time of the Carlton/Granada merger. If it wasn't fully sorted out though, there could be fun and games. But no doubt ITVplc believes it would have the right to use the name, so again interesting times.

Certainly the legal name of the network itself isn't ITV - it's been Channel 3 since 1993 with ITV merely a brand name and a corporate name. The companies themselves took an active decision to keep on using the ITV name. Certainly a replacement for ITVplc in England and Wales wouldn't be allowed to use the ITV name now although STV and UTV's claims on the name are an entirely different matter.

Come to think of it, was ITV ever actually the legal name of the network rather than just the usual generic description? I've a feeling it may actually have been something like the "Television Service of the Independent Broadcasting Authority" in days of old... though obviously there were organisations like the Independent Television Contractors Association.

Incidentally, I'd be very interested to know when the term ITV first started to come into general use and who started to use it first. A lot of tvs in the early 60s had buttons marked ITA rather than ITV. Even the distinguished BBC comedy producer David Croft used to talk about ITA as if it was the channel or network rather than the regulator... and he was present in the early days of Rediffusion and Tyne Tees before he went to the BBC in the early 60s.

Their "Scottish media expert" seems no better informed than us, to be honest; and dare I say less so.



So is it down to economics or a drive to put local programming on in a local region?

Well clearly it is both.

Phrases like "withholding money from the network" is unhelpful and disingenuous. They pay for what they show, and don't pay for what they don't show. That's not "withholding"; as that word implies that there are payments due, as opposed to it being a decision not to purchase.

I may not shop in Sainsbury's because I find it a bit too expensive, so I'll purchase locally for a better price (or even grow my own). That doesn't mean I am "withholding" money from Sainsburys, does it?

Sure, its a matter of semantics, but one would think a media expert would be able to get it right.

More importantly, has this been a good set of decisions by STV?



Strong evidence there to show that STV are bucking the nationwide trend, whilst maximising local output on a local station.

But back to the semantics:



Whatever the actuality of the C3 name, STV and UTV would be part of it. They could call it C3 Local, and be part of a new network of providers. It wouldn't be the end of the world for the two contractors who don't actually use the ITV brand on screen.

Were ITVplc to argue and win the right to use the name, it would still leave ITV1 somewhere up the listings at, say, 129 - with C3 Local being on 103.