Channel 4 Regional News?

I agree, and after 2012 that would be a good time to do that, and wouldn't even be that bad. They own 1.5 extra streams on Freeview (counting ITV2+1 and the other half of the CiTV stream) so its possible that on Freeview ITV1 could drop down to LCN 6, ITV2 down to LCN 10 and so on, but because they'll lose that one stream they'd have to ditch ITV2+1, or they could even ditch CiTV just to fit ITV1-4 on. ITV1 would drop down a bit on Sky and VM but Freeview is the default and with plenty of promotion it could probably soon pick back up again.

I wouldn't mind seeing regional news on Channel 4 but it would be pointless on More4. More4 News already gets abysmal viewing figures (50,000) so regional would be a fraction of that. I wouldn't particularly want to see a full length bulletin that is a separate show like North West Tonight and Granada Reports are to BBC News and ITV News. However I wouldn't be against a 5-10 minute regional bulletin (lets face it it would probably be produced by ITV if its to compliment their output) integrated into the show similar to how GMTV do their bulletins, except with fewer continuity cock ups!

Channel 4 News and to an extent More4 News are notorious for their in depth news programming and are highly respected as a reputable news source for a more in depth look at the day's news. A move into regional franchising could only damage their reputation, they cannot provide the same brevity with the regions as they can with the nations and indeed international news, it would affect rheir reputation and identity.

And besides, who would account for regional programming? And come on, can you imagine Jon Snow or Krishnan Guru-Murphy using the oldl cliche, "and now the news where you are?"

Well the space currently used for ITV1-4 is gifted to ITV due to their status as a PSB, so those four streams should be stripped immediately. They own the SDN mux now, but it's not as easy as just kicking off channels and replacing them with ITV channels. I think Five have the rights to use half the mux, while I know the shopping channels have ridiculously lengthy contracts.

Not sure how it would work regarding LCNs - 3 definately belongs to the ITV network, but whether those for ITV2 etc are owned by ITV PLC or the ITV Network I don't know.

The fact is if ITV lost their channel 3 franchises completely even if they launched a non-PSB version of the channel on channel 6 on Freeview (and lower on cable/satellite) they would still lose viewers. Could well be an issue with some sports rights too which they might be forced to give up.


Really though OFCOM have nothing to lose by readvertising franchises. When it came to the crunch ITV wouldn't want to risk losing the big franchises such as London, Granada and Central, and even if they were willing to give up smaller, less profitable, regions, I do think they'd be the interest there to take them over, which could breathe new life into regional programming - and the ITV network as a whole.

ITV also have the slot on Multiplex D which is currently used for ITV2+1, and the part time slot on Multiplex A for CITV (although not in Wales).

Five I understand are to move to multiplex 2 following DSO, all the slot holders on the ITV (formerly SDN) multiplex A have a lease until 2010, except QVC who recently renegotiated their deal until 2022 !

I believe that Top Up TV sub-lease their space out on multiplex A to Channel 5 for Five US and Fiver.

Just because it isn't regional now doesn't mean that it can never be.

Besides, 'regional news' doesn't necesarily mean opt-outs or split channels... it could weel be a programme of regional news shown to everyone

Who would want to bid though? in the days when having an ITV franchise meant a big analogue transmitter network with a big share of viewers and an even bigger share of ad revenue... it was really worth it.

Any tom dick or harry with some money can have a national TV station these days, there'd be very little advantage in having a 'channel 3' license, especially if ITV PLC with all their programmes weren't involved

The gifted capacity for the channel 3 licence is worth between £32M - £43M per year. The universal availablity (not all transmitters will carry all DTT services - PSB mux have the priority) is worth an extra £3M-£6M; The EPG positions & 'Must carry' status is valued at £4M per year.

The regional capability for ad sales, and the growth area of local advrtising sales (STV & UTVs biggest growth area) is also valuable.

All in all, the PSB status is worth far more to ITV than they will admit in public. Is it really so hard to grasp that another business will also value it?

I'm sorry, but I just have to challenge this. The BBC has BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News Channel, CBBC/CBeebies as well as interactive services, not to mention its radio and online offerings. How much of a spill over in terms of public service broadcasting could there possibly be!?

I see absolutely no problem with Channel 4 looking at offering regional services. Although there are obviously some technical difficulties precluding them from offering the scale and scope of services that ITV currently does, in principle, C4 seems like a more natural home for regional news given its direct PSB remit.

I also think there's something of an inconsistency in the argument that regional news would damage C4's current news reputation. That's based on the assumption that all regional news is crap, and that no one is capable of providing a high quality service in that area. First of all, if that's the case, then I'm not sure why everyone wants to protect regional news as it stands today. But secondly, I don't accept the premise that offering regional services would damage C4's news reputation. I'm not convinced that crap regional news does anything to affect the reputation of the flagship national services anyway. So long as the 7pm news maintains its current high level of quality journalism, there shouldn't be any issue at all - that's the core brand. Any regional services would be entirely peripheral to that.

Where are these figures coming from?

Whatever the worth of the license it has been and will continue to fall as traditional TV and the 5 network channels become less and less important. If they are worth that much and a combined ITV PLC with combined resources, lower overheads and exploiting evey synergy they can, still can't make money... how would any new licensee do it?

What you're forgetting is that if ITV PLC were to go off and start a non-PSB channel and the channel 3 licenses were offered out for bidding the new licensees would have to start from scratch. Can you see ITV PLC offering them Emmerdale, Coronation Sreet etc?

Any company wanting to make money in TV (and that is the primary function of any company) is far better off starting up a channel on satellite/cable. If they really want to show PSB programmes - news, religious, kids, documentaries etc they can, if they want to regionalise their advertising they can

Also worth noting that most regional news programmes get ratings many digital channels could only dream of.




C4 isn't the BBC though, and should never be. It's ITV, not C4, there as the primary mainstream commercial public service broadcaster, and regional programme is without doubt a mainstream PSB element. If it was to become under the remit of C4 it would be their own PSB responsibilities which suffered, and they'd be nobody there waiting to pick those up.

I think you're missing my point though Brekkie. Why on earth should C4 have special 'spillover' PSB responsibilities? Are there things the BBC, despite its taxpayer funding and multiple channels and services, is incapable of doing? Frankly, if that's the case, then there should be some very serious questions asked about how effective the BBC is as a public service broadcaster. It might be useful for you to define what these PSB responsibilities are, and which ones the BBC are not performing.

spillover is a bad word. C4 is meant to be "alternative"