26th Anniversary of the biggest shake up in ITV

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.

Including TT having to drop 50eps Blockbusters and episodes 293 and 294 prisoner cell block h, While YTV had to 215 episodes of The Young doctors

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.

Stripped not strapped!

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.