57 bids for new local tv licences

The point I was clumsily trying to make is the WMG started offering something "distinctive" for the Wharfedale area which comprises just four small towns. Although a bold attempt, often with shocking typos - this is what we're left with. I just wonder how Leeds8 or whatever it's called thinks it can get it's output updated every 8 minutes 24 hrs a day without either making it so cheap or running up huge costs. Is that a wise investment of public money? I'd rather it be put into schools, care homes or hospitals.

You seem to suggest that these local channels will compete with the BBC to provide news. I don't think they will, or should. These channels need to offer local programming, not just local news which the BBC and to a lesser extent, ITV have already got covered. These channels need to show other type of local programming. Local documentaries, local gameshows, local comedies, local erotic drama, local sport, local extreme wresting, local sheep dog trials etc. Things that aren't already covered by other broadcasters.

But there's only 3 markets in the US that are bigger than London in population terms. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, and over 50 markets smaller than the Channel Islands in population terms.

If our attitude in the media continues to be "oh this will never work, the areas are too small." then it won't work, But there are markets, including one that I can think of in Canada, with a service area no bigger than half a million people, that has an independent station, no network affiliation, offering 15 hours a day plus of live local news. If that can be done in Canada, which has a little more than half our population, it can be done here.

Of course the local TV stations could be viable straight away through the Internet, which most people have these days. IPTV is looking further into the future. With a small fraction of the Licence Fee going towards the advertising of a National Hub website, I believe this could potentially be the future for Local TV in this country. Better than Jeremy Hunt's limited coverage idea surely? Let BBC and ITV/Channel 3 Regions produce limited programming for the more expensive TV based Regional News/programmes for the Government Regions and Home Nations. I'm thinking Local TV should happen via the Internet/IPTV.

I'm only going by what the proposed companies are promising and what we've experiened with Channel M. Local sport? Just how many viewers or internet hits will it attract and therefore advertising to pay for it? I watched years ago a basketball game in Jordan. It was shot on a single camera from the back of the stands and the 20 minute "build-up" comprised of commentators chatting about the game and the camera slowing panning from side to side. To do any more takes resourses and therefore costs.
With regard to the various companies that have shown interest, look at the names associated with them - they won't work for peanuts so your content makers will be probably students or just viewers contributing. Not enough to make a living I think.

IPTV is a non-starter really until it becomes the norm and there is little point in launching new local stations if their (cheap) content is offset by letting ITV and the BBC show even less local content.

IMO the only way to make local TV work is go back to the system that worked so well for 40 odd years and do it through the ITV network - and viewers would probably appreciate as little as 30 minutes of extra local content they can find easily on ITV far more than an extra channel struggling to fill an entire schedule. It's also worth remembering all these local US channels are generally speaking affiliated to the big networks and on the whole their local output is little more than news, news and more news (hours of it a day!), with them generally using non-news slots for syndicated shows like Entertainment Tonight and to air reruns of network shows which are in syndication.

I don't think this publicly funded/private company hybrid can really work either - it pretty much needs to be one or the other. If it's publicly it should be through the BBC (actually they probably could make it work via IPTV by using the iPlayer) and if it's private it needs to be able to stand on it's own two feet and be financially viable - not propped up by creaming money off the licence fee to ensure a little watched channel survives.

Really though it comes down to regulation and the ridiculous unfounded myth that none of us would care about regional content following digital switchover, which was about as rational as saying people wouldn't care about regional content after they bought a colour TV. The ratings show otherwise - outside the soaps the BBC Regional News is often the highest rated show of the day.

I don't think it's the only method that would work, but I do wish people would acknowledge the act of complete vandalism that was the breaking up of the ITV regional framework.

I don't buy the "but it cost too much" spiel. ITV lost money over the last 20-odd years because of their own terrible management. It was their ventures outside their core business that broke them.

If Border Television could provide the service it did, and make a profit, in the 1980s and 1990s, there is no reason why the larger stations couldn't do it now -- and subsidise the smaller areas that may be more marginal.

It's water under the bridge now but we simply wouldn't need to be doing any of this if a few safeguards had been put in place.

At the end of the day though the reason the political establishment allowed this to happen is the London-dominated nature of both Government and the media. In London, local news is considered something of a joke -- but the further away from London you get the more people care. Of course, because these areas are remote, London doesn't give a sh*t.

Look at Scottish television during the 1990s, Thanks to Gus McDonald, and only having to pay £2000 a year to the government. There were able to make hell of a lot of programmes of a wide spec, and still broadcast most network output.

Yes the company was streamlined, and lost over half the workforce but it worked and employed more freelancers. LWT and Central was the same It worked. But Granada and Carlton management caused this, along with YTV, TT, HTV, all paying to much for the operate the franchise, The On digital joke plus the crappy Sports rights.

I do believe if LWT had been allowed to build its empire we might have a better ITV in place....

Complete vandalism - a perfect description of the loss of the old ITV regions. I miss them. Now that we are where we are though, I think we've got to go forwards. That's why I'd like to see the BBC and ITV get on with trying to sell their programming to the World, bringing money into this country. I'd like them to just provide a Regional News service (for the Government Regions/Home Nations only) and at least 30 minutes of Regional Magazine programming. We could then have Local and Regional TV (and I'd like to see ITV kept to these limited Regional promises). Use the given Licence Fee money to start and advertise a National Hub website for Local TV (and the individual Local TV websites) and start from there. Within a few years, everyone could know the site and IPTV could be the norm.

Unlikely. LWT was just as shareholder focussed as Granada.

Yes, because there's no difference between the broadcasting landscape of today to what it was in the 80's and 90's is there?

Border probably aren't a great example, at the end they were just as much a radio company as a TV one

The point is that Border were absolutely tiny. Their budgets were correspondingly tiny, yet they managed to produce a local service without going bust.

But oh no, a multi-£billion company can't afford to spend a few tens of millions on regional output. B0llocks.