This idea should be interlinked with ITV and Ch5, with slots being give up at times for local tv use..... that's how the local tvs in the USA do it..
Why did the Channel 6 idea following a US template of programming/"networking" the evenings and possibly a national news get scrapped after?
Didn't Cardiff TV fail once already, could of sworn there was something called Capital TV on Channel 49.
Has anywhere in the UK actually had a successful local channel yet that's not been run down after a few years?
This is why I Believe give "local TV" slots on the ITV and Ch5 would work, even Michael Grade said,, he would be willing to provide slots for the local news, I bet there could also grabs some others slots
What garbage Jeremy Hunt talks. Can't answer a simple question.
Typical politician, dodging the question as always. Especially from one who's name must surely be rhyming slang!
This idea just won't even get off the ground from a commercial viewpoint, so someone will have to bail it out, or the taxpayer will step in and 'fix it' when these companies end up bankrupt.
The last time Government tried to tinker with the creation of a TV network we ended up with BSB, which had to be merged with Sky (to create something which became successful).
If the Government were really interested in regional TV, then they wouldn't have allowed the federal network of 'Channel 3' to descend into the ITVplc dominated structure that it is. We can see from the continued existence of UTV & STV that some level of independence is possible.
It's quite sickening that Hunt wants to spend Licence-fee money re-creating a shadow of what his own party destroyed with the 'C3 Franchise Round' of 1991/2.
If the Government were really interested in regional TV, then they wouldn't have allowed the federal network of 'Channel 3' to descend into the ITVplc dominated structure that it is.
Different government, and this scheme isn't 'regional' it's 'local'.
Reading through document for applications, Sky plan to set aside channel 117 on the EPG, Virgin Media i think want to offer the local programming via there on demand TiVo service.
If the Government were really interested in regional TV, then they wouldn't have allowed the federal network of 'Channel 3' to descend into the ITVplc dominated structure that it is.
Different government, and this scheme isn't 'regional' it's 'local'.
And this is why the proposal is fundamentally flawed.
Even in the heavily-regulated days, regional companies serving fewer than two million viewers had marginal finances -- even Tyne Tees, with closer to three, hit the buffers on a number of occasions. This 'Newcastle'licence, for example, would be smaller than Border Television was, won't have the backing of big-network advertising coming in, and will occupy some scabby position low down in any EPG.
And what happens to those viewers outside the city areas? I can see them getting absolutely nothing from the commercial sector under this proposal, as ITV cancel regional news due to this service, and the 'locals' only provide news for the cities.
I realise the government's plans have been criticised before on this forum. So could with the combined expertise of everyone here we maybe try and suggest some answers. In other countries local (not regional) TV is viable so there is no reason why it could not be here. So how do you make a commercially viable local TV service in the UK? Any ideas?
Well I'd have thought the answer would have been for extra funding given to ITV Regional news teams and maybe more partnerships with regional newsrooms.
There is an appetite for local news, not on the scale as America, and i think what we had up until around late 2000's was sufficient.
JJ
jjne
People in cities -- especially London -- have a city-centred mindset.
But this country doesn't work that way, and neither does most of Europe.
We had a regional structure. It worked. Countries like Germany, France, Spain etc have regional structures. They work.
We aren't the USA or Australia. I don't see why people outside the cities should be given a second-rate service, especially if this plan takes any money from the licence fee or general taxation.
The one and only reason the Tories are persuing city TV stations, rather than a regional network, is that they do not want to remind people of the stupid, bigoted mistake Thatcher made in the late 1980s.
Agreed. Countries like the USA and Australia are vast, in some cases cities are hundreds of miles apart with only comparatively small townships in between them. The metropolitan areas are basically 'regions' in themselves, and you can't compare say Brisbane and Townsville, or San Deigo and San Francisco, with Manchester and Liverpool, or Leeds and Sheffield. By comparison' you would need to compare say the West Midlands urban area with the West Yorkshire urban area - in terms of population or proximity. What's news in Brisbane is much less likely to be relevant to Townsville than a news item from Leeds being relevant to Sheffield or Doncaster.
For this reason I can't see a 'local' or city-centric TV service working in most of the UK. Lack of quality or relevant material may lead to stations sharing material, or eventually amalgamating to an extent, and we could ultimately end up with a repeat of what happened to ITV in the 90s and afterwards.