This is confusing me, why are everyman and their dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, mice and goldfish in the business expressing interest in this scheme?
I've lost count of the expressions of interest that have been shown by established players and newcomers alike.
I suppose it's not often that the opportunity to provide a new channel like this arises. It's kind of the equivalent of when Channel 5 was put up for tender. Even though a new TV channel isn't rare these days, the opportunity to start one from scratch on terrestrial TV is. Also with the backing of the current government it should be a bit more secure than just opening one on channel 2 hundred and something on Sky
And as is the case with many coalition policies at the moment, the concept of Channel 6 starts to disintegrate, the 'spine' of the service has been abandoned.
It's in the FT, but it won't allow me to link to it.
It's an absolute disgrace that the BBC is being forced to pay for this sh*t, and to add insult to injury they now have to commit to spending £5million a year on what - if Channel M is anything to go by - is going to be badly produced, uninteresting, terrible, terrible television content.
This whole scheme needs scrapping altogether. If local TV channels want to set themselves up and face the inevitable failure, there's nothing stopping them now. The BBC should not have to pay for this.
It's an absolute disgrace that the BBC is being forced to pay for this sh*t, and to add insult to injury they now have to commit to spending £5million a year on what - if Channel M is anything to go by - is going to be badly produced, uninteresting, terrible, terrible television content.
This whole scheme needs scrapping altogether. If local TV channels want to set themselves up and face the inevitable failure, there's nothing stopping them now. The BBC should not have to pay for this.
Agreed. The BBC is already under enough strain with its finances. People don't watch local TV as it is - why should our BBC fund yet more of it then? The BBC already produces the most - why can't the commercial broadcasters fund it?
Exactly my point. The licence fee already funds quality local programming. Why should the BBC pay for MORE, low quality, uninteresting hyper-local content?
I genuinly think the whole scheme should be scrapped. Who on Earth is going to watch this channel? If ITV, a well-established British television network can't rake the viewers in then why will a brand new, independent station work? Ridiculous.
New local TV has no place in 2011. Even regional radio can't stand on its own two legs, so perhaps the best solution is for ITV to receive the funding that the new channel would get in order to support their limited regional availability. ITV's problem with regions is that it makes huge losses, so if someone else is paying (and not the BBC) they might be more willing to support it. The fact they've had the same regional news for the best part of a decade and tacky graphics speaks for itself.
ITV are the only ones who can even slightly rival the BBC, but it is very much a BBC dominated market and anyone who attempts it will fold quite quickly. Even Channel M, who had a good stab at it and did appear to be quite successful at one point, are near closure.
Though of course local TV is expensive, ITV do somewhat overstate the cost as although individual local programmes themselves may not be profitable, profits made elsewhere can more than subsidise them. The trouble with ITV is they've been allowed to get away with it. I'm sure if the Culture Secretary turned around and said the ITV franchises were going to be re-auctioned with local content a big factor ITV Plc would certainly be promising much more.
It's also got to be about quality over quantity - not about having regional shows for the sake of having regional shows, but a handful of well placed shows throughout the schedules. Also for that reason a broader regional plan rather than 30-40 local stations is surely more viable.
I do think the need for all local versions to be on satellite is a huge barrier to setting up a regional local network, plus the fact they had no space lined up on Freeview either - plus the obvious objections to channels being kicked down the EPG to make room for it (another example of failing to future proof - 6-9/106-109 should have been left clear really) - and it's no surprise it's been kicked into touch. And of course these were points many were making when the proposals were first announced.
Though of course local TV is expensive, ITV do somewhat overstate the cost as although individual local programmes themselves may not be profitable, profits made elsewhere can more than subsidise them. The trouble with ITV is they've been allowed to get away with it. I'm sure if the Culture Secretary turned around and said the ITV franchises were going to be re-auctioned with local content a big factor ITV Plc would certainly be promising much more.
I suppose, though - and I'm not saying I agree with it - that their argument would be that they shouldn't be forced to continue with unprofitable parts of their business at the expense of other parts.