DIGITAL BRITAIN REPORT OUT TODAY.

I agree it seems a bit bizarre, when C4 currently just provide a token hour or so of childrens programming. Five provides far more childrens content than C4. Surely that should be encouraged and developed upon?

Competition is not an end in itself. The point of competition is to promote the efficient allocation of resources in society, delivering the maximum benefit to society at the lowest possible cost. To strip the economic mumbo-jumbo away, if competition itself were inherently desirable, then governments would be running supermarkets, software companies, breweries and basically any other business which might be able to exercise even the smallest degree of market power.

To me, having taxpayers funding two different sets of regional news providers is absurd. At the end of the day, if ITV doesn't believe regional news is a commercial viable service, let them drop it - don't use it as a pretext to spend tax dollars providing a service which duplicates what taxpayers are already paying for. If the concern is with the quality of the BBC's output in the absence of a competitor (which, if the BBC were really a 'public service broadcaster' rather than a taxpayer-backed media juggernaut, shouldn't actually be an issue), then impose quality standards. It's not an optimal solution, but it's a damn sight better than wasting the licence fee to have the government compete against itself.

Having two editorially separate rival programmes will always be better than just one no matter how they're funded.

I worked in regional telly for years and we'd always watch our rival on the other side and compare our output with theirs. It kept us on our toes and stopped us from being lazy


Personally I think that using license fee money to fund ITV regional programmes doesn't make much sense. The idea of letting indies make their regional news is a good one though. I'm sure that there are some companies out there who could make a profit and generate an audience out of a regional slot.

Just look at what the BBC has done with The One Show - it does popular journalism in peak time and brings in a decent audience. I'd like to see ITV do something similar, it could make it pay for itself

Is there any need for a question mark?

The Caps were for a headlng on the board...
Now If you wish to contribute, rather than find fault, that would be good.

BTW I hope I've used a font which you are happy with.

Well I was just browsing this thread, looking forward what the report says, but the SHOUTING in the title is unnecessary. Surely the font comeback is a bit daft, since its all the same... but never mind.

You've absolutely hit the nail on the head. Couldn't have said it better myself.

As crucial as I think having regional news on "channel 3" is, I don't think people should be paying for it twice, and although it may not be commercially viable in it's own right, in the context of the "channel 3" licence it absolutely is.

But I wouldn't be paying twice if they're just slicing a part of the existing fee. Its not just a question of semantics either - my standard fee would get me 2 services - and 2 services is what I want.

That said, I'm really struggling to understand HOW a £1.55bn commercial company who have, up until now, reaped all of the benefits of being on channel 3, can refuse to honour their commitment.

How we've come to this situation where Government think-tanks are postulating who else should pay ITV's bills for them is just completely mind boggling.

I mean, wuh?

*Boggling.*

I guess so, though the problem comes when the BBC isn't able to do what it should be doing as cash is being diverted elsewhere.

It needs to be more underwriting the service so if ITV are short of cash, regional news will be paid for - but once the economic cycle does as it should do naturally and ITV are back into profit, if those profits are outweighing what they get from the licence fee there is absolutely no justification for ITV to receive it.

The BBC isn't doing anything with this money though, it's already ring fenced and set aside to help with digital switchover.


ITV wouldn't be receiving this money though, it would be totally independent of ITV (unless they are going to bid to run it) it would just be broadcast on Channel 3 in slots that ITV would be giving up. A news service free of ITV and the continuing cuts is a fairly exciting prospect and well worth a trial IMO.

Quantity or quality argument. IMO, there are too many channels - most of which don't show original programming. ITV's great federal structure, PSB responsibilities and hundreds of millions in licence fees to the government were the price the ITV companies paid to broadcast when no one else could. If the regulator is going to allow hundreds of channels to launch, without any PSB responsibilities, how can it be feasible to hold one of these channels (ITV) to a system designed for when it was a monopoly (or duopoly with C4). Ever increasing supply and not enough demand for TV Advertising means prices are at rock bottom. I just don't think they can afford it anymore. As always, I blame the regulator

I don't think it's possible to have the ITV of old and at the same time have hundreds of digital channels.

Sure Gavin - you want 2 services. I suspect the vast majority of members here would like 2 services, if not more. But TV Forum is a pretty niche segment of the broader audience. And while regional news is going to be a differentiated product - what you get from one provider won't be identical to what you get from another - there's going to be enough similarity in the end product that it's worth questioning the value to the taxpayer of funding 2 competing services.

I think it's pretty clear that the British public doesn't sufficiently value regional news - not enough of them are watching it for it to be commercially viable for ITV. Simply having the government tell ITV to produce it anyway is not going to be an efficient outcome. Nor is having the government stump up the cash to pay for it. It reeks of state paternalism - telling viewers 'this is what you should be watching', and telling TV networks 'this is what you should be airing'. And in that sense media policy in the UK really hasn't evolved all that far from when the BBC was the monopoly broadcaster.