DIGITAL BRITAIN REPORT OUT TODAY.

The problem I have with the 'Does ITV deserve the prime EPG slot' argument, is that it is always discussed as if the two options are ITV on either 103 or something like 270. I mean what right does Sky One really have to be on 106? As EPG slots seem to be allocated on a first come first served basis, surely ITV would still have the right to stay on 103 whatever happens?

Yep - though conversely the most watched TV News bulletin (in audience numbers) in the UK is consistently the 1830 BBC One regional bulletin. It never appears as such in the BARB ratings as the audience rating system understandably considers each regional news programme as a separate show, and thus the figures are split region-by-region. However if you look at the total audience watching BBC One 1830-1900 the figures are huge.

The problem for ITV is that it used to be the other way round. The regional news audiences used to be huge on ITV1, and the BBC One regional news (in most regions) was way behind. Rather than try to improve the ratings (and thus the ad revenue) for the slot - they seem to like the fact their trailling as it gives them an argument to close services (and further reduce audiences)

So whilst I agree that audiences - on a purely market-based view - don't sufficiently value ITV regional news for it to be - in isolation - commercially viable for ITV - it doesn't mean they don't value regional news (it just appears that they currently value BBC regional news more)

Whether every ITV show should pay its way is another question - it does have gifted spectrum and protected EPG slots in exchange for Public Service requirements. Surely as part of this the public have a right to expect ITV to cross-subsidise their massively profitable shows with their less profitable shows.

Well, that's exactly how many businesses work, using large profit margins on some products to sell other "loss-leaders" at a price the consumer is willing to pay, because they know those loss-leaders are valued by the consumer and bring people into the business.

I'm not going to respond to all the individual comments that have been made, but I did want to offer some thoughts on the EPG issue, since this seems to be a central argument for why ITV should be lumbered with PSB responsibilities.

Now, I'll be the first to admit, this iss not an area that I'm fully informed about. Our free-to-air broadcasting in Australia is far more tightly controlled than in the UK. The only channels that can broadcast here are our public service broadcasters, and three commercial networks (who in turn have been granted additional digital channels which they are slowly starting to make use of) - so, obviously, the channel ordering really isn't much of an issue. But, given that the British market is different, and with many more channels there needs to be some way of ordering how channels appear on the EPG, my preferred mechanism is to auction slots off. If ITV values its prime location, it can pay for it. The money that gets raised can then be plouged into public service broadcasting by the BBC.


That's all good and well - does regional news (as a 'loss leader' for ITV) bring people 'into the business'? That would imply ITV gets viewers just because they attach some sentimental goodwill to the network due to its regional news service. And I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly hard to believe. People have remote controls - they can change the channel. Indeed, I would suggest that ITV's regional news does not matter one jot to the ratings for Coronation Street or Britain's Got Talent.

Well ITV *do* pay for their prime slot, via PSB comittments. They therefore get the slot guaranteed on any platofmr leading tho the frankly preposterous position ten years ago where turning to 103 on Sky led to a screen telling you to turn back to analogue as ITV (in a typical cutting off nose to spite their face move) decided to try and push onDigital by not putting themselves on Sky.

Sky, whilst wanting to shove Sky 1 on 103 in their place, were forced to put said caption up instead as ITV needed to have the option.

I suspect the eventual solution which will satisfy me is to micro franchise ITV Regional and Nations News and provide the funding from the licence fee AND some funding from any new teleshopping profits on ITV. They also could be awarded the advertising revenue around and within the regional programming.

There would have course be nothing to prevent ITV, stv, UTV and Channel applying for the franchises BUT I would like to see the regions offered be restored at least to the 2007 boundaries if not smaller. These outfits could be spin offs from local newpapers too.

Slots would be protected and preemptable within the Channel three schedules for these services. If successful I could see the case to provide some space on Channel 4 out of peak periods for additional services produced from these bodies. ITV would be obliged to provide cross advertising and transmission facilities for the microfranchisees as part of the deal.

To my mind, Sky - as a private operator - should be entitled to have the channels ordered any way they like on their EPG. I was thinking more about Freeview.

If you thought the 50p tax talk had died down, think again, It's to be made law BEFORE the next election...

Broadband tax 'to be made law'

A controversial broadband tax "will be law before the next election", according to Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms.

The 50 pence a month tax applies to everyone with a fixed line telephone.

Speaking at a debate in London, Mr Timms said the tax will be presented to parliament as part of the Finance Bill.

more ...