ITV Fall from Grace, No it was Commercial TV failure

23 years ago today the 1990 Broadcasting Bill published, causing nothing but utter content with most of the insiders, and wide eye happyness from outside. What started as many to believe the problem of the channel is much more complexed.

It all goes back to the early 80s when, cable was starting off but failed, Sat telly tried to start but failed for years, and the idea of have a new channel IE ch5. It was poor mismanagement and short sightedness buy a number of different bodies that caused the mess were trying to deal with. why that will ever allowed to pass is strange, since there were already plans for another New ITV type channel, Sat and cable were running about.

This is where the trouble started: Back in 85 Carlton wanted Thames: Year later Carlton wanted 10% in LWT, IBA said No so Carlton ended up with 20% shares in Central , dont ask me how that was allowed but not lower LWT. IBA never had simple line for everything it kept moving the posts

Michael green was left "bewildered" saying "We Are surprised at the IBA Decision, I'm absolutely certain it would not have been a major change to Thames, We have always suggested that we would make absolutely sure that the company would continue to be what it is at this moment in time". IBA stated there have nothing against Carlton owning part of an ITV company but believe "Any" Single Ownership of an ITV company was undesirable. Thames then proceeded to have a management buyout and were floated on the Stock Exchange. a year later Mike Luckwell who preferred to defy the IBA left the company, selling his shares for £25 million.



No one been able to say why ITV was given such an overhaul, when what was suggest was utterly pointless, since companies know Ch5 was about to come along, and you could have had a Sat channel. I would love to know why No one wanted Ch5, in 1992, and why that was not dealt with before having a proper overhaul of ITV.......

I'm not in the business of defending anyone here but the tv map as we all know was very different then.
Thames still had the franchise for London week-days and were perfectly entitled to try and stop any outsider's hostile buy-up of shares (LWT did the same quite openly when they were at risk). As the companies had been well established perhaps the IBA didn't want significant changes to it's licence holders otherwise it made the whole franchise system pointless.
From a tactical point of view too, some shareholders hold out - and this goes occasionally for board of directors aswell - in the hope that a revised offer is made for the shares pushing the price up. They know they sometimes can't stop a hostile takeover but try and get the best for their shareholders.

You have to remember that this is the same IBA which only a few years previously had required ACC/Lew Grade to reduce their control of Central down to 51%. They weren't big fans of ITV companies being wholly-owned subsidiaries of conglomerates (though Granada was somehow always allowed as an exception). They had previously required the Thomson Organisation to reduce its control over STV. As a rule they preferred "diversity" of ownership - which reflected their desire to have as many groups involved in commercial television as was possible within the single channel structure.

Yes very true, but what I found rather strange was IBA were allowing cable channels and Sat channels to be created. What would have happened if Cable had taken off big time in 1983/84? How would there have controlled the 20 odd channels?

I understand why it was done, but there were doing one thing to make sure lots of companies were in ITV while at the other end There were not doing the same which could have expanded the amount of commercial TV companies.

Ch5 should have been dealt with first before ITV was overhauled, this sounds rather familiar....


ITV should have been protect for as long as possible before being overhauled, I do believe it was needed but not in 1991 or in that style, yet I have not heard of better idea. While Sky and NTL built up its empire.

But the IBA has noting to do with the ITV business plans - and remember there were 15 or so separate companies - the IBA's role was to regulate the broadcasting legislation at the time. It could however as in this case stop what it believed an unhealthy owner. The IBA was also much tougher on the ITV firms too on stuff like tech specs, no dodgy mobile phone pictures and lip mics would have been used unless absolutley essential. And everyone new this from the top down.

The IBA didn't have anything to do with cable, nor should it have had. The IBA only had influence over public spectrum that was appropriated to them through legislation. This meant the frequencies used by ITV and Channel 4, and later expanded to the DBS frequencies that were assigned to the UK. Cable did not use broadcast spectrum and was subject to lighter regulation from the Cable Authority. I haven't read anything about how satellite broadcasts were regulated, if at all.

IBA award the contract to BSB, and also withdraw it days before the IBA was killed off. to this day there no PBS Satellite broadcaster, its shame since if it was not taken away BskyB would have been at the mercy of the ITC.

I dont agree, IBA should have had a full control over the cable, and should have tried to integrate everything to make sure the commercial TV with out all the trouble that is has caused.

From November 1988: