ITV says "jump", OFCOM ask "how high?"

OFCOM's PSB review has been leaked, which outlines proposals for how ITV, C4, Five should develop (or not) as PSBs in the future, and how this relates to the BBC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/17/channel4.ofcom
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/17/ofcom.television
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/28/ofcom.channel4
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/28/itv.ofcom


It's a bit confusing so not that easy to sum up really, especially as there are a few routes it could take, but basically in relation to C4 OFCOM now agree that there will be a funding gap of up to £100m by 2012, but don't give any firm solution to how to meet it.

They do raise the option though that ITV and Five could drop their PSB status and be eligible to bit for funds to produce PSB programming - but not until 2014 - because of course up until then we want PSB content from ITV and Five, but afterwards we won't.




However, they do say if ITV gave up it's PSB status the spectrum would be auctioned off or transferred to the BBC/C4 as PSBs - so surely any savings made by ditching it is going to be chewed up by that anyway?

And although they say it's important there is competition for regional news, they offer no solution to who would provide it if ITV didn't. I would hope that C4 aren't burdened with it - firstly it would seriously devalue Channel 4 News, and secondly if the station has such a funding gap, burdening them with a costly new PSB element isn't going to help.


Anyhow, that's my understanding of it all - or lack of understanding I could say. No big surprise really that OFCOM seem to be completely failing to take the viewers into account in relation to ITV's PSB status - are they shareholders in ITV PLC or something?

I agree. Has Channel 4 stated any intent or wish to apply for more of a PSB status with regional services?

I'm not sure. I don't think they have for the main channel, but I vaguely recall the idea of something being on More4.


As I've said many times before (and I've said that many times before), the best solution IMO is to split the Channel 3 licence into network and regions - so ITV still control the network, but separate companies can bid to become regional affiliates and operate the local content - which would basically be the regional news and perhaps an hour of regional programming a week. The nations would remain separate licences though to give them more flexibility.

That's how it works here - the major networks control most of the major metropolitan markets and leave all the regional areas to smaller TV regional networks.

They pay fees to the metro stations for programming, and insert their own advertising (and usually also continuity and minimal amounts of regional programming in each area).

The worst thing about all of this is that they won't just hurry up and make a decision about ITV's regions. There are hundreds of journalists, producers, techincal staff, etc who've been left in limbo for over a year. Many of them have accepted the concept of redundancy but now one minute they're being told 'you're safe' then 'you're not' then 'well you might be, then again'. It's a joke. OFCOM - HAVE SOME BALLS AND MAKE A DECISION!!

Ofcom are even worse than ITC, IMO.

I disagree. ITV wouldn't mind making PSB shows if it was profitable, and clearly there aren't enough viewers, so they are taking the viewers into account ...

Noone cares about PSB programming such as regional news anymore.

Everything I'm reading from Ofcom looks perfectly sensible. There's a real need to redefine the nature of public service broadcasting in the UK. I think continued relaxation of PSB requirements on commercial networks is inevitable. The BBC gets dedicated funding to provide its services. To impose obligations on private operators without any funding to support the fulfilment of those obligations would seem to be needlessly onerous.

one could argue they are funded by having a very juicy EPG slot, having guanteed carriage and an analogue frequency and gifted multiplex on freeview. hence the repeated suggestion on here that if ITV want rid of PSB they should give up those things and p|ss off up to the 190s on sky and watch their advertising revenue plummet.

Apparently Grade opened the "new" itn newsroom last night and said that he expected all psb commitments for broadcasters like itv to disappear over the next few years except national and international news which he believes defines a national broadcaster's identity. He said he's committed to providing itn with the support for a high standard news service into the long term future.

However, this was all geared towards national and international news - I'm told there were a few glum faces from the London news team. He'd obviously forgotten itn produces the local news in London for him and share the "new" newsroom with the national people.

I've made this point before though - I simply don't understand why with millions of pounds flooding into the BBC, which must surely be one of the largest public service broadcasters in the world (well, if you exclude state-media propaganda outlets), that public service obligations need to be imposed on commercial broadcasters as well. What on earth is the BBC not doing that requires other networks to be involved in providing "public service"!?

that would be a monopoly, or at least a very homogeneous form of PSB (see PBS for details). By having ITV (which is SUPPOSED to be a regional system), and Channel 4 (as an "alternative" network) you bring competition into PSB in the same way competition keeps a healthy commercial sector running.

This aside, ITV have the stuff I mentioned above, which you neglected to refer to, due to them having PSB commitments. Why should they be able to ditch one but keep the other?