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

Except that, AIUI, the last real bidding round was way back in 1992 - before digital broadcasting, EPGs, and (Channel) Five existed...

There was a "quality threshold" tacked on to the franchises - though it was somewhat arbitrary - and there were some amazing deals done. Central got their franchise for £2000, others bid tens of millions...

Of course since then, all the English,and the Welsh, franchises have been lumped together as ITV plc, with just Northern Ireland, Scottish/Grampian, UTV and Channel remaining separate, and with GMTV a 75% ITV plc owned operation. ISTR that the most recent round was more a renewal process...

How much does ITV plc pay for its analogue franchises these days?

I also recall that at one point ITV only paid tax on advertising revenue generated by analogue stations, with digital adertising revenue being tax-free, to encourage ITV to embrace digital?

As for the one PSB argument - a non-starter IMO as different broadcasters offer different things. I'd hate all our PSB programming to be produced by the BBC just as I'd hate all our entertainment output to be produced by them too.


As for the "conditionally granted" spectrum - thankfully OFCOM have finally said they'd lose the automatic right if they gave up their space, but they indicate it would be sold to the highest bidder rather than tendered to other commercial broadcasters who might want to step into ITV's shoes (though they do mention the BBC and C4 could get some of it). Not seen any reference to the EPG situation though.

As things stand though it would be of no advantage to Five too give up their PSB status - they don't have enough big commercial hits to dump their PSB status - and indeed in some cases it's been to their advantage, certainly with children's programming.


ITV though do have the SDN mux to fall back on, although some channels on that are locked into lengthy contracts. Has the idea though of spreading ITV's PSB responsibilities across it's portfolio, rather than concentrated on ITV1, been floated by OFCOM though. Certainly CITV was used as a bargaining tool to remove the kids programming from ITV1, and it's an out of date argument now but when it was running I always assumed that eventually regional news would move from ITV1 to the ITV News Channel.


Really though if ITV don't want their PSB responsibilities that shouldn't mean the C3 licences are just forgotten about. OFCOM should be seeing if their is interest from other companies - and then we'll see how ITV feel about their PSB status when they face the threat of their network being broken up once again!

Which there is, wasn't there some local business group who offered to buy border TV from ITV plc when they put forward the proposals to scrap lookaround?

Proof being viewing figures. If it pulled in enough viewers for ITV then it would generate enough profit, and ITV wouldn't mind having to do PSB commitments.

ITV is in a mess at the minute, they need to sort themselves out and the easiest way in a business where advertisers are going elsewhere is to make sacrifices, and those sacrifices ITV want to make are those which cost too much and don't bring in enough profit.

Yes, there is the argument that ITV are only where they are because of PSB status, but should they really have to do what clearly isn't in demand which affects the overall business, and subsequently other PSB regulations?

The PSB regulations are far too old and demanding for this day in age IMO. OFCOM are right to rethink what they should be doing.

If ITV were to stop being a PSB, would they just lose the third EPG slot and that stream or would they lose more? If they would just lose the third EPG slot and the stream then I wouldn't put it past them to hand in their license as on Freeview they will be able to put it on channel 6 and ditch ITV2+1 or most likely CITV in order to rehouse the rest of the channels ...

If ITV were to stop being a PSB - they'd lose both their guaranteed EPG positions (which are "virtual" placemarkers in the DTT system) and also have to hand back the spectrum that carries :

ITV1 Analogue (their analogue slot)

ITV1, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4 and CITV on DTT (their allied chunk of UK Freeview Multiplex 2, shared with C4 and Teletext)

It might also cost them their possible slot on the new DVB-T2 HD Freeview multiplex. BBC HD has a guaranteed slot - but ITV, C4 and Five were all able to bid - as PSBs - for the other 2.

They'd continue to have the spectrum they pay for commercially on the other muxes, that currently carries ITV2+1, and they now own Mux A (which carries TopUpTV, and Five's channels along with a bunch of shopping channels - though AIUI the current contracts for Mux A run until 2010?)

ITV could continue on DSat (which they currently pay the market rate for transponders on) - though Ofcom may no longer require that Sky put them so prominently in the EPG (103 for ITV1 etc.)

My betting is that ITV are considering whether switching to the spectrum they own, and returning their PSB spectrum, is a price worth paying in the longer term, post DSO?

It would also get very messy in Northern Ireland and Scotland, though less so in the Channel Islands, where there is no Freeview currently AIUI.

My dream solution would be this; ITVplc and C4 create a joint venture for PSB programming and revenue generation, "C3+4 Operations Ltd." In a proportion laid down by Ofcom, a certain number of programme hours per week on both "ITV" and C4 (main channel) would have to be programmed financed and produced by C3+4Ops. The revenue would be ringfenced from ITV Sales and Channel 4 Sales so that money from C3+4 couldn't be used to finance ITV Network shows or indie commissions for C4.

How these hours would be spread around the week would be C3+4's choice, but during these hours transmission control would switch from single national stream to a regional stream. Although playout could still in theory come from the national centres, a requirement would be stipulated, for the sake of local employment, a need for a small operation which provides a local presenter in the region, and a local sales team that is able to raise advertising from regional firms to bolster the money that the main sales centre derive from the national and multinational advertisers.

As part of this, ITV would be rebranded as C3 (or just 3 on screen like 4) and the full suite of ITV channels would be disbanded. Instead, content that currently gets shown on ITVs 2, 3 and 4 should find a home on either More4, E4 and perhaps one more channel; ITV3 or 4 for instance could give way to a single replacement, "Best of 3+4" - the advertising on which, during ALL hours, could be used to finance this type of output. There would be a rule that only shows that have not been in production for 3 years or so can be shown, for reasons that will become clear below.

The type of output which C3+4Ops would be expected to provide would be:

* Regional News
* Regional Current Affairs
* Leisure and Cultural Shows
PLUS
* Regional entertainment shows - just like the way many ITV shows started off on one region then became part-networked, then fully networked. A quota would be applied requiring a mix of drama, comedy, music and variety.

Part of the Ofcom regulation would be to allow C3+4 to consider moving a successful 'region only' entertainment show to the network in order to take advantage of larger budgets in return for higher advertising gain around it. This would mean the show gets made for "ITV Productions" as it is now instead of C3+4.

During C3+4 hours the old mix of community announcements - i.e. plugging local events, charities and causes, 'budget adverts' for small businesses - á la Central's "Business Breaks" would return.

C3+4 would also be responsible for providing the 4Learning service, and encouraged to share talent and production facilities and expertise from the C3+4 setup - both regionally and from London, with or without indies' help. The cost-saving incentives would be promoted of having these shows made by small close-knit teams that do not have to float their services on the open market and get 'booked-in' but, like the old days, can provide services to each other in a mutual 'cost sharing' environment that each production centre pays for using a more evenly spread and more stable income stream - i.e. that is protected from the 'boom and bust' effects of national advertising/sponsorship trends.

C3+4 would be allowed, and encouraged, to seek revenue from activities that benefit the community; such as careers advice initiatives with local businesses; i.e. employers effectively 'sponsoring' roadshow events, which as with Central and Granada's "Jobfinders", would link the TV service with the 'in the street' service and help foster a feeling of public loyalty in the broadcaster.

In this way neither ITVplc nor Channel 4 would have to shoulder all the risk of losing money on non- or low-profit ventures, would have a means by which initially low-profit and low-budget ventures can be monitored for success which could be harnessed and developed into something more; momentary shortfalls in national advertising can be balanced across the two organisations, and therefore less erratic scheduling and mid-series cancellations will occur. Lower taxes could be levied on C3+4Ops than on C3 or C4 in their 'national network' mode, as an added incentive.

BTW Under this plan, all requirements for 3 to have national news bulletins would be removed; 3 would only be required to provide regional news. All national news would be moved to 4; in the style of Channel 4 News, but rebranded back to simply ITN News with subtle reference to 3+4 on all. In this way at the end of ITN Regional News on 3, the viewer can be pointed to find out "all the latest events in the rest of the world by flicking over to 4". 4 would be expected to have a late ITN News which would be the new News At Ten - but probably a bit later again, at 11. As a special case, scheduling and advertising revenue on 3 during the time this is on would be handed over to 4. Advertising revenue during the late news on 4 would go to C3+4Ops.

Well, that's my vision. What's yours?!

Certainly noggin I wasn't suggesting that the current regime was optimal. I don't know the details of how everything works, which was why I was talking in more general terms.

There is of course a trade-off, in that you want an efficient outcome that effectively values the spectrum, but you also don't want to insist on constant re-auctioning of the spectrum because that would likely act as a disincentive to investment. Assuming that spectrum rights holders have the ability to sell it off themselves to another party, then in principle you would only need to auction off the spectrum once, and let the market take it from there. Of course, there is some inconsistency there moving from analogue to digital, which are technically two different services, yet for the viewing public should amount to much the same thing. That is to say, whether viewers are watching (say) ITV1 on analogue or digital, they're still watching ITV1. It would be, as I say, difficult to auction off the digital spectrum separately without any regard for the analogue rights holders.

I think you'd also have to legislate for broadcast standards - so that a common EPG, interactive system, modulation scheme etc is used, if the broadcast users don't provide receiving equipment free of charge. Otherwise the public could quickly end up with obsolete boxes as spectrum owners upgrade to new transmission tech.

There is also the issue that the spectrum is widely regarded as "public property". Yes - the public benefit from high spectrum sale costs as it offsets taxation as a way of funding government, but equally there is a general expectation that "public property" (i.e. terrestrial spectrum) should provide "public good". Whether this is through providing broadband in areas that don't have ADSL, improved mobile telephony, or high definition TV can be debated.

Personally I think that within 5 years or less, standard definition TV will be viewed in the same way as 405 line black and white TV. Obsolete. It won't be seen as a luxury, it will be seen as a base-level. If UK DTT remains stuck as a predominantly SD-only ghetto, things won't be looking good for terrestrial TV - and you may as well migrate Freeview to be a mobile TV platform, with Freesat the static TV distribution system.

The only way SD will become obsolette is if SD frequencies are turned off and people are forced to go HD - which isn't going to happen, certainly not in the near future anyway.

And by the time it does, HD will be so last decade anyway.

I would have said you could just auction off the spectrum and let the buyers determine what it should be used for. That way you get maximum value out of the spectrum. Like anything else, it's a scarce resource - there's only so much spectrum available. The market is more than capable of resolving questions of scarcity.

no, that way "they" get maximum value out of the limited spectrum, what the public want is "good" value, and the differences are quite large.

SD production will be obsolete by 2013 (and most shows will be HD well before then), and it will be nearly impossible to buy a non-HD display a long time before then... (It is quite difficult to buy a non-HD display now...)

Whilst SD transmissions may continue long after this point - they will be, too all intents and purposes, obsolete, as HD broadcasting via satellite will be taking over.

Sky have announced that their new broadcasting centre, due to open in 2011, which will house all their non-News studios and transmission operations, is going to be capable of working in the new HD standard of 1080/50p... (If they decide to broadcast in that format it will require new receivers and new transmission standards...)