Ofcom's report into Ch3 and Ch5 Licence renewal

In what way? They're the most popular commercial channel in the country, making a profit for the first time in years, they broadcast some great critically acclaimed programmes recently and won 'channel of the year' last week

Would it not be better if Ofcom get its way and only has 5 licences for ITV and also takes away all the ( government ) draft rules, but allow for Local Tv companies proper slots on ITV English network IE

* 5.30pm - 6.30pm and 1030 -11.30. it would take over the Ch6 idea and also let more people provide some local tv. 30 different small station like channel M providing Local news and some local programmes on itv.

Of course ITV would have to still pay to help run these services Ie its current £40-50million

TVS and the independents lobbied heavily for the creation of the Network Centre. The idea was to break the hold the Big 5 had over the network schedule. Before that the Big 5 effectively had control over what programmes were screened in what timeslots in the prime-time ITV schedule. (Of course as each company was independent they were free to ignore the ITCA's "guidence" as to what programmes aired when - as long as they aired the news - but in practice by the 1980s the peak time schedule was the same everywhere). TVS were particularly sore over the old networking arrangements (the Programme Controllers Committee) as they were as big as a major in turnover terms, had the most lucrative advertising region in the UK, yet were treated a minor as far as the system was concerned.

s39 Broadcasting Act 1990 requires Channel 3 licencees to enter into networking arrangements and gave the ITC power to impose networking arrangements if the ITV companies failed to do so in the first two years of Channel 3's existance.

As I recall it was made very clearly that the only networking arrangements acceptable to the ITC, would be those that required a person independent of the licences to be in charge of commissioning and scheduling programming. Thus the role of ITV Director of Programming, and with it the ITV Network Centre, was born.

And that when it all started to go doon the pan, when you start separating functions... we have seen what has happened. Network centre also killed of some long running series.

Which is essentially a fiddle to let Granada off with big fines

I was thinking in terms of sticking to the conditions of their licences, myself.

They're irrelevant and have been for years. The fact is that ITV as a broadcaster is doing rather well at the moment

Yes, and for running things like phone-ins... hence why Channel found itself under the spotlight a few years ago during the dodgy quiz/TV fakery storm.

TVS actually lobbied to become part of the Big '6', but it led to the ITV system being looked at the then the creation of the network centre as a result, it's not really what they had intended/wanted to happen.

I've seen some ITV programmes, such as Alan Titchmarsh's afternoon talk show from two or three years ago, credited on paper as a Channel production (never saw the programme so not sure what credit it was given on air). Also, oddly, Loose Women in 2008 was down on paper as an LWT production. I'm not sure why - something to do with which department's budget was used?

I don't know how true it is, but I read somewhere that the reason Channel was responsible for the compliance issues was because any fines were proportional to the station's income/profit - and Channel being the smallest company the fine would therefore be less. However, if their only role was to oversee complaince and nothing to do with production, I don't know how that would stand up in court.

It could stand up in court, there were many occasion where an Itv company was used to traffic programmes on to the ITV network as was the rule back then. One show that fell in the this bracket was "national tv awards" and one year Grampian was responsible for it, in not sure how much say there had in it but there did have finely say before it went to the network. ( well there neck would be in the line)

STV were also responsible for the likes of Art attark etc but most of these series also never saw glasgow...

But as pete has said;


That what it has come down to, nowadays, but because all companies has to put something on the network Ie 1993 broadcasting act.. channel gets used for bigs show I think for the above reason.

That would be responsibility of the relevant Channel Islands authorities I think. The Channel Islands are nothing to do with the UK government, although links exist where required, such as 'piggybacking' on UK TV networks