Ofcom's report into Ch3 and Ch5 Licence renewal

It's hard to say how much interest they would attract, but considering the interest that the last government's scheme gathered, where third parties would provide ITV's regional news and this is despite ITVplc literally having its cake and eating it in regards to advertising revenue and even branding of the newscasts, I would say there's a good chance that Central, for example, could quite easily see a bid from a party promising a dedicated service for the East Midlands and perhaps even the old Oxford area, perhaps even with the odd non-news regional programme here or there.

The lack of regional news or programmes on ITVplc regions is not just to do with money, though there is less of that these days. Along with their embarrasment of their regional past, the lack of competition and the fact they expect to never have to contest their franchises is probably the primary reason.

Certainly, like you mentioned above about STV's news service, it's interesting that the Tayside area can justify a dedicated news service, yet the much bigger East Midlands apparently doesn't.

Before anything like this happens, why hasn't one of the biggest problems been addressed? England has various regions for the BBC and ITV, then its nations for everywhere else, why?

I guess it's population based?

Scotland has a population of around 5 200 000.
Wales has a population of around 3 000 000.

Greater London has a population of around 8 100 000 (almost the same as Scotland and Wales combined - and still covered by a single region)
The North West of England has a population of around 7 000 000 (larger than Scotland and more than twice the size of Wales and still covered by a single region).
The West Midlands has a population of around 5 600 000 (Larger than Scotland, a single region).

So - comparably the Nations are getting pretty decent coverage for their population size in comparison to other English regions. The bottom line is that England has a population of over 50 000 000 - that's nearly 10 times the size of Scotland, and more than 15 times the size of Wales.

But then there's The Channel Islands...

I don't get ITV's embarrassment with their Regions...if there was no 'original' ITV Regions, then today there would be no ITV plc. Although it must be said Ofcom don't exactly help ITV embrace their historical Regions either by taking very few BIG decisions that would help provide this type of Programming such as amending the Contract Rights Renewal agreement etc. I still feel ITV Plc should be providing at least 39 minutes of sub-Regional News per weekday (10 minutes at weekends) and at least 30 minutes a week of Non-News Regional Magazine programming, to provide REAL competition to the BBC's service (the fledging Local TV services are another page entirely in my opinion).

If ITV want no Regions, maybe they should be asking Ofcom if they can bid for the Channel 5 Licence...they shouldn't have it both ways.

How do you work that one out?

I mean if there was no ITV regions to merge into ITV plc, then there would be no ITV plc. Not old companies like ATV etc.

Which is exactly the point. You couldn't say the same for the BBC or any other UK channel though, which makes ITV different. ITV don't like it though.

If ITV hadn't have been created with a regional structure it doesn't mean that it wouldn't exist at all now in 2012 in some form.

I think what he means is that ITV was a result of its component regions, whereas the BBC wasn't; its component regions were a result of the BBC.

Yes that sounds about right.

I don't think this is fair comment at all.

Many of the regional operators were victims of circumstance. The smaller stations were, I believe committed to the regional model, and would have continued in that vein for as long as they could, had the laws governing ownership not been relaxed.

Most of these companies were either gobbled up in hostile takeovers, drained of cash by the auction to the point where they just wanted to sell up, or were killed off by greedy, larger neighbouring contractors.

I think it is fair to say that the big 5 were after a single ITV from the start, but the smaller companies were dragged kicking and screaming into the deal in many cases.

My own local station was a case in point. Locally owned, with little ambition on the network stage other than a cast-iron commitment to public service programmes (look at their network stable -- nearly all of it was niche, and/or PSB). They saw themselves as a community employer, and I see no evidence that that would have changed. They weren't even particularly interested in profit -- as long as their owners saw a workable return on their investment they were quite happy to keep the station running with fairly nominal profits, with much of the surplus just ploughed into regional programme making.

This model was seen as weakness by much of the rest of the industry, but I think it was a strength. Ultimately though, post-1993, it was going to be a money pit for little return (due to Granada, quelle surprise), so the owners sold up.

All this guff about how awful it is that things aren't as good as they used to be for regional television ignores commercial reality.

Until 1982 the ITV companies had a monopoly on commercial television advertising in the UK (1993 really, when you consider the ITV companies were selling airtime on Channel 4).

There was plenty of money sloshing around with that privileged position. So they could spend oodles of money on programmes. Unsurprisingly, the minnows in the system spent a disproportionate amount of money on the only programmes they made - regional ones, including the regional news.

Then Sky came along. And other channels too. And the money and audiences started to get harder and harder to come by.

ITV didn't have to try hard to get big audiences in the old days. It got big audiences because there was a lack of choice. The advertising money followed.

That privileged position meant there were PSB regulations. As that privileged position has been eroded, it's only right that it doesn't have to foot the bill for so many PSB obligations.

ITV companies were allowed to merge from the mid-90s (if they hadn't been, imagine how many might have gone under by now).

As money became harder to come by, the focus moved to cutting costs as well as ill-fated attempts to diversity (ITV Digital, Friends Reunited etc).

Regional news programmes' audiences are older than average (and getting older). They are dwindling. Younger people have other things to do (such as looking at internet forums).

If new channels hadn't come along, ITV could have gone on making lots of regional news programmes.

The price we pay for having hundreds of channels broadcasting stuff of often dubious quality is the loss of that sort of programming.

The move to digital terrestrial broadcasting has exacerbated that situation.

I don't like it either. Welcome to capitalism.