General : Coming soon to Virgin TV 2014

[muppetman11]

Local TV the brainchild of Mr Hunt , yet more public money wasted.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Only if they give exclusive satellite carriage to Sky. There is no encryption, and no viewing card, for Freesat.

Which is exactly the case with the largest Local TV station, London Live. (Virgin 159, Sky 117, Free/Youview 8).

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by Chris

Only if they give exclusive satellite carriage to Sky. There is no encryption, and no viewing card, for Freesat.

Ah ok.

---------- Post added at 15:30 ---------- Previous post was at 15:29 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Local TV the brainchild of Mr Hunt , yet more public money wasted.

Bizarre isn't it. Almost like the main coalition party wants an alternative to the local output from the BBC.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Ah ok.

---------- Post added at 15:30 ---------- Previous post was at 15:29 ----------



Bizarre isn't it. Almost like the main coalition party wants an alternative to the local output from the BBC.

But the BBC only puts out short regional programmes on its main channel, as does ITV. The idea is that the new local channels will be full time, along the lines of local US channels.

I'm not sure how much public money is going into this - I thought they were going to be commercial channels. I'll have to read up on that.

[toady]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The idea is that the new local channels will be full time, along the lines of local US channels.

I believe they are going to fail, there isn't enough local news and events to fill a daily newspaper let alone a whole channel

I'm expecting the output to be dire and with viewing figures to match

[nicknewark]

Possibly, depends I suppose on where you live, there's always something happening in Nottingham, I would imagine they could quite easily fill an evening channel!.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Local TV the brainchild of Mr Hunt , yet more public money wasted.

Yup, all this money wasted for Hunts vanity project at a time of austerity

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Which is exactly the case with the largest Local TV station, London Live. (Virgin 159, Sky 117, Free/Youview 8).

Yes, it's London Live that I was talking about. FTV would make it more difficult to receive outside London as I would need a London registered card.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

...I'm not sure how much public money is going into this - I thought they were going to be commercial channels. I'll have to read up on that.

Local TV channels are to be run on a commecial basis, but the start up costs have come from grants and by forcing the BBC to give them part of their income from the licence fee.

Expect to see a LOT of Teleshopping.

[cj136uk]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Yup, all this money wasted for Hunts vanity project at a time of austerity



Yes, it's London Live that I was talking about. FTV would make it more difficult to receive outside London as I would need a London registered card.



Local TV channels are to be run on a commecial basis, but the start up costs have come from grants and by forcing the BBC to give them part of their income from the licence fee.

Expect to see a LOT of Teleshopping.

This is NOT license fee money. It was money collected along side the license fee (not for the bbc) which was intended for digital switchover. There was a considerable amount of money left over and parliament decided to spend it on this.

Btw we have perfectly good regional news on bbc 1 and ITV as part of the licenses to broadcast. One poster suggested there wasn't enough news, on these channels. Audience research says there's the right balance.

These local licenses are about the micro city level news and information based. Anything else like repeats of entertainment programs is a bonus, but causes license issues on DSAT. Really London's station should have dealt with their freesat/DSAT licensing issue sooner.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by cj136uk

This is NOT license fee money. It was money collected along side the license fee (not for the bbc) which was intended for digital switchover. There was a considerable amount of money left over and parliament decided to spend it on this.

Btw we have perfectly good regional news on bbc 1 and ITV as part of the licenses to broadcast. One poster suggested there wasn't enough news, on these channels. Audience research says there's the right balance.

These local licenses are about the micro city level news and information based. Anything else like repeats of entertainment programs is a bonus, but causes license issues on DSAT. Really London's station should have dealt with their freesat/DSAT licensing issue sooner.

I was going by this document, but after what you said about the funding arrangements, I have found other articles about the top slicing of the licence fee.

Perhaps it's a mix of both

The BBC will also be indirectly funding local TV by agreeing to buy news coverage from them, according to these other articles.

[cj136uk]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I was going by this document, but after what you said about the funding arrangements, I have found other articles about the top slicing of the licence fee.

Perhaps it's a mix of both

The BBC will also be indirectly funding local TV by agreeing to buy news coverage from them, according to these other articles.

To be clear, the BBC license fee is protected for the time being. Top slicing (of the license fee) hasn't been agreed to (money from the BBC to outside broadcasters).I t is up to Parliament and the public, what happens to the license fee not the Government!

This money (from digital switchover) was collected and held by the bbc on behalf of parliament (it wasn't the bbc's money!) So this isn't top slicing the BBC's money.

Initial startup: These funds (from digital switchover) are covering startup only.

Ongoing: There will be sharing, as you say, of technical resources, news stories, borrow camera etc where there is agreement with the BBC in that locality. No money is crossing hands.

It is thought this will actually save resources for both broadcasters. How viewers will react to say an STV news story on BBC Scotland's Report Scotland I don't know.

I do welcome more "good" news, and news sources. But the local TV proposition needs to be self sustaining and that means finding its own revenue. The public can't afford to pay for it out of taxation. At the moment it isn't viable, hence these residual funds from digital switchover.

As a side note the BBC did enter into micro tv news in the west midlands and other pilots in the UK. The audiences did not warm to it and ultimately it failed.

[andy_m]

Whether it's licence fee money or not, Muppetman suggested it was public money being spent to start these channels. And it is. Money collected to excess by parliament for one reason and spent on another.

[vincerooney]

When do these local tv channels launch??? i'd be interested to see them and see how tacky and cheap they look. i'd imagine i'll be getting "baytv liverpool".

[Media Boy UK]

Over the past weekend I have seen information about an Channel that broadcast on Virgin Media right now is set to close.

Cant say anymore right now due to an 'Do Not Post' order.

What's the point of mentioning it then? Publish and be damned, or else give the information to someone else to publish, if you don't want them coming after you.

[OLD BOY]

Local TV ventures in this country have been dire, but it works in the US. There is no reason why they can't work here if they get the programming right, provided that the geographical areas are big enough to generate sufficient income.

However, these are two big 'ifs', so I hope the people running these channels have the vision to make them different, appealing and successful.

The local channel we had going in the Thames Valley for a few years some time ago was truly painful and boring to watch.

---------- Post added at 12:45 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

What's the point of mentioning it then? Publish and be damned, or else give the information to someone else to publish, if you don't want them coming after you.

Trouble is, Chris, that this could mean they cut him out of information in the future. Mind you, if he can't publish it when they give it to him, it makes you wonder about the value of this arrangement.