Local TV

It would still have been hard to do. You could have issued local C5 licences, but peoples aerials are pointing at their regional transmitter.

You'd either end up using a bunch of frequencies that wouldn't be available or having to build a raft of new transmitter locations that are roughly between the city you want to target and regional transmitter. (In the same was that the current local channel for York transmits from Bilbrough, roughly in line with the regional tx at Emley)

Well the cack-handed way the channels are distributed on pay-tv didnt help the situation either. What a mess. These channels didnt stand a chance to survive.

True. Ofcom should've forced Sky to give them a slot for free.

Nothing is free though, they should be lucky to have been gifted a slot on Freeview. Some major broadcasters have paid x2 what a slot is worth (£5 million x 2) just to get their foot in the door.

I'd caution that, in the world of radio discussions, the opposite argument is often made - that instead of awarding regional licences the powers that be should have licensed national stations to take on the BBC instead, rather than left things drift towards that through takeovers and brands. So I suspect your following point would have proven to be true, and people would probably be asking "why didn't they just do a national Channel 5?"

I remember in the L!ve TV book the Mirror seriously considering bidding as part of a consortium, but they just couldn't make the numbers work. Even back then, considering the amount of aerial retuning required, it was a big ask to take a huge number of already established terrestrial broadcasters.

The problem is that the government and public don't recognise that the UK is a relatively small country. One that punches above its weight in many respects, true, but when it comes to having the scale to do certain things we're not in the same league as the US. US local stations are aligned with national networks, have heritage behind them, have huge populations to target and have very distinct differences from each other, as separate states with separate politics/laws.

In comparison, we asked local stations to start from scratch without a solid national spine in a country with a relatively tiny population - you're licensing Ayr, for God's sake - to take on everything else out there. No wonder the people who got involved were overwhelmed early doors, anyone with any sense (and without a vested interest, like STV) would have run away screaming.

Maybe the regional model, used in Switzerland and France would have been a better option? That way, you don't have to super-serve a small town, when as That's TV have done, acquire a local licence, such as Guildford and stretch the editorial area to cover Surrey.

So instead of having local licences for Maidstone, Tonbridge and Brighton, you'd have a regional licence which would use Bluebell Hill, Dover, Hastings, Heathfield and Whitehawk Hill to cover Kent, East Sussex and the Brighton & Hove belt.

If you do that - aren't you close to replicating the BBC South East region through? I thought the point of Local TV was to be more local than the BBC and ITV regional news, and provide real local TV (mirroring local print press)?

I would have said (pace p_c_u_k's post) that even then this would have seemed impractical and out of step with the way things were already and clearly changing, to be honest.

While that's true, the then regional channels would have to find a niche that some of them already have, so not to duplicate what is on the BBC/ITV regional channels.

KMTV are a good example of providing a news bulletin that isn't just a straight copy of SET or ITV News Meridian.

Fact is that after four years of Hunt's vanity project, the areas chosen are too small for most. Salisbury for example can just about support a commercial radio station owned by a media group, so no chance for a local tv channel.

I still think most of us question the need for local TV in the UK at all, or at least a dedicated local TV channel.

I don't question the need for local television, what I question is why it was done in a manner that was never designed to truly establish these services, and why the precise sizing as well. I contend that the government were never really serious about local television, and there are services across Europe and in countries such as New Zealand, where local TV is given the support it needs to survive and thrive. By comparison, this was slapdash and lazy. Honestly, I feel like the greater intention was a means of top slicing the licence fee, rather than supporting local TV.

Well thats not entirely true....