Talk:ITV (TV network)/Archive 2

A paragraph about the old ITV Schools service

I think we should add a paragraph about ITV's schools service

• The launch in 13th May 1957
• The move of ITV School service from ITV to Channel 4
• Launch of ITV Schools on 4 (On 14th September 1987)
• Drop of ITV Schools service in 1993 & the start of Channel 4 Schools

I think we should...

I think we should add infoboxes to all of the ITV companies

A idea

I think we should add a box on each ITV company like this

{{start box}}
{{succession box one to one| title= London Weekend Franchise | before=[[Associated_Television_Network|ATV]] |after=[[LWT]] | years=}}
{{end box}}

But without Preceded and Succeeded and change it to "Win From" and "Lose to".

--RaptorX 18:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

ITV Local

I think someone should start a article about ITV Local (Broadband Internet Service)

This new internet TV service has started its trial in the Meridian Region with Hastings TV and Brighton TV.

You can have a look on http://www.itvlocal.tv/

RaptorX

Thanks for the person that added the paragraph about ITV Local (RaptorX 10:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC))

Proposal to rename

I propose we rename this article History of ITV - that is essentially what it deals with, with ITV plc and ITV1 containing mainly current information. --Rdd 13:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a bad idea, ITV is the name of the network, ITV Plc is the company which operate a part of the network under the ITV1 brand. Other parts of the network other than ITV Plc include SMG and UTV. -- Keith 15:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Reorganising

IMHO, this article needs reorganising - no clearly defined sections etc. I'll have an attempt when I have some more time, but if anyone wants to have a go themselves... Marknew 18:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have produced the beginnings of a possible replacement article for ITV that will hopefully have a better structure - please look at it, criticise it and modify it! - Marknew 16:28, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I feel that, although it is not completely finished yet, the replacement article is now (hopefully) good enough to replace the existing one. Please can anyone interested please contribute, so that all the gaps are filled in! Any comments to my talk page please... - Marknew 22:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Future franchise auctions

Something I was left wondering which might be worth mentioning: will there still be franchise auctions despite the current hegemony? (I'm assuming there will, but reading this you might get the idea that the current state of affairs is permanent.) Marnanel 14:22, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Really late reply here... I don't believe that there will be any future franchise auctions; the Act introduced in the early 1990s allows existing franchise holders to apply to renew their contracts (I think). -- Marknew 20:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Newbie/possible idiot alert

That'd be me.

I've spent the last week observing how the Wikipedia works - it looks like it works great, a real collective operation and one I want to add my limited knowledge to where possible.

But despite that week trying to learn, I'm obviously still a complete newbie and will have made hundreds of stupid errors - that's what newbies do, of course!

So can I ask a favour of Wikipeople with more experience and knowledge than me? Please can you look at my contributions so far (I've acknowledged stupid things I've done that I've noticed) and let me know - in calm, patient words of one syllable or less - what I need to learn from?

BTW, the two new articles I've added are edited versions of articles from http://www.transdiffusion.org/ and are definitely used with permission - they're Open Content via CreativeCommons, plus one was written by me and one was written by my boyfriend!!

User:Redvers ... and there's a way of inserting the date and time here. Oh, learning curves, what fun.

You're not an idiot, and thanks for asking for advice. I've put a reply on your talk page. -- Arwel 22:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ABC Weekend TV

I'd like to canvas opinion for a change of name to the article currently called Associated British Corporation.

This title is not incorrect; however, it's not correct, either!

ABC's company name was "Associated British Cinemas (Television) Limited". On air they used both "ABC Television" and "ABC Weekend TV" (the latter spoken and used in press adverts, the former used on idents and on letterhead).

The name "Associated British Corporation" was a name to fit an acronym - there was never a company of that name; that name appeared on export copies of "The Avengers" and on the parts of the company that didn't go towards making up Thames Television.

Therefore the article as it stands is calling the company by a name that most, if not all, viewers and executives didn't. By extension, this isn't making life easy for ABC-searchers.

I'd vote for using "ABC Television" as the name, unless ABC-US has already grabbed this. If so, "ABC Weekend" or "ABC Weekend TV" would make more sense historically and factually.

BTW, calling the article "Associated British Cinemas (Television) Limited" wouldn't work, either: that was the company's name but no-one knew it by that name outside of the Company Secretary!

Opinions?

ITV moved to Independent Television

Hello, I notice from my watchlist that this article has been moved to Independent Television. In my opinion, this move should not have taken place as it goes against the decisions made for other articles of this type; for instance, the following was posted to the British Broadcasting Corporation talk page before it was moved to BBC:

I propose we move the page to BBC. They are just initials to most people, I suspect. As precedent - we have CBS, NBC at the abbreviated form, as well as NASA. (ABC is at American Broadcasting Company, but only because ABC really needs to be a disambiguation page). Morwen 10:58, May 22, 2004 (UTC) (from Talk:BBC/Archive4).

In addition, the majority of pages which link to this article use ITV, not Independent Television. For these reasons, I will move the article back to ITV tomorrow unless an argument for the move can be made. --Marknew 14:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Article has now been moved back to ITV. --Marknew 20:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

1990 Broadcasting Act

I re-added the section about the 1990 Broadcasting Act since I couldn't find out why it was removed, and because I found it very crucial.

Another point about the things from the ITV3 logo and down: I thought ITV2-3-4(-5-6-7-8-9-10) as well as ITV News Channel and ITV Local were something ITV plc launched and owned, not a part of the "ITV Network" (which this article should deal with). I would propose changing much of the text from the ITV3 logo and down so that it doesn't focus that much on the things ITV plc do. Väsk 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That’s what I thought, but the powers that be have decided that this article is now the History of ITV (Network) and the article about ITV1 is about ITV (Network) today, even though ITV1 is only something to do with ITVplc, the whole Wikipedia ITV thing needs to be sorted out, it mainly deals with ITV Plc, and largely excludes SMG Plc, UTV Plc and Channel Television, there are plenty of mentions about ITV Digital, ITV2,3,4,News Channel (excluding the ITN\ITV News), but nothing about UTV Internet or U105 in the main ITV article? IMO all the stuff to do with Carlton\Granada\ITVplc should be in that article, this should be about "Channel 3" as Ofcom calls it. :: Keith :: 23:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I made quite a lot of edits in the particular sections, and also removed some text. I tried to sum it all in an "Adapting to multi channel television"-section, which I think is good (although it needs some improvement, perhaps). In this section I also added a short section about what UTV and SMG are doing to adapt. Väsk 19:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

am I reading this article correctly?

Hey guys, from reading this article, I get the impression that ITV was created by an act of Parliament, and is not a private venture. Is that correct?

Here in the great nation of the United States of America, we do have an eqivilent of the BBC -- the Coporation for Public Broadcasting, which includes PBS (television) and NPR (radio). A great waste of taxpayer dollars in my opinion. However, the majority of brocast media is funded and controlled by private entities: NBC, CBS, ABC, UPN, WB.

Yet if I am reading these UK Broadcast articles correctly, the BBC had some kind of monopoly on broadcast television in the UK until the 50s? Adam Smith was a Brit, so I would think the British would be just as supportive of private enterprise in broadcasting as the USA.

I guess my question is, do the Brits not have equivilents to these companies in terms of terrestrial broadcast, or is all terrestrial broadcast in the UK controlled by the government?

I thought "Four" and "Five" were private companies, not owned, funded, chartered or controlled by the government, the equivilent of NBC or CBS. Am I wrong?

Also what about Richard Branson...does he own a terrestrial broadcast network?

One more question...elsewhere on wikipedia it says there is some kind of law against interrupting the Queen with commericals. :-O Surely that is a joke! Does the Queen presume not to grant the natural right of freedom of speech? In the USA the freedom of the media is protected by a written law, and the private networks often interrupt the President and Congress; sometimes they quit covering a speech altogether and don't go back to it. ROFL :)

The BBC had a monopoly on television broadcasting until 1955, yes. They have two analogue terrestrial channels

The Broadcasting Act created the ability for commercial broadcasting, it did not create ITV - it created the basis to let it run. ITV itself is a (collection of) private or publically listed companies.

Channel Four is state-owned but runs on a commercial basis, and was created by another broadcasting act. There was close to no commercial interest - 1955 until the early 1980's - in running the second commercial station that was allowed, so the state ran it themselves...

Channel Five is privately held

These are the only 5 national analogue terrestrial channels, but there are a large number of ATT stations in cities or regional stations - one licenced per city. The affiliate system the US has, by and large doesn't exist - ITV has regional affiliates but by far the largest block - England and Wales - is entirely owned and operated.

Over 50 other stations broadcast terrestrially throughout the UK on digital systems, very few of which (the extra BBC stations, extra Channel 4 stations and Teachers TV) are state-owned. Another 100 or so broadcast on cable and satellite. A number of these are owned in blocks by one owner - Flextech/UKTV, BSkyB, Chart Show Channels, etc.

Branson has absolutely no television interests, whatsoever

I have no idea about coverage of the Queen but its not like she's on TV very often as she's little more than a powerless head of state; and the one parliamentary channel (BBC Parliament) doesn't have adverts anyway, and coverage of royal events is rarely seen off other BBC channels, all of which are advert free. Its quite important to note that the state has no editorial control over the BBC, and no control over Channel 4 whatsoever - they just own C4. --Kiand 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Broadcasting Acts, which set the legal framework for television and radio in the UK, require some space between any appearance by the Queen and an advertisment. This is partially to ensure that no-one thinks that a company advertising is recommended by Her Maj. However, the original reason was because, when she was crowned in 1953, the ceremony was supplied on film to the US networks. NBC interrupted it with commercials featuring a chimp called Fred G Muggs. Britain was horrified at the disrespect and incongruety of this (the country loved it's new queen at the time, compared to now where the majority are indifferent to her). The Television Act that created the framework for ITV was in its opening stages in our parliament, so the government hurriedly wrote in a clause to prevent the same thing happening here - otherwise, the Members of Parliament would probably have dropped the Bill.

Parliament can be interrupted for adverts, but as Kiand says, the only channel carrying parliamentary debates has no advertising anyway as it is a BBC service.

As for private broadcasting - yes, Adam Smith was a Brit and an institute named after him has dictated much of government policy for the past 20 years, to the horror of many people. However, when it came to broadcasting, it must be remembered that there originally weren't many frequencies available, especially in Europe where we have so many languages and coutries all jostling for the space available. The BBC was founded as a private company in 1922 (no adverts - they were thought to be tacky), but a government report in 1926 recommended that the government take over the company (nationalise it) and set an annual licence fee for the ownership of a radio. This way the quality of the programmes would be maintained. When ITV was established, again, there were few frequencies available on the crowded European wavebands, so the government legislated to ensure that the frequencies would be used for quality programming. By this time we'd had experience of US programming and it wasn't very good. So we made sure ours was. All of this applied really until digital satellite came along. With no shortage of frequencies, virtually anyone can now broadcast and broadcast whatever they like. But with only 60million people, the UK doesn't present as large a market as the US does; so our audiences are smaller and thus we have less networks than the US. We also keep the licence fee to fund the BBC because the quality of the digital programmes is often so poor: that way we will always have something better available on one of the 8 BBC TV services, and the commercial companies have to try harder to keep up. That's well worth £120-odd a year, in my humble opinion! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As goes the lack of frequencies, the UK is a relatively small country, and this is the era when TV was in VHF Band I/Band III, so frequency reuse was limited, and they had ones "missing" on the south coast due to French/Dutch allocations, some more gone in Wales due to eastern Ireland, and again in Northern Ireland due to the border counties, so until the UK moved to UHF-only for new TV services, none could be launched, and indeed a fourth UK-based TV station came to satellite and cable only (Sky One) before the "fourth" station and fourth terrestrial, Channel 4, launched. The same restriction problem applied in Ireland, we only had two terrestrial stations until 1996, when the UHF-only TG4 launched. --Kiand 11:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• looks like all my questions have been answered, as weird as some of this philosophy seems to a free market chauvanist like myself. ;-) I guess I only have more question...is there any more open spectrum left in the UK? If I wanted to start a private company, say, Brian's Broadcast Enterprise, Inc., and I bought a transmitter, assuming I get the proper licenses and all that, is there anything to prevent me from transmitting on Channel Six? (or whichever other channel is left open) If not why hasn't this been done? I guess because there is a perception that the Internet is going to replace broadcast...that might be a correct perception when you think about it... in any case, if the spectrum is so full, I would suggest eliminating BBC, so that We the People can use it for private exercise of free speech rights. I'm sure there are lot of Brits who feel the same about the BBC as I do about the Corporation for Public Broadcating in the USA. ;-) --Brian

We have several "Channel 6" companies - SolentTV in Southampton, Channel M in Manchester, York TV in York etc. To start one, you need to lobby OfCom, the UK Office of Communications that regulates television and broadcasting (like your FCC), and ask them to advertise a fixed-term contract for a specific area. They will consult the local population, find if a frequency is free, locate a position for your transmitter etc. Then they will advertise the licence and you, and anyone else, can bid for it. The licence goes to the highest bidder in a sealed auction. Then a contract is negotiated, where you agree to provide certain types of programmming, minimum broadcasting hours etc, and you become subject to the Broadcasting Acts and the Obscene Publications Act. You also need to show you can afford to run the station.

So even our "free" television isn't "free", but then, if it was, it would be a licence to anarchy. You could have stations popping up everywhere, interfering with other broadcasts and European transmitters, putting out hate, fascism, racism, porn etc. So even the FCC in the US doesn't allow that. Mind you, the FCC doesn't allow Janet Jackson's nipple to appear for half a second, whilst our entry for the Eurovision Song Contest had a boob fall out last year live on TV and everyone just giggled. So perhaps our TV has greater free speech and more flexibility than yours. For another example, our television news is required by law to be fair and neutral. Political advertising is not allowed by anyone. The rights of minority religions are protected. Our state religion, the Church of England, has legal entitlement to have programmes made about it (church services, hymn singing) and shown on Sundays.

The BBC is the guardian of all of this. As the chief public service broadcaster in the UK, they have a legal duty to ensure that everyone gets a fair crack of the whip, that all views are covered, that all programmes are of high quality, that all news is neutral. Because of this, even the small digital satellite channels, tucked away on channel 289 or whatever, have to try to live up to the BBC's standards or they don't get watched by anyone - no one needs to watch them as the BBC is providing the platform, voice and choice they require anyway.

Your receipe for broadcasting is interesting; but it would mean less good programmes and less free speech. It would also be more expensive. Which I think is the opposite of what you would hope to achieve. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Broadcasting in the UK (it seems that Redvers beat me to it, but I'll post this anyway):
    • With regards to terrestrial broadcasting, the radio/television stations don't own the transmitters (I don't know a station where this isn't the case): there is a duopoly between Arqiva (formerly NTL Broadcast - i.e. the privatised Independent Broadcasting Authority transmitters) and National Grid Wireless (formerly Crown Castle UK - i.e. the privatised BBC transmitters).
    • If you want to broadcast analogue terrestrial television, there is a small chance that you might be able to get what's called a Restricted Service Licence from the broadcasting regulator Ofcom - essentially the right to broadcast a low-power UHF service for 4 years - but you may have to compete with others for the licence. But just remember that Ofcom is ordering that analogue TV signals be shut off by the next decade...
    • Ofcom hasn't reviewed local broadcasting on digital terrestrial after analogue switch-off yet, and there is no room for local stations on the present Freeview service.
    • Broadcasting on satellite/cable is much easier to do - Ofcom accept most applicants for these licences. Once you have the licence, just pay a satellite/cable broadcaster to carry your channels. (it may be more complex than this, but hundreds of teleshopping and religious channels seem to be able to do it!)
  • As for the BBC: it has always been on British TVs and radios, and many (but not all) British people have a fond attachment to 'Auntie'. People may moan about having to pay a television licence, but they don't necessarily want to see the BBC privatized or broken up. Of course, there are vocal opponents of the BBC; notably the Rupert Murdoch owned press.

--Marknew 11:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The only additional stage you missed about getting onto satellite is "decide wheter or not to take money from Uncle Rupert", although that options not open to any particularly low quality, shopping, religious, gaming or dating channels. All satellite stations targetting the UK and Ireland are on one block of satellites at one position, and around 11,000,000 homes have an active dish pointing at them. Around 8M pay for the Sky Digital package, the rest watch only the free channels. Entry costs to this are relatively small - satellite carraige on those birds (from someone such as Arqiva mentined above), and if you want to be on Sky Digitals channel listing, £77,000 a year. This means that the UK and Ireland have over 500 channels available to -all- people, about 200 of which are free. These channels are mostly free of the regulatory hell that affects in the US, and theres more of them than there are in the US. --Kiand 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, something else I've just thought of that I think Brian might be assuming - Channel 4, Channel 5, Channel 6, etc doesn't refer to the VHF channels the stations use - theres no VHF TV in the UK at all! Channel 5 mainly uses UHF channels in the high 30's and 60's. They're just regulatory names that the station is allowed change if they want - Channel 3 is always called by another name, for instance, and Channel 5 calls itself "Five". --Kiand 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the last VHF TV transmitters in the UK were turned off in, oh 1985 I think. Back in the 1960s we had BBC1 (North) on Channel 2 and ITV (Granada) on Channel 9, with ghostly pictures of BBC Wales on Channel 6, ITV (TWW/HTV) on Channel 11 and BBC1 (Northwest) on Channel 13. Nobody used VHF for their reception if there was a UHF transmitter available (we had to wait until the late 1970s for a local relay, since we lived in the hills!), since only UHF had BBC2 or colour transmissions. Today, of course, we have the 2012 deadline for shutting down analogue terrestrial UHF transmissions. -- Arwel (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Well, as far as freedom of broadcast, it can't be said that a media outlet whose board is appointed by the President (PM) is more free than private enterprise. ROFL...yes we did have that issue with Janet Jackson's breast, personally I had no problem with it, and I think I speak for most people in the Blue States (the areas that voted for John Kerry for President), but the Christian Fundamentalists are very organized here, and they gave thousands of complaints to the FCC and to Congress to get additional regulation there, as stupid as the rest of us thought it was. As far a fair shake, that's what the free market is for, and free speech.

There is a perception in Europe that the privately funded and controlled media was somehow biased in favor of the war in Iraq for example, nothing could be farther from the truth. News Corproation, which owns Fox, has an editorial bias in favor of the Neoconservatives, BUT they don't have a nightly news broadcast; Fox News Channel is cable only (you have to pay for it). CBS, NBC, and ABC all broadcast objections to the war on evening news just as much as they broadcast the neoconservative's ideas. When they do show opinions (it's mainly just coverage of events, not anyone's opinion thereof), they show both sides. I don't think you guys can watch the NBC Nightly News in Britain, that's why you didn't know this over there; at least, in March 2003 you couldn't have seen it. You can watch it online now, though (nightly.msnbc.com for example). So just remember that: at 1730, ABC, CBS, and NBC have a nightly news broadcast; Fox doesn't. Fox has a local news broadcast at 2300, but they don't have an equivilent of ABC World News Tonight or CBS Evening News, or NBC Nightly News.

Anyone who has a dellusion that the private media here is all slanted toward Neoconservatives (btw, Bush does not have all the power, we have 3 seperate and equal branches of government; the Supreme Court, Congress and the President are equally powerful, and the President cannot declare war, having to ask Congress for permission) need only read the editorial pages of the Times of New York City; they are HIGHLY critical of the war in Iraq. So is the San Jose Mercury News (San Jose ("Silicon Valley") is the 2nd biggest city in California, after Los Angeles). Also there is talk radio where the debates are (television broadcast doesn't do a lot of opinion shows, just news these days); here in San Francisco, KGO (www.kgoam810.com to listen online) has been #1 in this radio market since 1978, and they have two radio hosts who are EXTREMELY anti-Iraq war; Ray Taliafero calls Bush the #1 terrorist. So, there is no law against extremism here; the 1st amendment protects you equally if you are broadcasting BNP (fascist) type ideas or International ANSWER (Communist) type ideas. The thing is though, if you broadcast that kind of crap, not many will listen to it, and you will go out of business. That would be the idea of supply and demand put out by your fellow Brit, Adam Smith. :) Anyway, if I had my way, the FCC would have no power to regulate content whatsoever, including pornography. As it stands however, the FCC has no power whatsoever to regulate political content. You can call Bush a terrorist at will on the air, and the government can't do anything about it. People can talk communism about "evil" corporations and "evil" capitalism and "evil" private property at will and the government can't stop them.

Personally, while I was against the war in Iraq, I did support going into Afgahnistan after the people who attacked us on 9/11, and I think the world's greatest terrorist is Osama bin Laden, and the USA is clearly not a terrorist nation -- look at Iran for terrorist nations -- but there are anti-American, anti-republic people out there who think if you're not a communist or a religious fundamentalist or a fascist (depending on who is doing the accusing), you're evil.

There is something I thought of earlier this morning to bring up...I looked it up, and the island of Hawaii has all five private television networks...ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, WB...so I guess the main issue with not enough spectrum in the UK is that Europe is just to the south, right? Not so much the size of the island? I would think Hawaii and Britain are of similar size, if anything Britain is larger? Anyway like I said, if I were in charge, I would say that low availability of spectrum is a reason NOT to have a government funded TV station...because you have to take care of freedom of speech first, then if there is extra bandwith you can have a government station. ;-)

--Brian

Two things - firstly, Hawaii is much smaller, so frequencies don't -need- to be reused, whereas in the UK they did. Hawaii has one or two sets of the five networks and probably only one transmitter each, the UK has 15 ITV regions and each of those has more than one transmitter (bar Channel Television), and the same for BBC regions.

Secondly, and most importantly. The BBC are state owned but NOT state controlled. The same goes for Channel 4. That has to be reiterated again - they are NOT state controlled. The state has no editorial or any other control over the BBC; nor over Channel 4. The only state-controlled TV station is Teachers TV. The BBC has to answer to the entire nation, as well as citizens of other nations who pay for it through cable companies (Ireland, Holland) to answer to, but they do NOT have the state to answer to. A privately owned broadcaster has nobody but their shareholders to answer to, and will do as they say.

People in the USA usually find this hard to believe, but the best way to ensure freedom of speech in broadcasting is to have a government owned broadcaster. The BBC has some extremely vociferous broadcasters who say things that a state-controlled broadcaster would never allow (Jeremy Clarkson, their entire news team, Jeremy Paxman, etc); and indeed which most commercial broadcasters would find hard to justify to any conservative shareholders. --Kiand 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Kiand, Wikipedia says that the government appoints the board at BBC. So how can that not be state controlled? LOL! Granted, the BBC does tend to be critical of the government, but in the end, they are state funded, and the board is appointed by the government, therefore they are not a private venture; if the Queen/Parliament wanted to stop them tomorrow, they could. The Government can't turn off ABC because it's a private venture. The Founding Fathers in America read John Locke, and Adam Smith, and they believed, as I do, that the function of the government is to protect "life, liberty, and estate" as Locke put it in 2nd Treatise on Government, or as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". ABC can have someone on the radio saying "Bush is the ultimate terrorist". Do they have that on the BBC? I think not. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." says the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the most supreme law in America. --Brian (we also don't have your rediculous TV licenses...PMSL, ROFL... what happens if you don't pay it, they take your TV??? ROFL)

You can be appointed by the govt. and not be controlled by them, once on the board you are not answerable to the government.

The government cannot force the BBC off air as its charter protects it from that, and the Queen is a powerless figurehead. They can, however, through Ofcom, remove ITV's licence at a moments notice. The FCC can take ABC off air anytime they want to, too. And yes, the BBC can, and regularly DOES have people on saying similar things, including having had news reporters accuse the prime minister of leading the country to war on information known to be false.

If you don't pay the TV licence, you go to prison. Its more equal than the state taking money from your income tax, as the US does for VOA, Radio Free Wherever and the government subvention to NPR and PBS - if you don't have a TV you're not made fund it, but all US taxpayers fund VOA/RF*/PBS/NPR.

I've found a lot of people in the US can't understand how the BBC is free. Sorry, you'll just have to actually watch it for a while, as well as have a big understanding of UK law. Watching it will make you see that its freer than a private company, understanding UK law will make you understand how is editorially free.

Also remember that nearly EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in Europe has the same system - Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, etc, etc. It works. --Kiand 18:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that liberty you speak of is an very British invention. For a start the Queen can't do anything. Free speech means that even channels like Al Jazeera are broadcast in the United Kingdom. The BBC is not state funded, it (the BBC) collects the licence fee for the itself, the Government in the form of Ofcom ensures that it doesn't charge too much. If you want an example of state controlled media try Fox News. - Keith Greer 18:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now, I'm watching an -extremely critical- report on a draft proposal from the government about waste managment, based off the opposition to incineration.

And I'm watching it on BBC News 24, free-to-air on digital satellite. --Kiand 18:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There have also been critical pieces on prostitution bill and I'm sure the BBC is not the Education Secretary's favourite Broadcaster at the moment. Anyhoo, why are we discussing the impartiality of the BBC on the ITV talk page? - Keith Greer 18:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

ROFL, I just mentioned the BBC because I was trying to figure out what the nature of ITV is. As I said, in America, CPB usually has one television station and one radio station; the rest are privately owned and operated.

It seems to me that the closest thing to this that the UK has in terms of terrestrial TV broadcast is "Five". So if you want to think of how American TV is, imagine five different channels like Five (all with different points of view etc.) and only one BBC channel in each city. Like here in Silicon Valley, you have ABC, NBC, CBS, UPN, Fox, WB (all private companies, not created by an act of Congress, not controlled by the government), and various private TV stations that are not affiliated with networks. There are only two PBS (equvilent to the BBC) TV stations in the area: KQED in San Francisco and KTEH in San Jose.

The government doesn't require the nonsensical TV license because that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment, which the Supreme Court has ruled amounts to a right to privacy. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So the US Government can't require a TV license any more than they require a license for my bed or my desk.

Anyway, ending the BBC and taking ABC's broadcast license are totally different things. The BBC is a government agency. The "crown" -- Queen/Parliament -- can take away the BBC at any time, it is no different than ending any other government agency. ABC, on the other hand, is a private venture, like Five. If the Executive Branch (the President) wanted to remove their license, they would have to prove to the judicial branch that it is justified. In other words, they could temporarily remove it, but ABC would sue, and while it was being resolved ABC would be back on the air.

Liberty as I am describing it is not a British invention, it is a Greek invention that was continued by the great nation of the United States of America. You guys in the UK still have a Queen and a House of Lords. You have the Church of England which is an established church. Until I think 2003 or something like that you didn't even have an independent judiciary branch. America has three seperate and equal branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

The following shocking statement is required of all new British immigrants to become citizens: "I acknowledge that all governmental authority is derived from the Crown and denounce the heresy that it should be derived from the people."

That is the fundamental difference between the United States and the UK. The United States is a republic. Our Declaration of Indepdence states "government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed". So that's right, Your Majesty, I am a blasphemer! What you going to do about it, Queen Elizabeth? Nothing! Because I am a free man, a citizen of a republic! Your noble birth means nothing on American soil!

--Brian 71.116.106.31 23:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the UK's government affects its television system, and I don't see the need for a discussion on its differences from the US one here. The -exact same system- is used in Ireland, a very similar one in Germany, same in France, same in Italy.

Ireland is a republic. Germany is a federal republic. France is a republic. Italy is a republic.

Additionally, the BBC is a [b]corporation[/b], not a state agency. So it cannot be "ended" by the state. State owned corporations may not exist in the US, but they sure as hell do here, and the worst the state can do to them is privitise them - they can't close them or control them in any way.

--Kiand 09:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are seriously confused as to the concept of Parliamentary Democracy, but you are an American so we can forgive you. In the United Kingdom we choose not to give one man a "President" if you will full control of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of Government. The Prime Minster is only head of the Executive, the Cabinet. The Legislative House of Commons is directly elected representatives of the people, the largest party automatically becomes the Government and second largest party the Official Opposition. The House of Lords is an unelected body and as such has none of the political dogfighting for votes that can happen in the House of Commons, where members need approval of the electorate. As with the House of Lords, The Judicial Branch of our government is technically "Independent" of political influence. Unlike the USA where the President is absolute and largely unquestioned the Prime Minster, in the House of Commons, is just another member of the chamber. When he wanted to go to war with Iraq he had "bend the truth" so Parliament would let him do so. Unlike the USA we are not prepared to handover all civil rights to the government, the detention of people for 90 days without trial is completely unacceptable in the United Kingdom because liberty means something here. - Keith Greer 12:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm British myself, but even I can see that at least some of what you've written here is a load of rubbish! The President of the USA isn't absolute and largely unquestioned, and neither is our Prime Minister! George W. Bush has his fair share of opponents - I mean, some commentators have even started calling him a "lame duck president". And another thing: Tony Blair did not have to go and ask Parliament's permission to go to war with Iraq; he would have been very foolish to have declared war without Parliament's support, but there was nothing in theory to stop him from doing so. Look up Royal Prerogative and see for yourself. Ultimately, what I'm saying is that there are both advantages and weaknesses with both the American and British systems; but for people to criticize either system without having at least some direct knowledge of it is IMO foolish to say the least. --Marknew 13:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The ITV network is a collection of private companies; I'm sure that if the Government decided to revoke their broadcasting licence without good reason, then they would be just as likely to take the matter to court as RTL (the owners of Five) would.

As for your statement that all immigrants have to say "I acknowledge that all governmental authority is derived from the Crown and denounce the heresy that it should be derived from the people." - could you give a source for this statement? Many thanks. --Marknew 13:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian - if anything, the "liberty" of the United States is a French invention, rooted in the philosophical thoughts of the Enlightenment period. The ancient Greek states had almost no conception of "freedom" as we see it now. --86.135.217.213 20:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, France and the United States had our revolutions at roughly the same time. Both based our ideas on Greek democracy. That's why Washington, D.C. has so many buildings with Greek architecture; our government was inspired by Greek philosophy. The European Enlightment and the American revolution have a common source: Greece.

As to the governmental authority statement, I can give my source, but I admit that my source, while British, is biased against the monarchy. My source is http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/pledge.html. I have had no success in finding an independent source for that. So, we should just make that clear. The Republicans could be completely wrong. I am only talking about the Queen to be argumentative anyway, I realize that she has little power in practice. ROFL. I still support those who want the UK to be fully a Republic, however.

Speaking of wrong: Keith Greer, you're completely wrong!!!! America has a written constitution which REQUIRES a separation of powers. The President is ONLY the head of the Executive branch. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states "The Congress shall have Power...To declare War...". That is why the President HAD to go to Congress to get their permission to invade Iraq. It was not optional, it was a REQUIREMENT. Had he not sought permission, he would most likely have been impeached. That's not the same as vote of no confidence; if he is impeached by the House of Representitives, there is a trial in the Senate, and if they convict, he is thrown out of office, and the Vice President becomes the President.

BOTH houses of our equivilent of Parliament -- The Congress -- are ELECTED. Because in the great nation of the United States of America, "government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." On American soil, the accident of one's birth does not determine political power. Noble brith means nothing here; if you want power, you get people to want to vote for you. And the party with a majority in Congress does not automatically get the President; the President is a totally separate election. Just as with Bill Clinton, you can have a right wing majority in the Congress and a left wing President.

"We have a system of law," [Senator] Feingold said. "He just can't make up the law … It would turn George Bush not into President George Bush, but King George Bush." (from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=1418046 )

The President is BY NO MEANS ABSOLUTE. The Brits don't have a written law describing exactly what the PM can do, but the United States does. The Consitution spells out exactly what his powers are. For example, the President CANNOT MAKE LAWS. He can veto a bill that the Congress has passed, but they can override his veto with a 2/3 majority. Also, the President CANNOT CONVICT CRIMINALS. Only the Judicial branch -- the highest office of which is The Supreme Court -- can do so. The executive branch arrests people, but only the court can convict them. And as I mentioned above, he can't declare war, either. He is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and can command them in an emergency, but any prolonged deployment of the military requires the permission of Congress. Not just informing them, but asking their persmission. The President can nominate judges to the Supreme Court, but only with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, which is also elected. The world is watching that process with Samuel Alito, and before that with John Roberts.

You will note that the power of impeachment has been used by Congress against the President twice: Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868, and Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998. See infoplease.com for a list of all the people the House of Representitives has impeached, many of whom were convicted in the Senate: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194049.html .

We have also seen the Supreme Court act against Bush 43 (the 43rd and current president) recently. The Court ruled that Bush 43 cannot imprison men in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for an indefinite period without due process of law. That's why prisoners there are now being given trials. They also ruled that Bush 43 must comply with the laws of the United States of America whenever prisoners are held on American soil or in American custody (that is to say, he can't torture them). Again, we have a written Constitution which REQUIRES that the President comply with the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Here is the current text of the Constitution:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The first 10 amendments (which are part of the Constitution and carry the same weight as the Constitution, and like the rest of the document, are the supreme law of the land):

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

and the rest of the amendments. note that #27 was proposed in 1789 but not ratified until 1992. This is another reason why the Constitution has endured for 218 years (since 1788 when it was ratified).

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Now, since I have shown why America is a superior nation, let's get back to brit television.... PMSL.... here is a question about iTV. The law that established itv did not prevent other private interests from buying itv stations did it?? It just seems odd to me that the land which invented capitalism would not simply have made it the law that anyone anywhere can own a TV station, and all the government does is assign frequencies. That's how it works in the United States, with the embarassing exception about "decency"... (but the executive branch can't pull a license for that without being sued). I believe there is a regulation there that a foreign citizen can only own so many TV stations as well, that's why Murdoch became a US citizen. I also don't understand why you guys don't realize how your civil liberties are curtailed by this TV license nonsense. I heard BBC has considered a COMPUTER LICENSE as well! :-O Although I read about that on a Republican web site...

--Brian 71.116.106.31 21:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well we're never going to convince each other that our governmental system is better, even when ours is. However, the framers of the 1954 Television Act had already seen what American commercial television looked like, recoiled in horror, and deliberately framed the law so that nothing like it could arise here. Regulation of broadcasting is necessary for the simple reason of avoiding interference between nearby (and not-so-nearby depending on the weather conditions) transmitters - remember that ITV breaks the country up into 15 separate areas, and the BBC's transmission patterns are similar. It's not a matter of needing 15 transmitters to cover the country, either - because of geography we need lots of relay transmitters to cover the hilly and mountainous areas, and nearly every one of those transmitters and relays needs to fit the 5 analogue channels into the 48 frequencies available between UHF channels 21 and 68 without interfering with its neighbours. In my area, northwest England, we have 1 main transmitter and 69 relays; in Wales which is adjacent (and I seem to remember from some American encyclopaedia I once read is usually compared in size to New Jersey) there are 7 main transmitters and no fewer than 203 relays! [1] Fitting Channel 5 into the broadcast frequency pattern was a major problem because there simply wasn't room, which is why it's still unavailable on analogue transmitters on the south coast. As for the TV licence, £116 a year is amazingly good value considering that for it we get 7 advertising-free TV channels, local radio stations for every part of the country, the BBC website, not to mention quite a few cultural institutions like orchestras and choirs; if I want a full subscription from Rupert Murdoch, getting everything from Sky will cost £42.50 per MONTH, and most of what's shown is crap anyway. -- Arwel (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Arwel, you don't understand, :-O the issue with TV license is the fact that the government has no right to deny you the right to use a machine you bought with your own money, on your property. In America we have the 4th Amendment to prevent this. I don't know why you guys are so defensive with the BBC...we have CPB here, and it's complete crap, no one watches it. We certainly wouldn't stand for a TV license in which you go to jail if you don't pay the government for permission to own your TV. That's rediculous. Ben Franklin said that those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither, but you guys aren't even doing that; you're giving up liberty for government owned television. :-O CPB is funded by an infinitesimal fraction of the federal income tax revenue, as well as voluntary contributions from corporations and "Viewers Like You". There's no license to own something that is used on your own private land and doesn't affect the rights of others...

Anyway, I phrased my previous question badly, I now realize. What is the difference between Five and ITV? In other words, what need is there for ITV if Five can have a private broadcast network? That is what Five is, right? If you go to London, Five is one broadcast channel, but in Bristol, it might be on a different channel, but the same content coming from the same company? Like CBS or ABC in other words? Why not eliminate ITV (the agency, not the TV stations), remove all regulations with regard to content, and just say "the competition to the BBC is private enterprise"? Is there anything stopping Branson from buying an ITV station (owning it, in other words) and broadcasting All Branson, All the Time? I originally thought the answer to that question was No, I guess I was wrong? This is what I would like to see answered in the article.

I still can't believe there was apparently a time in the UK when private broadcasting was not allowed. :-O That would violate the 1st Amendment here ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."). Ack I wrote too much again, sorry guys... :(

--Brian 71.116.106.31 04:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Five is a single, UK-nationwide broadcaster - same output everywhere. ITV is a UK-wide franchise "affiliate" based broadcaster, which was heavily state organised but never state owned and controlled. Since 1990 it has been on the same footing as Five is now (Five didn't start till 1997), except it has a few regional affiliates still - Scotland, Northern Ireland, Channel Islands.

The reason most people don't bitch about the TV licence is that the BBCs programming is of an incredibly high quality. 8 TV stations, 7 national, 1 world, uncountable local radio stations, extensive website, etc, all free-to-air on digital throughout the UK by satellite and terrestrial.

Branson could buy an ITV region if there was one for sale - there isn't and there isn't much chance to be - and could split off from the network programming with some exceptions - between 6am and 9:25am the time is franchised to GMTV, and between 6pm and 7pm, then I think 10 and 11, theres network news that must be carried. Otherwise he could show his smug grin all day if he wanted to.

However, this is mostly irrelevant and deals solely with analogue channels. Theres a nationwide digital terrestrial network that carries >40 TV stations, including ones owned by Emap, UKTV, BSkyB, Viacom, Flextech, Discovery, Bloomberg, etc, etc. Entry onto this requires a licence - which is easy to get, two months after you apply you'll get it usually - and some bandwidth. This can be acquired, at a price... but its still easy entry. The 5 nationwide channels/networks thing is solely on analogue. --Kiand 08:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The British Oath of Citizenship, which is recited by all newly-naturalised citizens, is: "I, [name], [swear by Almighty God] [do solemnly and truly declare and affirm] that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs, and successors, according to law." and not [2]. --Marknew 11:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, state owned and appointed does not mean state controlled. Remember The US President appoints the suprem court, but as you pointed out above, that doesn;t mean they are not an independent branch of government. Also, as far as I am aware, you can not broadcast anything you like in the US? If I was to arrive there, could I erect a transmitter, choose a UHF channel and start broadcasting hard-core porn in primetime, claiming that the first amendments gives me the right to express my sexual choices in this manner? Or would perhaps a government agency ask me to stop? We both have licensing regimes, both have their advantages and disadvantages. It was decided by various governments not to grant licenses to private companies for a few years. the period of BBC TV from 1936-1939 should at best be regarded as experimental, hardly anyone could watch. it then shut down for 6 years while the UK was at war so there was no tv at all. People only started buying en masse in the early 50s (apophrically, it was the televising of the Coronation in 1953 that acted as a catalyst). ITV is not that much of a late comer when you look at it in this context. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

MrWeeble, the Supreme Court, while a branch of the government, is not part of the Executive Branch; the BBC is. The BBC is no more independent from the PM than the Ministry of Agriculture. I already said that it is ok for the FCC (OfCom in the UK) to regulate frequencies used by TV. If I were in charge, yes, it would be legal to broadcast porn 24 hours a day. There is certainly nothing illegal with giving pornographic newspapers away for free so I don't see why there should be such restrictions on broadcast, but the US Supreme Court disagrees with me. Here is a specific example of what is confusing in the iTV article, for people who have never heard of iTV: "A national breakfast service would launch in 1983 and the franchise was awarded to TV-am." So what exactly does this mean? Prior to 1983, there was no television allowed on iTV at breakfast time? Or prior to 1983, there was no "morning show" on iTV? In other words, who determines the content of iTV? I thought it was just a private network like CBS. :-/ Most odd. :-/ In the USA, with the exception of "indecency", the ONLY broadcaster whose content is controlled by the government is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is a government agency, the equivilent of your BBC. This is both digital and analog broadcast I'm talking about here. General Electric Corporation, a private company which owns NBC, can broadcast a morning or breakfast show anytime they like. They can turn off their antenna at midnight as they used to do, or they can broadcast 24 hours a day. The world famous Howard Hughes once bought a TV station in Las Vegas so he could watch the movies he wanted to watch...if he changed his mind, he would call them up and demand that they change movies, and they would have to do so because he owned it. ROFL (see wikipedia entry on hughes) that story always makes me laugh... ("stop playing Wizard of Oz, you bastards! I want Rebel Without a Cause!" PMSL)..anyway I take it from your answer, Howard Hughes couldn't do that with an iTV station? What if he bought one of Five's stations (including buying from Five the right to broadcast whatever he wants)? Then it would be ok right???? :-/

Actually, speaking of indecency, the Executive Branch (the President/FCC) can't pull your license for that without permission from the Court (which is a seperate branch of government, not part of the legislative branch as was the case in the UK until recently): http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/12/news/fortune500/fox_fcc/ Fox, owned by your friend Rupert Murdoch, was recently threatened with such a fine. US$1.2 million is easily paid by Fox, but it's the principle of the matter. :)

Kiand, the quality of the BBC doesn't matter dude! Come on man, we're talking about your civil rights! :-O Britain has a reputation with Americans for such violations. Fair use quoting of copyrighted material:

"In the [American] colonies, smuggling rather than seditious libel afforded the leading examples of the necessity for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to enforce the revenue laws, English authorities made use of writs of assistance, which were general warrants authorizing the bearer to enter any house or other place to search for and seize prohibited and uncustomed goods, and commanding all subjects to assist in these endeavors." from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html#3

The issue is, the TV is your property, you're using it on your land, it has no capacity to interfere with the rights of others. Therefore the government has no right to tell you that you can't operate it. As I said, we have the 4th Amendment here in the US to prevent the government from doing that, thank you, Thomas Jefferson. My country tis of thee/sweet land of liberty/of thee I sing/land where my fathers died/land of the pilgrim's pride/from every mountainside/let freedom ring...

Marknew, thank you for the correction, I take it you don't support the Republic movement in the UK? If I were a Brit I would send them money. Hell, I might still send them money...

--Brian 71.116.106.31 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ITV franchisers/"Affiliates" are only licenced to operate from 9:25am to 6:00am, and thats all they ever have been licenced for. The GMTV morning programming is a seperate franchise. The same system applies in the US with AM radio stations being licenced for daytime only to allow clear channelling at night, so don't act like you're unfamiliar with it.

I'm going to say one last thing about the TV licence - its a choice. If you pay taxes in the US, you're paying for PBS, VOA, NPR, etc, etc, etc. In the UK, if you choose not to have a TV, you're not paying for the BBC. The US gives you no choice in the matter, the UK, Ireland, Italy etc do. Which is more free?

Five only have one station, there is no regioning of any description and they have no additional stations. However, if a modern-day Hughes bought Five from its current owners (RTL), yes, he'd be able to phone them up and tell them to change programmes once they met the programme code - e.g., after 9pm, pretty much anything bar full on hardcore pornography. The owner of an ITV franchise could do the same, assuming it was outside the regulated times and within their broadcast hours, indeed UTV regularly swap out network programming at the last moment.

Within the unregulated times and within their broadcast hours there is no control of what an ITV franchisee can show other than the programming code - which is less strict than the FCC rules. The same applies to any other non-ITV station including Five, the regional "sixth service" stations, all the digital terrestrial, satellite and cable stations. Including the BBC, who are free to show what they want, any time. --Kiand 21:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Kiand,

Our countries fought a war over the issue of the British government thinking it is acceptable to dictate things like whether a man can operate a television set in his own private home. America won, and it is clear which nation has been more successful (the Sun sets on her Majesty's empire now...but McDonald's is known throughout the world). You seem to think it is about money, it's not. It's freedom, man. Sweet liberty. As Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." If you don't believe me, just ask your friends at republic.org.uk. The BBC isn't "Free" any more than the Ministry of Agriculture...so I still don't know why Brits are so defensive about it. You don't see me getting defensive about CPB. It's just another agency, probably .0000000000000000000001% of the federal budget, if that. I can't add enough zeros on the 1 on here to convey the truth. As far as clear channeling, as wikipedia says, the FCC has AM stations turn down the power at night ("in a commercial broadcast environment this means that power must be reduced at night so as to avoid interference among signals")...that's not the same as forcing them to turn off. The transmitter is still private property, and the burden in a court of law (which is the entity that would make the decision, not the Executive Branch unilaterally) would be on the FCC to prove that leaving it on will interfere with others or cause other problems. Anyway, I think I've learned everything possible from this group, thanks for all your help and patience...if I ever go to England I probably will watch the news on Five, since they were not founded by an act of Parliment! PMSL. --Brian 71.116.106.31 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Five was "founded" - or rather, the possibility of a second 100% private-owned television channel was legislated by Act of Parliament - in (essentially) the same way as ITV. From the 1990 Broadcasting Act, Section 28: "The Commission shall do all that they can to secure the provision of a television broadcasting service for any such minimum area of the United Kingdom as may be determined by them in accordance with subsection (2); and any such service shall be known as Channel 5."

Just because the right to broadcast was legislated by Act of Parliament, it does not follow that the actual channel is controlled by Government/Parliament.

Anyway, state owned television (like the BBC, not ITV) exists in France as well, and that's a republic, isn't it? In fact, in the glorious French republic, not only do they pay a television licence, but their first commercial terrestrial television channel launched in 1984! (Canal Plus). Until 1987, 4 out of the 5 analogue terrestrial channels were state owned - and 3 of those channels are still state owned today.

Maybe you'd like to start trolling the France Télévisions or TF1 talk page instead, telling them all about how much better things are in the utopian United States? By the way, is this the same utopia where the citizens of the District of Columbia still experience Taxation without Representation? --Marknew 10:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems that Brian is now showing us that he is not entirely that familiar with the facts of constitutional law or the realities of day-to-day life, let alone historical facts. Some advice for Brian, as long as your governement supports torture, imprisonment without charge, the death penalty and unregulated powers of surveilance, please dont criticise us Europeans on matters of Civil Rights violations of having to pay a fairly low-value tax to use a product (working it out it's only 0.4% of my income) in order to fund a non-governmental body (despite what you say, it is not even remotely like the Department of agriculture, as while a ministry must show unwavering support for government policy under the collective responsibility doctine, the BBC is FORBIDDEN from supporting the government - it must be fair and impartial). It seems, to me, that you are being purposefully obtuse to put forward you minarchist viewpoint so I am not going to be responding to this further, as this is wholly the wrong place for a discussion on the role of government in liberal democracies. – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Map

The map looks bizarre. Where are the Scottish Islands? --Augustusr 08:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that, where are the Channel Islands? A big square that says 'Channel' doesn't count. ~~ Pete 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ➨ ЯЄDVERS 10:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is able to fix it, sort out Northen Ireland, County Fermanagh is not that big, Thanks. theKeith 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put up an adapted version now, with the Hebrides (though not Orkney or Shetland due to space issues), a modified Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands represented by a map, and using the colours of the 4 main ITV channels (I found the colours in the old one made my eyes bleed). Hopefully this version should be good enough, though if there's any issues let me know and I'll change it. --Daduzi ^talk 16:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does STV extend over Grampian's area on that map? I know SMG have rebranded both Scottish & Grampian to STV but they are still officially separate ITV franchise, the opposite to HTV, which is run as two services, ITV1 Wales & ITV 1 West, but is in reality one franchise and quite rightly displayed as such on that map.

I agree. It isn't accurate to show STV as one area, as that doesn't reflect the regional news/current affairs, etc the former Grampian still broadcasts. It would make more sense to have two coloured areas both marked 'STV'. Confusing, maybe, but more accurate than the current map. Also, sorry to be picky, but if the Channel Islands can be in their own boxes, why not Orkney and Shetland, just to the top left? --Stevouk 23:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Orkneys were left out because (AFAIK) they don't have their own fanchise, so it didn't seem worth including them just for completeness' sake. As to the STV/Grampian thing, if someone can dig up a decent quality (ie not .jpg) map showing the borders of the two I'll upload a new version. --Daduzi ^talk 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

---

If you are using the old names - why "London" instead of "Carlton/LWT"? PMA 05:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See also section

The "See also" section is way too long, and it duplicates links found in the article body. Could someone please do a cleanup here? Punkmorten 10:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Channel 3

On the subject of better specifying the difference between ITV Network and ITV plc, would this perhaps be an idea: To retitle the article 'Channel 3', which is the official name given by Ofcom (while still redirecting from 'ITV Network' and simply 'ITV')? I realise that nobody calls the network 'Channel 3' save Ofcom, but the advantages of this are that (a) it's technically more accurate, (b) it will allow us to introduce the concept of the ITV Network as a less 'official' name (or as a subsection of Channel 3) and thus to remove the ambiguity of the article title as opposed to ITV plc, and (c) make the content regarding the breakfast and teletext providers more appropriate, since technically GMTV and Teletext are indeed part of the 'Channel 3' providers but cannot really be described as part of the ITV Network, which only describes the regional licenses - rather they are national services. I propose 'Channel 3' as the main title, followed by subtitles for the 'regional Channel 3 network' (which could link to a separate ITV Network article if necessary?), the breakfast provider and the teletext provider, followed by a heading for 'Digital Channel 3', which is currently not mentioned as it also is not part of the Network.

Or is all this just pedantry? ;) Your thoughts, please! (In the meantime I've attempted to edit the introductory paragraph to state that it is the Network being discussed in this article, rather than ITV plc). —This unsigned comment was added by WizardT (talk • contribs) .

I agree: the use of the ITV name by ITV plc has led to a lot of confusion. If the current article is moved to Channel 3, maybe the new ITV article could be used as a disambiguation page - pointing to ITV plc and the new Channel 3 article? --Marknew 08:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely disagree for one major reason, ITV is no longer one channel. Channel 3 is Ofcom's title for what we call ITV1. If you move this article to the Channel 3 article, you'll be putting ITV back as a singular channel along with ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, CITV Channel, ITV Play, Men And Motors and anything else they have under the banner of ITV. That, to me, would make the new article even more confusing than this one already is. We need to find another way to avoid the confusion. ~~ Pete 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Independent Television (ITV)

[[File:Itvcorp.png|125px| ]]
Type	Broadcast television network
Country	United Kingdom
Availability	National
Owner	ITV Network
Key people	Charles Allen, CEO Sir Peter Burt, Chairman
Launch date	September 22, 1955 (Associated-Rediffusion); other franchises followed later
Official website	www.itv.com

Since infoboxes are the in thing now, I though I'd offer up this to possibly go at the top of the page, given that most other broadcasters have a similar box. I've filled in all the details I could, all that's empty is the past_names field (which isn't relevant) and the slogan field, since I'm not aware of any current slogan for the company. --Daduzi ^talk 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One slight problem, its not owned by ITV plc, its owned by the ITV Network. ITV plc just happen to own far and away most of the franchises. --Kiand 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks for the info. --Daduzi ^talk 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I went ahead and added the infobox (which I'll confess I forgot all about) --Daduzi ^talk 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with having the title as "Independent Television (ITV)" is it's neither an accurate description, being owned by a corporation, nor is it the common name used to refer to it. The official legal name should be a secondary at least to the most common name, if not necessarily to accuracy, in something as prominent as the title of the infobox.82.23.136.192 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

General Programming Schedule

Does there need to be what looks like a copy of the listings for this week on this article? I can appreciate why someone's added it, but it's likely to get old very quickly. doktorrob™ 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• It was removed very quickly. Overenthusiastic anons and new editors are not a surprise on subjects like this one. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Programme dating?

I've noticed that several of ITV's older programmes have had their copyright dates changed to more recent years. For example, a number of the older Agatha Christie's Poirots made in the late eighties/early nineties have been appearing with copyright dates of as late as 2005 & 2006 at the end of the programme. In some other programmes the whole end-credits have been changed, e.g., Inspector Morse, again with much later copyright dates. Anyone know anything about this? - I know that ITV was criticised a while back for not making enough new programmes but this seems decidedly iffy. Ian Dunster 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Category for ITV plc?

I notice UTV and SMG both have category boxes for their pages. Should one for ITV plc be adopted? Marbles333 12:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to take all the ITV plc stuff out of the current template, to make it a Channel 3 box. UTV Internet and Virgin Radio are not on Template:ITV so why is ITV3 and Men and Motors?  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Because we here are experts on ITV, but general viewers of the channel(s) and readers of the encyclopedia are not. We have to think of what our customers (and they are the readers, not the editors) expect of a navigation box. Do they expect everything - Virgin, UTV Internet etc - or do they expect the basics - the on-air names? Or do they want something inbetween? Do we need a List of ITV-related subjects and link to that? The BBC has one... ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just made a quick one based on the SMG one, see here. Marbles333 11:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ITV Franchise Area Changes from December 4

From December, for the formation of ITV Thames Valley, HTV West and Central are changing their franchise areas, as as far as I can gather:

• Hannington Tx will be going to ITV Thames Valley (switching from Meridian West)
• Oxford Tx will be going to ITV Thames Valley (switching from Central South)
• Ridge Hill Tx will be going to ITV West (switching from Central South)

So concluding this, I have made a quick (shoddy!) idea on what the new franchise areas will look like for December (it's a rough guide made in MS Paint on the new boundaries based on those transmitters' coverage maps, its not official, and new region is shaded in Pink):

Click for image

When we know more about the region, I daresay the author of ITVmap.jpg can edit it accordingly (and unfortunately will have to re-colour coordinate it all over again! Marbles333 13:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not a "franchise" though, its just a sub region that happens to be made up from two franchises. Do we have Central South and Meridian West on the franchise map? No... --Kiand 14:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So there you're arguing that people who will be in the Thames Valley broadcast area will be watching Central South for example? It's been confirmed ITV Thames Valley will become a brand in its own right, and will not be connected on-air in any way to Meridian, Central or HTV (and therefore not a subregion of them), and those who fall in its broadcast footprint will receive "ITV1 (Thames Valley)", not "ITV1 Meridian" or "ITV1 Central". The Meridian West sub-region and Central South sub region are being merged into ITV Thames Valley, and HTV West's broadcast area will be extended to cover the Ridge Hill transmitter. See Media Guardian Article another Media Guardian Article and Digital Spy discussion. Officially, I can't see it having an Ofcom-issued license, but on-air it will appear as a region in its own right. Anyway, be it real or not real, the surrounding franchises are changing their broadcast area. Nice rhetorical question Marbles333 16:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where the "argument" is, its not a franchise so it should not appear on a franchise map. If the actual legal franchise boundaries change, that should be noted on the map, but it is not a franchise. --Kiand 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean the franchise map. There's one which displays the on-air names on the ITV article which is not official (as it uses "STV", "London" and "Wales"/"West" as appose to their legal identity). Apologies for the confusion. Marbles333 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

ITV: Time for a reorganisation?

Just looking around the articles on ITV, I cant help thinking the whole lot is a bit of a confused mess. There seems to be some confusion among editors as to the different terms and names that are used and what they mean in different contexts. There is also a lot of duplication all over the place. For example, IMHO, both ITV1 and Channel 3 (UK) are practically duplications of this article. Both History of ITV and ITV plc carry news of the NTL take-over. I think perhaps it is time for a reorganisation?

I realise that ITV is immensly complicated which makes deciding the structure difficult. However, to get the ball rolling, IMHO:

• ITV1 and Channel 3 (UK) should merge into ITV (this article). A page that discusses the whole network i.e. ITV (Channel 3), its history, its structure, and current programming without constantly refering to the network as ITV1 (a brand name, with limited geographical scope). i.e. ITV should be used as the generic term for the whole network. Perhaps if necessary this page can then be broken down into sub-pages such as structure, history, programming, etc?
• ITV plc should be used to discuss ITV plc as it more or less does now.
• History of ITV should be used to talk about the network in general terms, so shouldnt really have a discussion about a takeover of ITV plc, as it doesnt really affect the network as such.
• ITV channels perhaps better as "list of ITV channels"? Should also refer to channel 3 by a generic name rather than ITV1. Perhaps listing regions as well?
• Does ITV2 rumour really deserve its own article? Would it not be better merged into ITV2
• I'm not sure how encyclopedic ITV Network Continuity Announcers is? even if it is, how correct is the title? Do stv and UTV have there own contintuity? If they do, shouldnt it be "ITV1 Continuity Announcers", or given that it also dicusses other channels "ITV plc Continuity Announcers"?

So what do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pit-yacker (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

• Comment - It may be worth checking Talk:Freeview/Archive 1, which was a relevant discussion on that article which may set a precedent. --tgheretford (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the Channel 3 article is in a bit of a mess - all it needs really is an explanation saying its a legal formality - it doesn't need to go into depth about the franchise holders as the ITV articles do that. History of ITV - that seems in an okay order at the moment but I agree, ITV plc has bugger all to do with the franchise holders in reality. Plus ITV plc is a fairly new company, so does it need to be mentioned in a article titled "History of ITV"? It should also be mentioned that the article is the history of the ITV Network, not ITV plc the company or any other ITV channels. Perhaps we should have an ITV Network article for the modern discussion of Channel 3 franchise holders only - nothing about ITV2, 3 etc - just pure franchsies and companies. The ITV article can generally go into most things.

It must also be included in the ITV1 article that it is not really a channel in itself, more of a generic name used by twelve franchise holders rather than their own names - it is a brand name. It never has been a "channel" and never will be. A clear difference needs to be made between ITV, ITV Plc and regional companies - I suggest never to use just "ITV" when referring to ITV plc as this may cause confusion. The ITV template (page footer) also seems to be getting "too big" and goes into depth about digital channels and web portals - perhaps there should be a Channel 3 infobox, then one for ITV plc, SMG plc, UTV plc and so on. Marbles333 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Forwarding this, should ITV1 get an ITV Franchisee infobox instead of a TV channel one - it's not a channel just a cover-up franchise name Marbles333 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. I shall change the infobox now. --tgheretford (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, hold off changing it for a minute. The {{Infobox ITV franchisee}} needs a few changes (predominately the addition of a "changed names" field) before it could be used in the ITV1 article. --tgheretford (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It could be got around in this way, don't you think? Channel Television is more or less still with us, so I couldn't really include it in some points of the infobox. Marbles333 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ITV Network Continuity Announcers sounds completely pointless. There is already a Continuity Announcer article which seems perfectly sufficient for this purpose. ITV2 rumour has been merged into ITV2 now, which has a history section to which I gave somewhat of an overhaul, recently. I think this is sufficient for the purpose of explaining pre 1990s ITV2 now. Fursday 02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

ITV & Channel 3 (UK) Merger

As discussed above, I have proposed a merger of ITV and Channel 3 (UK). AFAICT they are basically the same thing and do actually cover the same content. After second thoughts, as mentioned by others, I think there is a place for a much reduced ITV1 article discussing that ITV1 is a brand-name but not the history of the network or programming, etc Pit-yacker 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How about keep Channel 3 and just mention that it's a legal formality issued by Ofcom, franchise-based, every 10 years and it started in 1955. It still needs an expanation IMO . EDIT: Bad move merging the History of ITV article - not relavant anymore.Marbles333 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry not sure what you mean by merging History of ITV. I think that and ITV should stay as separate articles. The current history section in this article is very long and in that respect I think separate articles are justified. However, I think there is a bit of shifting around needed - for example the history section of this article should IMHO be a very breif summary of the longer article - AFAICT, at the moment, it more or less covers everything in the history article. Also the History article previously had issues such as future, which does not really fit in an article on history IMHO. Pit-yacker 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, all I asked was why there is information duplicated from the History article onto this one, such as pre 1993 franchise rounds? Marbles333 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The two should absolutely not be merged because they are about two separate entities. ITV is the company that *currently* holds the Channel 3 licence, but is not Channel 3. The articles should reflect this.--81.179.77.251 12:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong there. ITV does not own any franchises; it is a network of 15 regional channel 3 broadcasters, and is more commonly known as the ITV Network. ITV plc owns eleven of the 15 franchises on the ITV Network. Since the term ITV (not ITV plc) describes the channel 3 network, it is realistically the same thing; the name "ITV Network" existed before the name Channel 3 anyhow (Channel 3 is just the generic name used by Ofcom and has been used since 1993). However, I believe the channel 3 article should be scaled down, just explaining it is a legal formality, gifted broadcast space and how the franchises work, but information on the companies itself should remain on the ITV article. Marbles 15:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Immediately - Channel 3 (UK) is a poor article in many aspects, while everyone knows that very poor OfCom reference as ITV. Rgds, - Trident13 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Support - Channel 3 is just a formal name for ITV (which previous to 1993 had no formal name of its own). We really don't need an separate article to explain this.

Programmes Section

Any ideas how this might be tidied up? IMHO it could do with a rewrite. Perhaps looking at some of ITV's older and more notable programming? IMHO the likes of 2DTV arent programmes that we will look back at in 10 years time. Pit-yacker 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The history section

I see that a lot of changes have been made in the ITV article. One thing I don't like is that the history section is way too short. The history is currently summarized into six lines, while other less crucial information get more coverage.

If the article is supposed to give the reader an understanding of what ITV is and how it works, you must have a longer history section. The previous history section gave the reader a brief view on the history of ITV in 2-3 minutes. I would therefore think that the article would be better if the History section was restored as it was before December 17 (although one can shrink it slightly). Väsk 16:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

AFAICT, the old history section had everything that was in the History of ITV article. I dont see how it would be easy to reduce the original significantly. Therefore, the alternative IMHO would be to merge History of ITV into ITV.

As the history section is quite detailled, I thought it was deserving of its own article. At that point rather than duplicate the same information in two articles (IMHO a very bad thing as it means that (a) with time the articles will almost certainly start to contradict each other and (b) the reader will need to read both to get the full picture as information is added to different articles by different authors) it is sensible to have a brief summary with a link to the history article to avoid the ITV article being too long making both easier to read. In that respect I see History of ITV as a "sub-article" of ITV to keep the article size under control.Pit-yacker 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I added some additional, vital information this morning to the history section. Specifically, details about the 10-week ITV strike in 1979 -- the longest in television history. I am far from finished with this research. When I started this morning, a simple task turned into a huge one, so I will come back to this later.Toropop (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)