[Stooky Bill]

WC and NTL made great fanfare about being able to squeeze telephony (I'd guess that's within an E1) and data channels into their system - would there have been room for that *and* the VBI stuff?

Surely the 'data channel' included the data that was put intended for the VBI?

I assume in the absense of widespread internet in 1993 some of that data traffic was connecting the newsroom production systems. Systems like BASYS wouldn't have needed that much data

[Technologist]

Just for completion - there is a 384Kbit channel with may be available for Teletext
section 10.1 of EN300 174 shows what you can have if you trade Other data for Video bitrate
www.etsi.org 

and as it is a telco protocol if you have a bi diretional Video link you can sneak in two 2 Mbit E1 circiuts
one is More than enough for Basys from a remote site,

[JexedBack]

Great thread. Thanks.
Before LNN controlled the network, who took the decision to take a news flash or change the schedule last minute for whatever reason. Would it have been the London franchisee? Or was there a channel controller to make those decisions?

[eggsontoast]

Great thread. Thanks.
Before LNN controlled the network, who took the decision to take a news flash or change the schedule last minute for whatever reason. Would it have been the London franchisee? Or was there a channel controller to make those decisions?

LNN TX didn't control the network, it just provided playout facilities to the companies that held the franchises.

[Steve in Pudsey]

Was LNN effectively nominated contractor as Thames and LWT had been before?

[nwtv2003]

Was LNN effectively nominated contractor as Thames and LWT had been before?

I believe it was, if not it was the intention. There was a video on YouTube several years ago, since removed about the grand opening of LNN in December 1992, and a lot of it being about the transmission side of things. Greg Dyke mentions in the video something about nominated contractor or that it was their intention to be.

Apologies for the lack of accuracy but it’s been a while since that video was available.

[Bluecortina]

I believe it was, if not it was the intention. There was a video on YouTube several years ago, since removed about the grand opening of LNN in December 1992, and a lot of it being about the transmission side of things. Greg Dyke mentions in the video something about nominated contractor or that it was their intention to be.

Apologies for the lack of accuracy but it’s been a while since that video was available.

eggsontoast has answered this question. Pre 1993 Thames and LWT were the nominated contractors and after this date Carlton replaced Thames in that role. As pointed out LNN provided the technical facilities for the transmission facilities, the actual Transmission Controllers (those who made the decisions relating to the minute by minute running of the ITV network) and who worked within the LNN area, were still individually employed by Carlton and LWT because of their role. This was to change as the years went by as Carlton/Granada/LWT etc all merging and the Transmission Controllers became employees of LNN - but the whole structure of the network had changed by then.

[IronRoad]

This thread is really interesting… right up my street! This might be a teeny bit OT, but it’s relevant…. I’m aware TV-am was fed directly to the TX sites outside of the main ITV distribution network… however who made the decision for it to be transmitted that way? Was it a IBA requirement? Surely it would have been easier for TV-am just to be fed to the ITV companies and they could then handle regional advertising for them etc? And I believe GMTV had its own way of transmission as well, albeit linked to the local companies? Anyone able to shed some light?

[Neil Jones]

This thread is really interesting… right up my street! This might be a teeny bit OT, but it’s relevant…. I’m aware TV-am was fed directly to the TX sites outside of the main ITV distribution network… however who made the decision for it to be transmitted that way? Was it a IBA requirement? Surely it would have been easier for TV-am just to be fed to the ITV companies and they could then handle regional advertising for them etc? And I believe GMTV had its own way of transmission as well, albeit linked to the local companies? Anyone able to shed some light?

TV-am was intended to be a national service with regional adverts.
That didn't last very long, probably no more than 2 years at the absolute most, before they dismantled all that regional stuff to save some cash, as the company was haemorrhaging money like there was no tomorrow. Roland Rat steadied things for a while, until he buggered off to join the BBC and then the strike period was the next saving grace - that and the relaunch of Breakfast Time into a format akin to the original TV-am one.

The arrangement you describe was pretty much how GMTV ultimately did it, it went through the ITV companies. TV-am didn't, it was fed to the transmitters and as David Frost said on the first programme, new studios, new news service and a new national network.

[Stooky Bill]

eggsontoast has answered this question. Pre 1993 Thames and LWT were the nominated contractors and after this date Carlton replaced Thames in that role. As pointed out LNN provided the technical facilities for the transmission facilities, the actual Transmission Controllers (those who made the decisions relating to the minute by minute running of the ITV network) and who worked within the LNN area, were still individually employed by Carlton and LWT because of their role.

If realised the announcers were employed but Carlton/LWT but not the TCs too. So there was a shift changeover on a Friday evening?

Who employed the TC during GMTVs hours?