TV3 tries to stop ITV fta in ROI

DMC

Michael Walsh wrote:

Just seen this on DS. Maybe he has a point that sending emails of complaint to TV3 could blow up in our faces.

http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=300048&page=3

But all that means is the TV3 will reinforce their thought that they can get compo. It wont mean ITV will go back to encryption. As I said earlier, it would be cheaper for ITV to pay off TV3, than to pay Sky again....

maisflocke

BrianD wrote:

Anyway I'm bowing out of this one. I thought there would be lively debate on this issue but really there's a distinct lack of knowledge of the realities of programme rights in todays broadcasting environment.

eh.... I, or rather we, are all still waiting for your source of knowledge. Me reckons you are chickening out -not bowing out- as you have realised you cant supply the goods.

BrianD wrote:

It seems that they entire arguement is based "I have Sky therefore I should have it" arguement.

I don't and never intend to have Sky.... but as I have already said, I am legally entitled to it so, yeah, I should have it. I do have FTA & FTV TV because I like to practice my natural rights

BrianD wrote:

Tony I am disappointed that you have resorted to a spurious and irrelevant "you must work for them" approach.

In all fairness and support to Tony, I got the impression you work for them too. Disappointed?

BrianD wrote:

Try and debate the issue (if you can) rather than shooting the messenger.

messenger?? so you do work for them...!

BrianD wrote:

TV3 are fighting a lonely and unpopular battle and good luck to them - after all they are in the right.

Time will tell......

Antenna

ITV are not intentionally covering 'Eire', the coverage is incidental. They are not promoting this in the republic, neither is SKY promoting the ITV FTA availability. TV3 have probably done much more to promote it with the news of their challenge!

The UK want to switch off analogue terrestrial, not everyone with it can receive DTT properly if at all, so being FTA on satellite is considered essential for analogue switch off to ensure full and easiest availability. Its great people in the republic are benefiting, but its certainly not being done to facilitate us - it doesn't come into it. Nor were the BBC thinking of us in 'Eire' when their domestic channels went FTA on satellite - only the likes of BBC World are intended for outside the UK

ITV are in fact using a footprint that is fairly constrained outside the UK, and wouldn't be of use for international satellite broadcasting. However it is not technically possible to have such a sharply defined footprint that would leave out most or all of 'Eire', much the same as terrestrial signals can't be made come to a dead stop at the border or the middle of the sea between Britain and Ireland. Just the same as for example the BCI can't stop radio stations they licence for Dublin being heard to such a significant degree in counties Meath Louth Kildare. It would in fact be possible for a radio station to greatly eliminate coverage outside a franchise area by covering their intended area using many low powered and low-sited transmitters instead of one high powered transmitter on say Three Rock in Dublin - but this would prove rather expensive and technically awkward, just as encryption proves expensive with satellite for non-subscription services.

BrianD no one wants to gag you or anyone else taking a high moral ground, but you have to realise others will have issues with people selecting a high moral ground or not as it suits themselves. If you hadn't been associated with Phantom I ask the question yes or no would you have been over on the broadcasting board defending Dermot Hanrahan and co with their (thankfully unsuccessful) 'high moral ground' legal challenge to Phantom being awarded the licence?

Mayo Exile

Since the main argument seems to be boiling down to programme rights for a particular country here is the link to the "Television without Frontiers" directive mentioned further up the thread. Its from the EU's own website.

Can anybody who can understand "legalese" or has the patience to read it interpret it for this thread!!

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1989/en_1989L0552_do_001.pdf

Tony

Antenna wrote:

ITV are not intentionally covering 'Eire', the coverage is incidental. They are not promoting this in the republic, neither is SKY promoting the ITV FTA availability.

Have to disagree , sky have been sending SMS texts to all independents/installers promoting ITV availability in ROI.

BrianD

I return. I am disappointed that many here are unable to argue the point on face value without resorting to the "you must work for them" routine. Tony, Antennae - what I do in real life has no relevance whatsoever to this debate and again it demonstrates that you aren't able to discuss the topic. I don't know what you guys do or work for nor do I care. Stick to the point.

Mayo Exile the "televison without frontiers" has little to do with this specific issue. It covers a number of issues: creating a european tv market (including production quotas), advertising standards (childrens code etc), tv coverage of major events and that governments should not restrict a broadcaster in one member state broadcasting into another by what ever means (unless the breach certain terms and standards). The Irish Government is not stopping UTV being received in this country by overspill or by any other platform. Sky Digital is a private company is "enforcing" (used loosely) the programme rights of the channels on its platform. It is not uncompetitive and entirely within European law. There might be freedom of movement of goods within Europe but services is a different matter.

When a broadcaster enters into a contract with a programme producer they lock down that contract in every conceivable way for that territory. They will want exclusivity on every platform (D-sat, broadband, mobile etc) within that area. I would guess is the last thing they are thinking of is you the TV viewer/consumer. Analogue is difficult to 'lock down' within reason because of overspill as is catv in this country (because of the way it evolved) but the rights on the very controllable D-sat platform can be exercised. Hence, this is the avenue that TV3 are pursuing and rightly so.

Anyway, the consensus seems to be that TV3 will be compensated - high court action is part of the negotiation. I suspect that in the future many popular programmes will depart from ITV and BBC (though it will be hard for them to ignore the huge audiences both concerns have) as each producer likes to maximise their revenue on a per market basis.

Tony

BrianD wrote:

I return. I am disappointed that many here are unable to argue the point on face value without resorting to the "you must work for them" routine. Tony, Antennae - what I do in real life has no relevance whatsoever to this debate and again it demonstrates that you aren't able to discuss the topic. I don't know what you guys do or work for nor do I care. Stick to the point.

.

Of course it has, just as much as what I do for a living impacts on my view of this, I'm for consumer choice. BTW Brian if you dont know what I do for a living you really have not being paying attention.

Sponge Bob

BrianD wrote:

When a broadcaster enters into a contract with a programme producer they lock down that contract in every conceivable way for that territory. They will want exclusivity on every platform (D-sat, broadband, mobile etc) within that area. I would guess is the last thing they are thinking of is you the TV viewer/consumer. Analogue is difficult to 'lock down' within reason because of overspill as is catv in this country (because of the way it evolved) but the rights on the very controllable D-sat platform can be exercised. Hence, this is the avenue that TV3 are pursuing and rightly so.

This is by far the most coherent rationale you have bothered to offer us BrianD .

Normally Irish Analogues get their programme rights from the US with ONE important concession, they get to broadcast a day or a week before the Brits do. The Brits are jolly decent about that too <group hugs all> . We see west wings and desperate housewives and malcolms and stuff before the UK does.

TV3 , reliant as it was on ITV, was tending to show a lot of the UK stuff in real time with no delay as per US stuff.

TV3 overrelied on one particular source, ITV in the UK, for programming. They did not diversify enough at all in my opinion. Had RTE had the same relationship (with the BBC say) they would be at lesser risk because there would be more OWN PROGRAMMES and US stuff , RTE have diversified their risk in other words. TV3 spent an arm and a leg on CL Footie for example and nothing on commentators <duhhhhh>.

TV3 were utterly remiss in NOT offering to pay ongoing crypto charges to Sky for at least UTV if no one else . I understand they never offered even though this would have been cheaper than the crypto for all of ITV

For their shortsightedness and stupidity and eggs in the one basket(ification) I personally take the Darwinian view of TV3 and their 'grounds' for action and say again **** Them !

For their refusal to provide any service to 40% of 'their own' countries territory I say yet again **** Them ! They only really served the big towns and their hinterlands where there is cable anyway .

DMC

Sponge Bob wrote:

TV3 overrelied on one particular source, ITV in the UK, for programming. They did not diversify enough at all in my opinion. Had RTE had the same relationship (with the BBC say) they would be at lesser risk because there would be more OWN PROGRAMMES and US stuff , RTE have diversified their risk in other words. TV3 spent an arm and a leg on CL Footie for example and nothing on commentators <duhhhhh>.

Also on this, there is a quota for home produced programming. TV3 have shiftily, in my view, used all of this daily quota on Ireland AM, a 3 hour slice housemaids dung, imo. They get away with saying that the Champions League is home produced, even though the pictures are externally sourced and very little production is needed in Dublin. I'd say the most of that budget is spent on Packie and Lawro's air fare!

In 2007, I hope the BCI make provision for 3 hours of home produced programming to be used from 5pm-midnight. Its the least we deserve.

Sponge Bob

DMC wrote:

In 2007, I hope the BCI make provision for 3 hours of home produced programming to be used from 5pm-midnight. Its the least we deserve.

TV3 will use up the quota with a chat show that comes on immediately after some utterly kack reality show where some brainless morons will discuss 'that days ' imported reality show but discuss in a studio in Dublin...naturally.....and hence its home produced.

They will have the cheek to call it © © © Reality Watch © © © no doubt ...even though this here Sponge hereby © © © copyrights © ©that name © © © right now in front of lots of witnesses and I will sue the ****s believe me

BrianD

BrianD wrote:

I suspect that in the future many popular programmes will depart from ITV and BBC (though it will be hard for them to ignore the huge audiences both concerns have) as each producer likes to maximise their revenue on a per market basis.

To where?
Sky one and E4 are already available in both jurisdictions and the other European markets are non English language.
Are you suggesting a new channel(ch4 or 5 wouldnt have the budget to buy these programmes that ITV has so they can be counted out)?
Or an abandonment of sale to the UK and Ireland altogether?
Thats not going to happen.It would be silly to suggest that US programme makers would take no money instead of a lot of money, they are after all capitalists.

maisflocke

BrianD wrote:

I return.

Welcome back.

BrianD wrote:

Mayo Exile the "televison without frontiers" has little to do with this specific issue.

Actually Brian, you are wrong there. The television without Frontiers directive has an awful lot to do with this issue - hence the name Television without Frontiers, frontier meaning border. ITV have dropped that border, but TV3 wish that they remain in the old school.

BrianD wrote:

There might be freedom of movement of goods within Europe but services is a different matter.

Television without frontiers is designed to tackle that issue.

BrianD wrote:

I suspect that in the future many popular programmes will depart from ITV and BBC (though it will be hard for them to ignore the huge audiences both concerns have) as each producer likes to maximise their revenue on a per market basis.

There are not many programmes that will go then, as the BBC and ITV actually produce the majority of their own programming. How many programmes have actually gone from the BBC since they went FTA? I know of "24", which belongs to Fox which belongs to Rupert..... so that explains a lot.....other than that I cant think of anything that radically changed the face of the BBC schedule.




I bet ITV have a small print clause in their TV3 contracts giving ITV the additional right to broadcast freely to the "British Isles" - Like it or spike it, Ireland is geographically part of the British Isles

mjsmyth

Just what are TV3 afraid of?

Is it that people will see that TV3 really is an amateurish channel with 2nd rate presenters?

Is it that people will see the difference in quality of picture and sound between coronation street on tv3 and coronation street on itv?

I watch tv3, sometimes I actually enjoy it, but the standard of a lot of the programs on it is abysmal.

They should be investing the money that this court case will cost into the channel and not into lawyers pockets.

Digital FTA is the way to go, TV3 and RTE need to understand this. People do not want to pay extra to receive their home channels, they should be free on all platforms.

Just my 2cents.

MJ

Tomk1

It would be nice to see an independent Irish tv station ie TV3 Ireland and not ITV Ireland. I don't think the Irish broardcasting licence intended on a station being a clone of an english station.

The issue for (ITV Ireland) is to repersent Ireland and truly become Ireland's third television station TV3.

Elmo

Awh Poor Poor TV3

More Whining from BallyMount. Poor TV3.

TV3 will soon be bought by ITV. IMO. No actual fact to that statement. And where will Rick Herthington be then.

Widescreen

If TV3 at least went widescreen (like they promised last summer sometime) and used the actual ITV commentators when showing the C/League they would get viewers as the TV3 panel is superior to the ITV duds, McCoist and big mouth Townsend.Its just Trevor Squelch they need to get rid of:D Overall , I can't see what the big deal is. Most of this country use cable which carries both TV3 and UTV, so its not a new phenomenon.

DMC

Tomk1 wrote:

It would be nice to see an independent Irish tv station ie TV3 Ireland and not ITV Ireland. I don't think the Irish broardcasting licence intended on a station being a clone of an english station.

The issue for (ITV Ireland) is to repersent Ireland and truly become Ireland's third television station TV3.

Indeed, that man.
Its taking up space on the Irish national spectrum.... why waste it?

Elmo

But they lost Champions League from 2006.

Poor Poor TV3.

Maybe they show bring that up with the EU too.

Rizzo the Rat

TV3 are about to start showing more of their own produced shows. Starting tonight they are showing a documentary with Hector and the Lions fans in NZ during the summer. Also i see Brendan Courtney ("Ireland's" Graham Norton - yes i know the Cork lad is Oirish also) has joined them and will be having his own show shortly.

Genghis

DMC wrote:

Also on this, there is a quota for home produced programming. TV3 have shiftily, in my view, used all of this daily quota on Ireland AM, a 3 hour slice housemaids dung, imo.

Excellent point. Plus if you analyse the show further, you get the full flavour of their water-down tactics. These are my estimates:

Rolling News (5-7 mins every half hour) - same content used 6-7 times through the show
Rolling weather (2-3 mins every half-hour
Advertising breaks (3-4 minutes every half hour)

That leaves about 30 mins per hour that they need to fill. Watching that 30 mins very carefully you see that every guest / feature / slot is commercial - they are all selling a new book, featuring a product, modelling clothes, selling holidays, selling odlums, etc, etc. In other words TV3 avail of only free guests or paid-for features.

Then add in the competitions, polls and comment lines and you have a nice revenue stream.

All that said, Ireland AM is welcome (RTE Unions will prevent any equivalent at RTE), and is not-too-bad TV overall. It does sicken me, though, that it is all they really do home-production wise.

On a final note, TV3 are starting a new Wednesday night chat show with Brendan Courtenay. Going on previous form (Dunphy Show, Weakest Link, Agenda), this won't last long and will be killed of before it gets established. TV3 will, of course, blame this on the fact that they are so unfairly disadvantaged by the licence fee (an not the fact that they never risk anything, and have no experience in producing home-based shows.

Elmo

I personnelly don't think we need a morning show we are a small country and money should be invested into primetime TV rather then a Morning TV let TV3 have there Morning Show if they want it.

On a final note, TV3 are starting a new Wednesday night chat show with Brendan Courtenay. Going on previous form (Dunphy Show, Weakest Link, Agenda), this won't last long and will be killed of before it gets established. TV3 will, of course, blame this on the fact that they are so unfairly disadvantaged by the licence fee (an not the fact that they never risk anything, and have no experience in producing home-based shows.

Indeed TV3 need to risk something, rather then just make sure that they have their quotas. TV3 could have easily produced many of the shows that TG4 have produced and got an audience for them. Lets face it now TV3 are make a **** load of money and all they do is complain about the licence fee and now ITV going free to air.

They are giving out about ITV going free to Air because it shows that they are only a carbon copy of that TV channel and it total shows them up as money grabbers.

I hope that Cortneys shows is successful but I am sure for one reason or another TV3 will axe it prob because of the licence fee.

Sponge Bob

Elmo wrote:

I hope that Courtneys shows is successful but I am sure for one reason or another TV3 will axe it

This time they go out midweek unlike Dunphy, Dunphy is not a TV presenter/host and I doubt if Courtneys show will go out from the Helix neither !

I feel Courtney has the personality and recognition to carry a fluffy Tubridy style show with great aplomb . If he is a success I can see Tubridy getting the toe on saturday nights to be replaced by <cough cough schpluTTer >

The licence fee will be spent headhunting him no doubt .

One chat show does not a channel make !

Macy

Sponge Bob wrote:

This time they go out midweek unlike Dunphy, Dunphy is not a TV presenter/host and I doubt if Courtneys show will go out from the Helix neither !

I actually thought the Dunphy Show was reasonable fare - problem was the time slot. Agenda was also an excellent programme.

It'll be interesting to see how Courtney's show does, but shows TV3's standards when in place of Dunphy and McWilliams we get Courtney and Halligan :rolleyes:

ixtlan

Just spent my lunch time reading through this thread. I'm surprised at the intense discussion that has been initiated over this and am compelled to add my own comments and keep the fire stoked!

I don't really watch TV3 much, and I would not defend their programming quality, or their quantity of home grown programming, however.... they are supplying employment to people in Ireland. I don't know how many, but lots more than ITV (let's not complicate the matter with UTV!) so I'm disturbed at the voices which seem to be saying let them die and give me the free ITV!

Really we are arguing endlessly over an unknown! As Tony said it comes down to the wording of the contract between TV3 and Granada/ITV. If that contract was signed on the understanding that the Satellite viewers (and the their advertising monies) of say Corrie belonged to TV3, then I can understand their position, and if any of us worked for TV3 and if that was a significant income for the station, we would be on TV3's side. I don't know how much money TV3 make. I don't know if the Corrie advertising subsidises other programmes they make. So I therefore don't know how much to criticise them for their own programming. I guess the regulations could be changed to force them to do better, but you had better make sure it doesn't go too far and drive them out of business.

In an ideal world, we might not have TV stations at all. We'd pick exactly what programmes we wanted to watch and the makers would be compensated from some central tax take based on viewing figures. I can imagine the outcry if that tax was proposed, but that would be the only way to have "free" TV. Otherwise "free" TV is supported by advertising or licence fees.

Like everyone I want free TV. I want C4 and ITV and all the BBC channels, on my EPG. However we can't always get what we want.

People seem to be whining a lot about the right to have these channels. You don't have a right! You want them, and I want them, but you don't have a right to them! Not unless you pay for them! You can pay in money or in advertising eyeballs or in a licence free but somebody has to pay.

It may sound like I'm a corporate lackey, but I'm not. Personally I'd like the central tax system for TV/movies/music and have it all be "free-ish", but it's not going to happen soon. maybe someday.

Without reading the contract, and examining TV3's financial status, I couldn't condemn or support them.

Ix.

bk

I don't think anyone has a problem with paying for stuff. The problem everyone has with TV3 is that they moan and groan about eveyone else (RTE, ITV, etc.) yet they are probably by far the worst channel in Ireland or the UK. Their Irish output is dismal and crap. TV3 only seem to care about making the most money with the least effort. They don't want to work for your money by producing good shows and competing with all the other channels based on their own merits (which RTE and TG4 do pretty well), instead they want to take the easy route out and ban you from watching anything else so that you have no ther choice but to watch them. If they had good content then they wouldn't worry about ITV, instead they just buy all imported junk from ITV and that is why they are worried.

DMC

ixtlan wrote:

I don't really watch TV3 much, and I would not defend their programming quality, or their quantity of home grown programming, however.... they are supplying employment to people in Ireland. I don't know how many, but lots more than ITV (let's not complicate the matter with UTV!) so I'm disturbed at the voices which seem to be saying let them die and give me the free ITV!

With regard to employment in Ireland, no-one seriously wants people to lose their jobs, but it can be performed a lot better.

In fact, if they had more home produced programming they would increase employment.

When the BCI request applications for the TV3 licence in 18 months time, I for one would be looking for a new consortium that can provide more employment here, rather than lining the pockets even further of those in Weatherfield.

I know certain political parties are looking into this matter.

Tony

Great post Sir.

bk wrote:

I don't think anyone has a problem with paying for stuff. The problem everyone has with TV3 is that they moan and groan about eveyone else (RTE, ITV, etc.) yet they are probably by far the worst channel in Ireland or the UK. Their Irish output is dismal and crap. TV3 only seem to care about making the most money with the least effort. They don't want to work for your money by producing good shows and competing with all the other channels based on their own merits (which RTE and TG4 do pretty well), instead they want to take the easy route out and ban you from watching anything else so that you have no ther choice but to watch them. If they had good content then they wouldn't worry about ITV, instead they just buy all imported junk from ITV and that is why they are worried.

BrianD

Earthman wrote:

To where?
Sky one and E4 are already available in both jurisdictions and the other European markets are non English language.
Are you suggesting a new channel(ch4 or 5 wouldnt have the budget to buy these programmes that ITV has so they can be counted out)?
Or an abandonment of sale to the UK and Ireland altogether?
Thats not going to happen.It would be silly to suggest that US programme makers would take no money instead of a lot of money, they are after all capitalists.

It would be difficult for any programme producer to ignore the fact that BBC or ITV offer big money and have the big audiences. I gather US producers are keep on being able to sell on a per territory basis (just like the movie producers like regionalisation on DVD). When BBC went FTA moved to Sky not for the money but to make a point. As I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) Sky One is FTV and not FTA.

DMC

Sky One is subscription on Sky, Sky Three is FTV.

And certainly in Greg Dyke's case, it was the money that was the BBC's rider for going FTA.

Tony

BrianD wrote:

As I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) Sky One is FTV and not FTA.

Sky one is a subscription channel

maisflocke

ixtlan wrote:

You don't have a right! You want them, and I want them, but you don't have a right to them! Not unless you pay for them!

Is this just an opinion based statement, or can you give us a factual source of reference?

ixtlan wrote:

just like the movie producers like regionalisation on DVD

Funny you should say that - Regionalisation on DVD has approx six or seven active regions? Region 2 covers all of Europe, Japan and parts of Africa. That means you can buy a DVD in any of these countries -for example via the net- and use that very DVD in another Region 2 country. I don't see the Virgin Megastore, HMV, or Tower records running to the courts whinging about all the lost revenue from Internet sales......

Genghis

The point about TV3 is that they have been licenced a scarce, national resource - the only commercial national TV licence (AFAIK 4 terrestrial channels is all we can ever have, and 3 of these are given to the state), and have used it to (as it would appear) milk the franchise for all that they can.

Consider the evidence:

1. No building of Tx network (instead piggyback on RTE's)
2. No effort to be even close to 100% national coverage by geography
3. Meet their Public service quotas by making 20 minutes of news and then recycling it up to 10 times (5.30, 6.30, 10.30 and then 6-7 times next morning)
4. Invest practically no money on new shows (and when they do, pull them before they need to shore them up to make them a success)
5. Invest in other low-budget material to give an appearance of home produced shows - Champs League (75% bought in material), Popcorn (95% bought in material), the Dog racing review (80% bought in material)
6. Offer no direct competition to the state broadaster
7. Feed off other english-language broadcasters (especially ITV)
8. Stifle multi-channel competition to protect all the above
9. Make commercial every single aspect of their service - from the 15% advertising in prime time to the crappy text service (which replaced a 3text service that had some public service vehicle) to infomercial eatures in Ireland AM to competitions to paid-for texting / polls which are then presented as 'news'.

My wish would be that the scarce licence that they hold is revoked and given to someone who can offer a vibrant, different, alternatively Irish, and hopefully highly profitable service in their place. If that happened, no one need fear the ITV or the BBC.

kkennedy

TV3 are the only station to do League of Ireland Highlights on a weekly basis. OK the show pundits are not great, but it does show the football and that is more that the other stations do.

Elmo

I don't really watch TV3 much, and I would not defend their programming quality, or their quantity of home grown programming, however.... they are supplying employment to people in Ireland. I don't know how many, but lots more than ITV (let's not complicate the matter with UTV!) so I'm disturbed at the voices which seem to be saying let them die and give me the free ITV!

TV3 employ 178 that an increase of 23 people since they started in 1998.
There Audience has grown from an initial 3% to 15%. And are now the 2nd most watch channel in Ireland.

They earn at least 40,000,000 from Advertising. at least 50% of this is give to Canwest, ITV and the 3 Irish investors in Dividends.
They reduced their staffing costs last year. €7.8 million to €6.5million

TG4 indirect employees 340 people on 15,000,000 euro investment in Irish Independent Productions.

TV3 if it wanted could invest in more Irish TV for Prime Time but their happy to sit and look at the money coming in. I actually wonder what Rick Heatherington does other then count money.

TV3 are the only station to do League of Ireland Highlights on a weekly basis. OK the show pundits are not great, but it does show the football and that is more that the other stations do.

TG4 have an annual investment of 2.5million in sports rights. (2003 it may of increase with live FAI, Wimbelton and Tour de France). TV3 could easily poach most of the sport from TG4.

Sponge Bob

Genghis wrote:

My wish would be that the scarce licence that they hold is revoked and given to someone who can offer a vibrant, different, alternatively Irish, and hopefully highly profitable service in their place. If that happened, no one need fear the ITV or the BBC.

Beidh TG4 a Dó®©ڠ©®ĐĘ®©2005 ag teacht beo chugaibh ar FAD go luath tá súil agam .

cgarvey

Agree with all those points. However is it anywhere near viable to run such a service that can be attractive alternative without such a dependency on advertising?

Anyone who votes "Yes" to some stupid smoking ban question on the news deserves to be ripped off, IMO. It is bad practice but, hell, you'd want to be fairly <insert derogatory term here> to want to send in the texts (whatever about the competitions where there is a potential reward).

.cg

Elmo

Anyone who votes "Yes" to some stupid smoking ban question on the news deserves to be ripped off, IMO. It is bad practice but, hell, you'd want to be fairly <insert derogatory term here> to want to send in the texts (whatever about the competitions where there is a potential reward).

I have to agree with that. Anyone who text in for anything deserves to be ripped off.

But they have reduced their Teletext service to a texting service, not good. They could have easily left the news on their teletext service. I mean they do provide news is it that expensive to place the autocue on TEXT?
Do they have sport on ThreeText?

However is it anywhere near viable to run such a service that can be attractive alternative without such a dependency on advertising?

Yes! Irish Veiwer tune in for Irish programming. The views for the first show of Courtney will be good, it's keeping them is the problem, personelly I think its a bad day for him. Monday night at 9 after corro. st. would have a better audience. But On wednesday he has very little to follow from other then emmerdale at 7.

Saturday night was empty for 5 years before Turbirty came along, TV3 could have easily put an unknow on a saturday night and got plenty of viewers and taken Saturday from RTÉ One they didn't need Eamon Dunphy to be a scapegoat for them not wanting to invest in alternative cheap programming.

Tony

Sponge Bob wrote:

Beidh TG4 a Dó®©ڠ©®ĐĘ®©2005 ag teacht beo chugaibh ar FAD go luath tá súil agam .

Probably do a better job than TV3

DMC

Back to the topic in hand.... there is also another point that hasn't been raised.

Free-to-air Digital Satellite isn't directional to an individual subscriber. It's beam from a satellite is available over a large area, it can be narrowed to a specific geographical area like Astra 2D, over these islands. Think of it as a large transmitter up in the sky, but there are no geographical features to block the path of the signal, unlike a normal transmitter. Only an encrypted version, such as what Sky provides, can narrow down to address, postcode and region. ITV have realised that they no longer require encryption or even to be on the Sky platform to narrow their channels to a particular individual or post code.

ITV are no longer broadcasting on Sky. Bold statement that, but I will expand....
By being FTA, they no longer are part of the Sky Digital system. They appear on the Sky EPG, which is what any other FTA channel does; pays for placement on Sky's EPG, which is necessary, as Sky is the dominant player in satellite direct-to-home TV. They would be fools not to ignore them completely.

But the big thing is when the BBC and ITV start marketing Freesat in the spring 2005. FTA receivers, no subscription, and anyone over here can pick them up. From RTÉ's and TV3's point of view, it will be best to get on that boat ASAP.

So what does that mean to TV3 in the meantime?
Take your court case or settle outside of court, get yer compo and continue along in the same vein.

ixtlan

You'll have to excuse my quoting. I've not familiar with it. Anyhow...

Originally Posted by ixtlan
You don't have a right! You want them, and I want them, but you don't have a right to them! Not unless you pay for them!

maisflocke wrote:

Is this just an opinion based statement, or can you give us a factual source of reference?

This is where I quizically raise my eybrow in a Connery pose. You want a factual reference for it not being a right to have access to a free TV channel? I didn't think I needed one. RTE isn't really free because you need a license, but on the basis of that payment you could say you have a right to it. BBC is accidentally free on satellite but if somebody invents a brilliant new satellite with a border sharp footprint, and it gets used to block satellite signals into Ireland, do you think a successful case can be taken against the BBC? It won't happen, but the court of human rights won't be worried about it if it does, and the competition guys won't be worried either if the BBC wants to save some costs (for rights) in this way. It's their decision ultimately.

Originally Posted by ixtlan
just like the movie producers like regionalisation on DVD

maisflocke wrote:

Funny you should say that - Regionalisation on DVD has approx six or seven active regions? Region 2 covers all of Europe, Japan and parts of Africa. That means you can buy a DVD in any of these countries -for example via the net- and use that very DVD in another Region 2 country. I don't see the Virgin Megastore, HMV, or Tower records running to the courts whinging about all the lost revenue from Internet sales......

I personally disagree with such region codes, and they should be abolished.... but again while we are right to complain, I would not use the phrase that we have a right to watch DVDs from the US in Europe.

It's true that Virgin Megastore, HMV, or Tower records don't complain about DVDs bought inside region 2, but they don't have contracts protecting them from losing business in that way, whereas that is exactly what TV3 had (as far as we are aware). A contract promising them a captive audience. That contract may have been unfair to the public, and it might not hold up in court, but any company would protect such a contract.

Several people have pointed out that TV3 makes a lot of money. I have no information on that, so I'll take all that at face value. However rather than complain about TV3 blocking ITV, why not start a campaign to change the regulations to force TV3 to spent more money on programming, or to have the authorities look for expressions of interest by other parties who might want to set up a station.

I think this is getting too serious... all I wanted to point out was that TV3 might have a point.

Ix

Elmo

Several people have pointed out that TV3 makes a lot of money. I have no information on that, so I'll take all that at face value. However rather than complain about TV3 blocking ITV, why not start a campaign to change the regulations to force TV3 to spent more money on programming, or to have the authorities look for expressions of interest by other parties who might want to set up a station.

This will happen in 2008 when the licence is reviewed. Personnel while I am not happy with the service that TV3 provide, It wouldn't make sence to take the licence away from them in 2008 rather in 2008 the BCI should change the conditions that surround TV3.

Currently
25% of programming must come from Ireland, this quote is got by 3hours of Ireland AM, the News and Sports Tonight.
30mins of Prime Time must be News Related, this quote is got by the 6:30 news. The only show on Irish Show on during prime time on TV.
50% of programming must come from the EU, this quote is got by Coronation St., Emmerdale and all the other ITV shows they have. (I am not sure if it is an over all 50% or 50% of all foreign programming).

TV3 have give out about each of these conditions systematically. Yet

Ireland AM is the No. 1 Breakfast Show
150,000 viewers tune into TV3 news at 6:30 and 5:30
and their 50% of the EU programming is their top Programming.

As you can image while TV3 give out about their EU quote they are not will to allow ITV broadcast into Ireland FTA because their EU quote makes them the money.

bungeecork

Genghis wrote:

No - because ITV / UTV legitimately broadcast to ROI via cable, which I understand is protected by some EU ruling re: overspill of terrestrial signals.

Thanks Genghis. Does that mean UTV//ITV include their ROI cable viewers when they buy TV show rights?

DMC

Not as such, bungee, no. There only seems to be distinction for satellite rights.

Elmo

Thanks Genghis. Does that mean UTV//ITV include their ROI cable viewers when they buy TV show rights?

Would they not buy Satellite rights?

Where does this place them in realtion to Champions League? I am sure that this will effect setanta more then it will TV3.

Would over spill only cover ligitimate over spill via Terrestial not a rebroadcast over Cable?

okden

this legal action is typical corporate ireland, always reactionary never visionary, lets sue them now so we can buy some time so we can have some emergency mettings about it. its like the broadband approach only its not going to buy any real time but hopefully there is a visionary at the metting. the future is choice, tv3 should just jump onto sky as quick as they can and figure out how to make money in a more competitive market with more players, i hope they do and i hope they are profitable, more choice for me. i dont think they would be getting the harsh treatment here about there content if instead of the legal action they were anouncing a deal with sky. i like some of there stuff, cringe tv is great, its fun to watch guys who started out in pirate radio trying to act like there working for nbc, and as for watching aidan cooney watching someone else cook food, id pay a sub just for that. if nigella lawson is the queen of gastro porn, our aiden is ron jeremy, now theres a show that would sell around europe for a start.

BrianD

maisflocke wrote:

Welcome back.


Actually Brian, you are wrong there. The television without Frontiers directive has an awful lot to do with this issue - hence the name Television without Frontiers, frontier meaning border. ITV have dropped that border, but TV3 wish that they remain in the old school.


Television without frontiers is designed to tackle that issue.

Maisflocke ... I suggest you read my posting and then you go and read the actual document. It has nothing to do with the issue in hand as clearly it does not apply. If the government were deliberately jamming UTV or issued an order that certain channels can not be made available on certain platforms then it would not. Obviously it is not the case here.

There are not many programmes that will go then, as the BBC and ITV actually produce the majority of their own programming. How many programmes have actually gone from the BBC since they went FTA? I know of "24", which belongs to Fox which belongs to Rupert..... so that explains a lot.....other than that I cant think of anything that radically changed the face of the BBC schedule.

That's why BBC and ITV can go FTA because the have both massive audiences and there own library of commissioned programmes. I would imagine that any encrypted station is now in a better position to negotiate with the US studios and audiences will follow content. The Fox relationship was not the reason - Sky got it because they are encrypted.

Obviously ITV are following BBC. However, I wonder if it is such a good idea from a commercial point of view. The sum of the advert revenue from the ITV regions is always going to be greater than that of an ITV that is a national player. Without the regionalisation through D-sat they lose that.

In Germany nearly all D-sat is free to air. Normally the satellite platform pays a royalty to each broadcaster depending how many subs they have. Same with catv afaik.

I bet ITV have a small print clause in their TV3 contracts giving ITV the additional right to broadcast freely to the "British Isles" - Like it or spike it, Ireland is geographically part of the British Isles

That's laughable. These contracts are very specific and subject to much negotiation.

Longterm, the situation is bad news for indigenous broadcasting or at least it will be difficult times. Having said that there are few values left in Irish society so the process of anglicisation will continue.

bk

RE: DVD Region Encoding

Sorry to go off topic, however it is interesting to note that the studios now find this to be more of a problem then a solution and want it removed. They is already talk that it will be removed from the HD-DVD spec and maybe also Blu-Ray.

Reason:
Well the reason why the studios originally wanted it was so that they could:

1) Charge more or less in different regions etc.
2) Stager release dates, because the cinemas have stagered release dates (due to trying to save cost by reusing film reels).

But of these reasons have now disapered because of the internet, people can buy DVD's from anywhere in the world through the internet and big budget movies in the cinema are rarely stagered anymore because of piracy on BitTorrent.

However it has left them with a problem, the Studios buy the license for the music in the movies from the music companies, however because of region encoding they have to license the music from the music company in each region, this costs them far more then just getting one license like they did back in the video tape days. So now they want to scrap region encoding

DMC

BrianD wrote:

That's why BBC and ITV can go FTA because the have both massive audiences and there own library of commissioned programmes. I would imagine that any encrypted station is now in a better position to negotiate with the US studios and audiences will follow content. The Fox relationship was not the reason - Sky got it because they are encrypted.

Nope. Contemporary reports say that it was "one in the eye" to the BBC that the third series of 24 went to Sky One.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds12780.html

BrianD

bungeecork wrote:

Thanks Genghis. Does that mean UTV//ITV include their ROI cable viewers when they buy TV show rights?

Who knows? I doubt it though. ITV would be negotiating on the TV rights for the U.K. only. If they mentioned viewers outside of that territory the rights holder could ask for money or break off negotiations. For example, UTV have more viewers outside of their franchise than within. This would mean that they would have to pay more than they do now.

BrianD

DMC wrote:

Nope. Contemporary reports say that it was "one in the eye" to the BBC that the third series of 24 went to Sky One.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds12780.html

That article supports what I just said!!