Are Saorview ever going to add more channels?

dxhound2005

Sam Russell wrote: »

As we all know, the current charging regime on Saorview is fascicle with the simple objective of keeping TV3 (as it was) quiet. It should be redrawn in one of many ways.

1. Redefine SD to be 720 by 576i and charge a minimum bandwidth charge so PQ is respectable. This would not increase charges greatly - and certainly nothing like the €2.5 m quoted for HD. [It is only €6m for a complete mux that will cover 4 HD channels].

2. Have RTE take Mux 1 and pay 50% (€6m) of the total charge. Even this would be a cop out as RTE own and fund Saorview and both muxes.

3. Have all channels up their bandwidth/resolution to keep the existing charges but use all the available bandwidth.

Any of these would improve viewer experience significantly.



I]Although I seem to be banging on about this a lot, I have no connection with any of the players involved in DTV or anyone else. I just do the sums and read the reports.[/I

I posted this on the TG4 HD thread. From the RTE Annual Report. So the licence fee was not able to fund 2 RN and they have to get their money to pay back the loans from the broadcasters.

RTɒs banking arrangements and facilities are very important to the
organisation, together with reviewing the adequacy of facilities. This
focus on funding remains a key priority for 2017.
At 31 December 2016, RTÉ had bank borrowings of €57.9 million (2015
€50.6 million) comprised of:

• 2rn, RTɒs transmission subsidiary, has a €40 million project finance
loan facility agreement with Barclays Bank as part of the funding for
the transmission and distribution infrastructure required for the Digital
Terrestrial Television (DTT) project. This facility is outstanding at 31
December 2016. An additional term loan facility for €13 million was
also arranged in 2014, which was fully drawn down in 2016. Capital
repayments on this loan will commence in 2017.

• The Bank of Ireland term loan facility drawn down in 2012 and
repayable over a five-year period with €1.9 million outstanding at 31
December 2016. In January 2016 a new revolving credit facility for €15
million was also arranged, of which €3 million is drawn at 31 December
2016

Digifriendly

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If RTE could get as much money as the BBC, I would like to see RTE 1 and RTE 2 producing more original material of high quality. And setting up another channel or two to carry repeats, much like the offshoots of ITV, Channel 4 and 5 do and as BBC 4 does. In today’s listings RTE 1 has 16 repeats out of 39 programmes and RTE 2 has 18 out of 32.

But with any increase in the licence fee being politically impossible as would be a Revenue enforced broadcasting charge, then this can’t happen. Just setting up new channels for the sake of it with no funding model will only give more and more repeats. And if nobody is watching what is the point?

TG4 can't afford to pay for HD and even providing commentaries in English on sports events would cost them money they haven't got.

You know the facts and figures and I have to admit being north of the border I simply don't have the info. that you have. Looks like it ultimately comes down to money at the end of the day. In light of this might it be better to scrap the whole exercise and somehow encourage all those with Saorview only to either switch to Sky or Saorsat. May seem a bit drastic but money saved could be put into more quality programming rather than as you rightly say lots of repeats.

dxhound2005

Digifriendly wrote: »

You know the facts and figures and I have to admit being north of the border I simply don't have the info. that you have. Looks like it ultimately comes down to money at the end of the day. In light of this might it be better to scrap the whole exercise and somehow encourage all those with Saorview only to either switch to Sky or Saorsat. May seem a bit drastic but money saved could be put into more quality programming rather than as you rightly say lots of repeats.

The infrastructure has been there for decades. Saorview is just a name for a group of channels, the main ones of which have also been there for decades. The ones which the vast majority always watched and continue to watch. Why would anyone want to close it down?

Digifriendly

Simple answer - because it is so poor fare. No real advance on analogue to be honest.

dxhound2005

I don't think your viewing habits as you outlined them would allow you to make a fair judgement.

I live in NI and can receive Saorview but to be honest rarely watch it.

I am also being honest with my opinions.

Sam Russell

Digifriendly wrote: »

Simple answer - because it is so poor fare. No real advance on analogue to be honest.

This is nonsense.

1. Analogue cost €3m per channel. Four channels [RTE 1 & 2; TV3; TG4 = €12 million] DTT costs €12 million for two muxes that can carry 8 HD channels or 24 SD channels or a mix. Saorview is forced to burn off bandwidth because of the stupid billing system insisted upon by an agreement made by ComReg, and BAI to placate one of the broadcasters.

2. Picture Quality on DTT is fantastic compared to analogue. No fizz and pop, snow, shadows, fade or colour changes as the signal reduces - that is until it falls off the digital cliff, and disappears.

3. DTT provides 8 channels , but could provide many more, or HD quality on just TWO frequencies (Muxes).

4. Saorview is not responsible for the content. If broadcasters are happy to put out rubbish, then so be it - it is not the platforms fault.

5. Over 98% of households can receive Saorview from a rooftop aerial - compared to 80% who could receive TV3 from a rooftop aerial in the analogue days. Saorsat is available for those that cannot get Saorview (although it is a specialist installation).

Don't blame 2RN or Saorview for the failings of the Minister for Communications, BAI, ComReg, or one of the broadcasters for the current state of Saorview. Instead write to those listed above and complain about it. It is unlikely you will even get a reply making any sense, but there you go.

dxhound2005

Just to add to that, the licence fee in 2003 was €150, 2004 €152, 2005 €155, 2006 €158, 2008 €160 with no increase since. There is no political will to ask the public to fund the system properly and probably no will among the public to do so. That is still enough to keep RTE 1 and 2 up to the standard they were before digital. But it cannot fund a whole slew of new channels.

Digifriendly

Shut the whole kabush down I say and continue to watch UK channels. Watching BBC NI/UTV news gives you almost as much news from south of the border as RTE News does!

Sam Russell

Digifriendly wrote: »

Shut the whole kabush down I say and continue to watch UK channels. Watching BBC NI/UTV news gives you almost as much news from south of the border as RTE News does!

We could also get rid of the Irish newspapers and do with Murdoch's The Times (Irish Edition), Irish Sun, The Sunday Times, and the watch Sky News and other Sky channels.

We could also leave the EU and rejoin the UK (if they would take us back), and send our soldiers to serve in Afghanistan.

NOT.

You can watch the UK channels for free on Freesat, if that is what you want, so why close down Saorview?

lertsnim

Digifriendly wrote: »

Shut the whole kabush down I say and continue to watch UK channels. Watching BBC NI/UTV news gives you almost as much news from south of the border as RTE News does!

What nonsense.

368100

Do RTE get paid by sky ireland for carrying their channels?

Sam Russell

368100 wrote: »

Do RTE get paid by sky ireland for carrying their channels?

No, but they should, as should the other platforms.

368100

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, but they should, as should the other platforms.

Agree, strange business decision not to charge sky given their financial situation.....ah but sure just increase the license fee.

Can see why they're in trouble.

dxhound2005

368100 wrote: »

Agree, strange business decision not to charge sky given their financial situation.....ah but sure just increase the license fee.

Can see why they're in trouble.

What if Sky said no thanks, take your channels elsewhere? Anyway this is the Terrestrial forum and there has been plenty of discussion on the topic on the Satellite forum where is belongs.

Johnboy1951

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What if Sky said no thanks, take your channels elsewhere? Anyway this is the Terrestrial forum and there has been plenty of discussion on the topic on the Satellite forum where is belongs.

It might waken people up to realise they do not have to pay to receive the vast majority of the channels they watch!

Harry Palmr

Sam Russell wrote: »

This is nonsense.


2. Picture Quality on DTT is fantastic compared to analogue. No fizz and pop, snow, shadows, fade or colour changes as the signal reduces - that is until it falls off the digital cliff, and disappears.

Sorry but the crap SD picture of saorview is worse than the analogue picture I used to watch telly on. Maybe I was lucky but beyond some rare summer HP ghosting it was perfectly fine. Why is the SD picture so poor? It's not even as good as the pretty shoddy SD of minor channels on satellite.

Sam Russell

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Sorry but the crap SD picture of saorview is worse than the analogue picture I used to watch telly on. Maybe I was lucky but beyond some rare summer HP ghosting it was perfectly fine. Why is the SD picture so poor? It's not even as good as the pretty shoddy SD of minor channels on satellite.

The difference between analogue and digital signal processing is quite profound.

Analogue signal processing is a constant battle against noise. Noise creeps in at every possible point, and it cannot be removed. Engineers go to great length to try to reduce its inevitable intrusion.

Digital processing is quite different. Once the signal is in digital form, the signal can be reformed with no degradation, as long as the signal quality is above a threshold.

Now the balance has shifted from the engineers to the bean counters. Lower quality is cheaper, so reduce the bandwidth - never mind the viewer.

There is no excuse for the piss poor picture quality of the current SD channels on Saorview. It is ComReg and BAI who are responsible. Write to them and complain.

368100

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What if Sky said no thanks, take your channels elsewhere? Anyway this is the Terrestrial forum and there has been plenty of discussion on the topic on the Satellite forum where is belongs.

Alright. ....calm down

The Cush

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Sorry but the crap SD picture of saorview is worse than the analogue picture I used to watch telly on.

Not here, we went from analogue VHF RTÉ 1&2 from Mullaghanish to DTT, a vast improvement.

The Cush

368100 wrote: »

Do RTE get paid by sky ireland for carrying their channels?

No, but they would like to - http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/communicationsclimatechangenaturalresources/publicservicebroadcasting/gsbroadcastingamendmentbill2017/20170711-RTE---Mediatique-presentation.pdf

icdg

Maybe we can just get back on topic and leave it at that

Thurston?

Sam Russell wrote: »

... Analogue signal processing is a constant battle against noise. Noise creeps in at every possible point, and it cannot be removed. Engineers go to great length to try to reduce its inevitable intrusion.

Digital processing is quite different. Once the signal is in digital form, the signal can be reformed with no degradation, as long as the signal quality is above a threshold.

Now the balance has shifted from the engineers to the bean counters. Lower quality is cheaper, so reduce the bandwidth - never mind the viewer.

The limit is always financial. You're conflating 2 completely different issues anyway, signal quality & resolution. Analogue resolution depended on bandwidth too, I assume you realise.

Sam Russell

Thurston? wrote: »

The limit is always financial. You're conflating 2 completely different issues anyway, signal quality & resolution. Analogue resolution depended on bandwidth too, I assume you realise.

My point was that a perfect analogue picture, whatever its resolution (defined by bandwidth) would always get degraded by noise no matter what, and the engineers battled against this.

With digital signals, once sufficient signal quality existed, the picture quality was defined by its bandwidth granted to it (and hence resolution, plus other factors such as changing detail resolution), and so the picture quality is perfect - improvement on this can only be got by better bandwidth, and hence higher cost.

For example, a remote user would get a better analogue picture with a better aerial, but a digital user will see no improvement of a good-enough aerial.

Picture quality is not an issue for Saorview but an issue for broadcasters who short change the viewer.

Harry Palmr

Sam Russell wrote: »

Picture quality is not an issue for Saorview but an issue for broadcasters who short change the viewer.

Well not quite - it's an issue for the governing body which allows such a poor picture quality from TG4 and the Virgin owned channels. The minister really should just write a one line addendum stipulating a minimum resolution of 720 x 576.

Thurston?

Sam Russell wrote: »

For example, a remote user would get a better analogue picture with a better aerial ...

'Better' might just have meant 'slightly less worse', especially in the case of TV3, with them not even being carried at the fill-in sites, which I'm pretty sure was a financial decision ...

Anyhow, certainly in my own experience with RTE analogue, what looked like constant low-level co-channel interference was more of a subjective nuisance than any 'noise' introduced by transmission/reception components along the way, which again points to a lack of investment in the transmission network, having to persist with the effects of frequency re-use within band III.

Sam Russell

Thurston? wrote: »

'Better' might just have meant 'slightly less worse', especially in the case of TV3, with them not even being carried at the fill-in sites, which I'm pretty sure was a financial decision ...

Anyhow, certainly in my own experience with RTE analogue, what looked like constant low-level co-channel interference was more of a subjective nuisance than any 'noise' introduced by transmission/reception components along the way, which again points to a lack of investment in the transmission network, having to persist with the effects of frequency re-use within band III.

Co-channel is noise. Use of band III was 'sufficient' at the time. It was fortunate or unfortunate (depending on your point of view) that in Ireland just a few band III transmitters covered a huge percentage of the population, and was useful when RTE started.

Did you have a good quality TV tuner in the TV and quality directional aerial? Could you have switched to UHF to get a better signal? Digital does remove that problem, and did indeed do so.

Remember, we used to have four TV channels frequencies for four TV stations and we now only use two channels for 8 channels (plus lots of radio channels and test cards etc.). Each of those analogue channels cost €3m each per year.

Gerry Wicklow

Sam Russell wrote: »

...
Remember, we used to have four TV channels frequencies for four TV stations and we now only use two channels for 8 channels (plus lots of radio channels and test cards etc.). Each of those analogue channels cost €3m each per year.

All busily keeping the mice warm around the country at the tax payers expense. :mad:

Sam Russell

Gerry Wicklow wrote: »

All busily keeping the mice warm around the country at the tax payers expense. :mad:

Not quite. The test cards could be replaced by zeros with no effect as it costs the same to broadcast 1.01 muxes as 1.99 muxes. The mux is over capacity because some broadcasters will not agree to pay for the unused bandwidth, even if their viewers would benefit.

The minister should change the charging system by either making the minimum bandwidth equal to 720 by 576i, or allowing 2RN to change the charging regime to make HD worth it for all broadcasters.

Gerry Wicklow

But that's my point. It's costing the same to run regardless of content. That same bandwidth could / should be used to improve existing quality.

The Cush

Sam Russell wrote: »

The minister should change the charging system by either making the minimum bandwidth equal to 720 by 576i

Can't see that happening, in the UK for example, Ofcom removed the minimum requirement of 720x574/704x576 for ITV/Ch.4/Ch.5 last year.

Sam Russell

Gerry Wicklow wrote: »

But that's my point. It's costing the same to run regardless of content. That same bandwidth could / should be used to improve existing quality.

Exactly. Write to the Minister and ask him to do something about it.

Thurston?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Co-channel is noise. Use of band III was 'sufficient' at the time. It was fortunate or unfortunate (depending on your point of view) that in Ireland just a few band III transmitters covered a huge percentage of the population, and was useful when RTE started.

Did you have a good quality TV tuner in the TV and quality directional aerial? Could you have switched to UHF to get a better signal? Digital does remove that problem, and did indeed do so.

No option for UHF, & a 'quality directional aerial' isn't much use if the offending transmitter(s) are in the same direction as your wanted one.

Co-channel interference between analogue vision carriers produced quite specific effects to put it in a category of its own, & engineers discriminate between noise-limited & interference-limited networks. Thankfully the CCI levels have to get far higher with digital before it starts to cause trouble.

I remember where my parents lived in Kerry we had two distinct problems with analogue reception:

RTE One and Two on VHF from Mullaghanish had no snow but some ghosting. It tended to get diagonal dot pattern interference from electrical devices in the house too.

They couldn't get RTE One, Two or TG4 from Listowel despite being in range, due to Knockmoyle coming in from the opposite side on the same frequency. It gave the classic venetian blinds effect on screen. So they had to rely on Maghera for TV3 and TG4 but it could only come in clearly during occasional high pressure weather conditions.

Thankfully Saorview from Knockanore gives them the best picture they ever had.

Sam Russell

Karsini wrote: »

Thankfully Saorview from Knockanore gives them the best picture they ever had.

Exactly. I would expect that to be true for (nearly) every house in the country.

They have filled in a few black spots since launch.

However, the biggest black mark goes to the broadcasters who refuse to go HD or even proper SD (720 by 576i).

Digifriendly

If the UK is that bad why do so many in ROI watch UK channels and why do so many not have Saorview only?

Sam Russell

Digifriendly wrote: »

If the UK is that bad why do so many in ROI watch UK channels and why do so many not have Saorview only?

I do not recall anyone saying UK TV is bad - in fact many people think UK TV is up with the best in the world - particularly BBC.

With Freesat freely available to most homes in Ireland, why would people here not take advantage of some of the best TV in the world? However, Irish TV has a lot to offer an Irish audience. Obviously, access to both is a privileged position to be in, and so. people should go for it.

lertsnim

Digifriendly wrote: »

If the UK is that bad why do so many in ROI watch UK channels and why do so many not have Saorview only?

Why do so many people watch freely available tv channels? That's a real head scratcher.

Capt'n Midnight

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Well not quite - it's an issue for the governing body which allows such a poor picture quality from TG4 and the Virgin owned channels. The minister really should just write a one line addendum stipulating a minimum resolution of 720 x 576.

Actually a minimum bandwidth might be better

The Cush wrote: »

Can't see that happening, in the UK for example, Ofcom removed the minimum requirement of 720x574/704x576 for ITV/Ch.4/Ch.5 last year.

For all their channels or just the ones that are also broadcast in HD ?

It might make some sense on the +1's

Sam Russell

The Cush wrote: »

Can't see that happening, in the UK for example, Ofcom removed the minimum requirement of 720x574/704x576 for ITV/Ch.4/Ch.5 last year.

We do not have the same regime as the UK. We have excess bandwidth on Saorview so we should use it. Also, if all channels increased bandwidth by say 25%, then we would still excess bandwidth, but the transmission charges would remain as is.

The Cush

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

For all their channels or just the ones that are also broadcast in HD ?

The main SD channels ITV/CH4/CH5, the secondary SD channels are 544x576 I believe.

The Cush

Sam Russell wrote: »

We do not have the same regime as the UK. We have excess bandwidth on Saorview so we should use it. Also, if all channels increased bandwidth by say 25%, then we would still excess bandwidth, but the transmission charges would remain as is.

The point I was making was even in the UK they are removing the minimum resolution requirements for the main SD channels.

Carawaystick

lertsnim wrote: »

Why do so many people watch freely available tv channels? That's a real head scratcher.

there's no freely available tv channels, its a 160 minimum:cool:

As for people thinking an irish language tv station should provide english content...
All you need to know are Úd and Clibirt

Plus why are performing groups getting paid so much, or at all?

lertsnim

Carawaystick wrote: »

there's no freely available tv channels, its a 160 minimum:cool:

Pedantic. How nice.

dxhound2005

Thurston? wrote: »

The limit is always financial. You're conflating 2 completely different issues anyway, signal quality & resolution. Analogue resolution depended on bandwidth too, I assume you realise.

I think some of the discussion ignores the lack of finance. The freeze on the licence fee is coming up on 10 years. I gave some consideration to the options to raise more money.

1. Increase the licence fee every year or so like it was before 2008.

2. Replace the licence fee with a Broadcasting Charge.

3. Fund the system from general taxation.

4. Get increased advertising revenue.

5. Cut wages in RTE by 50%.

6. Privatise or move to Pay per View.

7. Do away with free licences.

8. Continue with the current licence fee and increase the borrowing to plug the financial gap.

Of all these options, the only one which I think will be acceptable in the country is number 8 and that will only keep things as they are.

Sam Russell

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I think some of the discussion ignores the lack of finance. The freeze on the licence fee is coming up on 10 years. I gave some consideration to the options to raise more money.

1. Increase the licence fee every year or so like it was before 2008.

2. Replace the licence fee with a Broadcasting Charge.

3. Fund the system from general taxation.

4. Get increased advertising revenue.

5. Cut wages in RTE by 50%.

6. Privatise or move to Pay per View.

7. Do away with free licences.

8. Continue with the current licence fee and increase the borrowing to plug the financial gap.

Of all these options, the only one which I think will be acceptable in the country is number 8 and that will only keep things as they are.

You missed one.

Charge payTV platforms for re-transmission rights. BBC already do
this, so why not RTE, TG4 and TV3? €1 per month per account would raise, maybe, €10 m per year.

Broadcasting charge would eliminate the non-payers, which if reflected in a reduction in the overall fee to say €140, it might not be that unpopular - at least with the payers. It might be possible to introduce a tiny levy on, say, text messages which might raise €10m or so - perhaps amounting to €5 - €10 per phone per year (averaged - depending on the text activity).

Getting increased advertising revenue requires either an increased advertising pot, or taking more of that pot. Reducing the allowed advertising minutes would not go down well with at least one TV company, and increasing RTE's available minutes would also not go down well with any of them. Of course, making it difficult for off-shore TV channels get Irish advertising revenue might be a help.

The problem with the national TV broadcaster being funded from general taxation would result in significant political interference, at least from one or other political party.

So overall, anything would be unpopular and the can will get kicked down the road. The minister could start by forcing the Saorview broadcasters to go HD, at least we would get a decent picture - shame about the content.

dxhound2005

I already posted earlier that Sky etc would drop RTE if they had to pay. So that was a non starter for my list. I can only go by their stated positions reiterated this week at the Dail Committee.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/sky-threatens-to-drop-rt%C3%A9-if-channels-are-not-offered-for-free-1.3243269

Gerry Wicklow

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I already posted earlier that Sky etc would drop RTE if they had to pay. So that was a non starter for my list. I can only go by their stated positions reiterated this week at the Dail Committee.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/sky-threatens-to-drop-rt%C3%A9-if-channels-are-not-offered-for-free-1.3243269

Well there's a surprise. The pay operators don't want to pay RTÉ :rolleyes:

Johnboy1951

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I already posted earlier that Sky etc would drop RTE if they had to pay. So that was a non starter for my list. I can only go by their stated positions reiterated this week at the Dail Committee.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/sky-threatens-to-drop-rt%C3%A9-if-channels-are-not-offered-for-free-1.3243269

That might well wake up many of Sky's customers in Ireland that they are paying for what they can receive without any sub.
I would reckon that Sky would be a big loser in Ireland if they dropped RTE channels.

I would like to see RTE given the freedom to negotiate the terms.

Mickey Mike

Does anybody know what's coming on Channel 27? Its a test card, Channel 15 has ceased. I read in some news article where TV3 will never go HD because of the high charge from RTE. I can't understand why 2rn run a HD test card now for 4 years.

Sam Russell

Mickey Mike wrote: »

Does anybody know what's coming on Channel 27? Its a test card, Channel 15 has ceased. I read in some news article where TV3 will never go HD because of the high charge from RTE. I can't understand why 2rn run a HD test card now for 4 years.

The reason for this is that ComReg and BAI have set up a schedule of charging that has tied 2RN's charging system to bandwidth used. Each channel gets charged for the bandwidth used, based on the total used. The total cost of running 2 muxes on Saorview is €12 m, which means if 40% of the bandwidth is wasted, it does not affect 2RN. What it does mean is that for a single channel to go HD means they take a larger share of the €12 m, which TV3/Virgin will not pay.

There are two possible solutions - either RTE move to mux 1, and let TV3 and TG4 pay the €6 m for mux 2 between them, or all channels have to go HD and share the €12 m between them. Either would have the result that all channels would go HD. At the moment, spare capacity is just burnt off.

Hope that explains the insanity that is tolerated on Saorview. Wasted bandwidth is just one problem.