RTE disputes 'inequitable' BCI proposal on subtitles

From todays Indo:

RTE and the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland are set to clash over proposed new regulations on subtitling which place heavier requirements on the State broadcaster than commercial station TV3. RTE claims that the BCI's proposal is inequitable and goes against the regulator's own principles on access to television services.
Under the plan, which will increase costs for all indigenous stations, RTE 1 will have to provide subtitles on 100pc of output, while TV3 will have to provide subtitles on 60pc of programming.

In its submission to the BCI, seen by the Irish Independent, RTE said it "does not accept" that RTE and TV3 should have different requirements.

"RTE is concerned at the clear difference in expectations between RTE and other broadcasters with regards to the level of subtitling produced, and the timeframe involved in achieving identified targets," states the submission.
"There are no exemptions for broadcasters in terms of codes of advertising, watersheds, current affairs coverage," states the submission on the draft access codes.
"It is RTE's position that Access television is just as important an issue, and that user groups are entitled to expect the same level of subtitles etc from all indigenous broadcasters," it states.
"RTE takes the position that any target or timeframe agreed should be attainable and be applicable to all broadcasters coming within the remit of the BCI."
The State broadcaster also said that the timeframes set out by the BCI are too short and that achieving 100pc subtitling on programming is "an artificial and unachievable target."
Commenting on RTE's stance, TV3's head of government, legal and regulatory affairs David McMunn said that RTE has previously stated that a public sector broadcaster has more responsibilities than a commercial station.
Mr McMunn said: "TV3 believes this appropriate given the €150m in licence fee income that RTE receives each year."
He added that in other European countries the public sector broadcaster carried most responsibility for such services.
RTE currently spends €1m on subtitles, with 55pc of programmes on RTE 1 carrying subtitles and 24pc on RTE 2 carrying subtitles.

Round Cable

A lot of complaining from RTE, TV3 doesn't cost a penny, RTE costs E152 per year, of course they should have more obligations to ALL their viewers. They should take the money spent on DOGGING their channels and put it towards subtitling and their DTT project :rolleyes:

Elmo

If it only costs a million for 55% and 24% The could surely increase that to 100% for very little.

TV3 could do it to since they gave 6.8 million to canwest last year.

byte

Not sure but I think 100% subtitling is asking quite a lot. I dont think there is any channel that has full 100% subtitling. I can see RTE dropping the rebroadcast of Euronews during the nights unless it carries subtitling!

Elmo

I can see RTE dropping the rebroadcast of Euronews during the nights unless it carries subtitling

I would say that EuroNews does as it isn't a live News channel as such.

ishmael whale

Elmo wrote:

If it only costs a million for 55% and 24% The could surely increase that to 100% for very little.

TV3 could do it to since they gave 6.8 million to canwest last year.

At a rough guess, if €1 million covers half of RTE 1's output and a quarter of RTE 2's then, pro rata, doing the remaining half of RTE 1's and three quarters of RTE 2's would cost and extra €2 million.

The allocation of their licence fee is circa 60 million for RTE 1 and 30 million for RTE 2. So the cost of subtitling would go up from a little over 1% of subsidy to a little under 4%. You can see why they would hesitate before jumping into that commitment. It's enough of a burden to mean that something else would need to go.

Elmo

The allocation of their licence fee is circa 60 million for RTE 1 and 30 million for RTE 2.

Please note that RTE could if the wish put more money into there television stations if they wanted, RTE allocated where the licence fee goes not The Government. IMO The TV licence is for the TV not the radio stations.
Also RTE 1 and 2 have 92,000,000 from advertising which also is part of their budget.

I was also not arguing that TV3 shouldn't be forced into it as much as RTE. Their subtitling for Coronation St. and Emmerdale comes directly from ITV. And I am sure ITV got just as much as canwest.

It's enough of a burden to mean that something else would need to go.

Deaf people pay their TV licence as much as we do.

ishmael whale

Elmo wrote:

Deaf people pay their TV licence as much as we do.

Indeed they do, as do one eyed Turkish lesbians and hot air balloonists. But, as we know, the licence simply relates to ownership of the telly – even if you never watch RTE you still need one. So a deaf person who wants a telly purely to watch subtitled DVDs rented from Xtravision still needs to cough up.

Now, I have no particular problem with 100% subtitling so long as there is recognition that something else would need to go to provide it. So maybe radio loses to provide TV subtitles, which means you’re putting the needs of people who are deaf ahead of the needs of people who are blind.

Elmo

So maybe radio loses to provide TV subtitles, which means you’re putting the needs of people who are deaf ahead of the needs of people who are blind.

Blind people can listen to as much Radio with out paying a licence.

ishmael whale

Elmo wrote:

Blind people can listen to as much Radio with out paying a licence.

I'm a little puzzled by this remark, and not entirely sure of the point you are making.

My point is that radio is a medium accessible to people who are blind. I take it as given that if less money is spent on it then Radio 1 will either broadcast less, or broadcast to a lesser standard than at present. This is not intended to spark a debate about how efficiently Radio 1 is managed – just to make the simple point that, all thing remaining the same, if it got €2 million less it would then provide €2 million less of a service. I’m simply making the point that transferring resources from radio to TV for subtitles might advantage deaf people, but disadvantage blind people (and anyone else who find radio useful.)

Now, clearly, no-one pays a radio licence fee and people who are in receipt of disability related income supports are exempt from needing a TV licence. And the licence fund is, indeed, used to fund more than RTE television. Now what’s your point?

Elmo

Now, clearly, no-one pays a radio licence fee and people who are in receipt of disability related income supports are exempt from needing a TV licence. And the licence fund is, indeed, used to fund more than RTE television. Now what’s your point?

My point is that Radio doesn't need any of the licence fee while they have advertising. Except RnaG which is Ad free but then that can be supported by the other Radio Stations.

It is economies of Scale which allows RTE give the licence fee to Radio. IE they spend money on the News and The sport.

I sure the trade discriptions act isn't pleased with A "TV Licence"

Anyway how many radio channels are there. Lot more then TV. The blind are well served.

ishmael whale

Elmo wrote:

My point is that Radio doesn't need any of the licence fee while they have advertising.

But presumably if this funding is available to them now something needs to go if they get less.

Elmo wrote:

I sure the trade discriptions act isn't pleased with A "TV Licence".

Its also used to fund a orchestra - but what's in a name?

Elmo wrote:

Anyway how many radio channels are there. Lot more then TV. The blind are well served.

There's lots of wall to wall music stations, but not much like Radio 1.

ishmael whale

ishmael whale wrote:

But presumably if this funding is available to them now something needs to go if they get less.

Not necessarally an organisation as weighty as RTÉ might find the funds from implimenting further effeciencies.

Elmo

Its also used to fund a orchestra - but what's in a name?

Actually 4 performing groups as they like to call them.
There are many people who are not blind and have no TV but have a radio should I have to fork out for them too?

There's lots of wall to wall music stations, but not much like Radio 1.

There are lots of wall to wall music stations in Dublin, however you will find that in the rest of the country that many of the local radio stations are more RTE Radio 1 ESQ.

ishmael whale

Earthman wrote:

Not necessarally an organisation as weighty as RTÉ might find the funds from implimenting further effeciencies.

Quoting myself from above.

"The allocation of their licence fee is circa 60 million for RTE 1 and 30 million for RTE 2. So the cost of subtitling would go up from a little over 1% of subsidy to a little under 4%. You can see why they would hesitate before jumping into that commitment. It's enough of a burden to mean that something else would need to go."

"This is not intended to spark a debate about how efficiently Radio 1 is managed – just to make the simple point that, all thing remaining the same, if it got €2 million less it would then provide €2 million less of a service."

Or, put another way, presumably at any time RTE might be able to find ways of doing things more efficiently. That doesn't mean any such savings should automatically be put into subtitling.

Elmo wrote:

There are many people who are not blind and have no TV but have a radio should I have to fork out for them too?

Yup, and if they listen to a radio broadcast of a concert given by one of the 'performing groups' you'll be forking out twice.

Elmo wrote:

There are lots of wall to wall music stations in Dublin, however you will find that in the rest of the country that many of the local radio stations are more RTE Radio 1 ESQ.

I'm not sure that's correct. They're Radio 1-esque only in the sense of being deadly dull to listen to. I'm not sure anyone else does the kind of programming Radio 1 does.

All I'm trying to point out is that the amount of money required for 100% subtitling is significant enough to mean something else will go and that someone will be impacted. Now, fine, if you say drop the Radio 1 short story competition on grounds that doing more subtitling to facilitate access to TV is more important than providing an outlet for new and amateur writers. But I think its important to recognise that taking resources from one use and giving it to another necessarily means someone gains and someone loses.

ishmael whale

ishmael whale wrote:

Quoting myself from above.
Or, put another way, presumably at any time RTE might be able to find ways of doing things more efficiently. That doesn't mean any such savings should automatically be put into subtitling.

Why not if it is a public service requirement?
It's another service for a minority, the hard of hearing.

ishmael whale

Earthman wrote:

Why not if it is a public service requirement?
It's another service for a minority, the hard of hearing.

Yes, its another service for a minority. As you implicitly recognise, there is more than one minority. Therefore simply saying its a minority doesn't mean it is automatically the right destination for any additional funds that might come to hand.

100% subtitling is a worthy objective. But achieving it means that some other objective - which could also claim to be a public service requirement - might need to be sacrificed.

Mike 1972

Methinks T3 are trying to pull a fast one

As most of TV3's programming is bought in form ITV (and mostly already subtitles) the cost of meeting the 60% requirment would be pretty minimal

Someone mentioned no ads on RnaG why not ? surely if RnaG were taking advertising they would be generating (an albeit small) level of income which would mean less of their costs being met by cross subsidisation from other services aand TG4 have to carry ads so why not RnaG

Elmo

Methinks T3 are trying to pull a fast one

I don't think TV3 even provide subs during the repeats of the ITV shows.