Why is Ireland so behind in broadcasting technology

snaps

Ive been on a tour of europe and have taken my USB DVBT stick and a little portable DAB radio. Near enough every country i was in, I scanned my DAB radio and found lots of services and also the DVBT services were in abundance too.

France, Italy and now the UK really do seem to be decades ahead of us in Ireland and its very embarrasing not to have a DTT service up and running here.

Im currently in the UK and the amount of DAB stations available here in Essex is unreal, also the Freeview channels on DVBT is a fantastic service with loads of choice.

Where did it all go wrong for Ireland not to get a digital service up and running many years ago?

I would say by the time something is sorted a majority of people will be using SKY for there TV service, which is really sad!

mike65

No real initial imputus, then no money, small market, no real understanding of/interest in technology within the state apparatus.

Elmo

snaps wrote: »

Where did it all go wrong for Ireland not to get a digital service up and running many years ago?

Government. In 1999 RTÉ sold their share of Cablelink with Telecom Éireann's share to NTL. NTL paid €825million for the company. RTÉ got 25% to 40% of that money. I am fairly certain RTÉ only had 25% share of the company after being told by various ministers to sell some of the company to TÉ in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

(something that RTÉ didn't want to sell but Ireland was in the middle of privatization so RTÉ were forced to sell again)

Anyway with the share of money from the 1999 sale RTÉ proposed to start DTT and return to the Pay TV market with the money earn from the Cablelink sale. However this plan was refused by Minister for Culture Sile DeValare and she also refused to increase the licence fee for such a project. The Licence fee had only been increased once since 1986 to £70 from £62.

In the Early 2000s the DG, Director of TV and Chairperson of the RTÉ Authority went to visit the Communications Committee in the Dáil. Ready to explain the new technology, only to have several questions asked about the pay of "big star" names at RTÉ rather than DTT. This lead the minister to ask for a list of the top earners, which was privately passed to her and then on to Bertie Ahearn which then lead to the list being publish publicly each year, something to give out about more that really looking at DTT prospects.

Then there was continued stalling from each successive Communications Minister on the project Dempsey, Ahern etc. And finally in 2010 we have a new minister who is being blamed for everything, not that he helps matters much.

I leave the blame totally at FF ministers who could have at any stage issued RTÉ with a commercial pay licence to compete with Sky and NTL in the early part of the last decade when FTA Sat wasn't as apparent and when RTÉ had received money from a commercial sale. The BAI - and for some reason RTÉ - in 2008 thought they could launch a pay service (madness).

Elmo

mike65 wrote: »

No real initial imputus, then no money, small market, no real understanding of/interest in technology within the state apparatus.

Also Civil Servants impressing EU delegates at how Ireland was fast taking up Digital TV in the early 2000s. Forgetting that 50% of this take up was regulated outside the state.

Kensington

The key is in your post! All the countries you mention have population levels tenfold that of Ireland. They also have their own language and hence have their own indiginous channels that provide content to drive demand for DTT since overspill from a neigbouring country is of little relevance, as it will be in a foreign language.

We on the other hand are a tiny nation in comparison, and have a much larger neighbour, which speaks the same language as us, beaming hundreds of channels into the country, an ever increasing number of which are available without any sort of subscription. The high take up of cable and satellite pay-TV makes DTT difficult to carry a subscription element and the low viewing population serves a very small pie from which new channels could take a slice, and that's before you factor in the fact a large proportion of the potential audience will be watching the satellite channels.

Elmo

Kensington wrote: »

The key is in your post! All the countries you mention have population levels tenfold that of Ireland. They also have their own language and hence have their own indiginous channels that provide content to drive demand for DTT since overspill from a neigbouring country is of little relevance, as it will be in a foreign language.

I would disagree slightly with this. Firstly one of the first DTT nations Sweden had DTT up and running long before any others. A population of ~10,000,000 and like Ireland heavily reliant on Pay Cable and Satellite systems. Now it did have its difficulties and many in Sweden were not happy when the Government turn of Analogue purely (as they saw it) to hold up a semi-states bodies investment in the pay TV venture. Boxer.

We would need to also look at Belgium, Austria and other spillover/language/small population nations. To fully prove your theory.

But I will agree that our lack of ingeniousness channels is an issue. But I won't get into that here.

snaps

Interesting replys, cheers

Mike 1972

Ironically a RTE as part of its it membership of the EBU R&D division played a big part in the development/testing of a lot of broadcast technologies including RDS (for FM radio) and even DTT (believe it or not)

They do seem to be slow to adopt new technologies though although when they eventually do they tend to be quicker at getting them rolled out across the country than say the Beeb (although being a smaller country does help)

watty

I'm sceptical.

The original DTT trials in 1998 / 1999 was Israeli developed gear, Runcomm. RTE only did field trials.

I don't believe RTE does any R&D.

Doing early field trials of other people's R&D work isn't delvelopment. It's not even really testing, but providing a test environment for the Developers.


I'd love to be wrong on this though.

Mike 1972

Mike 1972 wrote: »

They do seem to be slow to adopt new technologies though although when they eventually do they tend to be quicker at getting them rolled out across the country than say the Beeb (although being a smaller country does help)

I believe RTÉ completed their NICAM rollout long before the BBC completed theirs - though the smaller land mass certainly helped I'd say.

weepee

Maybe I ask a related question:

When watching RTE progammes, the picture quality is nowhere near as sharp. as BBC, is there a reason for this?

weepee

weepee wrote: »

Maybe I ask a related question:

When watching RTE progammes, the picture quality is nowhere near as sharp. as BBC, is there a reason for this?

On DTT?

If so then it's because the RTÉ channels, except RTÉ 2, are at a lower resolution than they should be - 544x576.

weepee

Karsini wrote: »

On DTT?

If so then it's because the RTÉ channels, except RTÉ 2, are at a lower resolution than they should be - 544x576.

I get all my channels off cable. RTE 1 TG4 and NETWORK 2. Thats were the distinction really sticks out, especially during football games.

I can get TV3 off a set top aerial, but the signal isnt great.

Capt'n Midnight

Because of the demand for UK channels TV, most big cities have had cable television for decades, then SKY came in. By now most of the people ( 70% ? ) who you would expect to be in the market for DTT already have digital. Most of the rest aren't interested or won't pay for it.

Unless DTT carries the UK channels few people will pay for it.

Mike 1972

Karsini wrote: »

I believe RTÉ completed their NICAM rollout long before the BBC completed theirs - though the smaller land mass certainly helped I'd say.

Yes RTE did theirs in a couple of months (The Beeb took over a decade) although the Beeb started long before RTE

Minstrel27

weepee wrote: »

I get all my channels off cable. RTE 1 TG4 and NETWORK 2. Thats were the distinction really sticks out, especially during football games.

You should contact your cable provider.

mike65

Karsini wrote: »

On DTT?

If so then it's because the RTÉ channels, except RTÉ 2, are at a lower resolution than they should be - 544x576.

I was going to ask about this on a different forum, I thought the others were "softer" than RTE2. Now I know they are.

Mike 1972

Do the "must carry" rules for RTE/TV3/TG4 on Irish cable actually specify a minimum resolution/bitrate ?

watty

Unlikely, as those rules formulated in Analogue days and often all channels nearly unwatchable.

watty

Karsini wrote: »

I believe RTÉ completed their NICAM rollout long before the BBC completed theirs - though the smaller land mass certainly helped I'd say.

But BBC developed it.

RTE just bought gear and plugged it in. On a Network that has always been smaller than it should be.

watty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Because of the demand for UK channels TV, most big cities have had cable television for decades, then SKY came in. By now most of the people ( 70% ? ) who you would expect to be in the market for DTT already have digital. Most of the rest aren't interested or won't pay for it.

Unless DTT carries the UK channels few people will pay for it.

Closer to 80% have pay TV. Most of the people without PayTV won't pay for any PayTV platform. i.e. close to 100% of the people that want PayTV have it.

People wont' pay for the basic channels on DTT, at least not many as these are all now free on satellite.

It's primarily SkySport and perceived need for other specialist channels that drives Sky sales outside cabled areas. In cabled areas DTT would have a hard time competing anyway.

Pay DTT is a non-starter. Maybe 20 years ago viable but not now. Even MMDS with 120 channels can't compete with Sky. DTT would have 1/4 the channels of MMDS.

In the old days

watty wrote: »

It's primarily SkySport and perceived need for other specialist channels that drives Sky sales outside cabled areas. In cabled areas DTT would have a hard time competing anyway.

Pay DTT is a non-starter. Maybe 20 years ago viable but not now. Even MMDS with 120 channels can't compete with Sky. DTT would have 1/4 the channels of MMDS.

I agree given all the faffing around with the pay DTT process it's going to be difficult for pay DTT. However it is in RTE's interest to try and put a strong psb mux together - they won't want to lose their current captive analogue audience including 2nd sets (to sky, chorus etc.) for advertising purposes alone. So DTT's a reality. If there is to be a sky+ type recording on DTT it would be a draw - I have sky mainly for sky PVR simplicity abd I think I'm not alone (me and George Hook at least). The remaining spare spectrum capacity I suspect will still mainly be used in some shape for DTT either free or pay after a new process of some description. A pay-as-you-go sports mix or a chance to mix your own individual channels could work for pay DTT if this is technically possible. To be fair the concept of RTE as a state broadcaster *with advertising revenue* has been innovative since 1961 in view of our small population. Cable tv in Dublin was also initially way ahead of UK penetration and Cork multi-channel cable was pretty innovative at the time. Back on thread!

watty

They need the spare space for decent quality HD, which seems to have been overlooked in the 2008 plans.

The PSB DTT is happening alright. But I don't think there will be any pay component till after ASO, and even then only a sort of TopUp TV type niche service, not a competing Pay platform.

watty

In the old days wrote: »

To be fair the concept of RTE as a state broadcaster *with advertising revenue* has been innovative since 1961 in view of our small population.

No, I don't think so.

We were almost 15 years behind everyone else in having post War TV.

The UK was pretty stupid however in re-activating 405 line rather than switching to 626. The prewar 441 line (approx) Countries in Europe went to 625 except France which had 819. Belgium had dual/triple/quad standard 625/819 before we had TV.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_introduction_of_television_in_countries

We are now worse on Broadband Table though
See also http://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36027
1st tests of 626Line in 1946
Public services in 1948
BBC was testing 625 in 1950s.
RTE have adopted System I, but it was almost certainly a BBC developed version of System D.

RTE adopted or tested PalPlus (Do they still use it?) but they didn't develop it. (Clever system that hides extra resolution for Letterboxed Widescreen in the black bands). BBC as well as Nicam, co-developed PAL colour with Telefunken and developed Teletext, including a version that does full colour images in the text like current Interactive on Sky & Freeview. (Teletext and Nicam both fully digital signals carried along side Analogue for Nicam and in the analogue picture for Teletext.

In the old days wrote: »

Cable tv in Dublin was also initially way ahead of UK penetration and Cork multi-channel cable was pretty innovative at the time. Back on thread!

Very poorly built network that existed solely to get rid of giant masts and provide UK TV. What reason was there to build out Cable TV in UK then?

Mike 1972

watty wrote: »

RTE have adopted System I, but it was almost certainly a BBC developed version of System D.

Ive always wondered why Ireland and the UK didnt just use System D

It looks better (on paper at least) than System I and the world really didnt/doesnt need more "standards"

watty

Less filtering/ larger of the vistigial side band below the carrier, hence 500kHz reduction at top end of video

Easier to make a set with "better" diode AM Video detector.

With a modern syncronous detector you only need a pilot carrier and no side band. You could save power.

Mike 1972

Arent there systems with 6.5 MHz FM sound and 1.25 MHz vestigal sideband though ?

And whats so great about 1.25 MHz VSB anyway ?

watty wrote: »

With a modern syncronous detector you only need a pilot carrier and no side band. You could save power.

DTT kinda renders the point moot though

Mike 1972

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Arent there systems with 6.5 MHz FM sound and 1.25 MHz vestigal sideband though ?

And whats so great about 1.25 MHz VSB anyway ?



DTT kinda renders the point moot though

System K' (also known as K1 in some sources) used +6.5 MHz FM audio and 1.25 MHz VSB but isn't in use anymore.

watty

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Arent there systems with 6.5 MHz FM sound and 1.25 MHz vestigal sideband though ?

And whats so great about 1.25 MHz VSB anyway ?

DTT kinda renders the point moot though

More crosstalk to next channel with FM Audio 6.5MHz, though Nicam carrier is now at 6.5MHz. But TVs have better SAW filters now. Also Nicam carrier is about 10dB lower I think.

In 1950s the TVs only had diode AM detector for video and hand aligned multiple stage IF transformers. With a Valve amplifier for each stage!

System I was really an obsolete concept for improving video by late 1960s. It would have made more sense for BBC & RTE to go with an existing standard.

However home Video RF modulators don't do any sideband shaping really, so work best with system I.

Mike 1972

watty wrote: »

The UK was pretty stupid however in re-activating 405 line rather than switching to 626.

Possibly although when the Beeb were restarting their TV service would the 625 system still have been in development ??? Plus they would have a larger installed base of 405 line sets than other countries (Accounts range from 300 to 20,000) although the French got around this by simulcasting on 819 and 441 for a while.

Had the Beeb gone for 625 it would mean most VHF channels would have been already occupied by the time ITV started rolling out forcing their rivals to use the (then) untried and unproven technology of UHF

watty

625 was available. It was designed in 1944 and standard published in 1946

As you imply this is an old argument. We don't know how many 405 sets were really in operation. Certainly in 1948 there was very little television and very few people to watch. People all over Europe, inc UK were Cold and starving. It was an unusually cold winter. The East Germans revolted and put down by Soviets.

BBC & ITV could have both been in VHF, but by time ITV started the UHF was established technology.

At the time of BBC restart ITV wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye so would not have been a consideration.

Sam Russell

watty wrote: »

Certainly in 1948 there was very little television and very few people to watch. People all over Europe, inc UK were Cold and starving. It was an unusually cold winter.

The cold winter was 1946/47. The British removed coal rationing just before it, even though they had little coal. Everyone was cold that winter.

Incidentally, Bruce Forsythe appeared on British TV in 1939 (or 1938) in a BBC programme about 'meet the family'. He is currently the longest currently-appearing personality on TV worldwide, I presume.

They stuck with 405 lines because 'they invented it' and 'British engineering is the best' and other well known reasons.

watty

I wasn't born then...

But it was a cold period

Paul Simons, The Times weatherman, said that the shift in temperature was influenced by a phenomonon known as North Atlantic Oscillation, or NAO, influenced by a lowpressure system over Iceland and high pressure over the warm Azores islands in the sub-tropical Atlantic. When the Icelandic pressure rises and the Azores pressure dips, Britain catches blasts of bitterly cold air.

He said: “In the 1940s the NAO turned negative and brought some of the coldest European winters of the 20th century, including the bitter freezes that helped to defeat Hitler’s invasion of Russia. Another bout of negative NAOs in the 1960s included the worst winter for more than 200 years, when homes were buried under snow and ice floes drifted in the English Channel.

EMI did invent the most sensitive Electronic Camera in 1930s. It's amazing in Europe we got a varient of the Russian 625 system rather than the pre-existing (4 years earlier) US 525 system. I guess the US didn't adapt it for 50Hz

STB

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Because of the demand for UK channels TV, most big cities have had cable television for decades, then SKY came in. By now most of the people ( 70% ? ) who you would expect to be in the market for DTT already have digital. Most of the rest aren't interested or won't pay for it.

Unless DTT carries the UK channels few people will pay for it.

"Digital" ..... hmm Sky would LIKE to think that they own that term and that it is an exclusive to them. Let me dispel a myth for you about ALL platforms.

FTA Television - What SKY/UPC Dont Want You to Know

Irish Viewing Habits
9 out of the Top 10 most watched channels in Ireland are actually Free to Air - either on 28.2/Analogue or DTT.

TOP 20 Watched Stations 2009
Position Channel Owner Share of total viewing (%)
1 RTÉ One Raidió Teilifís Éireann 23.7 FTA
2 TV3 Ireland TV3 Group 12.3 FTA
3 RTÉ Two Raidió Teilifís Éireann 9.65 FTA
4 BBC One Northern Ireland BBC 5.29 FTA
5 UTV UTV Media 4.53 FTA
6 Channel 4 NI Channel 4 3.74 FTA
7 BBC Two Northern Ireland BBC 3.06 FTA
8 TG4 Teilifís na Gaeilge 2.67 FTA
9 Sky1 Sky Ireland 1.92
10 E4 Channel 4 1.19 FTA

mike65

I'm not sure anyone would think otherwise to be fair, even the biggest PL games on Sky will only have about a million domestic viewers in the UK and one would imagine a similair % of viewing here.

watty

Sky Sports is wanted by over 50% of Pay TV subscribers, but is less than 2% of viewing time. But obviously that 2% is important to the viewers.

This is the sort of arithmetic Sky use for Sky One also. It's mostly rubbish, but they endeavour to have just enough exclusive content to get/keep a subscription for those with no interest in Sky Sport.

I'd argue that content on all the the other pay channels is replaceable cheaper by a combination of cheap DVDs, FTA TV and patience.

Elmo

watty wrote: »

This is the sort of arithmetic Sky use for Sky One also. It's mostly rubbish, but they endeavour to have just enough exclusive content to get/keep a subscription for those with no interest in Sky Sport.

This is why Sky One will have to improve. Exclusive rights to US TV shows just won't get a high number of subscribers. It isn't like they are even providing the top end of US Drama. While I love LOST and 24 they really aren't shows you would pay a subscription for. IMO. (Especially when they run on FTA TV well at least over here).

Minstrel27

Elmo wrote: »

While I love LOST and 24 they really aren't shows you would pay a subscription for. IMO. (Especially when they run on FTA TV well at least over here).

Has the most recent series of 24 been shown FTA in this country or the UK yet?

Cantona's Collars

As far as I know it was on RTE2-they decided to show it at about 1am for some reason,no wonder nobody saw it.

Elmo

Minstrel27 wrote: »

Has the most recent series of 24 been shown FTA in this country or the UK yet?

I think RTÉ 2 are at the half way point. No FTA service in the UK has the rights to show 24, Sky may show it on Sky 3 in the future.

As far as I know it was on RTE2-they decided to show it at about 1am for some reason,no wonder nobody saw it.

11:30 while it is still too late they have put on at that time since Season 4. Sky have the rights to the show long before RTÉ get them.

I still don't think first showings of Network dramas from the states will really be a good reason to buy television. Sky 1 show a lot of ****, and both LOST and 24 have ended. I don't see much point in Sky 1. We will see what dramas they get exclusively next year but the VMTV buyout might lessen those shows.

Sky need to become England's answer to HBO with some high end original drama.