Article: "The blurred future of Ireland's digital plans"

redalicat

From today's Irish Times: The blurred future of Ireland's digital plans

So 3e isn't locked in? Since my DVR died, I'm agreeing with this part of the article more and more:

Meanwhile, the growth of internet television – from the RTÉ Player to Magnet Web TV, which currently offers all domestic channels online – means that DTT is no longer the cutting edge technology it once was.

Sam Russell

TV3 are complaining that RTE are launching extra channels, and in the next breath saying he is not sure that TV3 will launch 3E on Saorview.

He can not have it both ways. If he wants extra non-RTE channels, he can launch them.

He has a history of complaining about RTE, and expecting rules to be bent in his company's favour. Instead of expecting the BAI to restrict RTE, why does he not compete. Surely he can get TV3 to make decent programmes. (He has failed thus far.) Can TV3 reduce their dependance on imported programmes? Most of prime time output originates with ITV, so apparently not. All their home produced programmes are of a standard seen in low-budget cable channels. Could do better.

[Edit - How much has TV3 contributed to the DTT roll-out or the information campaign?]

polyfusion

He made a fair comparison with Ryanair though, they're both sh!t service providers.

I watch more of some obscure Iranian channel on 13E with Farsi subtitles (but original soundtrack) that show movies that look that like they're DVDrips downloaded off Rapidshare, than I do of TV3/3E.

(11200 V 27500, if anyone is interested)

watty

Till we have 20Mbps to 200Mbps universal broadband, with directly peered HD quality video and 250GByte to 1000 GByte cap minimum, comparing DTT with Broadband is fantasy.

Average is 3Mbps. About 40% can't get decent Broadband. Only about 25% can get 20MBps and average cap is 30Gbyte.

Watching any regular amount of TV at less than VHS quality is 160Gbyte a month!

The article fails to mention we have had 3rd rate analogue TV Network.

TV3 refused to even pay to be on the Analogue network properly, less than 80% coverage.

Doesn't emphases quality, widescreen, HD, improved coverage and cost advantages of DTT compared to analogue.

“We’re horrified by them, we think it’s a joke,” says McRedmond. “We’re going to be the only country in Europe with eight state channels. This is madness at a time when the State can barely afford two channels.”

Since when is RTE1, RTE2, RTE jr, RTE News and a Replay channel in evening when RTEjr off count as EIGHT channels?
I'd count that as 4.5 channels. Or 3 Channels if RTE News remains same as it is now.

Maybe he didn't notice, but the Government, unlike other Governments so far hasn't actually put money into DTT roll out yet, hasn't funded Oireachtas TV (I'm sure TV3 can pay for it and run it), hasn't funded Irish Film Board to run Film Channel, hasn't funded Irish International Service and has reduced proportion of Licence Fee that RTE gets.

McRedmond should get his own house in order. It would make no difference if we replaced TV3 with UTV.

Irish Times doesn't think there is Eight RTE channels

At the most basic level, Saorview is offering a pared-down, Irish-oriented version of the digital packages familiar to cable and satellite customers. Saorview customers will have a set-top box converting the signal from (most) existing aerials, bringing up an electronic programme guide (EPG) displaying the channels on offer: RTÉ One plus the five new services, TV3, TG4 and – maybe – 3e.

At first glance, Saorview appears to be offering a much-expanded suite of RTÉ services, but there is not much that is really new.

Also The Irish Times seems to forget that Saor = Irish for FREE. Not a another Pay TV competitor to Sky or UPC, but just the Digital replacement of Analogue, to save money, allow HD and Widescreen and some extra content. Also from June almost 100% coverage by Satellite, allowing prospect of UK and Irish TV on a single PVR without paying Sky or UPC.

McRedmond then gets to have 100% coverage instead of less than 80%, 2 channels instead of one, option for HD, real Widescreen and all for less than Analogue costs. With really no extra significant competition (he doesn't do Kids TV) till Film Channel starts (if ever).

Does he know anything about PSB or TV?

The article while appearing to give information about DTT is a typical Media Hatchet job against RTE. Who owns Irish Times?

I give this Article 1 out 10 due to it's underlying agenda and distortion of the facts.

liamtech

I knew this type of crap would happen - these people clearly dont have a clue what there talking about - i do agree that the lack of a proper free view style network in ireland has let sky make a killing - proportionally more irish use sky than any other provider -

THe article is clearly biased as:

• it fails to mention FTA Satellite, and the wealth of english speaking channels available from 28.2/28.5 - using a mere sky dish of all things
• the author seems blissfully unaware of the fact that 3e is actually being carried at the moment

Seriously what is the reason for the lack of FTA satellite info available in Ireland - I have converted 5 households from sky and 2 from UPC - and that's friends who see my setup and are clearly interested - Yet 99% of people havent a clue these stations are available - if they did, then all of those homes who are currently analogue would have freesat or at least FTA Satellite -

And TV3 are seriously taking the mick by moaning about RTE's dominance - If they dont want so many people watching RTE why not launch a few new stations of there own or put more enjoyable programming on their two current stations -

Unlike most people i actually enjoy watching TV3, and occasionally 3e(conan is pretty cool) - I would miss them if they vanished (indeed i missed TV3 when it vanished for what seemed like an Ice Age last year)

But if they want to behave like assholes and take there channels off the air then i say let them... if and when the Saorview/FTA/Freesat alternative really takes off(as i truely hope it does) they'll lose out -

what is the current status of 3e, is its DTT carriage paid for by TV3 or Saorview directly

watty

TV3 has to pay for TV3 and 3e. It's not overpriced.

At a guess I'd doubt they have paid anything so far, but have to sign up soon.

Sam Russell

I think if TV3 are given the choice of paying for 3E or letting RTE NL get UTV onto Saorview, I could guess which way they would go.

Why are they allowed to get away with this nonsense. They have been allowed to only cover 80% of the country, been given extra minutes of advertising per hour, allowed unfettered product placement on their poverty programmes, been given a free ride on DTT, and here they are carping at RTE, who paid all of the costs of DTT.

I think we could do without them. Let UTV have a go.

icdg

watty wrote: »

Since when is RTE1, RTE2, RTE jr, RTE News and a Replay channel in evening when RTEjr off count as EIGHT channels?
I'd count that as 4.5 channels. Or 3 Channels if RTE News remains same as it is now.

Only country in Europe! My god, does he travel much?

In fact he only needs to hop into the UK: BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News, BBC Parliament, BBC Alba, BBC HD, CBBC, CBeebies, Channel 4, E4, Film4, S4C. That is a whopping fourteen channels wholly owned by the British state through the BBC, Channel 4, and S4C. That's not counting HD simulcasts, +1 channels, or the myriad of regional variations. Or the BBC's 50% holding in UKTV or Channel 4's 50% holding in The Box.

If he went to Germany, he'd probably fall over with the amount of state-owned broadcasters. In fact under the German Basic Law, the federal government is actually prohibited from owning broadcasters, meaning that broadcasting is organised regionally under various broadcasting corporations for each state or group of states. All of these not only operate one or more of their own stations, but come together in the ARD network which itself operates several digital channels. Then there is ZDF, jointly owned by all the states and it again also has several digital channels.

I could go on. In Italy, RAI has several digital channels including two sport channels, on top of its three analogue terrestrial stations. In France, France Televisions operates the digital only France 4 as well as offering evening programmes on France 5 (which must share its analogue broadcasts with ARTE, itself yet another state owned broadcaster).

The pattern is the same around Europe. For digital television to be a success, punters need an incentive to swtich. Otherwise they will ask "why are we doing this" and in the present climate "Cause Europe told us to, so switch or else you're not getting any TV" is not likely to go down too well. It has to be presented as a gain for the consumer. And extra channels is for the consumer the biggest win. The three channels being proposed aren't exactly going to be crowd pleasers - RTE News A Few Hours Ago, RTÉjr (just a loop of what was on RTÉ Two that morning) and RTÉ1+1 - but the mere fact of their presence (and that of 3e) will be something that can be pointed to as a reason to switch to Saorview. You need both carrot and stick.

watty

Yet TV3 will moan about the cost (reduced, yet more coverage and better quality) and threaten to not pay for 3e on DTT.

I am a bit jaded with TV3's and Sky's Whinging about RTE and DTT.

RTE have many faults. Not least silly money paid to presenters and maybe too much managers and bureaucracy, but the complaints of Sky, the Newspapers and TV3 are laughable.

FREETV

watty wrote: »

Yet TV3 will moan about the cost (reduced, yet more coverage and better quality) and threaten to not pay for 3e on DTT.

I am a bit jaded with TV3's and Sky's Whinging about RTE and DTT.

RTE have many faults. Not least silly money paid to presenters and maybe too much managers and bureaucracy, but the complaints of Sky, the Newspapers and TV3 are laughable.

Well Watty, we all know that it is about jealousy and them both losing out financially, they should be told to shut up whinging and improve their services by investing in decent quality programs and productions. TV3 will gain immensely by staying on Saorview. If they decide not to pay and leave the service then it will be their demise. Sky should pay to put SKY 1 or other channels on the service if more space and a third multiplex is added and make money from advertising as they may lose up to thirty percent of their customers by the end of next year.

watty

Sky make less than 20% of Income from advertising. They can't afford to be FTA.

With over 80% of income from Subscription, Sky don't want people realising most of what they watch is FTA. Sky1 only gets less than 2% viewing time on Pay Tv. That's the highest rated pay TV. All the Sky Sports Channels together is less than 2% viewing time, though an important viewing time to those that pay extra for Sky Sports.

Many of the Pay Channels have so low a % viewing figure that "statistically" they are listed as having zero viewers.

About 92% to 97% of people's viewing time is FTA TV (depending on if they are sports fans or have Movie channel subs etc).

How are TV3 losing out Financially? They get better coverage, in better quality for less money after ASO with DTT.


(Based on BARB for UK and Nielsen in Ireland)

Mike 1972

The article incorrectly states UK DTT started in 2002. It was actually 1998.

dpe

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The article incorrectly states UK DTT started in 2002. It was actually 1998.

No, the article says Freeview started in 2002, which is correct. Before that it was the ill-fated ITV Digital.

Speaking as a foreigner, I have to say I find it amazing that RTE has managed to put the kibosh on not one, but two digital tv consortia only to succeed them with its own service, and no-one here bats an eyelid.

Sam Russell

dpe wrote: »

No, the article says Freeview started in 2002, which is correct. Before that it was the ill-fated ITV Digital.

Speaking as a foreigner, I have to say I find it amazing that RTE has managed to put the kibosh on not one, but two digital tv consortia only to succeed them with its own service, and no-one here bats an eyelid.

That is not fair to RTE. It is the economy that put the kibosh on the commercial DTV, and the dept that refused to let RTE NL go ahead without it.

The PayTV model was never going to work, and each consortium wanted to get RTE NL to give them a free ride. Once Freesat launched, no-one in Ireland with any sense and a little knowledge was going to pay Boxer or anyone else for a lesser service than was available for free.

What was disgraceful about this, was the way that each consortium was alowed to keep the ownership of the bid without actually going ahead with it. No timelines were insisted upon, and time was of the essence.

That is what we should kick up about.

rlogue

No RTENL said nothing about their €25 million bond until the first negotiations with Boxer were under way. OneVision should have been prepared for it but claimed they werent. The failing economy was a major factor but the fact that RTE were and are both a service provider and the transmitter also was a factor.

Sam Russell

rlogue wrote: »

No RTENL said nothing about their €25 million bond until the first negotiations with Boxer were under way. OneVision should have been prepared for it but claimed they werent. The failing economy was a major factor but the fact that RTE were and are both a service provider and the transmitter also was a factor.

Even if that is correct, the bond would not be expensive for a viable consortium onto a surefire winner. It would be prohibitively expensive for a dead duck project.

RTE NL must have noticed the duck landing face down.

watty

It's a "Bond" though. So cost to Boxer under €200K a year probably. It's like insurance if RTE spends money on a Rollout and then the payTV company does a runner or goes bust.

The "Bond" was never really the issue. The real issue is that when Pay TV satuation is about 55%, how do you compete with two platforms (UPC and Sky) that have more content and much lower running cost per channel and about 80% of the market between them?

RTE assumed Boxer was going ahead. A major factor in pre-purchase and commence rollout of 13 sites with FOUR Multiplexs and signing Contract with Boxer's "friend" Teracom for Certification of TVs and Boxes.

RTE didn't put the kibosh on anyone. They have many faults, waste money etc., but the Conspiracy Theory doesn't wash.

RTE NL charges were also independently assessed. The problem was DCENR, BAI/BCI and the Government expectations. Also entering a tender is no evidence that a Company ever intends to take up a licence. I know Companies that have tendered for things to help Corporate Image. Or even signed licences and then quietly handed them back later.

watty

Sam Russell wrote: »

What was disgraceful about this, was the way that each consortium was alowed to keep the ownership of the bid without actually going ahead with it. No timelines were insisted upon, and time was of the essence.

That is what we should kick up about.

Almost two years wasted. Or over Ten Years. Depending on your point of view. The only value of the 1999 ... 2001 failure is that we get to have single MPGE4 system unlike UK dual system.

It's TV was an even dafter piece of nonsense. Remember the 2006 "Trail" was not about engineering at all. It was DCENR + BT to create a shop window to re-ignite interest in the Pay TV licence, which had been sitting for FIVE years waiting for a buyer.

What was different between 2001 and 2008? Well, in 2001 there was not Freesat Competition (C4 and Five only joined the BBC & ITV more recently and BBC was FTA a while without ITV. In fact ITV wasn't on Sky Digital at ALL to start with!). In 2001 Sky had much smaller penetration that NTL/Chorus who were both basket cases compared to UPC.

UPC could have taken pay DTT licence when they bought NTL and Chorus.

So 1999 or 2001 was FAR FAR more viable to launch pay DTT in Ireland than 2008 to 2010. If Irish pay DTT as envisaged by BAI today ever launches in Ireland, it will lose money.

Sam Russell

watty wrote: »

If Irish pay DTT as envisaged by BAI today ever launches in Ireland, it will lose money.

Unless run by Sky.

watty

Ummm. It would still make a loss on the Terrestrial Operation.

Sam Russell

But they might stop a haemorage of people going FTA.

watty

They can do that cheaper than DTT by offering a budget UK TV + Irish TV package.

In fact sometimes they already offer this to people cancelling. Costs them almost nothing. But they will not publicise it.

Sam Russell

If that is so, why do they want to go on FreeView Payview?

It is a simple way to get subscribers onto the Sky way od doing you business.

Mike 1972

dpe wrote: »

No, the article says Freeview started in 2002, which is correct. Before that it was the ill-fated ITV Digital. .

Nope the exact words are

Since 2002, the UK has had its own DTT service, Freeview (jointly run by five broadcasters),

But the UK has had its own DTT service since 1998. It just happens to have been called Freeview since 2002.

watty

Sam Russell wrote: »

If that is so, why do they want to go on FreeView Payview?

It is a simple way to get subscribers onto the Sky way od doing you business.

They make more money out of a €22 Sky package on Satellite than a keep people who were going to leave €10 or €15 or whatever package. A Cheap package would only be actively marketed if UPC did a big price cut, or Real Digital Launched or someone else launched a pay DTT. PayDTT costs too much to run. Especially until you get 200,000 Customers.

STB

watty wrote: »

TV3 has to pay for TV3 and 3e. It's not overpriced.

At a guess I'd doubt they have paid anything so far, but have to sign up soon.

That TV3 were even given the option of sticking 3e on a public mux wont be something that Mr McRedmond will be shouting too loudly about.

What are they bringing to the party ? If they think they are holding some sort of gun to the head to the Irish people I think they should be reminded that UTV would be more than happy to be given an opportunity as a content provider. As a “television programme service contractor” perhaps they should just give it up altogether in 2012.

Fecking poor mouths. The quality of Tv3s studio output is so dire its comical. "In association with Tv3" means they are trying to sell you something! Rationalisation ? Yeah some are blackbelts at it.

icdg

dpe wrote: »

No, the article says Freeview started in 2002, which is correct. Before that it was the ill-fated ITV Digital.

Speaking as a foreigner, I have to say I find it amazing that RTE has managed to put the kibosh on not one, but two digital tv consortia only to succeed them with its own service, and no-one here bats an eyelid.

ITV Digital launched originally as ONdigital, which raises a huge point. The UK could not get a pay-TV DTT service to work despite:

- Starting within two months of Sky Digital's launch and basically everything "all to play for".
- Starting at a time when the cable industry was still divided into NTL CableTel, Cable and Wireless, and Telewest and took ages to get their digital services launched (long after both Sky and ONdigital had started).
- Being in a country with a far lower pay-TV take up than Ireland.
- Being in a country with a far lower cable penetration than Ireland.
- Being in a country where, among certain parts of "Middle England", having a satellite dish was looked down upon.
- Having ITV on their EPG from day one.

Yet they couldn't do it. Yes they made huge mistakes. A-la-carte pricing doesn't and never will work in pay-TV. They massively overpaid for the Football League rights, which was the straw that broke the camel's back. (And really they were just plainly asking for bad luck by basing themselves none other than Marcopolo House, the old BSB headquarters). Nonetheless none of these things were the reason they went under. After all if the business could have been made work as a going concern, they would have exited administration. They just simply couldn't make the business work. Top Up TV tried it again in 2004, but lasted two years before morphing into a wierd kind of NVOD service. Nowadays it has just three actual TV stations, which are Sky Sports 1 & 2 and ESPN. Really it is a way to pay for Sky Sports on its own without having to take a Sky Digital package, but I don't see why you would do it particularly in the absence of Sky Sports 3 & 4. I have no idea what their subscriber numbers are like.

Why pay for 30 channels when you could pay for 300. That's what pay-DTT is really up against. It just simply can't compete against Sky and cable with its limited capacity.

dpe

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Nope the exact words are



But the UK has had its own DTT service since 1998. It just happens to have been called Freeview since 2002.

And that sentence is accurate. Just depends how you read it.