DTT Mux Tariffs

The Cush

Back in early 2008 RTÉNL published the proposed Schedule of Tariffs for DTT. Discussions on the DTT tariff are still ongoing according to a recent Dáil question

Thursday, 28 June 2012
Broadcasting Services

145. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he has requested ComReg, in writing or by any other means, to conduct a review process of digital terrestrial television tariffs in accordance with the consultation process under Section 130 of the Broadcasting Act 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31310/12]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): RTÉ has developed a series of tariff models for carriage on the Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) service and these have been available to broadcasters for several years.

In 2011, RTÉ contracted with TV3 and TG4 for inclusion on the SAORVIEW DTT service during the simulcast period i.e. the period when both the analogue and DTT networks are operating together.

Section 130 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 provides a discretionary role for me in relation to DTT tariffing and in summer 2010, ComReg was requested to advise me on tariffing for Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) in order to ensure that the RTÉ DTT tariffing process was fair and equitable.

ComReg hired Deloitte to provide specialist expertise with this work. The initial ComReg analysis of the RTÉ simulcast DTT tariffs concluded in June 2012. I am currently considering this analysis with a view to consulting with the broadcasters.

Related thread here from last year - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73928450

The Cush

Article in the Sunday Business Post - TV3 sounds warning over Saorview's fees.

Basically the article says that TV3 considers the "excessive fees" Saorview charges will limit the numbers of services that they could run.

In a submission to the Dept TV3 stated they're willing to pay "properly set tariffs" with an interim tariff set at zero.

They also say in the submission that if the fee was too high it would limit the number of services it could launch and could even force them to remove 3e from Saorview.

Comreg will set the price and have previously stated that the fees for the platform are not unreasonable.

Sponge Bob

The Cush wrote: »

"In a submission to the Dept TV3 stated they're willing to pay a permanent interim tariff set at zero."

Fixed that for you Cush.

For our amusement the issue of a tender for a Commercial DTT Service will arise again after analogue switchoff. It has been parked for the last 2 years since the second attempt at commercial DTT licencing failed in 2009/2010

The Cush

Comreg are in the process of carrying out a review of the broadcasting transmission market in Ireland.

The non-confidential responses were published this week, interesting submissions from RTÉ and TV3.

http://www.comreg.ie/publications/market_review__broadcasting_market_review__broadcasting_non-confidential_responses_received_to_comreg_consultation_document_12_77.583.104232.p.html

The Cush

Last week Comreg published its response and decision to the Broadcast Transmission Services market review consultation.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1371.pdf

They have decided that both RTÉNL/2RN and RTÉ should be subject to ex-ante regulation* in their respective wholesale markets, broadcast transmission in the case of RTÉNL and DTT multiplexing in the case of RTÉ because of the lack of competition in these areas (summarised in Section 2).

Regarding the DTT (multiplexing) Tariff review by the Minister/Comreg this is still ongoing according to the decision document (section 2.17 – 2.21) and contracts for multiplexing services have not been completed (section 11.105 –11.106).

(*ex-ante regulation definition - regulatory control before the event, based on predicted results)

Also they both get the company name wrong

10.20 RTÉ made the following comments on the draft Decision
Instrument:

Paragraph 1.1 should refer to "RTÉNL Network Limited‟ and
not "RTÉNL Transmission Limited‟.

10.33 ComReg notes that Company Registration Office records show
"RTÉNL Transmission Network Limited‟ as the company‟s registered
name and, therefore, is the appropriate wording for the Decision
Instrument.

From the CRO - RTÉ Transmission Network Limited

channelsurfer2

wow....362 pages of absolute mindboggling language that could be summed up in 10pages or less. so no decision yet and dont expect one soon or tv3hd on saorview in the coming months if it takes that long to defer a decision

The Cush

2RN yesterday published its “wholesale access reference offer” for national terrestrial broadcast transmission services (“Market A”).

http://www.2rn.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2RN-Wholesale-Access-Reference-Offer-26-Nov-2013.pdf

The intro to the document best explains its purpose

The following document is RTE/2RN’s “wholesale access reference offer” (“WARO”)
published pursuant to ComReg’s Decision Notice D11/13. This document does not constitute
an offer capable of acceptance or a template contract intended to act as a first draft for
negotiations. It is a reference document so that third parties seeking wholesale access to either
national terrestrial broadcast transmission services (“Market A”) or DTT multiplexing
services (“Market B”) can gain an overview and understanding of the form of agreement they
will be required to enter. It is RTE and 2RN’s intention that the majority of its wholesale
broadcasting services agreements would be in substantially the same format as this reference
document. However individual negotiations may lead to amendments for particular applicants
on a case by case basis. For example agreements requiring the roll out of additional network
infrastructure or concerns RTE or 2RN may have in relation to the credit worthiness of a
particular client may require the satisfaction of certain specific pre-conditions prior to
entering into the agreement or the inclusion of any number of provisions within the agreement
or its Appendices. The services covered by this WARO are strictly limited to those services
necessary to comply with ComReg’s Decision Notice D11/13.

2014 Indicative Tariffs (Distribution and Transmission)
- €5,717,058 per Mux on a 2 Mux service
- €4,850,000 to €5,150,000 per Mux on a 3 Mux service

DTT multiplexing services (“Market B”), what RTÉ as the Multiplex licence holder charges the broadcasters for multiplexing their services isn't included in the document.

channelsurfer2

so if for example setanta wanted to show their 5 channels on mux 3 it would cost them c€5million per year as it would take the full mux with the HD channel on it? that would leave em needing 250,000 DTT subscribers alone just to break even!

Elmo

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

so if for example setanta wanted to show their 5 channels on mux 3 it would cost them c€5million per year as it would take the full mux with the HD channel on it? that would leave em needing 250,000 DTT subscribers alone just to break even!

Setanta seem very cheap €20 per year subscription.

They would need 25,000 or so if they charge just €16permonth

watty

Terrestrial is inherently much more expensive than Satellite. DTT is actually much cheaper than Analogue was. Ignore any comment from TV3.

Setanta could never make money with Terrestrial Pay TV in Ireland, nor could anyone else.

The Cush

Comreg this week published an information notice in relation to 2RN/RTÉ's multiplexing and transmission tariffs. They see no reason to alter the tariffs set by 2RN and RTÉ at this time and consider them to be interim until they complete a WACC review.

Based upon information available, ComReg does not see any reason to
intervene at this stage, subject to the completion of its review of the WACC.
The proposed changes to tariffs will be implemented by 2RN and RTÉ from 1
April 2014 but are to be considered interim until the WACC review is
completed. Once the WACC review is completed and should ComReg
consider that tariffs require adjustment on foot of this review or of any new
information that come to light in the meantime, 2RN/RTÉ will be required to
adjust its tariffs effective 1 April 2014. ComReg regards 2RN/RTE's published
tariffs as being interim until then.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1415.pdf

watty

It's unlikely there will be any change as actually Comreg would like to see much more expensive tariffs and then levy a Spectrum licence fee similar to revenue they get from Mobile Operators.

winston_1

watty wrote: »

Terrestrial is inherently much more expensive than Satellite.

Maybe for the broadcaster. But not for the viewer who has to buy an additional box for each TV.

watty

winston_1 wrote: »

Maybe for the broadcaster. But not for the viewer who has to buy an additional box for each TV.

Yes, use that argument with Comreg about their plans to close Terrestrial altogether. But it's not relevant to discussing Mux prices.

el pasco

watty wrote: »

Terrestrial is inherently much more expensive than Satellite. DTT is actually much cheaper than Analogue was. Ignore any comment from TV3.

Setanta could never make money with Terrestrial Pay TV in Ireland, nor could anyone else.

Why didn't Saorview just go to Saorsat and save a fortune for RTE and 2RN?
They would I saved €80m! Just on set up alone
Why do we still use terrestial tv?

The Cush

el pasco wrote: »

Why didn't Saorview just go to Saorsat and save a fortune for RTE and 2RN?
They would I saved €80m! Just on set up alone
Why do we still use terrestial tv?

This from an Oireachtas committee debate a few years ago which answers your question

Mr. Bob Collins: ... Throughout the debate on this issue during the past eight or ten years, a key underlying point of public policy has been that the State should have an Irish-owned transmission system to carry the four national channels, one that would not be dependent on external economic circumstances or an external force. Hence the necessity of a domestic transmission system. The satellite option does everything mentioned by Mr. Hayes, namely, extending coverage and providing a back-up, but one could not dispense with DTT by virtue of the availability of satellite because, in the last analysis, the satellite option is not within the control of the State.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/MAJ2010071400003

watty

el pasco wrote: »

Why didn't Saorview just go to Saorsat and save a fortune for RTE and 2RN?
They would I saved €80m! Just on set up alone
Why do we still use terrestial tv?

Why doesn't UK and everyone else do the same? The UK would save nearly x20 as much!

1) No possibility of portable or Transportable use. Satellite Reception needs a fixed dish.

2) User cost is hugely higher.

3) The Satellites are Foreign controlled. Even UK doesn't own any. Sky doesn't own any (Sky not only are Pay TV, they are not really UK).

4) Reliability: Satellites can't be fixed. They fail

5) Solar Storm. A Solar "event" could occur ANY time and wipe out the electronics in all the satellites.

6) Security: It's easy to jam the uplink. Iran has transmitters in Cuba jamming uplinks in USA on transatlantic satellites. A laser, Missile, collision, programming mistake on station keeping can occur. Satellites have been put out of action by collision and programming errors.

7) Line of Sight. Satellite is purely line of site and is blocked by trees. Terrestrial UHF reception through trees, reflection or diffraction at hills or buildings and limited "non-LOS" including indoor aerials is possible.

Satellite is only used cheap Pay TV delivery (The most watched Pay TV channels are under 2% viewers) and as complementary reception for 1% to 2% that can't get good terrestrial reception. The percentage that wouldn't be able to get satellite is higher. Also Cable is only Urban/suburban areas and usually subscription only. Install cost is very high compared to Terrestrial Broadcast.

Any Government that insisted or allowed Satellite & Cable only and no Terrestrial Broadcast would be "penny pinching fools". Are you reading this Comreg & Ofcom? Your long term policy to sell off the UHF spectrum entirely and end Terrestrial Broadcasting is stupid greed.

el pasco

watty wrote: »

Why doesn't UK and everyone else do the same? The UK would save nearly x20 as much!

1) No possibility of portable or Transportable use. Satellite Reception needs a fixed dish.

2) User cost is hugely higher.

3) The Satellites are Foreign controlled. Even UK doesn't own any. Sky doesn't own any (Sky not only are Pay TV, they are not really UK).

4) Reliability: Satellites can't be fixed. They fail

5) Solar Storm. A Solar "event" could occur ANY time and wipe out the electronics in all the satellites.

6) Security: It's easy to jam the uplink. Iran has transmitters in Cuba jamming uplinks in USA on transatlantic satellites. A laser, Missile, collision, programming mistake on station keeping can occur. Satellites have been put out of action by collision and programming errors.

7) Line of Sight. Satellite is purely line of site and is blocked by trees. Terrestrial UHF reception through trees, reflection or diffraction at hills or buildings and limited "non-LOS" including indoor aerials is possible.

Satellite is only used cheap Pay TV delivery (The most watched Pay TV channels are under 2% viewers) and as complementary reception for 1% to 2% that can't get good terrestrial reception. The percentage that wouldn't be able to get satellite is higher. Also Cable is only Urban/suburban areas and usually subscription only. Install cost is very high compared to Terrestrial Broadcast.

Any Government that insisted or allowed Satellite & Cable only and no Terrestrial Broadcast would be "penny pinching fools". Are you reading this Comreg & Ofcom? Your long term policy to sell off the UHF spectrum entirely and end Terrestrial Broadcasting is stupid greed.

I don't buy your argument as most tv is satellite either directly or indirectly and it's very reliable and makes tv companies billions every year

watty

I think you don't understand the difference between Pay TV (DTT some countries, cable, fibre, satellite, MMDS) and F.T.A TV, nor the difference between Delivery methods (Cable, Fibre, Terrestrial, MMDS, Satellite) which can in theory be used for pay TV or F.TA., though some are usually only Subscription (Pay TV).

Most TV is NOT satellite. Very little distribution to broadcasters via Satellite (mostly only Outside Broadcast feeds). Most viewing isn't satellite either, though that is irrelevant to the article I wrote above.

Perhaps you work in Comreg or Ofcom?

galtee boy

watty wrote: »

I think you don't understand the difference between Pay TV (DTT some countries, cable, fibre, satellite, MMDS) and F.T.A TV, nor the difference between Delivery methods (Cable, Fibre, Terrestrial, MMDS, Satellite) which can in theory be used for pay TV or F.TA., though some are usually only Subscription (Pay TV).

Most TV is NOT satellite. Very little distribution to broadcasters via Satellite (mostly only Outside Broadcast feeds). Most viewing isn't satellite either, though that is irrelevant to the article I wrote above.

Perhaps you work in Comreg or Ofcom?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere recently, that Sky now have nearly 600,000 subscribers in ROI. At an average of three people per house, that's 1.8m possible viewers using satellite tv in ROI.

STB

galtee boy wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere recently, that Sky now have nearly 600,000 subscribers in ROI. At an average of three people per house, that's 1.8m possible viewers using satellite tv in ROI.

Those figures could not be correct. Sky's figures of people cancelling and resigning have their sub numbers skewed for a long time.

I am sure there are lots of people with Sky boxes, they might not necessarily be subscribers! Using them FTA....

Put it this way Sky havent been offering crazy stay with us reductions (half price etc) for no good reason. They were adapting to the downturn in the economy, reasoning that trickles of money are better than no money.

Luckily for them there are a number of reasons why they continue to keep these customers.

1. Laziness and or the inability to use any other box. Sky have spent a lot of money developing these boxes to make them idiot proof and easy to learn.

2. The proprietary nature of EPG data on 28.2E. Freesat should have done the right thing and made it opensource. Not compressed Huffman.

3. The uniqueness of the Irish situation of having to have a mix tuners to achieve both terrestrial and satellite as a result of no.2.

4. A Highly effective PR brainwashing machine.

Despite the fact that we have been banging on about 9 of the Top 10 stations (all of which have a viewing share of 1%+) are free to watch without the requirement to pay a third party company to watch them. Freeview are on a massive campaign at the moment pushing the very same point.... it 92% FTA viewing wise in the UK.

To add to Watty's post. RTE have reposnibilities under the National Emergency Plan. Having an independent platform is of paramount importance. I love when this topic comes up. Havent we sold enough of our infrastructure to foreign control ?

watty

We have one of the highest penetration of Pay Tv in the world. Sky & UPC together have subscriptions in 82% of households. This historically is for the FTA UK channels which no longer need a sub. Also if you cancel Sky you have to get Irish TV via an aerial. Many Pay TV subscribers also use Terrestrial TV and/or FTA Satellite. About 55% is regarded as normal saturation of pay TV. Even that IMO is high. On AVERAGE people are paying over €400 a year for about 8% of their viewing. On top of Licence, which is a Tax on having a TV receiver.

But anyway, even if 92% of people had satellite as ONLY TV, it would not make a single point wrong. It would illustrate a totally unhealthy situation.

The current situation is stupendously stupid and not an argument to abolish Terrestrial TV and sell the spectrum as Comreg clearly believes. That would be like making Bikes illegal because everyone has a Car, or banning phone lines and Broadband VOIP because 120% mobile penetration.

Terrestrial Broadcast TV & Radio are vital parts of the Infrastructure.

channelsurfer2

I dont think terresterial is going anywhere in the next 10 to 20 years despite what comreg would like to happen.

watty

Unless Government and the People wake up Comreg will auction off DTT spectrum. The reason the national regulators created at the behest of EU instead of Ministry of Posts & Telegraphs (or equivalent) was to secure best use of spectrum and best deal for consumers and innovation.

Many of the regulators regard this satisfied by the highest income from licence sales and chopping up spectrum to multiple operators (competition). But with such a limited thing as spectrum splitting it to 4 operators reduces efficiency to 1/2 or less and also the auction process means only transnational or foreign owned Mobile operators can afford it.

The Government also uses Comreg as an excuse to set no policy and make no investment. So National regulators have been "captured" by big business and have achieved none of the goals set. They need to be abolished as they are civil service run quangos answerable to no-one, they need either to be part of PTT ministries (DCNER etc) or a single EU regulator answerable to the MEPs.

Comreg & Ofcom have toxic policies and no one outside civil service is in control.

Onthe3rdDay

galtee boy wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere recently, that Sky now have nearly 600,000 subscribers in ROI. At an average of three people per house, that's 1.8m possible viewers using satellite tv in ROI.

It's probably a lot more than 1.8m viewers using Satellite. I wouldn't want to guess how many are SKY subscribers but I would think it has already peaked here. The word is slowly spreading that you don't have to pay to get the channels you watch. The majority of those that subscribed had sky so they could watch BBC, ITV and Ch4.

Satellite in Ireland never had the working class stigma that it had in the UK for the first 15 or so years it was available. It was almost essential when you where beyond the reach of UK signals. To be stuck with just RTE 1 and 2 was never desirable. Efforts Made to get BBC and ITV to Cork before Satellite look mad now.

There has never been a logical attitude to Television in this country, from the days when the Vatican wanted to broadcast from here to the current DTT mess, I don't think it will ever change.

Elmo

Damn I was stuck with RTÉ 1 and 2 and I was in a cabled area Though my parents felt I watch too much TV, didn't stop me from watching the TV.

You are right Sky One for example had a 6% share of the audience in 1989 according to the current DG of RTÉ's final year dissertation. Something I doubt Sky One ever achieved in the UK.

el pasco

watty wrote: »

I think you don't understand the difference between Pay TV (DTT some countries, cable, fibre, satellite, MMDS) and F.T.A TV, nor the difference between Delivery methods (Cable, Fibre, Terrestrial, MMDS, Satellite) which can in theory be used for pay TV or F.TA., though some are usually only Subscription (Pay TV).

Most TV is NOT satellite. Very little distribution to broadcasters via Satellite (mostly only Outside Broadcast feeds). Most viewing isn't satellite either, though that is irrelevant to the article I wrote above.

Perhaps you work in Comreg or Ofcom?

Firstly Watty who are you but a glorified keyboard wizard like come on?
Like you don't know jack S*** about what you're on about like you're a nobody

Why would massive multinational companies with billions in turn over invest in satellite technology if it was so unreliable
Like why would the NYSE and President Obama and the Nuclear Submarines rely on it if it was so bad

Satellite broadcasting is a very effective very reliable means of communications and its far cheaper and reliable than terrestial

Most tv is from satellite either directly or indirectly like if you watch say sky tv its directly but if you watch say sky sports on upc its indirectly or a live tv broadcast from america or from a football match thats indirectly and most people in the world depend on satellites where there for tv radio Internet weather sat navs etc where there directly or indirectly

Satellites are designed to withstand solar storms and solar storms affect earth too so that point is bulls****
Just look at the 1989 solar storm that affectived Canada national grid

I like probably billions watch around the satellite tv for many years without problems so why did RTE not just save over €75m and go to free to air satellite instead of Saorview like why would so many people have satellite tv if it was so bad??

Your argument about us not owning the satellite is bulls**t as neither does Sky or most other countries but they still use it as the satellite owning companies need the money to survive
We don't own out mobile network neither or our phone network so what's the difference??

Satellite are designed to be very robost and there are back up satellite if any thing goes wrong
Like think of it Sky TV is wholly dependant on satellites for its company yet in over 20 years nothing has gone wrong so why would they invest billions if they believe in it

Terrestial TV also fails when did sky tv ever fail??

How is user cost higher?
You can buy a satellite box and all the gear very cheaply so don't know what the price difference is compared to terrestial TV

Line if sight this argument is also bulls**t as the the same problem affects terrestial if your aerial doesn't point in the right direction o if you live say in an apartment and your not facing the mast or of your boxed in by high buildings around you then this also affects you too
You can recieve a satellite signal on ground level of you have line if sight which 99% plus of the population have with terrestial that rarely Happens

If your on the move with terrestial TV the same problem affect you as satellite so that another non argument
Indeed with cruise ships the satellite moves to still receive the signal
Your argument on security is also bulls**t as terrestial broadcasts can also be jammed so your no further on
Like when US invaded Iraq and the jammed their tv terrestial signal

Do you have any evidence that the Iranian jammed US satellite
Billions around the world use sat navs and satellites for weather forecasts and for countless other uses without a hitch

What does my job have got to do with my post
Just goes to show how ignorant you are

el pasco

Onthe3rdDay wrote: »

It's probably a lot more than 1.8m viewers using Satellite. I wouldn't want to guess how many are SKY subscribers but I would think it has already peaked here. The word is slowly spreading that you don't have to pay to get the channels you watch. The majority of those that subscribed had sky so they could watch BBC, ITV and Ch4.

Satellite in Ireland never had the working class stigma that it had in the UK for the first 15 or so years it was available. It was almost essential when you where beyond the reach of UK signals. To be stuck with just RTE 1 and 2 was never desirable. Efforts Made to get BBC and ITV to Cork before Satellite look mad now.

There has never been a logical attitude to Television in this country, from the days when the Vatican wanted to broadcast from here to the current DTT mess, I don't think it will ever change.

What do you mean there was never a logical attitude to TV in this country??

el pasco

winston_1 wrote: »

Maybe for the broadcaster. But not for the viewer who has to buy an additional box for each TV.

If at the time over the digital switch over it need not cost anything extra
Actually they could put both Saorsat and freeview on one box and save money
So your point ain't valid

el pasco

watty wrote: »

Yes, use that argument with Comreg about their plans to close Terrestrial altogether. But it's not relevant to discussing Mux prices.

How is that a valid point
Like when the digital tv switch over happened you needed to buy either a new tv or a new set top box indeed for many people it would save them money as they would only need one box for both Saorsat and freesat

In relation to MUX prices if only satellite tv was used then surely that bandwidth could be used and sold off to other users for money

el pasco

Elmo wrote: »

Damn I was stuck with RTÉ 1 and 2 and I was in a cabled area Though my parents felt I watch too much TV, didn't stop me from watching the TV.

You are right Sky One for example had a 6% share of the audience in 1989 according to the current DG of RTÉ's final year dissertation. Something I doubt Sky One ever achieved in the UK.

You lived in TV cabled area and yet you only had 2 TV stations
Was that because you didn't have cable tv?

el pasco

winston_1 wrote: »

Maybe for the broadcaster. But not for the viewer who has to buy an additional box for each TV.

How is it more dearer for the viewer?
A sat set top box cost the same as a terrestial set top box
And if rte went to only satellite you could have one box to get both freeview chanels and Saorsat on the one box
Hundreds of channels on one box

watty

That's simplistic nonsense I'm afraid.

el pasco

watty wrote: »

That's simplistic nonsense I'm afraid.

Explain then so

STB

el pasco wrote: »

Explain then so

This is a technical forum. Sometimes people may know more about something than you, but you shouldnt let that upset you.

You need to re-read the thread. You also need to read about satellite patterns, broadcast rights and more importantly simple posting etiquette.

el pasco

STB wrote: »

This is a technical forum. Sometimes people may know more about something than you, but you shouldnt let that upset you.

You need to re-read the thread. You also need to read about satellite patterns, broadcast rights and more importantly simple posting etiquette.

I understand that this is a satellite pattern and broadcasting rights etc but Watty did not back up any of the statements that s/he made
What's the point if making statements if you can't back them up
Then the answer Watty gave didn't even back up anything that Watty said which even goes to prove that the person doesn't know what they're on about

I did not get upset but I you want a proper discussion fair enough if not then go somewhere else

If this person knows more than me about a certain topic then prove with evidence and not just general and vague statement

Hendrik Verhoeven

el pasco wrote: »

If this person knows more than me about a certain topic then prove with evidence

31000-odd posts to look through, might do for a start.

el pasco

Hendrik Verhoeven wrote: »

31000-odd posts to look through, might do for a start.

I don't care how many posts they have and anyway if they are so knowledgable then the person can simple post they're responses to my statements

I don't know why other people are replying for Watty though
I sure Watty can reply for themselves

Hendrik Verhoeven

el pasco wrote: »

I don't know why other people are replying for Watty though
I sure Watty can reply for themselves

Was just a comment. You were looking for "evidence", it is there for you to peruse at your leisure.

I have not anything really to say on the theme here, just pointing this out. Apologies if I intruded on something.

el pasco

Hendrik Verhoeven wrote: »

Was just a comment. You were looking for "evidence", it is there for you to peruse at your leisure.

I have not anything really to say on the theme here, just pointing this out. Apologies if I intruded on something.

Well if Watty could give me his/her expert advice then that would be welcome
No need to apologise!!
No offence taken
Hope you are well! :-)

galtee boy

el pasco wrote: »

Well if Watty could give me his/her expert advice then that would be welcome
No need to apologise!!
No offence taken
Hope you are well! :-)

Since you called Watty ignorant and a glorified keyboard wizard, I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you.

el pasco

galtee boy wrote: »

Since you called Watty ignorant and a glorified keyboard wizard, I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you.

Why what's Watty going to do??
Eat me??

watty

el pasco wrote: »

I don't care how many posts they have and anyway if they are so knowledgable then the person can simple post they're responses to my statements

I don't know why other people are replying for Watty though
I sure Watty can reply for themselves

We sure can. But we have a life so no instant response.

The point has been answered 100s of times in the satellite forum.
And by RTE in front of the Committees.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055968485

I think even been answered in this thread.

Satellite is only for terrestrial fill in. That's why Freesat exists, for the 2% of UK that can't get good Freeview.

Irish Satellite can't be on the same system as Freesat. You CAN get Saorsat and Freesat on one box. But no integrated EPG, not reliably and also you need a special dish set up about twice size of Sky dish.

http://www.saortv.info/satellite-saorsat/

http://www.techtir.ie/saortv/saorsat-coverage

Do some research. Plenty on Rights issues and "security"/ownership issue of Satellite on these forums.

I was being polite calling your post nonsense.

Satellite could all be wiped out tomorrow by a solar flare.

The "birds" for UK & Ireland are owned by two Foreign companies. BBC, SKY, ITV don't even own any.

Dish and multiple TV set feeding is hugely more expensive than Terrestrial.

Only realistically fixed installations.

I could produce a whole website of content explaining that although it's a tiny fraction of transmission cost only idiots would have a strategy of Satellite only and no Terrestrial.

The answers are even in the links on my signature on every post. I don't get paid to come here either.

icdg

Okay, we have a play the ball not the man rule here, please stick to it.

el pasco

watty wrote: »

We sure can. But we have a life so no instant response.

The point has been answered 100s of times in the satellite forum.
And by RTE in front of the Committees.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055968485

I think even been answered in this thread.

Satellite is only for terrestrial fill in. That's why Freesat exists, for the 2% of UK that can't get good Freeview.

Irish Satellite can't be on the same system as Freesat. You CAN get Saorsat and Freesat on one box. But no integrated EPG, not reliably and also you need a special dish set up about twice size of Sky dish.

http://www.saortv.info/satellite-saorsat/

http://www.techtir.ie/saortv/saorsat-coverage

Do some research. Plenty on Rights issues and "security"/ownership issue of Satellite on these forums.

I was being polite calling your post nonsense.

Satellite could all be wiped out tomorrow by a solar flare.

The "birds" for UK & Ireland are owned by two Foreign companies. BBC, SKY, ITV don't even own any.

Dish and multiple TV set feeding is hugely more expensive than Terrestrial.

Only realistically fixed installations.

I could produce a whole website of content explaining that although it's a tiny fraction of transmission cost only idiots would have a strategy of Satellite only and no Terrestrial.

The answers are even in the links on my signature on every post. I don't get paid to come here either.

Satellite is NOT just for infill as SKY TV over 10 million subscribers in the UK alone

It has probably billions of users worldwide indeed in many parts of the world like the Middle East it's the only way to get TV or radio or Internet

I am well aware that BSKYB don't own the satellites it's own by SES based in Luxembourg but what does that matter?

Like I said before our mobile and phone infrastructure is owned by foreigners
In Britain their energy and phones infrastructure is owned by foreigners but who cares

The satellite for Saorsat is a high speed broadband satellite which is also used for TV
I am we'll aware of that fact

Terrestial based infrastructure could also be wiped out tomorrow by a solar flares as well so that point is neither here nor there

I am well aware that you can't get Saorsat and Freesat on one EPG
(Well unless you write your own program maybe)
But the same issues occurs for Saorview/Freesat

If RTE went to only Saorsat they would of saved at less €75m which would of meant that they would of being in a much better position financially and they would of saved money as the running costs are far lower year on year

STB

Sky television is a pay only TV subscription service.

Freesat has nothing to do with Sky. Freesat is a Free to Air Platform that mirrors the Freeview Terrestrial platform in the UK. In Ireland ours FTA PSB service is called Saorview on Terrestrial, Saorsat on Satellite.

The reason 2RN could use 9E for Saorsat, is because the costs were a fraction of the costs than that of a widebeam satellite like those at 28.2E.

The 9E satellite operated by Eutelsat is for DTH services with a very narrow spot beam that just about covers Ireland. It also uses KA LNBs rather than the traditional KU.

It was the first time that a satellite presented itself in this form and hence the opportunity to use same. Even still it is meant as a mechanism for the small percentage of the country that cannot receive Saorview via Terrestrial means (less than 2%).

Ireland has a small population (less than a 20th of the UK). We therefore cannot compete with even the UK PSB broadcasters interms of what we can use for delivery of television. Leaving aside the transponder costs to get on 28.2E, we could never afford to pay the rights that go with showing content (especially in HD) on a pan european basis or even Ireland and UK basis in the clear. Sports rights, films rights, US Dramas etc would be lost as we would be broadcasting to millions.

Previous governments have decided that the best way forward is for Ireland is to have its own terrestrial digital platform (as analogue was required to be switched off in line with other EU countries). It was RTE's decision to use Saorsat in parallel. Not all people can or wish to install satellite dishes.

el pasco

STB wrote: »

Sky television is a pay only TV subscription service.

Freesat has nothing to do with Sky. Freesat is a Free to Air Platform that mirrors the Freeview Terrestrial platform in the UK. In Ireland ours FTA PSB service is called Saorview on Terrestrial, Saorsat on Satellite.

The reason 2RN could use 9E for Saorsat, is because the costs were a fraction of the costs than that of a widebeam satellite like those at 28.2E.

The 9E satellite operated by Eutelsat is for DTH services with a very narrow spot beam that just about covers Ireland. It also uses KA LNBs rather than the traditional KU.

It was the first time that a satellite presented itself in this form and hence the opportunity to use same. Even still it is meant as a mechanism for the small percentage of the country that cannot receive Saorview via Terrestrial means (less than 2%).

Ireland has a small population (less than a 20th of the UK). We therefore cannot compete with even the UK PSB broadcasters interms of what we can use for delivery of television. Leaving aside the transponder costs to get on 28.2E, we could never afford to pay the rights that go with showing content (especially in HD) on a pan european basis or even Ireland and UK basis in the clear. Sports rights, films rights, US Dramas etc would be lost as we would be broadcasting to millions.

Previous governments have decided that the best way forward is for Ireland is to have its own terrestrial digital platform (as analogue was required to be switched off in line with other EU countries). It was RTE's decision to use Saorsat in parallel. Not all people can or wish to install satellite dishes.

I am we'll aware that Sky tv is a pay tv service but my point was that if 10m people pay for satellite then it obviously must be ok otherwise people wouldn't pay for it and it isn't a niche tv segment either

Millions of others use Freesat and millions around the world use satellite tv ok so why not just go for satellite tv and ditch terrestial TV and save a fortune
Even germanys biggest private tv broadcaster is stopping terrestrial broadcasting and going either to satellite cable or Internet or MMDS
Even Comreg in the UK wants to do this

What on earth has Ireland's population got to do with anything??
We broadcast on Saorsat and use Astra 28.2 to get UK channels
What's the issue??

Kristopherus

el pasco wrote: »

I am we'll aware that Sky tv is a pay tv service but my point was that if 10m people pay for satellite then it obviously must be ok otherwise people wouldn't pay for it and it isn't a niche tv segment either

Millions of others use Freesat and millions around the world use satellite tv ok so why not just go for satellite tv and ditch terrestial TV and save a fortune
Even germanys biggest private tv broadcaster is stopping terrestrial broadcasting and going either to satellite cable or Internet or MMDS
Even Comreg in the UK wants to do this

Do you really think the hundreds of thousands of Irish households could afford to install satellite dishes an set-top boxes in the middle of the biggest recession to hit this country since the foundation of the state?????

The Cush

el pasco wrote: »

Even germanys biggest private tv broadcaster is stopping terrestrial broadcasting and going either to satellite cable or Internet or MMDS

They changed their mind in December - http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2013/12/19/rtl-deutschland-reconsiders-dvb-t-distribution/

They were leaving terrestrial broadcasting because its future in Germany was uncertain but the new coalition government has guaranteed that spectrum will continue to be available and DVB-T2 will be the future standard.

Germany PSBs ARD and ZDF will switch to DVB-T2 in 2017 - http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2013/09/18/ard-and-zdf-plan-to-go-dvb-t2-in-2017/

There is no MMDS in Germany.

el pasco

Kristopherus wrote: »

Do you really think the hundreds of thousands of Irish households could afford to install satellite dishes an set-top boxes in the middle of the biggest recession to hit this country since the foundation of the state?????

I'm saying that this should of happened during the digital switchover
If it did RTE go to saorsat only it could of giving over €75m saving to subsidy the switchover simple

el pasco

The Cush wrote: »

They changed their mind in December - http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2013/12/19/rtl-deutschland-reconsiders-dvb-t-distribution/

They were leaving terrestrial broadcasting because its future in Germany was uncertain but the new coalition government has guaranteed that spectrum will continue to be available and DVB-T2 will be the future standard.

Germany PSBs ARD and ZDF will switch to DVB-T2 in 2017 - http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2013/09/18/ard-and-zdf-plan-to-go-dvb-t2-in-2017/

There is no MMDS in Germany.

Fair enough point taken