DTT Mux Tariffs

el pasco

The Cush wrote: »

Like every other European nation, yes.

I wonder why this is the case?

The Cush

el pasco wrote: »

I wonder why this is the case?

Probably because the transmission networks were already in place and were in the ownership of their respective countries/broadcasters so it was simply a matter of upgrading them for digital transmission. On the receiving end the majority of terrestrial viewers already had an in-band aerial for ATT/DTT reception which simply required a new DTT receiver to be attched.

Sam Russell

el pasco wrote: »

I wouldn't say that it you would need 1 million satellite insatallations as many people already have large enough dishes but even if they did you can buy a dish quiet cheaply particular say on eBay etc with a cheap generic set top box and many people put up satellite dishes themselves many even on or near ground level
So it need not cost any more if not much more than the actual digital switch over

Nonsense. Picking stuff up cheap on ebay cannot be part of public policy. Existing dishes are no good for Saorsat as RTE cannot broadcast in the clear from 28 degrees east because of rights issues. So every satellite installation (for every TV) would be expensive and difficult.

The Saorsat installation has a seperate requirement for a dish pointing to 9 degrees East, and not pointing at 28 degrees east as per Sky and Freesat.

So to have Freesat and Saorsat, two dishes are required. Saorsat also needs a different type of LNB that Sky/Freesat, and would require a Diseq switcher to enble auto switching between the two. Most basic sat receivers do not cater for this. This setup would be required for a single TV. Multiple TVs require a much more complex setup at much greater expense.

The Government has no interest in foreign TV and its reception and so took no cognisance of this. DTT signals behave (as far as installation) in the same manner as analogue signals (only they are digital and suffer from the digital cliff effect).

RTE paid for Saorview (and Saorsat) from their own resources with no funds being provided from central government and received none of the 'digital dividend' from the sale of spectrum.

Saorview is a success because it works and covers 98% of the population at no subsciption cost to the viewers. It could deliver twice as many channels, and many in HD. What more could you want?

I have a TV in my bedroom that receives Saorview on an aerial made from a bent coathanger sitting next to the TV. Brilliant picture and full service. To do this with a satellite connection would be nearly impossible and a lot more than free.

winston_1

el pasco wrote: »

I learned that they weren't using the DTT spectrum in large parts of North Africa because no one lives there and that this could case interfered with Southern European counties as they used it for 4G mobile

Why should DTT from N Africa cause interference in Southern Europe when DTT within Southern Europe does not?

Wayne Cochran

Sam Russell wrote: »

Saorsat also needs a different type of LNB that Sky/Freesat, and would require a Diseq switcher to enble auto switching between the two. Most basic sat receivers do not cater for this.

If by "basic sat receiver", you mean generic free-to-air receivers, then I can't think of one that doesn't do DiSEqC. It's just software that further manipulates the already existing control mechanism.

Sam Russell

Wayne Cochran wrote: »

If by "basic sat receiver", you mean generic free-to-air receivers, then I can't think of one that doesn't do DiSEqC. It's just software that further manipulates the already existing control mechanism.

Some basic Freesat ones do not do it. The point I was making is that it is a more complex and costly solution for the viewer than a straitforward DTT setup with FTA sat option.

Wayne Cochran

Sam Russell wrote: »

Some basic Freesat ones do not do it. The point I was making is that it is a more complex and costly solution for the viewer than a straitforward DTT setup with FTA sat option.

Bit of a difference between "some basic Freesat" receivers & "most basic sat receivers". And the post you were addressing mentions "cheap generic set top box".

I'm aware of the general point you are making but you seemed to be attempting to shoot down one of the other chap's arguments re. cheap equipment, with a statement that simply isn't true.

Sam Russell

Wayne Cochran wrote: »

Bit of a difference between "some basic Freesat" receivers & "most basic sat receivers". And the post you were addressing mentions "cheap generic set top box".

I'm aware of the general point you are making but you seemed to be attempting to shoot down one of the other chap's arguments re. cheap equipment, with a statement that simply isn't true.

The point I am making is that public policy cnnot be determined based on 'cheap equipment' and sourcing such equipment 'cheap' on ebay. Many users have never heard of ebay let alone used it.

The advertising campagn for Soarview went to extreme length to suggest only 'approved' equipment should be used. Many users were and are happy to purchase units that work fully without the 'approved' label.

As regards satellite equipment, I know nothing about the capabilities of such equipment outside that which I currently own. I assume 'basic' kit is less well capable the 'top of the line' ones, but I stand corrected if all basic sat receivers can handle DiseqC switching. I know some Freesat ones do not, and assumed that this would also apply to the 'basic' FTA ones.

Wayne Cochran

Sam Russell wrote: »

The point I am making is that public policy cnnot be determined based on 'cheap equipment' and sourcing such equipment 'cheap' on ebay.

True, & add in self-installs too.

I don't know why "el pasco" had to mention ebay specifically to make a point about cheap receivers. Or use the lack of terrestrial broadcasting in the middle of the Sahara as an argument against its use in Ireland.

Probably not a lot of point finding fault with individual facets of a poorly made argument, whatever about the merits of the overall case of satellite -v- terrestrial.

STB

el pasco wrote: »

I'm not sure it was RTE NL policy that started it I thought it was government policy to have terrestial digital tv and RTE NL had to do what the government said

I wouldn't say that it you would need 1 million satellite insatallations as many people already have large enough dishes but even if they did you can buy a dish quiet cheaply particular say on eBay etc with a cheap generic set top box and many people put up satellite dishes themselves many even on or near ground level
So it need not cost any more if not much more than the actual digital switch over

Also the government could if sold that spectrum and that would if raised money with could of subsided the cost of the switch over
The saving that RTE could of made could of say went to subsidy some of the people with the digital switchover like say the poor or elderly or sick etc

In Switzerland and Austria their PSB is on satellite and you just buy a decoder card for say €5 and it unscrambles just the national PSB channels so you don't need a second or bigger dish

I thought you wanted answers ? But you will have to read the answers in order to educate yourself. You cant just ignore them and post your own ideas on how broadcasting works!

Current satellite installations you are referring to are presumably 60cm Sky dishes. These would not be suitable for Saorsat. Again Saorsat broadcasts on 9E using KA lnbs (not Ku Lnbs) and would require a bigger dish.

You need to get this saving of €75million out of your head. Do you know how much it would cost to get trasponder space on 28.2 or19.2. It is not free. The stations you are referring to in Germany have the largest PSB budgets in the world. This is because the inhabitants pay a licence fee of apx €220 per person. Multiply this by their viewing population and you will see how much they have to throw around!

Again you are missing the point about the cost of rights to broadcast to 4 million people and the rights to broadcast to 100million!

Austrian PSB channel Orf2 and Orf Eins are actually encrypted !

el pasco

STB wrote: »

I thought you wanted answers ? But you will have to read the answers in order to educate yourself. You cant just ignore them and post your own ideas on how broadcasting works!

Current satellite installations you are referring to are presumably 60cm Sky dishes. These would not be suitable for Saorsat. Again Saorsat broadcasts on 9E using KA lnbs (not Ku Lnbs) and would require a bigger dish.

You need to get this saving of €75million out of your head. Do you know how much it would cost to get trasponder space on 28.2 or19.2. It is not free. The stations you are referring to in Germany have the largest PSB budgets in the world. This is because the inhabitants pay a licence fee of apx €220 per person. Multiply this by their viewing population and you will see how much they have to throw around!

Again you are missing the point about the cost of rights to broadcast to 4 million people and the rights to broadcast to 100million!

Austrian PSB channel Orf2 and Orf Eins are actually encrypted !

A satellite dish of 80cm does both Saorsat Astra 28.2 for most of the country

It cost €1.5m a year to rent airtime for Saorsat with no set up cost like in Saorview

RTE is currently on Sky and therefore Astra 28.2 so why would the pay a second time for the same service??
Why would RTE want to go on to Astra 19.2 E??

All you need to issues a card to decode say the 8 Irish channels so you could set it up to be able to watch Irish channels on Astra without the need to subscribe to Sky

The Cush

el pasco wrote: »

RTE is currently on Sky and therefore Astra 28.2
All you need to issues a card to decode say the 8 Irish channels so you could set it up to be able to watch Irish channels on Astra without the need to subscribe to Sky

At what cost to the viewer and broadcaster?

The problem there is the cost to the Irish broacasters for this, transponder charges, encryption, epg charges, subscriber/card and channel management costs.

All of this we believe is borne by Sky at the moment because it benefits them to have the Irish channels in their basic subscription package but if the Irish channels were to provide their channels on a FTV basis separate from Sky packages then these cost would have to be paid by the broadcasters. I have seen figures of up to €20m per annum mentioned for this.

Add to this the cost of a Sky box to each TV point in the house as these wouldn't be provided free to non-subscribers, and if you then wanted the PVR functionality thats an extra cost to the viewer.

Wayne Cochran

el pasco wrote: »

A satellite dish of 80cm does both Saorsat Astra 28.2 for most of the country

For most of the country, an 80cm dish is recommended for Saorsat alone i.e. dish aligned on 9 degrees east.

With an 80cm dish, do you think you'd get a good enough all-weather signal for 28 east with an LNB on a 19 degree offset, even after Eutelsat 28A is replaced?

If they went to Saorsat-only, I would like to think they would up the power a bit to allow smaller dishes.

Sam Russell

This is a pointless discussion. The money is spent and Saorview is up and running (very well). There is no way a satellite solution would be considered as the only way the national broadcaster can be received. Apart from cost, their is a national dimension to be considered. If it is such a good idea, why did the BBC not consider it?

However, an other aspect to DTT tarriffs, the Oireachtais is refusing to have their own channel on Saorview as they would be required to pay transmission charges, but are willing to have it on a pay channel. How's that for democracy? They also want it to be in HD! How's that for hubris!

Elmo

Sam Russell wrote: »

This is a pointless discussion. The money is spent and Saorview is up and running (very well). There is no way a satellite solution would be considered as the only way the national broadcaster can be received. Apart from cost, their is a national dimension to be considered. If it is such a good idea, why did the BBC not consider it?

However, an other aspect to DTT tarriffs, the Oireachtais is refusing to have their own channel on Saorview as they would be required to pay transmission charges, but are willing to have it on a pay channel. How's that for democracy? They also want it to be in HD! How's that for hubris!

I don't think Saorview is up and running very well, technically it is but, tech doesn't make content.

The Cush

Sam Russell wrote: »

However, an other aspect to DTT tarriffs, the Oireachtais is refusing to have their own channel on Saorview as they would be required to pay transmission charges, but are willing to have it on a pay channel.

UPC carry the Oireachtas Channel carriage free, they are looking for a similar arrangement with Sky but they're not biting it appears.

If they got a similar arrangement with Sky I think we could kiss Saorview carriage goodbye as as up to 90% of the population would have access via one of the pay platforms.

Sam Russell

Elmo wrote: »

I don't think Saorview is up and running very well, technically it is but, tech doesn't make content.

Content has nothing to do with Saorview. Saorview is the medium, not the message.

Take complaints to do with content up with RTE, TG4, and TV3. There are plenty of threads complaining about content, particularly wrt TV3.

Complaints should be sent to Minister Rabbitte regarding:
1. the lack of advertising on RTE NN so they can run a news channel;
2. the provision of RTE 1+1 instead of RTE 3/plus so they can show their archived programmes;
3. and the insistence that RTE 2 must show children's programmes which are already available on RTEjr.

Saorview as a system of broadcasting works very well.

Wayne Cochran

Sam Russell wrote: »

This is a pointless discussion. The money is spent and Saorview is up and running (very well). There is no way a satellite solution would be considered as the only way the national broadcaster can be received. Apart from cost, their is a national dimension to be considered.

Yes cost is only part of the equation but these costs are ongoing. The matter isn't done & dusted, beyond discussion, simply because the terrestrial network is up & running.

TAFKAlawhec

el pasco wrote: »

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

Sky's broadcast platform is primarily (and previously solely) based on broadcast satellite, but has now started to expand in the last few years with non-satellite based technologies aimed at their customer base e.g. Sky Go, catch-up TV, ADSL/FTTC owned networks etc. with a big push towards their "Now TV" service. Sky are clearly focused now on not just satellite alone on the distribution of it least its own channels.

el pasco wrote: »

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

There are plenty of terrestrial TV transmissions in the Middle East, and in most of it, it has been upgraded to DVB-T/2 with analogue services switched off or planned to be. Also radio, even domestic services, can be heard across most of these territories by terrestrial radio (FM, MW & LW) and internet access, either wired or wireless, is readily available to most people. The only parts of the Middle East where "...it's the only way to get TV or radio or Internet" are in remote areas where terrestrial distribution does not reach. That's most certainly not just restricted to places like the ME, a lot closer to home it isn't terribly hard to find some places where terrestrial TV & FM radio (for example) can be difficult to receive (LW/MW only) and where internet services, either wired, wireless or mobile phone networks, can be unavailable, unreliable or too slow to be useful.

el pasco wrote: »

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

This is a logical fallacy.
Frequencies and infrastructure of mobile phone and other utilities that are foreign owned, not just in Ireland but across most countries, that are terrestrially based are subject to the use of the authority of that area and have to comply with its laws and terms of contract. The ultimate ownership is retained by the state (in this case the Irish government) and is recognised by international law. One of these terms/laws will be that in local or national emergencies, a utility operators will have comply with directions set out by public agencies. For example during the 7/7 bombings in London a number of years back, all the mobile phone networks in parts of the city were shut out to users except to those registered with the emergency services so (a) emergency services needing to use a mobile network would not need to worry about local congestion and (b) prevent more bombs potentially being exploded using mobile networks as a remote control. With more examples, in the USA there is the EAS which is wide-reaching in its application. If there was a problem with energy supplies, networks could be ordered to make periodic shutdowns etc.

With satellite broadcast systems, international law does not allow any territory to claim ownership of any extra-terrestrial objects or property. The frequencies used for satellite broadcasting therefore are regulated by the International Telecoms Union where certain parts of the Clarke Belt and frequencies for use there are allocated to different countries either for their own use or to be able to sub-licence to a third-party on their behalf. For example last year SES and Eutelsat met in court in Germany over a dispute over the right to use the 11.2-11.7GHz & 12.5-12.75GHz at 28.5 degrees east (the position whereby BSkyB deliver their satellite based platform) because the ITU had allocated this position and respective frequencies to Germany.

To put it bluntly, a terrestrial based network can be quickly be taken over by a state for security based purposes pretty quickly. A satellite one, or at least one designed for broadcast satellites, has little such ability to co-operate, even at 28.5 degrees east Germany would find it difficult force broadcasters to ultimately comply with their directions if the uplink is in another country - jamming the signal to the satellite uplink receiver would be the only practical way, especially as they don't hold ownership of the Clarke Belt slot, only its allocation.

el pasco wrote: »

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

Nobody I have even heard of has ever said that terrestrial based networks are immune to faults. However one major advantage a terrestrial TV network has compared to a satellite one is that terrestrial has by its nature many points of failure having to occur to match that for one satellite point of failure since the one signal via satellite serves all of Ireland. If say a rogue state put in place an uplink jamming signal at 9 degrees east and 28.2 degrees east to disrupt Irish broadcast services and was successful in doing so, it would affect every viewer relying on its reception. In some cases, a satellite may be asked via ground control to use a backup uplink but this is not always successful. OTOH, the only way to effectively take down the entire 2RN terrestrial TV network is to sabotage the output network at Donnybrook before it gets into the distribution chain. I would be reasonably sure that RTÉ at least will have back-up plans should for some reason they become unable to broadcast from Dublin - in the UK (at least until the move from Television Centre) had a backup of changing originating presentation to either another studio in London or to Pebble Mill in Birmingham, with local studios also able to feed in to the terrestrial network - with a last-gasp resort being a main transmitter relaying a signal from another, the BBC used to "stress-test" their analogue TV network twice a year by switching off all distribution feeds except to Crystal Palace in London to test this backup plan.

While a solar flare could in theory take out a terrestrial TV network, like an EMP could well do (though I've never heard of this in practice) replacements for terrestrial infrastructure can be brought into service quite quickly. For example in the Emely Moor mast collapse in England in 1969 (unquestionably it can be considered a "catastrophic failure") a service was restored, albeit on reduced power, to TV viewers for Yorkshire TV and BBC2 within 48 hours. A similar collapse at Peterborough a few years back was not so bad in that a second tower on the site was able to have sited reserve aerials fitted up pretty quickly. AFAIK no 2RN site has suffered such catastrophic failure. Backups of terrestrial broadcasting equipment can be readily available to deploy from off-site e.g. transmitters which can be kept in lead cabin storage to prevent EMP damage to them, to be quickly deployed.

Broadcast satellite OTOH have had notable failures, either during or after launch, or in-service. Wherever catastrophic loss from launching, failure to get into geostationary orbit, power failures or sudden reduced capacity. These have all happened one way or another to SES and Eutelsat for satellites intended for prime broadcast positions, as well as other satellite operators. At positions in the sky where several satellites are co-located e.g. SES' Astra 1 & 2 constellations, Eutelsat's Hot Bird, a failure of a satellite in-service can have its payload distributed to others in the same position but this is not ideal to simply leave at (especially if the footprints are different) and leaves no further backup left. Other satellite positions that might only have a single satellite present, or where insufficient backup exists, would not be so lucky. In some cases you might be able to get another in-orbit satellite to temporarily go into the same position, otherwise you'll either have to send up a ground-spare which at best will take a good number of weeks to launch and get into geostationary orbit, many months otherwise. Also if you have no ground spare, you'll have to get a new one built, which takes about 3 years. :eek:

el pasco wrote: »

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

Penny wise, pound foolish. The €75 million is part of a long-term strategy by RTÉNL/2RN to overhaul its terrestrial network of transmitter sites whereby the majority of it would have went to preparing and implementing its DTT network pending an analogue TV switch-off. At some sites new masts were put in place as older ones were starting to come to end-of-life, not only to support DTT but also for the likes of FM & DAB radio, plus governmental & commercial services users that also take up space on these sites. The idea of eliminating all television broadcasts from VHF & UHF in the Republic would have been a politically impossible one, as was seen when some areas like in Kerry, Donegal and Cork which were to see them lose terrestrial coverage post-ASO seen pressure put on their TD's do ensure that Saorview coverage was to become available. No country has yet to shut down its analogue TV network without a digital terrestrial replacement, and it's unlikely that any country will.

Sam Russell

I do not understand your point. The original point was concerning the €70m that was spent on providing Saorview. That is done and dusted. If terrestial broadcasting was to continue, then it had to be DTT that cost €70m. Done and dusted. Running costs are less than the old analogue broadcast solution (which had to go anyway). We have HD on two channels and should have it on two more. UTV will likely be in HD in 2015.

If it was to be done by satellite, Saorsat costs about €1m a year. Done and dusted.

If it was to be done on 28.2E, thatwas impossible FTA or FTV because it would cost too much. FTA because of rights costs due to audience of 100 million. FTV because of charges by Sky (or whoever). So that is out.

Any other method is a payTV solution which is already there - Sky, UPC, Eircom, plus a few others.

It is done and dusted.

TAFKAlawhec

el pasco wrote: »

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 Comreg in the UK wants to do this

Assuming you mean Ofcom rather than Comreg, they have never made such a proposal. It was proposed by the House of Lords Communication Committee back in 2012. With the current technology available, it's a non-starter.

Wayne Cochran

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not understand your point. The original point was concerning the €70m that was spent on providing Saorview. That is done and dusted. If terrestial broadcasting was to continue, then it had to be DTT that cost €70m. Done and dusted. Running costs are less than the old analogue broadcast solution (which had to go anyway). We have HD on two channels and should have it on two more. UTV will likely be in HD in 2015.

If it was to be done by satellite, Saorsat costs about €1m a year. Done and dusted.

My point? It's a very simple one, that the cost of running a terrestrial network far exceeds the cost of satellite-only. (Satellite cost referred to as "a tiny fraction" back in post 43.)

I wouldn't agree with a satellite-only system at all, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread, but it's not my place or anyone else's to declare any discussion to be "pointless".

Sam Russell

Link not working.:rolleyes:

TAFKAlawhec

el pasco wrote: »

In Switzerland and Austria their PSB is on satellite and you just buy a decoder card for say €5 and it unscrambles just the national PSB channels so you don't need a second or bigger dish

In Austria the cost of an ORF DIGITAL-SAT card to unscramble their services on Astra 19.2 East is a one-off €45, limited to residents in the country.
In Switzerland, a SRG-SSR SATACCESS card to receive their scrambled services on the Hot Bird satellites cost CHF60 (approx €50) as a one-off fee. If you're a Swiss citizen living outside the country, but within the Hot Bird footprint, you can also obtain this card but you are charged an additional CHF120 each year.

Wayne Cochran

Sam Russell wrote: »

Link not working.:rolleyes:

It's post 43 of this thread.

TAFKAlawhec

It should be borne in mind that Saorsat, at least in Europe, is rather unique in its application. Although there are other Ka Band broadcasts on other European satellites (including Astra 1 and Eutelsat 7A), they're not really there much for home consumption and no domestic pay-TV operator currently uses it. While Ka is used extensively for satellite broadband, that takes advantage of ACM adoption to take into consideration atmospheric conditions between the uplink to the satellite and its respective downlink, especially as rain fade at 20GHz is considerable. This isn't possible for Saorsat, hence the high FEC of 1/2 to try and give as much elbow room against rain fade, highly needed in a climate like Ireland's. It is to some extent a "beta" service provision, a test service with some element of public provisioning, but not ready for prime time yet by the bigger boys.

As for the cost of a terrestrial network, well given the population density and the topology of Ireland it was never going to be dirt cheap. Remember that the Saorview network serves about 1.54 million households in the Republic of Ireland. The Crystal Palace transmission site in London serves nearly three times as many households alone.

Sam Russell

TAFKAlawhec wrote: »

As for the cost of a terrestrial network, well given the population density and the topology of Ireland it was never going to be dirt cheap. Remember that the Saorview network serves about 1.54 million households in the Republic of Ireland. The Crystal Palace transmission site in London serves nearly three times as many households alone.

It is not the first 50% of population that costs the money, it is the last 5%. It would be cheaper for RTE NL to have followed the lead of TV3 and settled for 80% coverage and just ignore the rest. Thankfully, they went for 98%, with the last few covered by Saorsat.

A satellite solution would have been disaster for RTE as many would just not bother, settling for FTA UK coverage by Freeview or Freesat. Those prepared to pay would stay with Sky or UPC/NTL.

watty

TAFKAlawhec wrote: »

In Austria the cost of an ORF DIGITAL-SAT card to unscramble their services on Astra 19.2 East is a one-off €45, limited to residents in the country.
In Switzerland, a SRG-SSR SATACCESS card to receive their scrambled services on the Hot Bird satellites cost CHF60 (approx €50) as a one-off fee. If you're a Swiss citizen living outside the country, but within the Hot Bird footprint, you can also obtain this card but you are charged an additional CHF120 each year.

I believe
a) Economy of scale
b) Subsidised by various methods.

As Switzerland is outside EU they can offer to Swiss anywhere. EU cards may be only sold geographically but not limited to one EU National. Once a card is rented/purchased legitimately (not via 3rd party) it can legally be used anywhere in EU though. So Ireland could only offer a card for Irish People anywhere if not an EU member. As we are an EU member cards (i.e. Sky) can only be limited to geographic area not nationality (at time of sale / rent). You never own a Sky card. You are renting the service and card remains in their ownership which is why technically they can cancel you pay TV service if used out of area.

STB

The Cush wrote: »

UPC carry the Oireachtas Channel carriage free, they are looking for a similar arrangement with Sky but they're not biting it appears.

If they got a similar arrangement with Sky I think we could kiss Saorview carriage goodbye as as up to 90% of the population would have access via one of the pay platforms.

Chapter 6, sections 125 and 126 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 make the necessary provision to allow the development of an Oireachtas TV channel to be known as the “Houses of the Oireachtas Channel” on the SAORVIEW TV network.

It is am embarressment that it is not on Saorview. True transparancy that is only available exclusively to those that pay a third party subscription company. I cannot for the life of me think of one other European Country that has their parliamentary channel that is not available free to air (and I can view many of them off multi satellite setup)

The Cush

STB wrote: »

It is am embarressment that it is not on Saorview. True transparancy that is only available exclusively to those that pay a third party subscription company. I cannot for the life of me think of one other European Country that has their parliamentary channel that is not available free to air (and I can view many of them off multi satellite setup)

An embarrassment alright, Sean Barrett is annoyed with RTÉ/Saorview for not offering the Oireachtas Channel free carriage on DTT. He doesn't appear to realise he chairs the House that enacted the legislation and that can change it too.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87527403&postcount=198