Ó Cuív calls for action as rural areas still without Saorview

The Cush

Since ASO took place on Oct 24th there has been little or no discussion here or elsewhere about areas unable to receive Saorview and having to rely on Saorsat. Prior to that it was discussed here in various threads, regular Dáil questions on the issue and a Dáil committee discussion.

Mary-Lou asked a recent Dáil question on 100% Saorview coverage and received a standard reply.

A recent article in the Galway Advertiser says Éamon Ó Cuív has raised the issue again, areas that have to rely on Saorsat but lacking the full range of channels available on Saorview.

Deputy Ó Cuív has this week called on the Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte to ensure that this service is provided, adding that failure to do so only adds to the concerns over the Government’s disregard for rural communities.

“Saorview became the primary source of broadcast television here last October when the analogue service was switched off. But there is still two per cent of the country mostly in hill areas along the west coast that can’t receive Saorview.

“These areas are dependent on Saorstat, which provides an alternative service but does not carry TV3 or 3e. It means that the people living in these areas not have access to TV3 or 3e and the programmes they carry, including Tonight with Vincent Browne and many sporting events that are exclusively broadcast on these channels.

“I have had detailed correspondence with RTE, TV3, the Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte and Comreg about this problem. The reality is that RTE and TV3 failed to reach agreement in relation to the provision of this service and as a result the ordinary people in these areas lose out.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/59497/-cuv-calls-for-action-as-rural-areas-still-without-saorview

Skull Murphy

I remember someone starting a thread looking for pics & info on non-enthusiast Saorsat installs, & that didn't even get a reply (Maybe could have been stickied, but the general Saorsat thread already is.)

You would think someone from the affected areas, installer or customer must look in here & could provide a bit of 1st hand info, without any political angle.

Play To Kill

I think guys just got fed up talking about it when it became clear that Pat Rabbit was always just going to trot out the same rehearsed line every time he was questioned about the problems with saorsat. A lot of installers just didn't bother doing saorsat installations and it seems a lot of viewers just went to a basic Sky package.

Peter Rhea

Play To Kill wrote: »

. . . it became clear that Pat Rabbit was always just going to trot out the same rehearsed line every time he was questioned about the problems with saorsat.

What are these 'problems with Saorsat'? Lack of TV3 channels? Big dish?

As mentioned above, there doesn't seem to be much 'in service' info. posted in the forum.

Play To Kill

Lack of TV3 was never much of a problem as far as I could see, the need for a 100cm dish in places is a problem though IMO. For example, many towns and villages in West Cork needed a 100cm to receive both saorsat and free to air from a single dish, it's a non starter to install 1m dishes on the front of houses that face onto the street of a town where tourism is a major part of the local economy. A sky subscription with a 60cm dish chimney mounted is a lot less intrusive.

There were also the areas which had perfect analogue signal that became saorsat ares over night. There was very little, if any information in the ads prior to ASO about Saorsat. I had many customers who had bought STB's and saorview televisions who didn't expect they needed to do anything more than the message Gay Byrne gave in the ads. Just get a Saorview approved box or television and you'd be grand seemed to be the message, no mention of saorsat.

I guess there are 2 reasons why there isn't much in service info posted in the forum, firstly, the people who needed saorsat are likely to be living in areas where broadband wouldn't be available and therefore wouldn't have access to boards and secondly because most of the installers pretty much left the forums when armchair enthusiests and electricians suddenly became saorsat and saorview experts, the installers went to the private installers forum and discussed things in there.

Kristopherus

I think you have to include RTENL as the chief culprits in this case. Their short-sighedness in failing to provide land-based signal distributors in those problem areas. If the mobile phone telcos can provide signals in 99.9% of the country, why couldnt RTENEL use those masts to provide a digital signal? They also made the daft decision to rent capacity on a satellite sitting at 9 degrees east, when the vast majority of satellite reception is from birds sitting around 28 degrees east. It will now cost them to provide a satisfactory signal at this late stage.

Play To Kill

It doesn't seem like the satellite side of things was thought through at all, surely somebody had the intelligence to realize that dishes up to 1m in diameter might not be such a great idea along the west coast. The next thing will be the interference from 4G on Saorview, I doubt the government will provide free filters to the affected viewers like is the case in the UK.

The Cush

Kristopherus wrote: »

If the mobile phone telcos can provide signals in 99.9% of the country, why couldnt RTENEL use those masts to provide a digital signal?

They didn't need to, they transmitted analogue tv from approx 170 transmitter sites (owned/leased/shared) and could have used them. They did mention up to 188 sites for DTT back in 2007/08 but as the roll out happened it became apparent that 64 dtt sites (existing and new) would meet/exceed the then existing analogue coverage as required by statute. Someone did post here last year that RTÉNL could provide 5 extra transmitters this year, the source I believe was a transmitter equipment supplier to RTÉNL.

Kristopherus wrote: »

They also made the daft decision to rent capacity on a satellite sitting at 9 degrees east, when the vast majority of satellite reception is from birds sitting around 28 degrees east. It will now cost them to provide a satisfactory signal at this late stage.

As RTÉ said themselves the reasons for Saorsat were channels FTA/no encryption, narrow footprint, rights issues and low cost - none of which could've been achieved if they used 28 deg. east.

Sam Russell

Is there any hard evidence of the number of homes that were able to receive a satisfactory analogue signal and cannot now receive a satisfactory Saorview signal?

The roll out of Saorview from a technical point of view has been good (if you ignore the Mount Leinster matter) but the information campain was wrong headed and badly thought out. It took 17 months to go from official launch to ASO, with a significant number of viewers unaware of the switch off until the last few weeks. No one would put adverts in the Irish Times to tell readers of 'The News of The World' that the NotW was about to close. Why was the analogue signal not used to tell viewers of ASO but make that message not transmitted on the Saorview signal. An on screen graphic would have done - for next to nothing. Why was TV3 not told that from May 26th 2011, that Saorview was the transmission and they pay for that, but if they want their analogue signal transmitted, thay had to pay for that as well? From May 26th 2011, Saorview should have been the primary transmission, but no-one (RTE, TV3, TG4, Dept of Communications, BAI, or ComReg) beleived that and ignored Saorview. RTE even had a switch-over party to celebrate 17 months of Saorview and ASO - treating the ASO as the launch of Digital TV. Even now, the RTE has four channels, but only promotes two of them. The other two are ignored.

They spent €10 million advertising a service that cost €70 million. No wonder they are broke. If that €10 million had been spent on the network, O'Cuiv would not have a problem.

The Cush

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why was TV3 not told that from May 26th 2011, that Saorview was the transmission and they pay for that, but if they want their analogue signal transmitted, thay had to pay for that as well?

TV3 was aware they had to pay for carriage on Saorview at that time, note the Dáil replies from Apr/May 2011 I posted to a previous post of yours.

Also both TV3 and TG4 joined the Dept's Digital Switchover Steering Group (DSG) at that time.

Sam Russell

The Cush wrote: »

TV3 was aware they had to pay for carriage on Saorview at that time, note the Dáil replies from Apr/May 2011 I posted to a previous post of yours.

Also both TV3 and TG4 joined the Dept's Digital Switchover Steering Group (DSG) at that time.

Press coverage os Redmonds attacks on RTE and the licence fee would suggest that he did not pay for carriage and would not pay for carriage and he wanted RTE to be stopped from taking advertising as they were funded from the licence fee. Following that report, RTE were refused RTE 3 (or RTEplus) and were prohibited from advertising on RTE News Now, and RTE jr. All in all, a good day for TV3. Following on from that, reports were made of TV3 refusing to pay for transmission until 'transmission fees were agreed' whatever that means. This was all post your Dail replies of May 2011.

There were ministerial orders that RTE 2 HD had to be broadcast on Mux2, but that has been dropped, as Mux 2 has failed to appear.

Remind me, what did the Dept's Digital Switchover Steering Group do? And what was the contribution of TV3 and TG4 to that group?

The Cush

Sam Russell wrote: »

Following that report, RTE were refused RTE 3 (or RTEplus) and were prohibited from advertising on RTE News Now, and RTE jr. All in all, a good day for TV3. Following on from that, reports were made of TV3 refusing to pay for transmission until 'transmission fees were agreed' whatever that means. This was all post your Dail replies of May 2011.

TV3 never said that they were refusing to pay for carriage on Saorview (unless you can link to a particular quote), what they did say in an article last summer was that the fees were excessive and would restrict the number of services they could launch on Saorview and could force them to remove 3e, they wanted the interim tariff set at zero.

TV3 requested capacity on the DTT network according to the Dáil reply so I assume the necessary contracts are in place regarding fees. TV3 are not required to be carried on Saorview but capacity must be made available if they request it and charges agreed according to the Broadcasting Act.

While a decision to use the RTÉ digital network is ultimately a commercial decision for TV3, I consider that TV3’s request for space on the digital network is a positive indication of its continued interest in national broadcasting in Ireland and a clear signal of its intent in this regard.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Remind me, what did the Dept's Digital Switchover Steering Group do? And what was the contribution of TV3 and TG4 to that group?

Terms of Reference for the Digital Switch over Steering Group (DSG) and its working groups are attached.

Regarding TV3's and TG4's contribution to the group, we'll probably never know, just as we don't know what RTÉ's Comreg's or BAI's contribution was. No information is in the public domain.

Sam Russell

The Cush wrote: »

TV3 never said that they were refusing to pay for carriage on Saorview (unless you can link to a particular quote), what they did say in an article last summer was that the fees were excessive and would restrict the number of services they could launch on Saorview and could force them to remove 3e, they wanted the interim tariff set at zero.

TV3 requested capacity on the DTT network according to the Dáil reply so I assume the necessary contracts are in place regarding fees. TV3 are not required to be carried on Saorview but capacity must be made available if they request it and charges agreed according to the Broadcasting Act.




Will cut and paste the DSG info later, once I dig it out.

Regarding TV3's and TG4's contribution to the group, we'll probably never know, just as we don't know what RTÉ's Comreg's or BAI's contribution was. No information is in the public domain.

I do not see the difference between the first two highlighted quotes above. Refusing to pay and setting the tarrif to zero is the same thing.

The last quote says it all. Nothing is in the public domain. Why did RTE get refused the advertising on RTE NN? Why were they refused RTE 3? I can understand why RTE jr has no advertising, but why was RTE jr still broadcast on RTE 2 when both were available on Saorview? RTE could put revenue earning programmes on at that time. I]Don't say because they were not avaiilable on Sky or UPC, they are not the primary distribution platform[/I.

The advertising cost of €10 million would have bought maybe 20 more sites for Saorview (I am only guessing. €70 million got them 60 odd sites, so another €10m get a lot more as none of the new sites are major ones.) It would have made a lot more sense.

Kristopherus

Kristopherus wrote: »

I think you have to include RTENL as the chief culprits in this case. Their short-sighedness in failing to provide land-based signal distributors in those problem areas. If the mobile phone telcos can provide signals in 99.9% of the country, why couldnt RTENEL use those masts to provide a digital signal? They also made the daft decision to rent capacity on a satellite sitting at 9 degrees east, when the vast majority of satellite reception is from birds sitting around 28 degrees east. It will now cost them to provide a satisfactory signal at this late stage.

It all came down to one thing - money. The government didn't provide any funding for the DTT network so RTENL had to make do with what they could afford. This meant upgrading and/or installing transmitters in areas where they'd provide a service to the highest number of people. If I recall correctly, RTENL had to borrow €70 million to fund the DTT rollout.

It would have been impossible for RTE to go FTA on 28.2. The best they could have done was some sort of FTV card system. Although the UK terrestrials did this for a time, it was never a desirable option for them. A tight footprint was the only way they could go FTA.

I'd say that a lot of these blackspot areas are probably those that were only getting good VHF reception.

The Cush

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not see the difference between the first two highlighted quotes above. Refusing to pay and setting the tarrif to zero is the same thing.

How is it the same , they never said they refuse to pay but would like an interim tariff so that services can be developed on Saorview. Again, where did TV3 say they refused to pay, link/quote?

Sam Russell wrote: »

The last quote says it all. Nothing is in the public domain.

That was in direct reply to your question on TV3 and TG4 input to the DSG group.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why did RTE get refused the advertising on RTE NN? Why were they refused RTE 3?

Have you read the Ministerial Decision, I guess not? It's in the public domain.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I can understand why RTE jr has no advertising, but why was RTE jr still broadcast on RTE 2 when both were available on Saorview? RTE could put revenue earning programmes on at that time. I]Don't say because they were not avaiilable on Sky or UPC, they are not the primary distribution platform[/I.

What's Sky or UPC got to do with it?

RTÉjr/RTÉ2 Phase 1. Again back to the Ministerial Decision, suggest you have a quick read over it. Phase 2 was to happen last May if finances permitted.

RTÉjr phase 2 starting next month, a year late (no surprise there given the economic environment), with its own unique schedule and to be further developed over the next three years.

The Cush

Karsini wrote: »

It all came down to one thing - money. The government didn't provide any funding for the DTT network so RTENL had to make do with what they could afford. This meant upgrading and/or installing transmitters in areas where they'd provide a service to the highest number of people. If I recall correctly, RTENL had to borrow €70 million to fund the DTT rollout.

I'd say that a lot of these blackspot areas are probably those that were only getting good VHF reception.

RTÉ borrowed €38.25 million with the rest of the €70 million coming from their own resources.

RTÉ developed Saorsat on its own initiative to cover the final 1.5 to 2% of the population, they were not required to do so. They were required by the Broadcasting Act to match the 98% analogue TV coverage of RTÉ1 & 2. The 64 DTT sites have reached or exceeded that figure.

Some of the DTT blackspot areas now were once covered by VHF analogue transmitters or UHF relays that are now switched off. Of course there are areas that were analogue TV blackspots that can now receive Saorview. Maybe as finances permit we may see some new relays and there may be a remote possibility of VHF DTT (some testing from the Donnybrook transmitter just prior to ASO, maybe in case there was a popular uprising at the loss of their TV signal and the VHF sites could be quickly converted to DTT )

Sam Russell

If TV3 say they want the tarrif set to zero, I understand that to mean they will not pay. It is semantics to argue a zero tarrif differs from not paying. RTE NL presumably did not agree to a zero tarrif.

The Cush

Sam Russell wrote: »

RTE NL presumably did not agree to a zero tarrif.

Exactly, they reluctantly paid their analogue transmisssion fees can't see how they would be allowed free carriage for 2 channels on Saorview.

In any case these tariffs are interim it appears until the Minister make his final decision on tariff charges for this and future PSB muxes. The zero tariff was in relation to that consulatation.

eamonpk

Hi

Anyone know if TV3 will join SaorSat at some stage and if so how long do you think it will be

Thanks

Kristopherus

Years. They have SFA money and have no hope of being flush with cash anytime soon.

The Cush

eamonpk wrote: »

Anyone know if TV3 will join SaorSat at some stage and if so how long do you think it will be

It's purely a commercial decision for TV3 to join Saorsat, no statutory requirement for then to do so.

In the analogue days they were happy with 85% terrestrial population coverage from 12 transmitters now they have 98-98.5% population coverage with 64 transmitters.

Can't see them spending anymore money to join Saorsat, to cover 1.5-2% of the population when they already have near 100% coverage with Sky for little or no extra cost .

Sponge Bob

They are welcome to surrender their licence if they do not wish to pay broadcast fees in order to be broadcast ....as per their licence. A small loss to say the least.