Whatever was the point of Saorsat ?

realistic anorak

Why did RTE bother with saorsat at a time when they were almost bankrupt ? I believe it costs half a million per year ? It is such an obscure service, Never advertised or mentioned by RTE. How many users does it have ? I would guess less than 252 longwave ?

Infoanon

realistic anorak wrote: »

Why did RTE bother with saorsat at a time when they were almost bankrupt ? I believe it costs half a million per year ? It is such an obscure service, Never advertised or mentioned by RTE. How many users does it have ? I would guess less than 252 longwave ?

Saorview does not have 100% coverage, thus the necessity for Saorsat.

Infoanon

realistic anorak wrote: »

Why did RTE bother with saorsat at a time when they were almost bankrupt ? I believe it costs half a million per year ? It is such an obscure service, Never advertised or mentioned by RTE. How many users does it have ? I would guess less than 252 longwave ?

Saorview does not have 100% coverage, thus the necessity for Saorsat.

L1011

A legal requirement to turn off analogue and maintain claimed 100% coverage in Ireland. Unlike 252 which seems to serve anoraks and a few elderly people in a different country.

Sam Russell

I think that Saorsat was a 'commercial' enterprise by RTE themselves, so the DG said to a Dail committee before it was setup.

I do not understand that justification, but at the time it was not put forward as a solution to extend the reach of Saorview.

realistic anorak

The thing is analogue never had 100% coverage, It only ever had about 94% coverage.

Harry Palmr

It also acts as an alternative feed for the DTT network.

The Cush

realistic anorak wrote: »

The thing is analogue never had 100% coverage, It only ever had about 94% coverage.

The analogue coverage figures were, RTÉ One and RTÉ 2 had about 98% population coverage, TG4 was available to around 95% and TV3 was available to 85% of the population.

icdg

I'd love to see the percentage of homes with Saorsat installed, I have yet to come across one - the vast, vast majority of satellite dishes in this country are pointed at Astra.

Thurston?

realistic anorak wrote: »

The thing is analogue never had 100% coverage, It only ever had about 94% coverage.

At switchover, a lot of smaller TV transmitters were just switched off. Possibly also VHF RTE had more penetration in places than UHF Saorview from the remaining VHF sites (Kippure, Mt. Leinster, Mullaghanish, Maghera, Truskmore, Monaghan.)

As someone else pointed out here before, Saorview coverage level is still comparable to analogue but it's different coverage.

munchkin_utd

icdg wrote: »

I'd love to see the percentage of homes with Saorsat installed, I have yet to come across one - the vast, vast majority of satellite dishes in this country are pointed at Astra.

indeed. It'd be interesting to see the numbers.

It might possibly be cheaper to simply pay a sky subscription for the 2% who cannot get saorview than have saorsat on the go, or even push sky to provide an new basic card with a minimal sky subscription for just RTE/ TG4 for the 2%.

Then again, even 2% of households sounds mad high.
Theres 1658243 households in Ireland, so 2% of that is 33164,86 households, or @2.7 person per household thats 92,000 odd people who cannot get Saorview.
Seriously, are they saying that theres 92,000 people living in the most remote areas of Ireland, so far from everywhere that they cannot get saorview? Thats the same or more than the population of 12 irish counties.

Thurston?

munchkin_utd wrote: »

... are they saying that theres 92,000 people living in the most remote areas of Ireland, so far from everywhere that they cannot get saorview?

You don't need to be 'far from everywhere' to not be able to get a signal. The Saorview sites can't completely cover the areas of hilly terrain where all the little fill-in transmitters were switched off.

Sam Russell

If 92,000 people cannot get Saorview, then Saorsat (assuming they are not excluded from that club) is costing €10 per year to give them RTE and TG4.

Much cheaper (for 2rn) than 100 little transmitters, but maybe a self-help scheme might have been cheaper. Afterall, a Saorsat installation would not be cheap for the user, and a group of neighbours might be able to get a self-help scheme going for less cost.

Johnboy1951

munchkin_utd wrote: »

indeed. It'd be interesting to see the numbers.

It might possibly be cheaper to simply pay a sky subscription for the 2% who cannot get saorview than have saorsat on the go, or even push sky to provide an new basic card with a minimal sky subscription for just RTE/ TG4 for the 2%.

....

They cannot force people to buy Sky equipment to receive their broadcasts.
FTA is not a runner either due to broadcasting in UK.

They might have been able to make a receiver which depended on something specific to Irish viewers ...... maybe TV Licence ID, or eircode or even PRSI number or something along those lines.

But of course we have seen the failure that is the "Saorview Box" and realise RTE are unlikely to be able to do any such thing.

It might well have been cheaper in the long run to issue a free CAM and card to all licence holders and let it up to the user to get their own equipment.

Markcheese

How was the saorview set top box a failure ?
Wasn't it just an interim digital reciever ? And as people upgradex to digital tvs saorview became reduntant ..

Johnboy1951

Markcheese wrote: »

How was the saorview set top box a failure ?

I refer to their last attempt which is a combi box.
The user experience falls far short of any FTA combi box.

Wasn't it just an interim digital reciever ? And as people upgradex to digital tvs saorview became reduntant ..

No ...... majority of TVs do not have both DVB-T and DVB-S/2 tuners, nor multiples of each to record one channel while watching another.

icdg

We don’t drag up old threads