Future of Saorview now that Virgin owns TV3 & UTV Ireland

bk

I thought it is worth starting a thread to discuss the future of Saorview and Free To Air TV now that Virgin Media owns or will soon own, TV3, 3e and UTV Ireland.

While I don't see Virgin pulling any of these channels off Saorview, I also don't see them doing anything to help promote and develop Saorview as an alternative to their own pay TV platform. Why would do?

- I suspect they will continue to drag their feet on TV3 and the other channels go HD.

- I suspect zero chance of +1 or any other channels coming to Saorview from them.

- I suspect they will be slow to allow 7 day catch up, streaming or on demand player services on Saorview, thus pretty much making Saorview Connect irrelevant.

To be honest this completely throws the future of Saorview in jeopardy IMO.

I think RTE will have to get their finger out now and perhaps look at producing their own combined Saorview + FTA sat box with 7 day EPG.

The Cush

bk wrote: »

To be honest this completely throws the future of Saorview in jeopardy IMO.

I think RTE will have to get their finger out now and perhaps look at producing their own combined Saorview + FTA sat box with 7 day EPG.

Saorview is here to stay as a basic terrestrial TV service at least, in fact there are DTT networks around Europe, in countries of similar size that have even less FTA channels, some with an extra subscription channel package other with just the basic free channels.

As regards a new combi receiver Saorview Connect will be it IMO, it will be interesting to see how the HbbTV service develops in the years ahead when we all have access to descent broadband. Won't judge it yet, at least until we see the details.

I agree with your other points +1s, catch-up, HD, no incentive for them to offer enhanced features in competition with their own service.

It would be interesting if Virgin offered a DTT-lite subscription service on the spare muxes for those not wanting or unable to receive Sky/Virgin cable services. There were over 20,000 subscribers to the MMDS service when it shutdown, many without even a basic PVR.

STB.

bk wrote: »

I thought it is worth starting a thread to discuss the future of Saorview and Free To Air TV now that Virgin Media owns or will soon own, TV3, 3e and UTV Ireland.

While I don't see Virgin pulling any of these channels off Saorview, I also don't see them doing anything to help promote and develop Saorview as an alternative to their own pay TV platform. Why would do?

- I suspect they will continue to drag their feet on TV3 and the other channels go HD.

- I suspect zero chance of +1 or any other channels coming to Saorview from them.

- I suspect they will be slow to allow 7 day catch up, streaming or on demand player services on Saorview, thus pretty much making Saorview Connect irrelevant.

To be honest this completely throws the future of Saorview in jeopardy IMO.

I think RTE will have to get their finger out now and perhaps look at producing their own combined Saorview + FTA sat box with 7 day EPG.

How did this get by the competition authority for a start.

They are only licensed as Irish Broadcasters if they are on the FTA platform.

More likely that it will be like 3 TV3's all whinging about why they don't have access to the licence fee.

political analyst

STB. wrote: »

How did this get by the competition authority for a start.

It hasn't got as far as the competition authority yet.

former total

STB. wrote: »

How did this get by the competition authority for a start.

They are only licensed as Irish Broadcasters if they are on the FTA platform.

More likely that it will be like 3 TV3's all whinging about why they don't have access to the licence fee.

The Competition Authority won't object. The combined market share of all three channels is still very low so no danger of market distortion.

bk

former total wrote: »

The Competition Authority won't object. The combined market share of all three channels is still very low so no danger of market distortion.

Well clearly there will be market distortion if saorview is blocked from improving and expanding. I'd like to see the regulators make free HD, 7 day catchup, streaming and on demand players all pre-requistes to agreeing to the purchase of UTVi.

former total

bk wrote: »

Well clearly there will be market distortion if saorview is blocked from improving and expanding. I'd like to see the regulators make free HD, 7 day catchup, streaming and on demand players all pre-requistes to agreeing to the purchase of UTVi.

You can argue that all those things should be standard but that's not really anything to do with the Competition Authority.

This takeover is probably good news for Saorview because UTV Ireland was on borrowed time.

Dave..M

former total wrote: »

You can argue that all those things should be standard but that's not really anything to do with the Competition Authority.

This takeover is probably good news for Saorview because UTV Ireland was on borrowed time.

I don't know about that, i wonder does anyone that uses the UK FTA Satellite & Saorview really watch much on TV 3 fuzz (or TG4 or UTVI for that matter) with most of that content in HD on the main UK channels. I viewed the prospect of a resurgent UTVI under the ITV banner really shaking things up on Saorview with decent content & player and possibly even HD putting it up to RTE but that's dead as far as I can see, I only really watch Irish sport on Saorview, everything else I watch on Freesat boxes (or FTA via an AA2) and UK OTT services (mostly the latter these days tbh) so personally I don't see how this deal in any way enhances Saorview as a platform. Will happily stand corrected of course if TV3 up their game, I just don't see it though.

bk

former total wrote: »

You can argue that all those things should be standard but that's not really anything to do with the Competition Authority.

This has everything to do with the competition authority!

Virgin's purchase of these channels could allow them to severely weaken Saorview while improving their own platform.

Using ownership of one product to weaken a competitor is pretty much the definition of what competition authorities do. See how in the UK, the competition authority required Sky to sell Sky sports channels to other companies, otherwise it would give Sky TV platform an unfair advantage.

Imagine what would happen to Saorview if Virgin decided to pull TV3, 3e and UTVi off it!

The competition regulators and Comreg absolutely need to put safe guards in place.

bk

Dave..M wrote: »

i wonder does anyone that uses the UK FTA Satellite & Saorview really watch much on TV 3 fuzz (or TG4 or UTVI for that matter)

I agree, and I can just see the wall to wall Virgin Media ads on these channels on Saorview now, promoting TV3 HD on Virgin Media.

There is no way at all that this is good for Saorview, quite the opposite.

MBSnr

Dave..M wrote: »

I don't know about that, i wonder does anyone that uses the UK FTA Satellite & Saorview really watch much on TV 3 fuzz (or TG4 or UTVI for that matter) with most of that content in HD on the main UK channels.

Exactly. Apart from some sport on RTE2 and the odd bit of GAA/rugby on TG4 the Walker box never gets used. The Freesat box does though...

former total

bk wrote: »

This has everything to do with the competition authority!.

No, it doesn't. You're confusing your regulators. See below.

bk wrote: »

Virgin's purchase of these channels could allow them to severely weaken Saorview while improving their own platform.

Using ownership of one product to weaken a competitor is pretty much the definition of what competition authorities do. See how in the UK, the competition authority required Sky to sell Sky sports channels to other companies, otherwise it would give Sky TV platform an unfair advantage.

Imagine what would happen to Saorview if Virgin decided to pull TV3, 3e and UTVi off it!

The competition regulators and Comreg absolutely need to put safe guards in place.

Your analogy of Sky Sports is not relevant because they were utterly dominant in the sports market, TV3/UTV will not be dominant in anything.

However, it was Ofcom who made them sell on their packages, not the UK competition authority.

Likewise here, our Competition Authority will look at the combined market share of the Tv3/UTVi merger (15-20% maybe?) and they won't care because RTE is still very much the dominant player.

The BAI might have some comments alright. As I understand it, Virgin won't be able to pull their channels from Saorview because they are designated public service broadcasters so are obliged to leave them there.

former total

bk wrote: »

I agree, and I can just see the wall to wall Virgin Media ads on these channels on Saorview now, promoting TV3 HD on Virgin Media.

Possibly, but if they do that, they're forgoing ad revenue from other sources so it will limit itself naturally.

bk wrote: »

There is no way at all that this is good for Saorview, quite the opposite.

UTV Ireland has been a spectacular failure. It is bleeding cash and has a pathetic audience. At this point, the choice is either a UTV owned by TV3 or no UTV at all.

This sale at least guarantees that UTV will remain on Saorview. Without the takeover, that is very unlikely. So is SD UTV better than no UTV? I think so.

former total

former total wrote: »

This sale at least guarantees that UTV will remain on Saorview. Without the takeover, that is very unlikely. So is SD UTV better than no UTV? I think so.

I don't think it does. It's quite likely that VM will just merge some ITV content into TV3 and close UTV down. So we may not have it anyway.

marno21

I can see UTV Ireland being shut down. It has terrible viewing figures & no identity, it's basically TV3's shows with more & more repeats added in.

To be honest, if Virgin don't want to put TV3 HD on Saorview that's fine, myself and likely plenty of others with combi boxes will continue to watch sports etc. on BBC/ITV in much better quality than TV3's blurfest. It's a pity because TV3 HD on Sky is actually decent.

gordongekko

There is always the chance that eir will launch a sports channel on saorview like bt have done in the uk.

Vic_08

former total wrote: »

This sale at least guarantees that UTV will remain on Saorview. Without the takeover, that is very unlikely. So is SD UTV better than no UTV? I think so.

It guarantees no such thing. UTV as a brand will be gone in ROI, ITV may or may not keep it for the NI channel but VM will need to put their own brand on the channel if they keep it at all.

The best ITV Studios content will likely transfer to TV3 and what was UTVI will become a second 3e style repeat+cheap content channel or will disappear.

There is no way they will keep producing 2 separate news programmes and any original programming they produce will go on TV3.

UTVI is going soon and for sourview or VM customers there will be no return of UTVNI/ITV.

Gonzo

I get the feeling the only real loser here is the viewer. TV3 will revert back to what it was before UTV Ireland, the only difference now is that Virgin Media viewers will no longer have any form of UTV or ITV and no channel to replace it.

When ITV bought over UTV Ireland in their deal I was initially excited thinking that ITV could rebrand and transform UTV Ireland into ITV Ireland and add the other ITV channels here just with Irish ads. Sadly this is not the case, ITV were happy to let UTV Ireland sit as it was until someone bought it off them for cheap. ITV obviously figured a rebranding exercise and buying of extra programming rights was just not worth it for such a small population, easier to just sell all the rights back to TV3.

kooga

gordongekko wrote: »

There is always the chance that eir will launch a sports channel on saorview like bt have done in the uk.

BT showcase has been pulled from freeview

Mickey Mike

Ideally the right thing for VM is to launch TV3 HD and pull 3e and UTV Ireland from Saorview, at least we'll have something decent to watch.

political analyst

bk wrote: »

I thought it is worth starting a thread to discuss the future of Saorview and Free To Air TV now that Virgin Media owns or will soon own, TV3, 3e and UTV Ireland.

While I don't see Virgin pulling any of these channels off Saorview, I also don't see them doing anything to help promote and develop Saorview as an alternative to their own pay TV platform. Why would do?

- I suspect they will continue to drag their feet on TV3 and the other channels go HD.

- I suspect zero chance of +1 or any other channels coming to Saorview from them.

- I suspect they will be slow to allow 7 day catch up, streaming or on demand player services on Saorview, thus pretty much making Saorview Connect irrelevant.

To be honest this completely throws the future of Saorview in jeopardy IMO.

I think RTE will have to get their finger out now and perhaps look at producing their own combined Saorview + FTA sat box with 7 day EPG.

Saorview ceasing to exist?!

Not a chance!

RTÉ will never let that happen.

FRIENDO

kooga wrote:

BT showcase has been pulled from freeview

They are still on freeview channel 59 showing the same old BT preview stuff.

Mickey Mike

political analyst wrote: »

Saorview ceasing to exist?!

Not a chance!

RTÉ will never let that happen.

I agree, even if it meant closing down mux2. If the worse comes to the worst there is Saorsat. We'll all be out buying new dishes.

Sam Russell

Saorview will always exist if RTE exists.

The problem with Saorview is that most employees of RTE, and most Dublin based journos do not watch it - they get their TV from Sky, Virgin, or some other pay TV supplier. Always has been so and probably always will. How else can you explain Sean O'Rouke never having heard of RTE News Now on the close down of analogue - and him working for the RTE News team.

Mickey Mike

Sam Russell wrote: »

Saorview will always exist if RTE exists.

The problem with Saorview is that most employees of RTE, and most Dublin based journos do not watch it - they get their TV from Sky, Virgin, or some other pay TV supplier. Always has been so and probably always will. How else can you explain Sean O'Rouke never having heard of RTE News Now on the close down of analogue - and him working for the RTE News team.

My God, I do remember that, and that was shocking to say the least. You have a lot of well off people who have no problem paying out big money for subscription services or maybe they don't what platform there using. I don't know, its weird alright.

icdg

It's because the population of Dublin had four decades of pay TV being "normal", and it arrived a lot earlier, in the early 1970s. At one stage Cablelink had take up rates of over 80% of homes passed. People that only had free TV were a small minority.

I think it's a big distinguishment between Dublin and the rest of the country, when pay-TV wasn't available outside of the big towns until the 1990s and never had the near-universal take up it had (and to a lesser extent still has) in Dublin.

Sam Russell

icdg wrote: »

It's because the population of Dublin had four decades of pay TV being "normal", and it arrived a lot earlier, in the early 1970s. At one stage Cablelink had take up rates of over 80% of homes passed. People that only had free TV were a small minority.

I think it's a big distinguishment between Dublin and the rest of the country, when pay-TV wasn't available outside of the big towns until the 1990s and never had the near-universal take up it had (and to a lesser extent still has) in Dublin.

That is the point I am making.

Workers at RTE - journalists, producers, presenters, managers, etc. were totally unaware (and still are) that a significant majority of their viewers did not have pay TV, and FTA TV was their norm. As a consequence, they lived in a different world.

The same applies to the TDs and other politicians when it comes to OTV. 'We wont pay - RTE must do it for free!' and other such nonsense.

former total

RTE is the problem?

RTE is the only channel putting out Saorview in HD, they have four TV channels and eight or nine radio stations. They're the only thing keeping Saorview remotely viable.

The "problem" with Saorview is that the audience is very low and it's just not attractive to private operators.

Harking back to the 1980s is grand but the reality is that everyone in Ireland has access to pay TV now, most have 3 or 4 different options, and the vast majority make use of that access.

So, if you have a small market like Ireland, and you then take an even smaller fraction of that market, you're talking about a tiny commercial opportunity. Return on investment is unlikely.

That is why TV3 and UTV aren't investing in Saorview. Nothing to do with RTE, or the minister, or Comreg. It's cold, hard, cash.

Gonzo

lack of choice on Saorview will mean it will never really be successful. If Saorview carried the UK terrestrial channels and a few pay tv channels it might have been a bigger player in the market.

Sam Russell

There is nothing to stop Saorview being specified as 720 by 576 i as the minimum resolution. If that was done, fuzzy vision would be banished. Costs would not change much because there is plenty of capacity currently (excess is burnt off) and all bills would be raised by the same amount (actually there would be little rise since the costs are shared equally depending on bandwidth).

That could be done now, either at the behest of Conreg, BAI, or the Minister. It is obvious that none of those three actually care.

icdg

There's one other thing that needs to be mentioned here.

From the outset, DTT was viewed by the Govenrment as an opportunity to earn some cash. Initially that was through a sale of part or all of the transmission network, when that didn't fly (or wasn't politically palpable), it was through the sale of the multiplex licences.

Saorview was a last resort when all of that failed (including a competition where, in an extraordinary set of circumstances, all three entrants were offered the licence and all three turned it down), and the Government was faced with an EU deadline for DSO. It was the product of circumstances rather than planning, and was never meant to be anything more than a quick and dirty replacement for analogue terrestrial. Even now I'm sure there are some in Govenrment who harbour hopes that they might sell that commercial DTT licence at some point, though it will almost certainly never happen now.

Mickey Mike

Let's hop the ball, Can they give the HD channels out to TV3 and TG4 for the same price? just to kick start it. I think UTVi is as good as gone at this point. And of course as Sam says 720 by 576i for the others, surely its not that difficult.

Gerry Wicklow

What sickens me is the way we are forced to watch low res fuzzy vision while 2RN burn electricity and our money on useless test cards.

Sam Russell

Mickie Mike wrote: »

Let's hop the ball, Can they give the HD channels out to TV3 and TG4 for the same price? just to kick start it. I think UTVi is as good as gone at this point. And of course as Sam says 720 by 576i for the others, surely its not that difficult.

All it would take is a change in specification.

Because TV3 threw their toys out of the pram, Saorview are saddled with a bandwidth basis of charge. If all SD channels were forced to go 720 by 576 i, then all would pay more os less (more) the same proportion of the €12m cost of Saorview, with the exception of RTE who, because they are on HD, would see a slight decrease in their proportion. However, this change would not be huge, but the improvement in PQ would be huge.

Gerry Wicklow wrote: »

What sickens me is the way we are forced to watch low res fuzzy vision while 2RN burn electricity and our money on useless test cards.

2RN are not burning any extra electricity, just wasting bandwidth - nor are they wasting any of our money since the full cost of Saorview is recovered from the broadcasters.

If you do not like fuzzy vision, then get onto TV3 and UTVi and complain and complain again. Then get onto Comreg and complain - then complain to BAI and then get onto The Department of Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources (they have changed their name again).

You will then find out what wasting bandwidth is all about.

former total

icdg wrote: »

There's one other thing that needs to be mentioned here.

From the outset, DTT was viewed by the Govenrment as an opportunity to earn some cash. Initially that was through a sale of part or all of the transmission network, when that didn't fly (or wasn't politically palpable), it was through the sale of the multiplex licences.

Saorview was a last resort when all of that failed (including a competition where, in an extraordinary set of circumstances, all three entrants were offered the licence and all three turned it down), and the Government was faced with an EU deadline for DSO. It was the product of circumstances rather than planning, and was never meant to be anything more than a quick and dirty replacement for analogue terrestrial. Even now I'm sure there are some in Govenrment who harbour hopes that they might sell that commercial DTT licence at some point, though it will almost certainly never happen now.

The Government would have been obliged to offer it by tender; the fact that no-one wanted it sort of underlines the point that the commercial viability of DTT in Ireland is extremely low.

Add in the fact that, since that process, Eir and Vodafone are now offering pretty sophisticated TV services, the outlook is even more bleak.

Cliff Walker

No need to worry about the future of saorview, sure isn't irish tv coming to it soon :-)

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

All it would take is a change in specification.

Because TV3 threw their toys out of the pram, Saorview are saddled with a bandwidth basis of charge. If all SD channels were forced to go 720 by 576 i, then all would pay more os less (more) the same proportion of the €12m cost of Saorview, with the exception of RTE who, because they are on HD, would see a slight decrease in their proportion. However, this change would not be huge, but the improvement in PQ would be huge.



2RN are not burning any extra electricity, just wasting bandwidth - nor are they wasting any of our money since the full cost of Saorview is recovered from the broadcasters.

If you do not like fuzzy vision, then get onto TV3 and UTVi and complain and complain again. Then get onto Comreg and complain - then complain to BAI and then get onto The Department of Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources (they have changed their name again).

You will then find out what wasting bandwidth is all about.

I disagree with your point about no electricity being burned. If it costs x to transmit a 24Mbps multiplex, and only 18Mbps is being used to actual services, then x/4 of the total cost is being spent on transmitting test cards, seeing as that is how the TV companies are actually charged.

If they are transmitting a 24Mbps multiplex, all 24Mbps should be used, no question. Don't forget that RTE One was 544x576 when it was in SD, RTE Two was 704x576 (before November 2010 when it went 1080i, although pre-launch there was a 2nd RTE Two stream with a resolution of 480x576 @ 1.5Mbps CBR. During sport it was quite a mess of blocks).

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

I disagree with your point about no electricity being burned. If it costs x to transmit a 24Mbps multiplex, and only 18Mbps is being used to actual services, then x/4 of the total cost is being spent on transmitting test cards, seeing as that is how the TV companies are actually charged.

If they are transmitting a 24Mbps multiplex, all 24Mbps should be used, no question. Don't forget that RTE One was 544x576 when it was in SD, RTE Two was 704x576 (before November 2010 when it went 1080i, although pre-launch there was a 2nd RTE Two stream with a resolution of 480x576 @ 1.5Mbps CBR. During sport it was quite a mess of blocks).

You are not correct.

All 24 mb/s have to be transmitted, whether they are programme, test cards or zeros. You cannot do anything but broadcast the full mux - that is the way it works. We either have one mux or two, not one point five.

It is like running a bus service - if all the seats are taken, then you get all the fares, but if only 60% of the seats are taken, then you only get 60% of the fares. But if the passengers must buy a season ticket and the cost is divided equally between those paying passengers (irrespective of the number of passengers) - if only 60% of seats are sold, then each season ticket costs 1.66 times the amount if all the seats were filled by paying passengers.

But here is the trick - if the bus costs €100 to run, the amount collected by the driver is €100 anyway however many tickets are sold.

So if Saorview (which is guaranteed €12 m/y for two muxes) allowed only HD services for 8 channels, then each HD channel would cost €1.5 m per channel and not the oft quoted €2.5 m per HD channel.

So, if everyone increased the SD resolution to 720 by 576 i, then they would all pay more or less what they pay now.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are not correct.

All 24 mb/s have to be transmitted, whether they are programme, test cards or zeros. You cannot do anything but broadcast the full mux - that is the way it works. We either have one mux or two, not one point five.

It is like running a bus service - if all the seats are taken, then you get all the fares, but if only 60% of the seats are taken, then you only get 60% of the fares. But if the passengers must buy a season ticket and the cost is divided equally between those paying passengers (irrespective of the number of passengers) - if only 60% of seats are sold, then each season ticket costs 1.66 times the amount if all the seats were filled by paying passengers.

But here is the trick - if the bus costs €100 to run, the amount collected by the driver is €100 anyway however many tickets are sold.

So if Saorview (which is guaranteed €12 m/y for two muxes) allowed only HD services for 8 channels, then each HD channel would cost €1.5 m per channel and not the oft quoted €2.5 m per HD channel.

So, if everyone increased the SD resolution to 720 by 576 i, then they would all pay more or less what they pay now.

I don't think we are operating on the same lines here. I understand how the multiplex operates.

Re your bus analogy. If the bus driver had 60% of the bus occupied and the patrons were squashed into their seats, and the driver knew there would be no one boarding the bus for quite some time, would it not make more sense for the driver to let the existing passengers utilise the other 40% of the seats and spread around rather than being squashed into the previous 60%?

Also, myself and the other poster are just expressing disappointment at the fact that there are 24Mbps available and go out no matter what, yet the quality of TV3, TG4 and UTV Ireland is severely restricted in favour of these test cards. Would the stat muxer not fill the mux with the existing channels if the testcard streams were killed?

STB.

icdg wrote: »

There's one other thing that needs to be mentioned here.

From the outset, DTT was viewed by the Govenrment as an opportunity to earn some cash. Initially that was through a sale of part or all of the transmission network, when that didn't fly (or wasn't politically palpable), it was through the sale of the multiplex licences.

Saorview was a last resort when all of that failed (including a competition where, in an extraordinary set of circumstances, all three entrants were offered the licence and all three turned it down), and the Government was faced with an EU deadline for DSO. It was the product of circumstances rather than planning, and was never meant to be anything more than a quick and dirty replacement for analogue terrestrial. Even now I'm sure there are some in Govenrment who harbour hopes that they might sell that commercial DTT licence at some point, though it will almost certainly never happen now.

I don't think the government ever thought it was going to be a money spinner. Even in 2007 the attractability and viability of commercial muxes was well known. Yet they went through the motions and wasted a lot of time.

The viability of commercial TV on terrestrial was killed by cable TV a long time ago. The costs were too much with little hope of convincing people to adopt it.

Yes ASO forced the hand as regards the PSBs finding a new terrestrial home.

Yet the government contributed in no way to the €60million it cost to replace the analogue network, an EU requirement. RTE had to do it with their existing commercial and licence fee income.

RTE now have a situation where their own services are HD in the main, but the other broadcasters don't want to know about anything that is not a basic requirement that fulfills their FTA status. If that involves them broadcasting on the platform in the second lowest resolution possible, they will and they will challenge any move to make them use anymore of the Stat Mux than they need to. It will cost them more.

The platform is therefore doomed to being stagnant until technology moves on again and SD is phased out, which will be a long time coming.

Meanwhile the subscription companies are laughing.

marno21

Funny thing is back in 2006 I could receive 9 channels here through my aerial. Now everything is digital and I receive the same amount of channels.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

I don't think we are operating on the same lines here. I understand how the multiplex operates.

Re your bus analogy. If the bus driver had 60% of the bus occupied and the patrons were squashed into their seats, and the driver knew there would be no one boarding the bus for quite some time, would it not make more sense for the driver to let the existing passengers utilise the other 40% of the seats and spread around rather than being squashed into the previous 60%?

The driver is restricted by his inspector (Mr Comreg) who makes sure anyone not sitting squashed up must bay extra for using the empty seats. It is Mr Comreg who is responsible for this method of charging - not the bus driver.

Also, myself and the other poster are just expressing disappointment at the fact that there are 24Mbps available and go out no matter what, yet the quality of TV3, TG4 and UTV Ireland is severely restricted in favour of these test cards. Would the stat muxer not fill the mux with the existing channels if the testcard streams were killed?

Do you think I am not frustrated by the continuous bungling, incompetence, and downright stupidity being shown by the actors in this farce. RTE, 2RN, Comreg, BAI, and the DCENR. I have tried getting answers and all I get is a reference to one or other of the clowns named above - all on safe state funded lifestyles, waiting to receive golden handshakes and then index linked pensions.

Why have they 'fixed' the Saorview signal to make 'non-approved' sets near impossible to use?
Why have Saorview killed series link on non-approved sets?
Why are there 38 blank channel headers in the Saorview signal that do nothing but confuse non-approved sets
Why do they place data channels in the first position on both muxes, just to confuse non-approved sets?

They are not stupid - just malicious. It cannot be for commercial reasons because they have no commercial interest in the approval service.

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

So, if everyone increased the SD resolution to 720 by 576 i, then they would all pay more or less what they pay now.

Saorview platform utilises stat muxes. This is where you are getting confused.

If the government redefined the basic SD resolution acceptable on the platform, the first to kick up would be the commercial broadcasters as usage of the mux defines the cost. The resolution used directly effects the bit rate and therefore usage.

There also would be no incentive to move to HD, not that the commercial companies want one.

Sam Russell

STB. wrote: »

Saorview platform utilises stat muxes. This is where you are getting confused.

If the government redefined the basic SD resolution acceptable on the platform, the first to kick up would be the commercial broadcasters as usage of the mux defines the cost. The resolution used directly effects the bit rate and therefore usage.

There also would be no incentive to move to HD, not that the commercial companies want one.

Assuming that there is sufficient capacity, going from 544 to 720 horizontal resolution would increase bandwidth by 32% (well not exactly) but if everyone did this, then the share of bandwidth used remains the same for everyone. Since costs are shared, then charges remain more or less the same.

It has nothing to do with stat muxes. There is about 40% spare capacity on the two muxes which is why 2RN fill it with HD and SD test cards. Stat muxes allow more efficient use of bandwidth but where capacity is so underused, it is irrelevant.

When we run out of capacity on two muxes, we go to three muxes.

former total

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do you think I am not frustrated by the continuous bungling, incompetence, and downright stupidity being shown by the actors in this farce. RTE, 2RN, Comreg, BAI, and the DCENR. I have tried getting answers and all I get is a reference to one or other of the clowns named above - all on safe state funded lifestyles, waiting to receive golden handshakes and then index linked pensions.

They are not stupid - just malicious. It cannot be for commercial reasons because they have no commercial interest in the approval service.

Jesus man, time for some perspective. You don't seem to grasp the fundamental problems with Saorview, and posting this sort of mental stuff just makes any legitimate concerns you have totally invalid.

As for your repeated suggestion about upping the picture quality. The commercial broadcasters won't want to do it as it involves higher cost. It has to. They don't want to commit another cent more than they have to.

And would it make any difference to uptake of Saorview? No. The problem with Saorview is limited (and rubbish) content. A clearer picture doesn't change that. There is no one out there saying, "jaysus, I wish I could watch Expose and Bondi rescue in 720p". Polishing a turd still leaves you with a turd.

Sam Russell

former total wrote: »

Jesus man, time for some perspective. You don't seem to grasp the fundamental problems with Saorview, and posting this sort of mental stuff just makes any legitimate concerns you have totally invalid.

As for your repeated suggestion about upping the picture quality. The commercial broadcasters won't want to do it as it involves higher cost. It has to. They don't want to commit another cent more than they have to.

And would it make any difference to uptake of Saorview? No. The problem with Saorview is limited (and rubbish) content. A clearer picture doesn't change that. There is no one out there saying, "jaysus, I wish I could watch Expose and Bondi rescue in 720p". Polishing a turd still leaves you with a turd.

The content on Saorview is for another forum. If commercial station broadcast rubbish, then that is up to them and their prospective advertisers. The low number of channels on Saorview is simply because of the massive overspill of UK channels that are easily received FTA and by pay TV platforms.

This forum is about technical performance.

TG4 and TV3 both provide an HD version of their channels and therefore it would not cost them anything to use the HD feed to get the 720 by 576 i feed for encoding by RTE.

It would certainly help TV3 if their output was at a higher resolution when the same programme content is available FTA in HD on satellite or Freeview. Sport benefits more than any other content by being in HD.

Saorview is a state provided broadcasting platform and it is not going to be abandoned for many years to come - certainly not in the next 20 years. We are still broadcasting on Long wave (soon to be abandoned) but FM looks sound for the moment while DAB is still testing - and is not nationwide yet.

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Assuming that there is sufficient capacity, going from 544 to 720 horizontal resolution would increase bandwidth by 32% (well not exactly) but if everyone did this, then the share of bandwidth used remains the same for everyone. Since costs are shared, then charges remain more or less the same.

It has nothing to do with stat muxes. There is about 40% spare capacity on the two muxes which is why 2RN fill it with HD and SD test cards. Stat muxes allow more efficient use of bandwidth but where capacity is so underused, it is irrelevant.

When we run out of capacity on two muxes, we go to three muxes.

Sam with all due respect, if the "spare" capacity is used by the broadcasters, then they must pay more.

You need to read the tarrif calculation principles in this document.

Particularly

RTE Tarrif Doc wrote:

TARIFF CALCULATION PRINCIPLES
2.1
Calculation Basis
The Tariff charged to each Client is calculated so that the full costs from the Service Provider are recovered (including a return) on a non -discriminatory basis from all users of the DTT Multiplexing, Distribution and Transmission Broadcast Service in accordance with the requirements of ComReg Decision D11/13. Tariffs are derived from the Tariff Model constructed on the basis of assumptions as regards, without limitation, the overall costs of the Service Provider and/or the number, types and total average bit rate consumption per year of the Content Transport Streams. Using the Tariff Model, the calculation of the Tariff charged to a Client is based on:

Wholesale Access Reference Offer Appendix B April 2015
(i)the relative consumption of the multiplexes’ bitrate by a Client's Content Transport Stream(s) (as compared to the Total Content Transport Stream(s));
(ii) a cost per kbps, derived from the actual and estimated number and type of Content Transport Streams using the multiplexes during the Term; and
(iii) The smoothing of the Tariff over a five year period from 1st April 2014 to 31 st March 2019

If you up the resolution you must up the bit rate as a result. The SD broadcasters have no interest as a result.

Sam Russell

STB. wrote: »

Sam with all due respect, if the "spare" capacity is used by the broadcasters, then they must pay more.

You need to read the tarrif calculation principles in this document.

Particularly



If you up the resolution you must up the bit rate as a result. The SD broadcasters have no interest as a result.

You are missing my point. I have read the tariff.

If ALL users up their bit rate by the same proportion, then the cost per user remains the same as the total to be paid to 2RN remains constant at €12m for two muxes. You are talking about a single user changing their profile - that does not apply if all the users change by the same amount.

In analogue days, channels paid the same for each channel - there was no resolution sharing. In digital times, a mux can carry 24 MB/s which can carry more than one channel and if channels can get by on 2 mb/s, then they will pay less than a channel using 6 mb/s.

Say we have four channels on SD fuzzy vision @ 2 mb/s, and so using 8 mb/s of the 24 mb/s on the mux. All other bits are burnt off. They are liable for €6m /y between them. Upping the minimum resolution means that all the 2 mb/s fuzzy channels move up to 3 mb/s, but because they all move up their share of the cost remain the same, because they are now using 12 mb/s but it is still 100% of the used bit rate. So they still pay €6m between them.

It would be different if 2RN had to pay for unused capacity but they do not.

Now the actual way it works is a little more complex but the basics is the same. If everyone goes from 544 by 768 to 720 by 576 - then, as they do not move to three muxes - the total bill remains the same and the share of costs remains more or less the same.

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are missing my point. I have read the tariff.

It would be different if 2RN had to pay for unused capacity but they do not.

Now the actual way it works is a little more complex but the basics is the same. If everyone goes from 544 by 768 to 720 by 576 - then, as they do not move to three muxes - the total bill remains the same and the share of costs remains more or less the same.

No Sam, that is not how it works.

If RTE uses 8-10 Megs on the mux then it is charged accordingly for its % mux usage.

the relative consumption of the multiplexes’ bitrate by a Client's Content Transport Stream(s) (as compared to the Total Content Transport Stream(s))

If TV3 use 2.5 megs for TV3's channel at a low bit rate they are charged for that. If they use 4 megs as a result of a higher bit rate required to output the resolution you are suggesting, then it will mean their percentage of mux usage increases.

You have said it in your own sentence 2rn does not have to pay for unused capacity.

You only pay for the bitrate you use, compared with all users of the mux. RTE's is not going to change its Bit rate for the HD channel they have on each Mux. So why would SD channels want to pay anymore ? Its that simple.

former total

His point seems to be that if everyone ups their bit rate by the same amount, the relative percentages of traffic stay the same so costs would not change.

Which is incorrect.

Sam Russell

former total wrote: »

His point seems to be that if everyone ups their bit rate by the same amount, the relative percentages of traffic stay the same so costs would not change.

Which is incorrect.

Would you explain why it is incorrect?