Virgin wont pay for RTE retransmission

Sam Russell

Virgin have said they will not pay retransmission costs for RTE and consider that they give preferential treatment to RTE by giving the prime position with their EPG position.

Now RTE consider €11m a year for Virgin and €17m is the value to Sky.

If RTE was taken off Sky and Virgin, would we see a surge in Saorview installations or would we see the death of RTE?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/virgin-media-warns-it-will-not-pay-for-access-to-rt%C3%A9-channels-1.3078084

Outkast_IRE

If they had to Virgin and Sky would pay for RTE as they will surely have the data analytics from the boxes that would show that as much as Irish people complain about RTE and TV3, they spend a significant amount of time on those channels.

This is just the opening shot of the battle to come.

I agree with the RTE position on this one, at the moment they are essentially bulking up the virgin and sky packages with some good quality programming for free.

Sam Russell

Exactly. But Eircom have history on this - and took Setanta off Virgin.

However, I think that the Broadcasting bill should levy pay TV with €1 per month to pay for Saorview - independent of any charge for RTE. This would allow all channels on Saorview to go HD.

Outkast_IRE

Sam Russell wrote: »

Exactly. But Eircom have history on this - and took Setanta off Virgin.

However, I think that the Broadcasting bill should levy pay TV with €1 per month to pay for Saorview - independent of any charge for RTE. This would allow all channels on Saorview to go HD.

Yes a levy on pay TV is probably the easiest way to resolve this issue. Now a bigger issue is while you are at it do you include a TV licence levy whereby your TV licence is paid as part of your subcription to Pay TV. This would instantly result in a sizeable increase in the income to RTE and an increase in compliance.

It doesnt fix the TV licence issue but it goes someway to increasing compliance.

Chopper Dave

Does this work though? Personally I'd be annoyed to have to BOTH pay a licence fee to RTE and then an increased fee to Virgin or Sky to watch RTE. At the very least I'd like a choice from Virgin and I suspect many would pick a cheaper package with no RTE.

Elmo

I still think that the BAI need to regulate the EPG, I think OfCom and other EU regulators insist on the main national channels in top spot.

I wonder if Virgin would like Sky to pay for TV3?

Sam Russell

Clearly any subscriber to payTV should hold a TV licence, and it could be part of the payTV requirement that they collect the licence from their subscribers or the pass the details to An Post or whoever collects the fee.

I think the BAI and Comreg should regulate the payTV market more that the do.

Elmo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Clearly any subscriber to payTV should hold a TV licence, and it could be part of the payTV requirement that they collect the licence from their subscribers or the pass the details to An Post or whoever collects the fee.

I think the BAI and Comreg should regulate the payTV market more that the do.

Simple solution to that is to add the licence fee on to all telecommunications bills, worked it out that it would cost the average mobile phone bill an extra 18c (this includes landline, broadband and payTV bills) 0.06% on top of your current bill/top up.

BAI have the power regulate the EPGs of all Irish based operators, Sky have always said the go by the local regs where possible.

Sam Russell

Elmo wrote: »

Simple solution to that is to add the licence fee on to all telecommunications bills, worked it out that it would cost the average mobile phone bill an extra 18c (this includes landline, broadband and payTV bills) 0.06% on top of your current bill/top up.

BAI have the power regulate the EPGs of all Irish based operators, Sky have always said the go by the local regs where possible.

Yes but that is changing the basic licence. It might be a good idea but it will be opposed by those who oppose any new charges, and would want to water them down to nothing.

noel100

Doesn't sky put their owns ads up for revenue on rte playing on the boxes. So if sky and virgin make money on ads on the back of rte they should pay rte a fee

Del2005

Why should my sub be increased to pay for a TV station I don't watch. If RTE want to get paid for carriage on Virgin or Sky then it should be subscription based and we'll see how much they get.

Elmo

Del2005 wrote: »

Why should my sub be increased to pay for a TV station I don't watch. If RTE want to get paid for carriage on Virgin or Sky then it should be subscription based and we'll see how much they get.

It replaces the licence fee which doesn't just go to RTÉ or broadcasting for that matter.

Sam Russell

Del2005 wrote: »

Why should my sub be increased to pay for a TV station I don't watch. If RTE want to get paid for carriage on Virgin or Sky then it should be subscription based and we'll see how much they get.

It is not necessary (but likely) that the subs will increase.

Sky and Virgin make huge margins profits on payTV so they can afford to pay without raising the fees. RTE bring huge numbers to them and without RTE a lot of subscribers would go elsewhere (such as Freesat and FTA). It is only inertia that keeps their numbers high, plus the near impossibility of cancelling.

icdg

The noise out of the DCCAE this week is that the TV licencing system is going to remain absolutely unchanged. An opportunity for modernisation lost, but you can understand why.

Meanwhile I'd agree with the poster above's second paragraph. What perhaps is failed to be understood is the different history of Cable TV compared to the other platforms, the fact that cable was originally for many an aerial replacement, carrying primarily PSB services with (after 1986) a handful of satellite channels. Right up until the end of the 1990s it was also dirt cheap - many people paid annually and the cost was still around ?100 up until that point.

What I guess I'm saying is that for many urban dwellers, cable rather than terrestrial was the "default" platform. Most Dublin houses don't have rooftop aerials. And while what is now Virgin has evolved into a modern communications/pay TV company, many older people still retain that original attitude of it being "the pipe". Virgin would want to thread carefully because any removal of RTE from the service (which ultimately I don't think will happen) will shatter that illusion forever.

Sam Russell

icdg wrote: »

The noise out of the DCCAE this week is that the TV licencing system is going to remain absolutely unchanged. An opportunity for modernisation lost, but you can understand why.

Meanwhile I'd agree with the poster above's second paragraph. What perhaps is failed to be understood is the different history of Cable TV compared to the other platforms, the fact that cable was originally for many an aerial replacement, carrying primarily PSB services with (after 1986) a handful of satellite channels. Right up until the end of the 1990s it was also dirt cheap - many people paid annually and the cost was still around ?100 up until that point.

What I guess I'm saying is that for many urban dwellers, cable rather than terrestrial was the "default" platform. Most Dublin houses don't have rooftop aerials. And while what is now Virgin has evolved into a modern communications/pay TV company, many older people still retain that original attitude of it being "the pipe". Virgin would want to thread carefully because any removal of RTE from the service (which ultimately I don't think will happen) will shatter that illusion forever.

You can see this with the 'media' reporters and publications. I believe (without any real facts) that the majority of RTE employees and other media types do not use Saorview for RTE but use 'the pipe'. Many have graduated to Sky, but few if any have graduated to Freesat - just look at the TV listings in the papers.

If RTE were to disappear from payTV, then there would be panic from the 'default' subscribers to get RTE back, and then the push would be on from suppliers (like those 'digital' aerial sellers at analogue switch off) to fill the gap. Once it became obvious that paying for TV was a mugs game, there would be mass migration to FTA.

gordongekko

Sam Russell wrote: »

Exactly. But Eircom have history on this - and took Setanta off Virgin.

However, I think that the Broadcasting bill should levy pay TV with ?1 per month to pay for Saorview - independent of any charge for RTE. This would allow all channels on Saorview to go HD.

Or just switch off the sd option on saorview and reduce the charges to the broadcasters.

Seth Brundle

Sam Russell wrote: »

IRTE bring huge numbers to them and without RTE a lot of subscribers would go elsewhere (such as Freesat and FTA).

Is there any evidence that RTE bring huge numbers or is it just an opinion?
I would have thought that most people wouldn't care too much about whether they lost RTE or not.

Wanderer78

kbannon wrote:

Is there any evidence that RTE bring huge numbers or is it just an opinion? I would have thought that most people wouldn't care too much about whether they lost RTE or not.

Hard to tell figures, but I'd say you'd be surprised of the amount of people that would care about losing rte, me being one and I suspect a lot of older viewers. Many younger generations probably wouldn't care in the least

Sam Russell

gordongekko wrote: »

Or just switch off the sd option on saorview and reduce the charges to the broadcasters.

Well, the cost of Saorview with two muxes is €12 million per year. That is the cost and must be received from the broadcasters. The method of collecting this has been decreed by Comreg to be by bandwidth - no other way. This was decided following TV3 lobbying.

It is possible for the charging regime to be changed, and it could be decided on a minimum bandwidth to apply to channels. It could also be decided to RTE move to mux 1 (which would save them €2 million a year) and the rest move to mux 2 and pay in full for it (at a cost of €6 million a year between them), which would cause them to up their bandwidth and go either high grade SD or HD, as they would be paying for the bandwidth anyway.

However, that is not the current method used.

If 2RN was subsidised for Saorview by a levy on payTV suppliers, that might be a way of moving everyone to HD, however that would be a hard sell politically. Alternatively, RTE could charge for retransmission rights.

Another alternative would be to insist that Saorview was the paramount service, and any channel broadcasting on Saorview had to use the highest resolution that that channel was available in. Also, that payTV had to offer all Saorview channels - or none. This would mean that RTE News Now would be available on all platforms, and could be developed into a real news channel.

CeilingFly

Chopper Dave wrote: »

Does this work though? Personally I'd be annoyed to have to BOTH pay a licence fee to RTE and then an increased fee to Virgin or Sky to watch RTE. At the very least I'd like a choice from Virgin and I suspect many would pick a cheaper package with no RTE.

I never understand this train of thought.

Sky charge a minimum 29.50 a month. Almost all the channels on that package are free to air and carry av. 14 minutes adverts / promotion per hour (rte is max 7 minutes under legislation). So €350 a year to the profits of Rupert Murdoch, but you have an issue with rte looking for a cut of that?

People pay for the convenience of having rte and the free to air channels together. Take rte out of it and the main selling point is gone and sky/virgin would see huge transfer to free to air systems especially for those on a basic package.

wordofwarning

icdg wrote: »

What I guess I'm saying is that for many urban dwellers, cable rather than terrestrial was the "default" platform. Most Dublin houses don't have rooftop aerials. And while what is now Virgin has evolved into a modern communications/pay TV company, many older people still retain that original attitude of it being "the pipe". Virgin would want to thread carefully because any removal of RTE from the service (which ultimately I don't think will happen) will shatter that illusion forever.

I agree cable was the default means of TV in Dublin until broadband became the norm. A lot of Dubliners are now cord cutters. Why pay €30/35 to virgin for the pleasure of a handful of UK and Irish stations? Cable in Ireland is now pretty much a luxury, but it is not a luxury service. The selection of channels is ridiculous for the price you pay

I think Virgin is scared that RTE will demand a fee. It will refuse to pay, so RTE will cut them off. When most people realise they only watch RTE on Virgin anyway, as most channels are useless. Virgin will have a ton of cord cutters

IMO Virgin has a lot more to loss than RTE.

Del2005

Elmo wrote: »

It replaces the licence fee which doesn't just go to RTÉ or broadcasting for that matter.

This is in addition to the licence fee.

CeilingFly wrote: »

I never understand this train of thought.

Sky charge a minimum 29.50 a month. Almost all the channels on that package are free to air and carry av. 14 minutes adverts / promotion per hour (rte is max 7 minutes under legislation). So €350 a year to the profits of Rupert Murdoch, but you have an issue with rte looking for a cut of that?

People pay for the convenience of having rte and the free to air channels together. Take rte out of it and the main selling point is gone and sky/virgin would see huge transfer to free to air systems especially for those on a basic package.

I'm on Virgin and the majority of the channels I watch aren't FTA. I don't have the option of going FTA, live in an apartment. If they start putting up prices for retransmission of a station I don't watch then I'll just get the Jolly Roger out.

Elmo

Del2005 wrote: »

Elmo wrote: »

It replaces the licence fee which doesn't just go to RTÉ or broadcasting for that matter.

This is in addition to the licence fee.

I can't remember but I think you where quoting me on the extra 0.06% on all telecommunications bill that would replace the licence fee.

I think you should be able to have a choice of provider for PayTV. I don't think RTÉ, TV3 and TG4 will ever get retransmission fees. But all UK channels on Irish providers get a retransmission fee.

And a correction RTÉ can only only have an average of 6mins of ads and a max of 9 in any hour.

Sam Russell

Del2005 wrote: »

This is in addition to the licence fee.



I'm on Virgin and the majority of the channels I watch aren't FTA. I don't have the option of going FTA, live in an apartment. If they start putting up prices for retransmission of a station I don't watch then I'll just get the Jolly Roger out.

If there is a retransmission charge, it will be quite small and could easily be absorbed by Virgin and Sky. If the choice for the payTV is to pay or lose RTE, then they will pay up. Competition will keep prices down, only it has not done so to date. Sky charges more every year, as does Virgin.

I used to pay IR£80 a year (I think) for Cablelink, or was it called NTL - can't remember. At that time there was no FTA. Now I pay zero.

Johnboy1951

There are several aspects of this mess that need attention IMHO.

First of all the licence fee ..... something needs to be done about the numbers not paying. How that is done is really not important (except for the push-back against it). Whether it is on a household charge, added to the Electricity bill, or some other means is only a matter of deciding which available option is the least costly and gives the best results. Maybe even an assumption that everyone needs a licence and then those who do not must show why they do not. It would certainly cost much less to administer.
The only negative is lack of political will. (Afraid of losing their job next election?)

The 'must offer' needs to be re-examined.
At the minimum, those re-transmitting the RTÉ channels should be required to do so as FTA and not encrypted. If the re-transmitted channels are encrypted then a re-transmission fee should be applied. (I doubt that could be applied in practice while maintaining all the geo requirements.)
I would have a preference for dumping the 'must offer' altogether and allow re-transmission fees to be negotiated between the parties.

The terrestrial muxes are a mess. Some means of 'encouraging' all channels on the muxes to go full HD needs to be found and applied.
It might work if the minimum bandwidth available is suitable for HD, and if a provider wished a second channel for a +1 then that could be in SD, with reduced bandwidth, thus costing less that the primary channel.
I have no doubt that if everyone was paying for sufficient bandwidth for HD they would soon transmit in HD.

No doubt the above suggestions do not cover all requirements of everybody, but I feel the ideas would be a good starting point.

Del2005

Sam Russell wrote: »

If there is a retransmission charge, it will be quite small and could easily be absorbed by Virgin and Sky. If the choice for the payTV is to pay or lose RTE, then they will pay up. Competition will keep prices down, only it has not done so to date. Sky charges more every year, as does Virgin.

When was the last time a company didn't pass a charge onto the customer especially when they have a duopoly? Even if you don't get hit the 1st year they'll sneak it in eventually.

Sam Russell

Del2005 wrote: »

When was the last time a company didn't pass a charge onto the customer especially when they have a duopoly? Even if you don't get hit the 1st year they'll sneak it in eventually.

That is the job of a regulator. Comreg should fill this role but has not proved very good at it so far. With proper regulation, the charges by Sky and Virgin should be compared with their charges and those of other operators in other markets.

For example, the outrageous amounts paid for sports coverage by payTV should be recouped from subscriptions to those sports channels and not recouped from all subscribers. Equally, subscribers should be allowed to subscribe to just those channels they wish to take and not forced to pay for what are basically FTA channels at exorbitant rates as well as paying high charges for the sports channels.

Elmo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

First of all the licence fee ..... something needs to be done about the numbers not paying. How that is done is really not important (except for the push-back against it). Whether it is on a household charge, added to the Electricity bill, or some other means is only a matter of deciding which available option is the least costly and gives the best results. Maybe even an assumption that everyone needs a licence and then those who do not must show why they do not. It would certainly cost much less to administer.
The only negative is lack of political will. (Afraid of losing their job next election?).

The IBI and TV3 both complain about the amount of Public Service Broadcasting that they are required to provide. So much lobbying from both has caused previous governments to create the sound and vision fund and this government to consider a journalism fund for local and community radio journalists.

They also complain about the broadcasting levy that they must pay to the regulator.

I don't understand why you would want to put the licence fee with electricity.
Other then requiring electricity to run your audio and visual media appliances electricity has little to do with the sector.
Property certainly has nothing to do with the sector.
As for WATER, a bill that the government have yet to introduce!!!

So why not put it on telecommunications bills. Mobile Top Up to your Broadband broadband. You pay an additional 0.06% (and you can correct me on that figure) to reach 200million.

Why?

1. Even though people are using such providers to access Video and Audio they currently don't have to pay the Licence Fee.
2. the clear connection to TV and Radio
3. no Telecommunications provider has any requirement from government for TV/Radio content, Virgin only has it because it owns TV3 but that is only on TV3 not Virgin as a whole, while eir has no requirements for its TV stations.
4. Easy to collect.

IMO the tax should not be passed on to the user, and both ComReg and BAI should set the rate of tax while insuring providers do not hike prices for the consumer.

Remember the Telecommunications sector is a Multi-billion Euro industry in Ireland.

Johnboy1951

Elmo wrote:

I don't understand why you would want to put the licence fee with electricity.

I didn't say I wanted that.

I clearly said it does not matter how it is collected, only that whatever method gets used it is the most effective.

IMO a general household charge, for all households, would be the most effective.
Those who do not have the specified equipment could claim exclusion from the charge.

How that charge is collected should not be an issue ... only that it is effective and cost efficient.
It could be applied to the electricity bill if that was the most efficient and cost effective.
It could be applied to any existing bill that everyone has to pay.

So why not put it on telecommunications bills.

Is there one such bill from one provider that everyone pays? I think not.
So you end up using multiple 'collectors' which is inefficient, and you miss out those who do not pay any provider but can still receive TV services.

You apparently wish to change the licence from the present one to something completely different.
I addressed collection of the present licence fee and not a complete change to a different charge.

Sam Russell

Elmo wrote: »

I don't understand why you would want to put the licence fee with electricity.
Other then requiring electricity to run your audio and visual media appliances electricity has little to do with the sector.

The reason to put it on the electricity bill is that every house has such a bill and cannot avoid paying it. When they move house, the lecky bill follows them. New subscribers have to give deposits so no avoiding there. Another advantage it is paid in monthly or two monthly amounts.

So why not put it on telecommunications bills. Mobile Top Up to your Broadband broadband. You pay an additional 0.06% (and you can correct me on that figure) to reach 200million.

Well, that is a different tax and could be used to increase the fund, but it could also be used to pay for transmission of Saorview, which is suffering from a stupid billing regime that has bandwidth wasted because no one will pay for it, but it has to be paid for anyway, so RTE get left picking up the slack - a truly daft arrangement. Of course, the viewer gets SD TV3 fuzzy vision, while Sky gets the HD version from which to make money.

Add to that, RTE cannot do anything with RTE NN and there is waste put upon waste. Also RTE are restricted as to how much advertising it can carry, and even what programmes it shows on RTE 2.

Elmo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Is there one such bill from one provider that everyone pays? I think not.
So you end up using multiple 'collectors' which is inefficient, and you miss out those who do not pay any provider but can still receive TV services.

You apparently wish to change the licence from the present one to something completely different.

Not there is not one such bill interestingly there is not one such bill for Electricity any more either.

And yes the current system doesn't work and a new name won't change that. Nor will adding it to Airtricity, Bord Gais and Electric Ireland bills!

The fee would be part of VAT, and would be passed from Revenue to the BAI would would then deliver the fund to RTÉ, Sound and Vision, TG4 and their running costs.

Also unfortunately my 0.06% looks way off :mad::rolleyes::o

On an average mobile bill/top up of €25 an additional €1.50 would be required, or €18 per year. 6.6%. Again you can and prob should correct me on this.

And yes the loop hole is anyone that doesn't have a landland, mobile phone, pay TV, broadband and so on would not have to pay.