How many rely on Saorsat?

Glaceon

dulpit wrote: »

I've asked before, but can't ever remember seeing a definitive answer. For Saorview or Saorsat, is the cost to transmit a channel of content or nothing at all the same from 2RN's point of view? Is it not a fixed charge regardless of whether all capacity is used or not?

Yes, with digital the running cost of a multiplex is the same whether it’s full or transmitting empty packets. But TV3 got the law changed to allow them to pay as little as possible (they wanted to pay nothing at all) so it’s down to them why we’re in this mess. Even TG4 has a higher resolution on the NI mini mux than it does on Saorview!

dulpit

Glaceon wrote: »

Yes, with digital the running cost of a multiplex is the same whether it’s full or transmitting empty packets. But TV3 got the law changed to allow them to pay as little as possible (they wanted to pay nothing at all) so it’s down to them why we’re in this mess. Even TG4 has a higher resolution on the NI mini mux than it does on Saorview!

So if the cost is the same, surely the minister could charge each channel the same amount, and leave it up to them to decide whether they want full HD or not - I assume the cost to the broadcaster would be the same either way then?

Glaceon

dulpit wrote: »

So if the cost is the same, surely the minister could charge each channel the same amount, and leave it up to them to decide whether they want full HD or not - I assume the cost to the broadcaster would be the same either way then?

Not necessarily. If you have, for example, three channels on a mux at the lowest quality possible, there would be a fair bit of empty space left. This would either be left null or filled with test cards (as it is at the moment). So 2RN are covering the cost of the empty space. Whereas if you split the cost of the mux in three, the broadcasters would most likely be paying more. But, on the flip side with that system, the more broadcasters you can attract to the platform, the lower the cost for everyone.

dulpit

Glaceon wrote: »

Not necessarily. If you have, for example, three channels on a mux at the lowest quality possible, there would be a fair bit of empty space left. This would either be left null or filled with test cards (as it is at the moment). So 2RN are covering the cost of the empty space. Whereas if you split the cost of the mux in three, the broadcasters would most likely be paying more. But, on the flip side with that system, the more broadcasters you can attract to the platform, the lower the cost for everyone.

On that basis, why is RTÉ One +1, RTÉ2 +1 and RTÉ News all in SD? If they end up paying more because of increased bandwidth share, surely that means they end up paying themselves?

Realistically, make it so that each channel pays the same regardless of whether they broadcast in SD or HD as a first step. Then change rules so that they must broadcast in HD. Doesn't seem to be a logical reason not to (apart from Virgin Media being tight with the money)

TAFKAlawhec

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

TNT SAT & Fransat are both encrypted with ViaAccess.

TNT SAT is just piggybacked on Canal+ satellite services, much like FreeSat, but it’s encrypted.

FranSat is a bit odd, being on Eutelsat 5 West A 5°W and is a spot beam, but also encrypted.

You just pay a €14.00 charge every 4 years, but the cards seem to be very much a fig leaf as they’re often just sold in your average electrical retailer.

My point is that SaorSat might have been better off just going in 28.2°E, on their own transponder, encrypting it themselves and issuing cards & not bothering about Sky too much. VideoGuard is expensive, proprietary and controlled by Sky. You could feasibly encrypt it with other systems that would be totally acceptable to rights holders. Nagravision, ViaAccess etc etc

People could then combine any 28.2°E free to air services on a sat tuner (tv or stb of their choice) with a CI+ slot and a Saorsat card.

It would have made it a very viable product.

It would just mean the RTÉ / TG4 and VM feeds would be on Astra twice, and in two encryption system - independently and as part of Sky.

The reason you can go into a shop in France (TNTSAT & FRANSAT), or Italy for that matter (Tivúsat) and purchase a receiver or CAM with respective access card is from what I said earlier - their size of population is many times that of those which speak the same tongue in neighbouring or nearby countries & territories. The likes of Switzerland and Austria don't have that luxury - and neither would Ireland. Interestingly ORF's HD terrestrial transmissions are also encrypted.

As for 28E, one of the reasons for not going down that road would be the likely cost of the operation. It's alleged that the cost of hiring a transponder on the 28E UK/Ireland beam from SES is among the most (if not thee most) expensive of all broadcast geostationary satellites in the world**. You would then almost likely require at least two CAS systems - simply using Videoguard only would quite unlikely be politically unacceptable, but at the same time there would likely be an outcry (Liveline? Hello...) if it weren't possible for people to use their Sky receiver*** to access this service and having to replace it with a new receiver. Then you'd have to add on the cost of a call-centre & relevant operations to process & send out cards. This could of course be contracted out, but it is still a cost.

On a rough calculation, we're talking at least several million Euro per year. The current Saorsat setup was claimed when it was first set up to cost 2RN about 1 million Euro per year** - maybe with the transmission parameter changes made on Saorsat a few months ago which has allowed the platform to take up a smaller amount of bandwidth compared to what it had previously, this cost has possibly reduced.

Ultimately, it begs the question "Who pays"? And that springs up many different possible answers - wherever any of them are acceptable is another matter. You could in theory shave some costs off by using only one CAS if it was deemed to be acceptable, but if this was Videoguard does this then affect the commercial agreement Sky has with Irish broadcasters on their platform?** Another method would be to come to a transponder-sharing agreement with another broadcaster (e.g. split a 50/50 bitrate data & rental costs for capacity with say the BBC or Sky) or use a third party distribution provider. But again, it's like when someone occasionally chirps up about the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the BBC for Saorview - who pays? etc.

Also, the Conditional Access system used means nothing with respect to the broadcasting rights of the channels on such a platform (as long as the CAS itself is secure) - what matters is the distribution of descrambling cards (or cardless CAMs for some systems). It would have to follow a system similarly implemented to that in Austria or Switzerland, likely tying it to TV licencing to help prevent registration & use outside the state.

Finally, you'd likely have another political issue regarding access to such a platform to viewers/residents in Northern Ireland. That would be another theoretical issue that I'd leave for another time.

Overall, I'd say that if an Irish FTV system at 28E was to be put in place, it would have been done by now. The fact that it hasn't suggests to me to be a combination of a lack of will from some/all of RTÉ, TG4 & Virgin Media, a lack of an acceptable answer from all involved into the costs of such a project, or (quite likely) a combination of both - especially with most linear television now in a slow but ultimately terminal decline against IP delivered content.




**Commercial confidentiality of course means that openly published details aren't available.
***Excluding Sky Q, of course.

TAFKAlawhec

dulpit wrote: »

On that basis, why is RTÉ One +1, RTÉ2 +1 and RTÉ News all in SD? If they end up paying more because of increased bandwidth share, surely that means they end up paying themselves?

Realistically, make it so that each channel pays the same regardless of whether they broadcast in SD or HD as a first step. Then change rules so that they must broadcast in HD. Doesn't seem to be a logical reason not to (apart from Virgin Media being tight with the money)

It wouldn't be so bad if the SD channels broadcast on Saorview were broadcasting on full D1 (720x576) resolution rather than 544x576 that they are at present for 16:9 content - the difference between TG4 on Saorview and the RNI_1 multiplex in NI, where it is transmitted with D1 resolution, is quite noticeable especially on on-screen graphics. The Saorview pictures just look very soft in comparison.

Full 1080i resolution for HD would be nice, though personally I notice less of a difference between it and the 1440x1080 resolution used for HD on Saorview compared to the SD example above.

Glaceon wrote: »

Not necessarily. If you have, for example, three channels on a mux at the lowest quality possible, there would be a fair bit of empty space left. ---(snip) 8<

You should see some of the Italian channels on Hot Bird - VCD resolution (352x288) with a fixed video bitrate of 512 kbps!

Johnboy1951

dulpit wrote: »

On that basis, why is RTÉ One +1, RTÉ2 +1 and RTÉ News all in SD? If they end up paying more because of increased bandwidth share, surely that means they end up paying themselves?

Realistically, make it so that each channel pays the same regardless of whether they broadcast in SD or HD as a first step. Then change rules so that they must broadcast in HD. Doesn't seem to be a logical reason not to (apart from Virgin Media being tight with the money)

If all broadcasters were only offered sufficient bandwidth for full HD for their first channel, and then maybe for +1 channels a lesser bandwidth, that might force the issue.
Would we lose some channels?
Maybe, but what would be left might be worth watching!

Would there be uproar iF rte announced the closure of saorsat for cost cutting reasons?

EdmondShiels3

Saorview will never change. Even if all channels are in HD no other channels are going to ever want to join. The main issue is it started too late when most people had a pay service or if the did not want one had freesat. Virgin Media not being in HD is stupid as they must be loosing viewers. For example someone who has freesat will watch the same ITV program on ITV in HD on freesat. I did on SKY when I did not have HD.

EdmondShiels3

EdmondShiels3 wrote: »

Saorview will never change. Even if all channels are in HD no other channels are going to ever want to join. The main issue is it started too late when most people had a pay service or if the did not want one had freesat. Virgin Media not being in HD is stupid as they must be loosing viewers. For example someone who has freesat will watch the same ITV program on ITV in HD on freesat. I did on SKY when I did not have HD.

Totally agree. It feels like saorview has less choice now than it did 10 years ago, Back then 3e was a youth channel that had American Dad , south park and other such shows but now Virgin Media 1,2 and 3 feels like the one channel.

EdmondShiels3

Johns nephew wrote: »

Totally agree. It feels like saorview has less choice now than it did 10 years ago, Back then 3e was a youth channel that had American Dad , south park and other such shows but now Virgin Media 1,2 and 3 feels like the one channel.

I agree about Virgin channel, they do feel like the one channel. There has to be some cheep programs that the could show instead of the repeats of ITV programs over and over again. 3e was a better channel when they took over it first but
then became like the main channel. It should go back to being like channel 6 which it was before tv3 owned it. This still would not chance saorview as it does not have enough channels to be a main tv service like freeview in England is.

decor58

EdmondShiels3 wrote: »

Saorview will never change. Even if all channels are in HD no other channels are going to ever want to join. The main issue is it started too late when most people had a pay service or if the did not want one had freesat. Virgin Media not being in HD is stupid as they must be loosing viewers. For example someone who has freesat will watch the same ITV program on ITV in HD on freesat. I did on SKY when I did not have HD.

What is to be achieved by most channels joining Saorview, most are broadcast into the country by satellite at present, then you have the rights issues, other than the main 5 channels, viewing numbers would be small in the UK, why incur extra cost for little or no return from the Irish market.

athlone573

decor58 wrote: »

What is to be achieved by most channels joining Saorview, most are broadcast into the country by satellite at present, then you have the rights issues, other than the main 5 channels, viewing numbers would be small in the UK, why incur extra cost for little or no return from the Irish market.

That goes without saying. I guess the other poster was thinking of other channels from VM or RTE ( aren't there some channels on Virgin By Wire that we don't get on Saorview) or of TG4HD / VM HD which would be handy for the football the odd time.

marclt

Johns nephew wrote: »

Would there be uproar iF rte announced the closure of saorsat for cost cutting reasons?

Probably not and because of the rights issues with football (which I don’t fully understand) it can’t be used as a back up feed for saorview transmitter sites. I think RTE use sky boxes for that anyway. So unsure of the long term value.

khumbu

marclt wrote: »

Probably not and because of the rights issues with football (which I don’t fully understand) it can’t be used as a back up feed for saorview transmitter sites. I think RTE use sky boxes for that anyway. So unsure of the long term value.

I'm sure people in non saorview coverage areas wouldn't be happy if saorsat was shutdown. Football rights excluded saorsat is a good alternative for areas with non saorview coverage.


I've seen it used in pubs (remember those) in 2 different areas that had no saorview coverage.


Its a pity TG4 is not on saorsat in HD. The cost of going HD on saorsat only would hardly break the bank.


Not having VM channels is a positive in my opinion.


If the size of dish required for saorsat could be reduced by increasing FEC etc. it would make installation along with FTA Astra2 much simpler. For end user no switching between terrestrial/satellite tuners etc. Channels can be integrated into one channel list.

dulpit

If all existing channels on Saorview were obliged to broadcast on Saorsat also, and all were obliged to broadcast in HD, with an even split in cost being paid is there capacity for that? Realistically, is there any new channels ever going to join either service at this stage?

[I wonder how much it would actually cost Virgin Media annually to broadcast their 3 stations on saorsat? Are we talking hundreds of thousands or millions?

Capt'n Midnight

dulpit wrote: »

If all existing channels on Saorview were obliged to broadcast on Saorsat also, and all were obliged to broadcast in HD, with an even split in cost being paid is there capacity for that? Realistically, is there any new channels ever going to join either service at this stage?

Because of the pandemic lots of transponders taken over on the satellite for data.

So that's not going to happen any time soon. Bandwidth practically halved. Which goes to show that they could have had TG4 , News Now and Junior in HD the whole time.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058088564

Frequency: Currently 20190.0Mhz changing to 20192.5MHz
Symbol Rate: Currently 25000 changing to 12500
FEC: Currently 2/3 changing to 5/6

Capt'n Midnight

Johns nephew wrote: »

[I wonder how much it would actually cost Virgin Media annually to broadcast their 3 stations on saorsat? Are we talking hundreds of thousands or millions?

RTÉ states that the chosen satellite option will cost approximately €1.5 million per year.Not sure what the figure is now with half the bandwidth.

Note : TV3 use low bandwidth so their costs would be a lot lower. Overspill to the UK is minimal and besides the parent company would have UK rights. And never forget that they only had something like 80% coverage before they were forced onto Saorview and they got an exemption on costs. I rarely watch them because you can watch most of the programs on Freesat in HD.


To go to Astra and encryption - to use a SKY system you'd need SKY hardware. And they don't sell CAM's

To get the Italian system Tivusat you need to spend at least €83 to get a card and a receiver or CAM module that you don't need.

Other systems are out there.

But which to choose and how to manage it ? And why bother when Saorsat is an extra LNB on a solid dish.