nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Debate: Does it annoy you that RTE are only Broadcaster on HD on Saorview?

carrolls

Just when the topic was gaining momentum on the terrestrial forum, it was closed down and we were told to use the UTV sticky here in Broadcasting. But the debate was far from complete.
This is a general question about independents, not just UTV.
So I pose the question again here. Any independents who would like to broadcast in HD on Saorview are required to pay RTE Networks €2.2 Million annually for the privilege of doing so.
This fee does not really matter to RTE, because their subsidiary 2RN have been given the job of ringmaster for the network and because they fund the network using license payers money.
Therefore, due to government granted monopolistic competition rules, RTE have a huge competitive advantage over other broadcasters like UTV, TV3 and TG4 when it comes to broadcasting in HD.
Is this fair?
I think more realistic fees should be charged to independents for access to HD, In other words create a level playing field.
I suggest that the part of the licence that funds RTE carriage should be shared equally between RTE, UTV, TV3 and TG4, So they can all afford to broadcast in HD.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ShaneOC

Former Former wrote: »

Financial. It would cost them a lot more money to put HD content on Saorview with minimal return. It's not a commercially viable platform.

At the same time, they would be reducing the incentive for people to subscribe to Virgin Media (who own TV3), so the real cost would be even higher.

I cannot imagine that the number of people subscribing to Virgin would dramatically decrease if TV3 were to be available in HD on SaorView.

The government should be mandating that all channels on SaorView be in HD. It's likely the only way it will ever happen.

Johnboy1951

ShaneOC wrote: »

I cannot imagine that the number of people subscribing to Virgin would dramatically decrease if TV3 were to be available in HD on SaorView.

The government should be mandating that all channels on SaorView be in HD. It's likely the only way it will ever happen.

Even if they choose to broadcast in SD, all channels on Saorview should have to pay for a HD slot.
This would go some way to levelling the playing field.

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Even if they choose to broadcast in SD, all channels on Saorview should have to pay for a HD slot.
This would go some way to levelling the playing field.

Another option would be for RTE to use Mux1 and the other channels use Mux2. Each Mux would cost €6m each, and it is up to each Mux to pay for itself.

TV3 used to pay for transmission on the analogue service at a rate of €3 m (approx) for a single channel. This is more than it would cost to be on Saorview in HD, and it would only cost €1.5 m for each channel in HD on Mux2 if shared with TG4.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

Another option would be for RTE to use Mux1 and the other channels use Mux2. Each Mux would cost €6m each, and it is up to each Mux to pay for itself.

TV3 used to pay for transmission on the analogue service at a rate of €3 m (approx) for a single channel. This is more than it would cost to be on Saorview in HD, and it would only cost €1.5 m for each channel in HD on Mux2 if shared with TG4.

How would you see the cost of the mux being divided between the channels on mux2?
Would a HD channels pay more than an SD channel?

If so would that not discourage any one single channel from going HD to avoid the imbalance in costs? Similar to what RTÉ meet presently.

I doubt it would matter which mux a channel is on if all TV channels had to pay the same amount, and all radio channels treated similarly at a lesser fee.

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

How would you see the cost of the mux being divided between the channels on mux2?
Would a HD channels pay more than an SD channel?

If so would that not discourage any one single channel from going HD to avoid the imbalance in costs? Similar to what RTÉ meet presently.

I doubt it would matter which mux a channel is on if all TV channels had to pay the same amount, and all radio channels treated similarly at a lesser fee.

The current system is based on 'used bandwidth'.

In other words, an SD channel pays for what it uses, and unused bandwidth is ignored. If a channel wants to reduce its costs, it squashes its bandwidth and broadcasts a fuzzy picture. However, if TV3, and its other channels had to pay pretty much the same whether they used the bandwidth or not, then they would use it.

Four SD channels on Mux 2 costs €6m, and four HD channels on Mux2 costs €6m, which would you choose?

Tigerandahalf

Broadcasting in SD is dinosaur stuff at this stage. With everyone moving towards bigger flatter tvs the SD picture is only going to look worse.

The hope is that tv3's hand will be forced by people watching their content in HD on other channels like ITV, BT and C4, especially live sports. Perhaps in future sports bodies will be reluctant to sell their content to tv companies broadcasting in SD.

With younger people increasingly streaming their content and living in rented accommodation broadcasters' hands will be forced.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

The current system is based on 'used bandwidth'.

In other words, an SD channel pays for what it uses, and unused bandwidth is ignored. If a channel wants to reduce its costs, it squashes its bandwidth and broadcasts a fuzzy picture. However, if TV3, and its other channels had to pay pretty much the same whether they used the bandwidth or not, then they would use it.

Four SD channels on Mux 2 costs €6m, and four HD channels on Mux2 costs €6m, which would you choose?

Essentially, from a financial point of view, that is what I proposed ........ all TV channels pay for HD bandwidth whether they use it all or not ... only no need to change muxes etc.

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Essentially, from a financial point of view, that is what I proposed ........ all TV channels pay for HD bandwidth whether they use it all or not ... only no need to change muxes etc.

Would they all fit with HD? What about the +1 channels, they do not need to be in HD?

SD should be 720 by 576i and HD should be 1920 by 1080i.

If that was implemented, then the current charges would remain much as they are, but PQ would improve massively.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would they all fit with HD? What about the +1 channels, they do not need to be in HD?

SD should be 720 by 576i and HD should be 1920 by 1080i.

If that was implemented, then the current charges would remain much as they are, but PQ would improve massively.

Yes, I expect, +1 channels would be generally acceptable in SD ...... for the present anyway.

Mickey Mike

Sam makes the most sense on this issue, not sure about the rest of ye. RTE should excuse Mux2 and take full control of Mux1, full output of Radio and Television channels, also upscale 1 and 2 to 1920 by 1080i.
It would be interesting to see how the TV3 group and TG4 operate the 2nd Mux! they could get the Commercial Radio channels on board.
We are 4 and a half years looking at a HD test card (ch14).

dublinman1990

If people want to changeover from Virgin Media to Saorview; how many people would realistically take that option at a drop of a hat just for point of having TV3 HD on an aerial? People here have to understand that Virgin Media are a commerical company; they have way more content offered to their customers rather than taking up Saorview via an aerial. Saorview on it's own relies on a viewership that only counts with watching Irish content. On the other hand; Saorview really needs another HD channel or two to make that proposition a little bit more attractive for it's own viewers to have in the comfort of their own homes. If Virgin take this proposition into consideration well than that is some good progress for Saorview's viewers to take into account. But it all depends on 2RN's own official tariffs for broadcasters taking up a HD slot on Saorview to help RTÉ gain some extra money for it's accounts to look after it's own transmissions network. If 2RN had the mandate to provide a change in their charging structure; that could be seen as some small bit of progress. But with TV3 previously not giving a care in the world about terrestrial broadcasting here by not paying their fair share to RTÉ for their own transmission fees in the past; well TV3 could just continue on as normal like nothing has happened.

Atlantic Dawn

How much extra on the tv licence fee per household would it cost to cover the hd difference to TG4 and TV3?

Sam Russell

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

How much extra on the tv licence fee per household would it cost to cover the hd difference to TG4 and TV3?

If the two muxes cost €12 m to operate, then €10 would certainly cover the whole cost of Saorview, but it depends on:

1. The level of evasion - currently quoted at 15%.

2. Whether the Gov would increase the subvention for those on 'Free TV licence' which the Gov has previously cut back on, and have yet to restore to former level.

3. If they were to do this, it would be better to revamp the TV Licence, and make it a revamped charge based on every household paying it, plus some element of contribution from broadcasters, pay TV suppliers, and broadband suppliers.

I can see this happening in the Gov that comes in after the next election after the the election that happens after 2029. Perhaps not even then.

Atlantic Dawn

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the two muxes cost €12 m to operate, then €10 would certainly cover the whole cost of Saorview, but it depends on:

1. The level of evasion - currently quoted at 15%.

2. Whether the Gov would increase the subvention for those on 'Free TV licence' which the Gov has previously cut back on, and have yet to restore to former level.

3. If they were to do this, it would be better to revamp the TV Licence, and make it a revamped charge based on every household paying it, plus some element of contribution from broadcasters, pay TV suppliers, and broadband suppliers.

I can see this happening in the Gov that comes in after the next election after the the election that happens after 2029. Perhaps not even then.

Or they could get rid of the 2 orchestras which costs €11.36 per year out of each licence fee.

Former Former

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Or they could get rid of the 2 orchestras which costs €11.36 per year out of each licence fee.

Given the choice between having orchestras, or watching the utter, utter ****e that is 99% of TV3/3e/be3 content in HD, give me the orchestras every day of the week.

Capt'n Midnight

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

How much extra on the tv licence fee per household would it cost to cover the hd difference to TG4 and TV3?

Technically speaking nothing. Zero.. Zilch.

The transmission costs are already paid for since you can't broadcast half a mux.

In fact if Virgin were to pay more then RTENL would need less state subsidies so we could even get a rebate , except we won't

[Deleted User]

I notice Fair City on RTE1 is only in upscaled SD. Surprised to see this is still the case.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Technically speaking nothing. Zero.. Zilch.

The transmission costs are already paid for since you can't broadcast half a mux.

In fact if Virgin were to pay more then RTENL would need less state subsidies so we could even get a rebate , except we won't

That is like saying the HSE pay their bills and so do not need more state funding.

RTE are running a deficit and a larger contribution from the other broadcasters on Saorview should be paid to 2RN to pay for the running costs of the service. Currently the cost is €12 m per year of which €8 million is paid by RTE and €4 m is paid by the others. TG4, TV3 and OTV should pay €6m between them. How it is divided up is up to BAI and Comreg to sort out, but the Minister has a say in this and should enforce a proper and equitable regime. After all, RTE paid for the €70 million capital cost of DVB and the Gov pocketed the spectrum sell off proceeds - giving nothing to RTE who had to vacate their spectrum used for UHF TV.

The 15% evasion of the licence fee is easy to eradicate - put the bill on the ESB Networks connection charge - that way, it cannot be evaded.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

The 15% evasion of the licence fee is easy to eradicate - put the bill on the ESB Networks connection charge - that way, it cannot be evaded.

you'd also save the commission that An Post get for not collecting the license fee. :mad:

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

you'd also save the commission that An Post get for not collecting the license fee. :mad:

That would be true, but ESB Networks might want a few bob for their efforts.

Politically, it might be worth adding €12 per month to the ESBN bill, giving a cost of €144/year. €160 by 85% = €136 and if the An Post commission was 5%, then current yield would be under €130. So offering people a lower licence fee and getting a better yield - sounds like a Charlie McCreevy wheeze.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

That would be true, but ESB Networks might want a few bob for their efforts.

Politically, it might be worth adding €12 per month to the ESBN bill, giving a cost of €144/year. €160 by 85% = €136 and if the An Post commission was 5%, then current yield would be under €130. So offering people a lower licence fee and getting a better yield - sounds like a Charlie McCreevy wheeze.

If it was moved to the ESB bill then there would be no cost for 'licence inspectors' so the few bob for the ESB should be considerably less than presently required by An Post.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

That would be true, but ESB Networks might want a few bob for their efforts.

Politically, it might be worth adding €12 per month to the ESBN bill, giving a cost of €144/year. €160 by 85% = €136 and if the An Post commission was 5%, then current yield would be under €130. So offering people a lower licence fee and getting a better yield - sounds like a Charlie McCreevy wheeze.

Licence evasion rate 14.6% - that's €39 per licence payer and An Post get another tenner from every licence payer.

So with zero evasion and zero collection cost the licence fee would be only €111. Like if it was collected automatically by ESB Networks or Revenue.

What annoys me is that TG4 isn't on HD on Saorsat. It's not like the Virgin Media channels are even on it.

Mickey Mike

Just wondering, how many HD channels can be carried on the 2 Multiplexes (Saorview)?

The Cush

Mickey Mike wrote: »

Just wondering, how many HD channels can be carried on the 2 Multiplexes (Saorview)?

Mux capacity is 24.1 Mbps, average video bitrate for a HD channel is 6 Mbps plus audio, data and mux overheads. Using current resolution a mux could carry 3 HD channels.

Mickey Mike

TV3 group are kicking up a row again, they don't want RTE to add any more services to the Saorview platform. It seems RTE wants to launch RTE2+1 and extend the hours of RTE1+1. Sure that is none of TV3s business in what RTE do or don't do. TV3/VM seems to do what they like without anyone saying anything.

Sam Russell

Mickey Mike wrote: »

TV3 group are kicking up a row again, they don't want RTE to add any more services to the Saorview platform. It seems RTE wants to launch RTE2+1 and extend the hours of RTE1+1. Sure that is none of TV3s business in what RTE do or don't do. TV3/VM seems to do what they like without anyone saying anything.

I thought McRedmond had moved to An Post to close a few more Post Offices?

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The 15% evasion of the licence fee is easy to eradicate - put the bill on the ESB Networks connection charge - that way, it cannot be evaded.

It's not actually that easy because its probably politically sensitive.

The reasoning been that Low income families having their electricity being cut because their inflated bills weren't paid wouldnt be palatable. They do it in Greece though where evasion was always a problem. In France they have a separate living tax that funds a multitude including PSB TV.

The evasion figure of 14.6% is way off the mark. It's double that. The revenue are the only people for the job, but would they be allowed do it ? Probably not. I presume An Post need every penny they get including the collection fee.

TV3 need to told to mind their own business as they clearly are only interested in fulfilling the basic requirements of their licence conditions at the lowest bit rates possible.

Johnboy1951

STB. wrote: »

It's not actually that easy because its probably politically sensitive.

The reasoning been that Low income families having their electricity being cut because their inflated bills weren't paid wouldnt be palatable. They do it in Greece though where evasion was always a problem. In France they have a separate living tax that funds a multitude including PSB TV.

I would think it quite easy to omit such a charge for those who did not have devices that needed a licence. Regardless income, if you have the equipment then you pay the licence fee.
Set up a system where you need to apply to 'not pay'. The major part of evasion would then be eliminated.
Some of the 'inspectors' could be retained to irregularly visit those not paying to confirm omission from the charge.
It could also be a requirement that anyone not paying must allow an inspector access.

The evasion figure of 14.6% is way off the mark. It's double that. The revenue are the only people for the job, but would they be allowed do it ? Probably not. I presume An Post need every penny they get including the collection fee.

TV3 need to told to mind their own business as they clearly are only interested in fulfilling the basic requirements of their licence conditions at the lowest bit rates possible.

Sam Russell

STB. wrote: »

It's not actually that easy because its probably politically sensitive.

The reasoning been that Low income families having their electricity being cut because their inflated bills weren't paid wouldnt be palatable. They do it in Greece though where evasion was always a problem. In France they have a separate living tax that funds a multitude including PSB TV.

The evasion figure of 14.6% is way off the mark. It's double that. The revenue are the only people for the job, but would they be allowed do it ? Probably not. I presume An Post need every penny they get including the collection fee.

TV3 need to told to mind their own business as they clearly are only interested in fulfilling the basic requirements of their licence conditions at the lowest bit rates possible.

Low income families manage to fund multiple smart phones and Sky TV, so a few quid on the lecky bill should be no problem. There are systems for pre-pay as with smart phones, so I am sure they could manage, plus it would be a monthly charge so easier to manage.

Politically, it should be sold on the reduced charge per month I suggested above. Who would support paying more than necessary to fund the usual spongers?

STB.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Low income families manage to fund multiple smart phones and Sky TV, so a few quid on the lecky bill should be no problem. There are systems for pre-pay as with smart phones, so I am sure they could manage, plus it would be a monthly charge so easier to manage.

Politically, it should be sold on the reduced charge per month I suggested above. Who would support paying more than necessary to fund the usual spongers?

Sam I don't disagree with you in terms of it being a cop out.

You must remember though that such changes would have to get past senators and TDs in legislative reform. There was ample opportunity for such change when they brought in New broadcasting legislation 10 years ago. Perhaps FG would be all over something the greens wouldn't. Then again they might remember the flack that that labour minister got when she started commenting on Irish water protestors with their iPhones, so I doubt any of them will have the balls to say you can afford to pay sky etc.

The other thing is An post were in trouble and closing post offices the last time I checked. Aren't they kicked back 15mill for collecting it currently.

I also have my doubts that the bills would come down if everyone was paying espeviallly to the levels quoted above. They'd want the evasion percentage anyway.