Dee Forbes banging the RTE TV licence drum again 60m uncollected fee *poll not working - pl ignore*

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The UK government mandated that the successful tenderer use the "UK" satellites (Marcopolo) and MAC. Sky were on 19.2 back then not where they are now, and using analogue.

No. BSB's bid had won the franchise to operate the UK's DBS system from a satellite on the UK's WARC77 slot. That's where the satellite was positioned and it had a strong footprint over the UK and Ireland. It later used the Irish frequency allocation. Each country was allocated an orbital slot/position and some got more than one. The specifications were based on how technology was expected to develop. It was based on low noise (for the time) silicon transistors. The rise of the satellite TV market in the US accelerated the change and transistors using material with lower noise figures (gallium arsenide and then HEMPT etc) entered the market.The improving quality of technology meant that the dish sizes and equipment costs began to fall dramatically and pre-Astra/BSB system costs of a few thousand pounds/punts fell to around five hundred or lower when Astra launched.

One of the reasons for the UK franchise being offered was that the UK's cable TV industry was not well developed and only started to develop into local franchises in the late 1980s.

The WARC 77 specifications for satellite TV were also overtaken by technological developments. Astra launched in 1988 and its main advantage was that consumers could use a 90cm dish rather than the 1.2M or larger dishes that had been necessary before it.

BSB decided to go with marketing solution instead of a dish (the Squarial) which wasn't ready for the launch of the BSB service and, while being a technologically advanced solution, was more expensive than the easily mass-produced dish. The BSB people seemed to think that they would have the market to themselves and got an awful shock when Sky launched. Their public service broadcaster mentality ensured that they would not survive.

BSB had Marcopolo house in London. Sky set up on an industrial estate in Isleworth. The BSB management had a L'Oreal approach (much like RTE and its "personalities") to everything. Sky was operating on a wing and a prayer. It was a far more impressive operation given what it achieved.

The RTE channels were not being carried on the Sky package when it launched. This was back in the days of analogue TV, big dishes and limited satellite capacity. Given that Ireland was a major country for piracy (due to the proximity to the UK and the lack of legal protection of signals from outside the jurisdiction), had RTE launched on Sky's encryption system then, it would have been hacked as part of the compromises of the system Sky used then affected all channels.

You have to pay for a licence and some sort of equipment no matter what way you want to receive broadcast TV.

The problem is that RTE is quite wasteful of that licence fee. It keeps 2FM around and that was set up to protect RTE advertising revenue from the Pirate Radio stations in the 1970s and 1980s. Even with the current legitimate radio stations, it finds difficult to compete. The TV licence is a tax.

Saorsat is the only way to get Irish channels in Saorview black spots, and every terrestrial network has black spots, including the UK.

The problem with Saorsat is that it is a 1990s solution for a 2010s problem. Technology has advanced and the Internet and connectivity is a far more important issue now. It was obsolete when it launched and the market was moving more in the direction of Internet delivery. People now want Broadband and the TV market has increasingly shifted in that direction with the streaming services. Even RTE and its player managed to move in that direction.

Should people in bad coverage areas have just been told "Tough, get Sky" ?

No.

People (like myself) who don't want to pay Sky or Virgin have never had it so good in this country - Saorview or Saorsat for Irish channels and Freesat for the UK channels. Only recurring cost is the licence and that's just a fact of life unless you don't see any need for public service broadcasting whatsoever. Even the US has a PSB.

The problem is that RTE is a PSB who also wants to dominate the commercial TV market. If RTE confined itself to public service broadcasting, it wouldn't have anything like the audience numbers it has now. It would also be unable to pay its management and talent exorbitant salaries. Ironically, RTE had a great plan for a DTT system that also incorporated an Internet connection back in the 1990s. Unfortunately, it never got a chance to implement it.

Regards...jmcc

Boggles wrote: »

Did the government give you free equipment and installation when we changed to saorview?

No. Perhaps if I told them that I had as much experience with falling off roofs installing dishes as you, they would have provided it to me for free.

Not for the first time, you are missing the important point. The installation and equipment charge for people who want Saorsat is yet another tax on top of the annual licence fee tax.

Regards...jmcc

Boggles wrote: »

I'm pretty sure people who have to avail of saorsat would have pretty shít internet.

So we are back to tough, pay for sky?

I'm sure that you'll claim to have been using the Internet before everyone here as well but the assumption is not necessarily correct. Developing a better Internet infrastructure might be a better long term investment than Saorsat. There are now more ways of covering blackspots than there were when Saorsat launched. Apparently, people can watch TV on the Internet too.

Regards...jmcc

Boggles wrote: »

I'm not.

But I changed your post to help you understand my point.

Penny should hopefully drop 1.2.3....

Changing posts is a bit juvenile. I am talking about Saorsat (Satellite TV) not Saorview (Digital Terrestrial TV).

You really don't seem to understand how technology and markets develop. Due to the shift away from analogue transmissions (analogue transmissions ending), most TVs now include the technology for Digital Terrestrial TV. It has become a standard in the same way that colour TV succeeded black and white TV. Initially, the costs were much higher but as the usage increased, costs fell. The Saorsat market is only a fraction of the size of the Saorview market. It is an obsolete approach that was obsolete when it launched. Technology has advanced but RTE management has not.

Regards...jmcc

Deleted User wrote: »

The licence fee from the people who want to see RTE doesn't cover the cost of running RTE which is why they twist the arms of people who don't want it to pay the licence fee too.

People have a legal choice not to pay the license fee. I hope it is always that way.

But similarly they should not get to watch it for free whilst people are choosing to pay for it.

Wouldn't you agree?

Deleted User wrote: »

The licence fee from the people who want to see RTE doesn't cover the cost of running RTE which is why they twist the arms of people who don't want it to pay the licence fee too.

And the excuse they use about overpaying mediocre talent is laughable. Has Tubridy ever heard back from the BBC? RTE didn't lose listeners after Pat Kenny left for Dinnycorp.

RTE might have enough from the licence fee to run a public service broadcasting operation but it needs advertising revenue and goverment bailouts to play at being a commercial broadcaster. How people watch TV has changed dramatically in the last twenty years or so and RTE is finding it difficult to compete. Ironically, it has a great back catalogue of programmes that could easily be monetised with the right system but the RTE player seems to have its own issues.

Regards...jmcc

Deleted User wrote: »

RTE could encrypt their signal and only allow it to be decrypted by those who wish to pay for it with a CAM. They intentionally didn't do this. They want to keep throwing the strawman that some people are mooching off others.

Indeed but I don't see how that changes my point.

You have a legal choice not to pay the license fee and I fully support that.

Boggles wrote: »

For saorsat you did not have to upgrade the TV or pay for an expensive chimney install or gable mounted pole to accommodate an aerial.

It may have escaped your notice but Saorsat needed a dish, an LNB and a receiver.

Regards...jmcc

Elmo wrote: »

Well F ye, Tonight I am going to cry myself to sleep watching a coked up TV host prancing a round in a fox's costume, Each to their own I say! That's my 160 euro

Happy Christmas.

Likewise. Surely there's something worth watching on Netflix?

Regards...jmcc

Deleted User wrote: »

They have no way to know how few are using it especially as the handful who are using it are in the backs and beyonds a long way from Montrose.
It would be cheaper to pay for a basic Sky subscription for those people for a few years than to continue the saorsat service but if they'd turn it off you'd hear people complaining about inclusion and the regions.

It does seem to be constant problem with RTE. It spends money on "solutions" and then never bothers to see if they work.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc wrote: »

Surely they'll be astounded at Boggles' greatness and expertise in how to fall off roofs while installing TV dishes (been doing it for years) and they will hire him on the spot to advise RTE?

Nah, I'm sure there would prefer the Wikipedia warrior.

Your idea to just provide back spots that can't get saorview with HD IPTV is simply genius.