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

Boggles · 27-11-2020 3:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They only make the public pay for the licence because the public are forced to pay for it by law if they have a TV and not because they want to consume RTE as a service.

Personally I don't mind paying the license fee for what I consume, I think it is appropriately priced. I also think RTE needs large areas of reform and a proper direction going forward for the next decade.

But if I felt that I was being forced to do something I didn't feel comfortable with, I would cut the cord immediately.

jmcc · 27-11-2020 3:54pm

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 · 27-11-2020 4:06pm

jmcc wrote: »

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.

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?

jmcc · 27-11-2020 4:07pm

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 · 27-11-2020 4:09pm

jmcc wrote: »

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

I'm not.

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

Penny should hopefully drop 1.2.3....

jmcc · 27-11-2020 4:14pm

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 · 27-11-2020 4:16pm

jmcc wrote: »

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

I tried. I give up.

jmcc · 27-11-2020 4:26pm

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

Boggles · 27-11-2020 4:37pm

jmcc wrote: »

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

I know what you are talking about.

My point is you were decrying the cost of one without mentioning the other.

Both incurred costs.

In reality at the time, the costs were pretty much the same give or take.

27-11-2020 4:43pm

Boggles wrote: »

Personally I don't mind paying the license fee for what I consume, I think it is appropriately priced. I also think RTE needs large areas of reform and a proper direction going forward for the next decade.

But if I felt that I was being forced to do something I didn't feel comfortable with, I would cut the cord immediately.

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.

jmcc · 27-11-2020 4:53pm

Boggles wrote: »

I know what you are talking about.

That's an improvement.

My point is you were decrying the cost of one without mentioning the other.

And you are wrong. The cost for the Saorview user is less than that for the Saorsat user. The technology necessary to receive DTT is now part of all new TV sets. Both users buy the same TV sets. But the Saorsat user has to fork out for extra equipment. In some areas, the Saorsat signal strength is strong enough for reception with an indoor antenna so the additional cost is quite low. The cost of the Saorsat installation is effectively an extra tax along with the annual licence fee which is really a tax all but name.

Regards...jmcc

Boggles · 27-11-2020 4:54pm

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?

27-11-2020 4:58pm

Boggles wrote: »

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?

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.

jmcc · 27-11-2020 5:00pm

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

Boggles · 27-11-2020 5:01pm

jmcc wrote: »

That's an improvement.

And you are wrong. The cost for the Saorview user is less than that for the Saorsat user. The technology necessary to receive DTT is now part of all new TV sets.

But not when it was launched.

For soarview you had 2 options, a set top box which was more expensive than a bog standard FTA Satellite receiver or upgrade the telly.

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.

The point is both incurred costs, but for some reason you are pretending saorview didn't, mainly because I suspect it invalidates the poor point you were trying to make and refuse to let go of.

Boggles · 27-11-2020 5:03pm

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.

jmcc · 27-11-2020 5:04pm

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.

There were plans (they might even have worked if the RTE/UPC consortium had won). But Dinny O'Brien was involved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_TV_Ireland

Another Dinny success.

The CAM/encryption thing brings up some other questions. RTE would have to outsource the CAM/subscriptions system or it would have to develop it themselves. The subscriptions system (also the distribution of smartcards and collection of payment) would also involve protecting the service from being hacked. I don't think that RTE quite has the level of expertise required for either task. It has outsourced the licence fee collection to An Post for decades and it started when An Post also handled telephone services as P&T. If the goverment take away the licence fee collection from An Post, then it might be in a worse financial state than it is at present.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc · 27-11-2020 5:10pm

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 · 27-11-2020 5:10pm

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.

27-11-2020 5:12pm

Boggles wrote: »

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.

At the moment perhaps but Dee Forbes isn't at all happy with that(the point of discussion in this thread) and Politicians are suggesting that the introduction of a broadcasting charge is imminent.
Are you going to be storming the Offices of the Taoiseach with the rest of us here on the forum or just insincerely commiserating.

jmcc · 27-11-2020 5:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

At the moment perhaps but Dee Forbes isn't at all happy with that(the point of discussion in this thread) and Politicians are suggesting that the introduction of a broadcasting charge is imminent.
Are you going to be storming the Offices of the Taoiseach with the rest of us here on the forum or just insincerely commiserating.

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?

The only solution to an imposed TV/device tax would be a campaign of the Water Tax type. A device tax would be a vote loser for politicians and they would rightly get it in the neck from the electorate. It has been proposed by politicans from subsequently obliterated parties. (Pat Rabbitte and the nearly deceased Stickies Nua/Labour party. The Stickies had subverted RTE a long time ago.).

Regards...jmcc

jmcc · 27-11-2020 5:23pm

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

Hotblack Desiato · 27-11-2020 5:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Only recurring cost to you. this page says it costs 1.5m per year for saorsat

So what? The transmission network is still cheaper to run now than it was for analogue even though there are more channels.

How many of the "top" RTE presenters does 1.5m get you? Three, or four?

27-11-2020 6:20pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So what? The transmission network is still cheaper to run now than it was for analogue even though there are more channels.

How many of the "top" RTE presenters does 1.5m get you? Three, or four?

1.5 million for a transmission medium that is not being used is fat that needs to be trimmed before Dee Forbes can make a case for the Public to endure a blanket broadcasting charge\tax.

jmcc · 27-11-2020 6:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

1.5 million for a transmission medium that is not being used is fat that needs to be trimmed before Dee Forbes can make a case for the Public to endure a blanket broadcasting charge\tax.

Has RTE ever published any figures on the number of Saorsat viewers? Has it even bothered to measure the audience numbers?

Regards...jmcc

27-11-2020 6:39pm

jmcc wrote: »

Has RTE ever published any figures on the number of Saorsat viewers? Has it even bothered to measure the audience numbers?

Regards...jmcc

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.

bossdrum · 27-11-2020 6:59pm

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.

They could run ads or a banner on the bottom on the screen to ask people to contact them if they are receiving the channel by saorsat (maybe just on the feed that is broadcast on saorsat?).
If nobody responds then just shut it down as no one is going to notice or pay the sky subs for the miniscule amount that do. Then shut it down.

jmcc · 27-11-2020 7:12pm

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

Boggles · 27-11-2020 7:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

At the moment perhaps but Dee Forbes isn't at all happy with that(the point of discussion in this thread) and Politicians are suggesting that the introduction of a broadcasting charge is imminent.
Are you going to be storming the Offices of the Taoiseach with the rest of us here on the forum or just insincerely commiserating.

I'd imagine you'd be very much on your own with that endeavor lad, but good luck. Record it and post it up.

Boggles · 27-11-2020 7:29pm

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.

jmcc · 27-11-2020 7:40pm

Boggles wrote: »

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

Considering that it took me less than ten seconds to figure out how to get free Sky movies, they might be better off. After all, your only expertise is in falling off roofs while trying to install dishes.

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

There have been some remarkable advances with RF technology in recent years (5G etc). Though you probably insist on using two tin cans and a piece of string to talk to people and think it the height of modern technology.

Regards...jmcc

Boggles · 27-11-2020 7:43pm

jmcc wrote: »

Considering that it took me less than ten seconds to figure out how to get free Sky movies, they might be better off. After all, your only expertise is in falling off roofs while trying to install dishes.

There have been some remarkable advances with RF technology in recent years (5G etc). Though you probably insist on using two tin cans and a piece of string to talk to people and think it the height of modern technology.

Regards...jmcc

Yep. I'm sure if they can't access saorview they will have 5G.

:pac:

jmcc · 27-11-2020 7:58pm

Boggles wrote: »

Yep. I'm sure if they can't access saorview they will have 5G.

:pac:

Saorview transmitters cover wider areas than 5G cells. It may be easier to cover blackspots with 5G than simply relying upon distant and obstructed Saorview transmitters. And if they have mobile phone coverage in those blackspots, it may be an upgrade. The advantage of 5G and other cellular RF technology is that they are two-way and thus allows for more services than the simple one-way Saorview.

Regards...jmcc

Boggles · 27-11-2020 8:04pm

jmcc wrote: »

Saorview transmitters cover wider areas than 5G cells. It may be easier to cover blackspots with 5G than simply relying upon distant and obstructed Saorview transmitters. And if they have mobile phone coverage in those blackspots, it may be an upgrade. The advantage of 5G and other cellular RF technology is that they are two-way and thus allows for more services than the simple one-way Saorview.

Regards...jmcc

Seriously?

RTE are not going install 5G for some one off house up a mountain nor is any of the ISPs. Nor should they be expected to.

The cheapest best most available credible option at the time and still is what was put in place.

RTE didn't buy the satellite, when things improve which I'm guessing will be a long time, they are under no obligation to sign another contract or deliver the service.

jmcc · 27-11-2020 8:23pm

Boggles wrote: »

Seriously?

RTE are not going install 5G for some one off house up a mountain nor is any of the ISPs. Nor should they be expected to.

RF blackspots are more likely to be in valleys.

The cheapest best most available credible option at the time and still is what was put in place.

It is 1990s technology. Since then, cellular RF technology has become more usable and cheaper. Internet bandwidth and technology has also advanced. Even Saorview's transmitters didn't always follow the older analogue RF transmitters pattern.

RTE didn't buy the satellite, when things improve which I'm guessing will be a long time, they are under no obligation to sign another contract or deliver the service.

RTE buying a satellite would have made less sense than some of your posts. Satellites, like all technology, have a finite operational lifetime. Saorview may also be replaced as the Internet infrastructure improves. The topology of Ireland is complex. The same problems that affected MMDS also affected DTT. It is not possible to cover it completely with a single technology. Saorsat is the modern Betamax in the Betamax vs VHS battle between satellite Internet and 5G/cellular Internet.

Regards...jmcc

Boggles · 27-11-2020 8:55pm

jmcc wrote: »

RF blackspots are more likely to be in valleys.

It is 1990s technology. Since then, cellular RF technology has become more usable and cheaper. Internet bandwidth and technology has also advanced. Even Saorview's transmitters didn't always follow the older analogue RF transmitters pattern.

RTE buying a satellite would have made less sense than some of your posts. Satellites, like all technology, have a finite operational lifetime. Saorview may also be replaced as the Internet infrastructure improves. The topology of Ireland is complex. The same problems that affected MMDS also affected DTT. It is not possible to cover it completely with a single technology. Saorsat is the modern Betamax in the Betamax vs VHS battle between satellite Internet and 5G/cellular Internet.

Regards...jmcc

Jesus Titty Christ.

No one is going to install 5G in any black spot so some remote village or mountain dwelling can get RTE 1.

It's not going happen. Why you keep insisting it's a viable more cost effective option to the alternative that is in place is quite simply nuts.

fritzelly · 27-11-2020 9:19pm

This is all getting very tiresome

Hotblack Desiato · 27-11-2020 10:28pm

Saorsat can be used to provide a backup feed to Saorview transmitters.

Yes, Sky can do that, but imho delivery of the main PSB TV/radio channels is strategic infrastructure and should be under our control not the Dirty Digger's.

Hotblack Desiato · 27-11-2020 10:31pm

jmcc wrote: »

Saorview transmitters cover wider areas than 5G cells. It may be easier to cover blackspots with 5G than simply relying upon distant and obstructed Saorview transmitters.'

Yes, the phone networks can put 5G anywhere.

Will they? No. Not where the cost of providing it exceeds the revenue from the served population.

It's really not hard to figure out.

VinLieger · 27-11-2020 10:50pm

They have had months to prep for this toy show and they still cannot manage to put the required systems in place for what we all knew was going to be exceptionally higher viewers via the player

buried · 27-11-2020 10:55pm

F**king amazing black magic how nearly two million people can convince themselves they are 'relaxing in their PJ's' having a 'great time' watching some f**king looodraman bouncing about the place dressed as a rabbits arse while he grabs toys from children and throws them over his shoulder.

happyoutscan · 27-11-2020 11:06pm

buried wrote: »

F**king amazing black magic how nearly two million people can convince themselves they are 'relaxing in their PJ's' having a 'great time' watching some f**king looodraman bouncing about the place dressed as a rabbits arse while he grabs toys from children and throws them over his shoulder.

As much as I despise Rte and Dee's ****ing drum, Im very relaxed watching this because my kids are enjoying it.

buried · 27-11-2020 11:13pm

happyoutscan wrote: »

As much as I despise Rte and Dee's ****ing drum, Im very relaxed watching this because my kids are enjoying it.

Fair play man. Enjoy enjoy.

happyoutscan · 27-11-2020 11:15pm

buried wrote: »

Fair play man. Enjoy enjoy.

It is ****e though.

buried · 27-11-2020 11:18pm

happyoutscan wrote: »

It is ****e though.

As long as your young ones are enjoying themselves that's all that matters. Probably and hopefully the only year we can give a pass to the noise as long as the young ones can feel a bit of Christmas early.

RabbleRouser2k · 28-11-2020 12:05am

buried wrote: »

F**king amazing black magic how nearly two million people can convince themselves they are 'relaxing in their PJ's' having a 'great time' watching some f**king looodraman bouncing about the place dressed as a rabbits arse while he grabs toys from children and throws them over his shoulder.

I've not watched the Toy Show in a solid ten years.

I'm not breaking that streak now. IF folks enjoy it, good for them....

I'll happily watch something else.

buried · 28-11-2020 12:20am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I've not watched the Toy Show in a solid ten years.

I'm not breaking that streak now. IF folks enjoy it, good for them....

I'll happily watch something else.

I won't begrudge anybody into what they might enjoy, but at the same time lets not f**king fool ourselves either. The Toy show is nothing but a marketing gimmick, a huge advertisement for international toy companies such as the likes of Disney.corp to flaunt their wares for the splurge over the next month. If any adult actually thinks the likes of Tubridy and his crew up in RTE are doing this shtick to 'make us all feel good' and nothing else, time to wise the f**k up.

jmcc · 28-11-2020 4:27am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Saorsat can be used to provide a backup feed to Saorview transmitters.

Yes, Sky can do that, but imho delivery of the main PSB TV/radio channels is strategic infrastructure and should be under our control not the Dirty Digger's.

I am all for critical national infrastructure remaining in state hands.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc · 28-11-2020 4:34am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes, the phone networks can put 5G anywhere.

Will they? No. Not where the cost of providing it exceeds the revenue from the served population.

It should be subsidised with an element of state control resulting. If there was proper joined-up thinking from the past few governments, there would have been a better Internet infrastructure that could have handled these developments and served the population of Ireland. Things went pear-shaped with the privatisation of Telecom Eireann by the incompetent FF/PD government.

The advantage of a 5G approach is that the 5G system is potentially revenue generating whereas the Saorsat approach is not. The costs of installation on the 5G system have a way of being recovered (over a long period) and there is an upgrade path. The Saorsat approach is, by comparison, a technological dead end.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc · 28-11-2020 5:09am

Boggles wrote: »

Why you keep insisting it's a viable more cost effective option to the alternative that is in place is quite simply nuts.

A 5G approach can make money. The Saorsat is primarily a one-way system while 5G is a two-way system that has many more options. In addition to TV delivery, it is possible to charge for other services with a 5G connection. It is that simple.

Regards...jmcc

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

Comments

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