Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Text on 3 / 4


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-12-2012, 17:34
jj20x
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,102
That was after the service had been withdrawn as not commercially viable. It was just a formality under the Broadcasting Act because, at the time, there was technically still a public service remit. It doesn't change the fact that Ofcom themselves had already questioned the viability of the service.
jj20x is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-12-2012, 18:53
chrisy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beds (Sandy Heath TX)
Posts: 8,436
That was after the service had been withdrawn as not commercially viable.
I'm not arguing about that, it was withdrawn due to not being commercially viable. However, withdrawing a PSB service during the licence period is a breach of licence. Ofcom gave them notice before formally revoking the licence, and then they revoked it. Ofcom even fined Teletext for breach of licence.

It was unquestionably revoked by Ofcom due to breach of licence, as per the link I posted above, not handed back by Teletext Ltd.

Teletext were aware they were planning to breach their licence, however that doesn't mean they handed it back.

It doesn't change the fact that Ofcom themselves had already questioned the viability of the service.
Which is actually irrelevant wrt whether the licence was revoked or not.

I'm done with arguing about this. If you're unwilling to accept the evidence of an official document on Ofcom's website, which states they revoked the licence, then there's nothing I can say to make you see it.
chrisy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2012, 19:33
jj20x
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,102
I'm not arguing about that, it was withdrawn due to not being commercially viable.
Oh, then forgive me for assuming that your comment "that's yet to be proven" was arguing exactly that.

However, withdrawing a PSB service during the licence period is a breach of licence. Ofcom gave them notice before formally revoking the licence, and then they revoked it. Ofcom even fined Teletext for breach of licence.

It was unquestionably revoked by Ofcom due to breach of licence, as per the link I posted above, not handed back by Teletext Ltd.

Teletext were aware they were planning to breach their licence, however that doesn't mean they handed it back.
No-one said they handed it back. Public service broadcast licences are for a fixed term, and it had to be technically revoked as that is required by the Broadcasting Act, as I have already stated. They were actually fined 225,000, considerably less than the 500,000 they could have been fined. Obviously Teletext would have taken a potential statutory fine of the greater of 500,000 or 7% of annual revenue into account when withdrawing the service. Clearly losses from running the service were greater than the cost of the fine.

Which is actually irrelevant wrt whether the licence was revoked or not.

I'm done with arguing about this. If you're unwilling to accept the evidence of an official document on Ofcom's website, which states they revoked the licence, then there's nothing I can say to make you see it.
I'm well aware of why the licence ultimately had to be revoked. Your original post made it appear that the licence was revoked while Teletext were still providing a service and that the service not being commercially viable had not been proven.

What you have to bear in mind is that the digital tv service of teletext did not have the capacity previously available on analogue and as a result the range of content had to be reduced. There was a requirement in the licence to provide specific levels of public service content. This did not leave enough space to carry a sufficient amount of advertising to pay for the content the licence obliged them to carry. There wasn't sufficient space to carry the most profitable part of the service "Teletext Holidays" and additional space had to be purchased on other multiplexes to carry this content. The digital service was being subsidised in later years by revenue from the analogue service. As the analogue service was due to be switched off, that was not sustainable.

Teletext's submissions to Ofcom indicated that the cost of providing the required level of public service content was greater than the advertising revenue generated from running the service. Even before taking other costs into account. Furthermore, Ofcom had indicated that the licence would not be offered for renewal at the end of term in 2014.

To me that would seem to be not commercially viable, which is what you were actually questioning in the first instance.
jj20x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2012, 22:18
epsilon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,175
Except it wasn't revoked.
Perhaps you should have said it wasn't because the licence was revoked?
epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2012, 22:26
chrisy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beds (Sandy Heath TX)
Posts: 8,436
Oh, then forgive me for assuming that your comment "that's yet to be proven" was arguing exactly that.
Zero chance of a commercially viable text service, is yet to be proven.

Teletext's service was not commercially viable, but that does not mean any new service could not be. When companies have been around a while and get bigger and bigger they tend to require more cash coming in, than a new upstart would providing a similar service.

There is also a possibility that the 3% reserved capacity could be increased for a new licensee, if that is deemed to be required to sustain a service, or a requirement put on the commercial PSBs to link the Text button to any new service.

Without any form of consultation and/or ITA we will never know if potential applicants believe they can provide a viable text service.
chrisy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2012, 22:37
jj20x
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,102
Perhaps you should have said it wasn't because the licence was revoked?
What I was trying to say was at the time the Teletext service was discontinued on the 15th Dec 2009, the licence hadn't been revoked. Bringing the revocation into the discussion was a red herring. The licence wasn't revoked until 29th Jan 2010, it could have been done much sooner. It wasn't done sooner because, at the request of Ofcom, Teletext continued to provide certain services until other arrangements could be made. Although not part of their licence, Teletext inserted subtitles into the analogue service and carried information concerning DSO. Teletext continued to provide these services at their own cost and that was one of the reasons for the fine being reduced.

The service closed because it was not commercially viable not because the licence was ultimately revoked.
jj20x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2012, 22:50
jj20x
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,102
Zero chance of a commercially viable text service, is yet to be proven.
If you had read my post correctly you would have noticed that I said if there is zero chance of a commercially viable data service.

Teletext's service was not commercially viable, but that does not mean any new service could not be. When companies have been around a while and get bigger and bigger they tend to require more cash coming in, than a new upstart would providing a similar service.

There is also a possibility that the 3% reserved capacity could be increased for a new licensee, if that is deemed to be required to sustain a service, or a requirement put on the commercial PSBs to link the Text button to any new service.
Teletext had pointed out that the service was not commercially viable within the space allocated. Ofcom responded by telling them that the reserved capacity was not within their remit.

Perhaps if they had been gifted an entire multiplex, Teletext or another provider could have flooded it with advertising and run a very profitable service. But the space wasn't granted, it's pie in the sky.

Without any form of consultation and/or ITA we will never know if potential applicants believe they can provide a viable text service.
As you stated previously, Teletext were fined for failing to meet the public service requirements of their licence. It is arguable that Ofcom did the same by failing to re-advertise the licence. Ofcom had already made it known that they did not consider the service to be commercially viable in the long term and that the licence would not be offered for renewal at the end of its term.
jj20x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2012, 06:28
Sue_Aitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,712
Zero chance of a commercially viable text service, is yet to be proven.

Teletext's service was not commercially viable, but that does not mean any new service could not be. When companies have been around a while and get bigger and bigger they tend to require more cash coming in, than a new upstart would providing a similar service.

There is also a possibility that the 3% reserved capacity could be increased for a new licensee, if that is deemed to be required to sustain a service, or a requirement put on the commercial PSBs to link the Text button to any new service.

Without any form of consultation and/or ITA we will never know if potential applicants believe they can provide a viable text service.
Quite. After all, the Sky Text service on LCN 206 is able to offer news ...
Sue_Aitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 01:44
jj20x
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,102
Quite. After all, the Sky Text service on LCN 206 is able to offer news ...
Sky provide it as an ancillary service to their broadcast channels. It does not need to be profitable in its own right. Also it isn't really limited to working within limited gifted capacity. These services are not really comparable.

An independent provider has to make the service pay for itself whereas a broadcaster can fund it as a service.

Perhaps ITV / C4 and maybe even C5 could get together and provide a viable ancillary data service but it seems unlikely. Perhaps if ORACLE hadn't been outbid by Teletext back in the day, there might still be a service. Unfortunately, digital teletext proved itself to be unprofitable for a standalone franchise.
jj20x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-12-2012, 11:03
David_Ayling
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: East Kent. DOVER TX
Posts: 390
i would like to see itv & channel 4 & 5 bring out there own digital text. a bit like the BBC have. but i don't see it happing
David_Ayling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2012, 22:50
jj20x
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,102
i would like to see itv & channel 4 & 5 bring out there own digital text. a bit like the BBC have. but i don't see it happing
They were prevented from providing anything other than a basic programme listings service as anything else would be competing with the licensed teletext operator. I would assume that this restriction will continue until the licence expires or is abolished.
jj20x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 07:04
Sue_Aitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,712
http://www.a516digital.com/2013/01/t....html?spref=tw
Sue_Aitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 08:48
technologist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,116
Sky provide it as an ancillary service to their broadcast channels. It does not need to be profitable in its own right. ....
An independent provider has to make the service pay for itself whereas a broadcaster can fund it as a service.

Perhaps ITV / C4 and maybe even C5 could get together and provide a viable ancillary data service but it seems unlikely..
Actually the "old" EN 300-706 "Analogue" teletext was only a money spinner for Oracle /Teletext (greatly) in the UK and Swiss teletext ....... both as Additional services ... (which BTW was how the BBC saw Ceefax editorial mostly).
Most teletext services in Europe were Ancillary and were well subsidised by the AV broadcaster.

I remember pointing out to Editor Ceefax that Teletext Tax bill was more than his budget!!!!
- and after all about 3/4 of the holidays bought in the UK were via Teletext (and the phone!)
technologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 15:17
Sue_Aitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,712
Text on 3 / Text on 4 (2012-2013) all gone now.

Horoscopes and Chat and Date adverts still available to COM4 viewers on the 1-2-1 Dating Channel LCN 204.

Racing Telegraph advertises on LCN 206 Red page 948.
Tycoon advetised on the same service Red page 949.

Horse Racing Information continues on BBC Red Button page 660.
Sue_Aitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 15:26
Nightdeamon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,621
If only ITV/Channel 4 developed MHEG-IC versions of their catch-up services, that would be a worthwhile replacement.
Nightdeamon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 15:47
Ray Cathode
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford / Crystal Palace
Posts: 13,114
Anyone know if S4/C text has also been removed?
Ray Cathode is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 15:52
chrisy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beds (Sandy Heath TX)
Posts: 8,436
Anyone know if S4/C text has also been removed?
Yes... back in 2009!
chrisy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 15:59
chrisy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beds (Sandy Heath TX)
Posts: 8,436
If only ITV/Channel 4 developed MHEG-IC versions of their catch-up services, that would be a worthwhile replacement.
I'm (only a little) surprised that C4 didn't have a replacement lined up. They've committed to having a programme back-up service for as long as I remember, on both analogue and digital (although the "programme back-up" element mostly disappeared after Teletext decided they couldn't be bothered to provide it). C4 persuaded Teletext to continue the racing section after it was initially axed, so this at least must have been important to them. I thought they might have arranged an alternative service - but clearly not unless it simply just isn't ready yet.
chrisy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 16:57
Sue_Aitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,712
Yes... back in 2009!
I thought Sbectel went in 2010 around DSO ... See http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...8&postcount=81
Sue_Aitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 17:59
Ray Cathode
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford / Crystal Palace
Posts: 13,114
Yes... back in 2009!
When I said S4/C text I meant the application that changes audio languages because it consumes about 60kbps (or 200kbps if you include the second audio). The removal of text on 3/4 has only saved about 250kbps so the S4/C data would be significant if text on 3/4 was preventing a 9th stream launching.

As S4/C is a Welsh channel I can't see why an English language version is necessary in addition to the Welsh track and would expect this to be removed also. BBC ALBA has no English extra audio IIRC.
Ray Cathode is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 18:50
chrisy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beds (Sandy Heath TX)
Posts: 8,436
Not sure about Sbectel, but on DTT S4C Text closed when S4C moved to mux 2, in 2009. Now might be a good time to resurrect it, but nationwide!

When I said S4/C text I meant the application that changes audio languages because it consumes about 60kbps (or 200kbps if you include the second audio). The removal of text on 3/4 has only saved about 250kbps so the S4/C data would be significant if text on 3/4 was preventing a 9th stream launching.

As S4/C is a Welsh channel I can't see why an English language version is necessary in addition to the Welsh track and would expect this to be removed also. BBC ALBA has no English extra audio IIRC.
I didn't even know that existed. I doubt it has changed as it isn't related to Teletext Ltd's ex-service, although I fail to see the point of it when the receiver is supposed to select the correct language track based on the user settings.
chrisy is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 19:58
jj20x
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,102
With null packets now running at around 11.5% a 9th stream wouldn't be out of the question. Or an improvement in the video resolution of the existing streams.
jj20x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 11:01
Sue_Aitch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,712
BTW Sky Text (LCN 206) is from http://tvtext.tv/about/
Sue_Aitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 13:05
Greebo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 982
LCN 205 "Mail Travel TV" has been removed as of approx 12:40 today. LCN 180 "xxXpanded TV" appeared on the SDN mux at the same time.
Greebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2013, 13:15
Ray Cathode
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Guildford / Crystal Palace
Posts: 13,114
LCN 205 "Mail Travel TV" has been removed as of approx 12:40 today. LCN 180 "xxXpanded TV" appeared on the SDN mux at the same time.
Also LCN178 ADULT Playboy is no longer categorised as a data service.

xxXpanded TV suggests another ipTV offering? Because no prefix ADULT?
Ray Cathode is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32.