[jj20x]

Originally Posted by chrisy

Yes it was: http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/binari...ion_notice.pdf

That was after the service had been withdrawn as not commercially viable.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.

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by jj20x

That was after the service had been withdrawn as not commercially viable.

I'm not arguing about that, it was withdrawn due to not being commercially viable.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Which is actually irrelevant wrt whether the licence was revoked or not.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.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by chrisy

I'm not arguing about that, it was withdrawn due to not being commercially viable.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.

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by jj20x

Except it wasn't revoked.

Perhaps you should have said it wasn't because the licence was revoked?

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by jj20x

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.

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by epsilon

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]

Originally Posted by chrisy

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.

[Sue_Aitch]

Originally Posted by chrisy

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 ...

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by Sue_Aitch

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.

[David_Ayling]

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

[jj20x]

Originally Posted by David_Ayling

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.

[Sue_Aitch]

http://www.a516digital.com/2013/01/t....html?spref=tw

[technologist]

Originally Posted by jj20x

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!)

[Sue_Aitch]

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.

[Nightdeamon]

If only ITV/Channel 4 developed MHEG-IC versions of their catch-up services, that would be a worthwhile replacement.

[Ray Cathode]

Anyone know if S4/C text has also been removed?

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by Ray Cathode

Anyone know if S4/C text has also been removed?

Yes... back in 2009!

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by Nightdeamon

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.

[Sue_Aitch]

Originally Posted by chrisy

Yes... back in 2009!

I thought Sbectel went in 2010 around DSO ... See http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...8&postcount=81

[Ray Cathode]

Originally Posted by chrisy

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.

[chrisy]

Originally Posted by Sue_Aitch

I thought Sbectel went in 2010 around DSO ... See http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...8&postcount=81

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!

Originally Posted by Ray Cathode

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.

[jj20x]

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.

[Sue_Aitch]

BTW Sky Text (LCN 206) is from http://tvtext.tv/about/

[Greebo]

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.

[Ray Cathode]

Originally Posted by Greebo

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?