TV Licence - ALL TV licence discussion/queries in this thread.

Johnboy1951 · 21-06-2012 2:28pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the thinking in the court would be that the TV only needs a STB to become a TV again and so the case aganst the accused would succeed. It would be very easy to hide a STB but not so easy to hide a CRT TV in the corner of the room. Also, evidence of the arrangement of the room would be telling.

The easiest thing to do is to pay the licence fee.:D

If the court thought and acted on that basis, then all monitors would need to be licensed too.

IMO, the court would have no basis for such a determination.

Sam Russell · 21-06-2012 2:34pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If the court thought and acted on that basis, then all monitors would need to be licensed too.

IMO, the court would have no basis for such a determination.

No, monitors do not have a tuner, so are not liable on their own. An out of service TV is liable for the licence, but the defendant would be claiming relief because the transmissions it can receive have ceased. However, it could display a TV broadcast, and would need only a STB to display a current programme.

Where do you stop? An MPEG2 set?

Johnboy1951 · 21-06-2012 2:45pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, monitors do not have a tuner, so are not liable on their own. An out of service TV is liable for the licence, but the defendant would be claiming relief because the transmissions it can receive have ceased. However, it could display a TV broadcast, and would need only a STB to display a current programme.

Where do you stop? An MPEG2 set?

I did mention taking out the tuner circuitry

All a monitor needs to display broadcast TV is an STB ...... so on that basis monitors too should need a licence

Sam Russell · 21-06-2012 6:35pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I did mention taking out the tuner circuitry

All a monitor needs to display broadcast TV is an STB ...... so on that basis monitors too should need a licence

A monitor plus a STB needs a licence, but a monitor on its own does not. A defunct TV needs a licence - working or not. If you are prepared to lie, then you may fool an inspector, but you still need a licence. If you are caught out, you could face stiff penalties - your call.

I have long supported the idea that the TV licence should be paid together with the electricity bill in installments in line with that bill. It could also be assumed that all houses with electricity have a TV unless they declare otherwise. In other words, the bill payer opts out of the TV licence, making the failure to have a TV without a licence a double penalty by including making a false declaration a second offence. Most people would not be willing to make a false declaration but may omit to licence their TV.

Also the cost of the licence would be easier if it was automatically paid in installments, just like the Sky bill which is at least twice as much per month. Funny how people appear to accept paying them at least €25 per month but resent paing €13 per month for the licence (which is for the privilege of owning a TV, and not for watching RTE).

Johnny Johnson · 21-06-2012 7:00pm

UPC will still have tv broadcasting via analogue so it's not true to say analogue tv will be gone completely

Johnboy1951 · 22-06-2012 2:27am

Sam Russell wrote: »

A monitor plus a STB needs a licence, but a monitor on its own does not. A defunct TV needs a licence - working or not. If you are prepared to lie, then you may fool an inspector, but you still need a licence. If you are caught out, you could face stiff penalties - your call.

Yes a monitor plus STB requires a licence, I know.
A monitor on its own does not. Already stated.

A 'former' TV which has its tuner circuitry removed, is a monitor and not a receiver, so would not require a licence.

I still have doubts that a TV with no working receiver would require a licence.

In fact I feel fairly sure it would not .... as the device has to be capable of receiving broadcast signals, as I understand it.

I have long supported the idea that the TV licence should be paid together with the electricity bill in installments in line with that bill. It could also be assumed that all houses with electricity have a TV unless they declare otherwise. In other words, the bill payer opts out of the TV licence, making the failure to have a TV without a licence a double penalty by including making a false declaration a second offence. Most people would not be willing to make a false declaration but may omit to licence their TV.

Also the cost of the licence would be easier if it was automatically paid in installments, just like the Sky bill which is at least twice as much per month. Funny how people appear to accept paying them at least €25 per month but resent paing €13 per month for the licence (which is for the privilege of owning a TV, and not for watching RTE).

Sam Russell · 22-06-2012 11:36am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Yes a monitor plus STB requires a licence, I know.
A monitor on its own does not. Already stated.

A 'former' TV which has its tuner circuitry removed, is a monitor and not a receiver, so would not require a licence.

I still have doubts that a TV with no working receiver would require a licence.

In fact I feel fairly sure it would not .... as the device has to be capable of receiving broadcast signals, as I understand it.

As I say, tell it to the judge. The risk is yours.

Johnboy1951 · 22-06-2012 3:16pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I say, tell it to the judge. The risk is yours.

Dunno what gives you that impression

Johnny Johnson · 22-06-2012 3:49pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I say, tell it to the judge. The risk is yours.

If the tuner has been removed then what risk is there?

Sam Russell · 22-06-2012 5:25pm

If you are prosecuted for no road tax and you turn up in court and say there is no engine so it does not need road tax, I would think the judge would look with a jaundiced eye and convict anyway. They have heard all these stories before.

A TV remains a TV even minus the tuner. However, I am not a lawyer and I think you should take some serious legal advice if you find yourself in that position. That is all I am saying.

Stark · 22-06-2012 5:41pm

Friend of mine had an incident before where the TV license inspector called to the door and wrote down "saw TV through window" even though all the guy had was a PC/monitor setup. Being his word against the TV license inspector's, he had no choice but to pay for a license. Would imagine you'd have even less luck claiming it was a TV without a tuner.

Johnboy1951 · 23-06-2012 12:22am

Stark wrote: »

Friend of mine had an incident before where the TV license inspector called to the door and wrote down "saw TV through window" even though all the guy had was a PC/monitor setup. Being his word against the TV license inspector's, he had no choice but to pay for a license. Would imagine you'd have even less luck claiming it was a TV without a tuner.

I would suggest he had a choice.

A very clear choice ...... but if he wished to pay a licence fee for a device he did not own, that is his choice ..... it most certainly would not be mine.

I do wonder if he also pays road tax and insurance for a vehicle he doesn't own, because someone saw one parked in his driveway?

Fuzzy Clam · 23-06-2012 2:40am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I do wonder if he also pays road tax and insurance for a vehicle he doesn't own, because someone saw one parked in his driveway?

Parked in the driveway? No insurance or road tax required!

If those here who are so convinced that they can get away without a licence for a TV are prepared to go to court to prove it, then let them.
I just hope they are prepared to inform us of the outcome.

Fuzzy Clam · 23-06-2012 2:42am

Johnny Johnson wrote: »

If the tuner has been removed then what risk is there?

The tuner can be replaced.

thenightrider · 23-06-2012 3:09am

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

The tuner can be replaced.

A TV can be bought or a TV set top box with tuner for a monitor.

Stark · 23-06-2012 9:05am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I would suggest he had a choice.

A very clear choice ...... but if he wished to pay a licence fee for a device he did not own, that is his choice ..... it most certainly would not be mine.

Which would be? "Your honor, I hope you take the word of this scruffy student over this inspector"?

Johnboy1951 · 23-06-2012 12:59pm

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Parked in the driveway? No insurance or road tax required!

Exactly the point!

Someone sees a display device through a window and declares it is a TV, without any evidence to prove it.

Vs

Someone sees a road vehicle in a driveway, without any evidence it has been driven on the road.

If the first is not a TV it does not require licencing.
If the vehicle is not driven on the road it does not require road tax.

Johnboy1951 · 23-06-2012 1:03pm

Stark wrote: »

Which would be? "Your honor, I hope you take the word of this scruffy student over this inspector"?

I suppose that would be one approach ..... but not mine, I must admit.

Stark · 23-06-2012 7:11pm

What would be your approach?

Johnboy1951 · 23-06-2012 10:00pm

Stark wrote: »

What would be your approach?

I would think it obvious ..... bring evidence to the court that the display was not a TV; point out to the court that the "inspector" did not inspect the device and so could have no idea if it was a TV or not.

Would that not be logical?

If I felt in the mood I might even complain about being in court where there was no basis for it.

Of course if your friend had not communicated the facts on receipt of invoice/whatever for the TV licence, then he would be partially responsible for the case being in court, and could expect some repercussions for his omission.

On the other hand, I am more inclined to believe that he had a TV on the premises if he paid the fine ...... even if the inspector did not see the actual TV ..... otherwise I cannot understand why anyone would pay a licence for something they did not have.

Johnboy1951 · 24-06-2012 2:15am

Johnny Johnson wrote: »

If the tuner has been removed then what risk is there?

I did a little digging, and it appears even if the tuner is removed and the TV is incapable of receiving broadcast signals, a licence may still be required

The definition of "Television Set" defines it as a device which has be designed for reception of broadcast signals .... apparently even if it never met its design criteria, or has been altered or adapted at a later stage.

I do not know if this definition has been amended since, but here is the definition from the 1972 broadcast act:-

“television set” means any apparatus for wireless telegraphy designed primarily for the purpose of receiving and exhibiting television programmes broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.

BigGeorge · 13-07-2012 7:55am

We dont have a TV aerial but use a TV screen connected to a media drive & DVD player . I've damaged the TV cable point on the TV unit beyond repair & do not have any sort of saorview / satellite box or receiver.

I received a 'statutory declaration' from An Post & need some advice / previous experience on it, text verbatim is below. By disabling the TV as I have , have I met the requirement of the statutory declaration?

(1) is there a 'television set' at this address?

'Television Set' means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving & exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception ( whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus

The Cush · 13-07-2012 8:37am

BigGeorge wrote: »

We dont have a TV aerial but use a TV screen connected to a media drive & DVD player . I've damaged the TV cable point on the TV unit beyond repair & do not have any sort of saorview / satellite box or receiver.

How are the media drive and DVD player connected to the TV, scart/hdmi? A Saorview STB/indoor aerial used in conjunction with the TV i.e. connected to the TV via scart/HDMI, is capable of receiving & exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception.

BigGeorge · 13-07-2012 9:08am

They are connected via Scart & RGB Ports. But the point is we dont have a set top saorview type box or even an aerial connected for one we we dont have the equipment to receive signals

Using that argument a PC monitor would need a licence because it could be connected via a set top box.......but it doesnt

Sam Kade · 13-07-2012 9:13am

In all ads about paying your tv licence why do they make people out to be such idiots?

The Cush · 13-07-2012 9:14am

BigGeorge wrote: »

They are connected via Scart & RGB Ports. But the point is we dont have a set top saorview type box or even an aerial connected for one we we dont have the equipment to receive signals

For about €60 and a quick trip to Argos the TV could be up and running with Saorview.

BigGeorge wrote: »

Using that argument a PC monitor would need a licence because it could be connected via a set top box.......but it doesnt

A new household broadcasting charge isn't too far away that will cover all methods of reception.

Johnboy1951 · 13-07-2012 9:17am

The Cush wrote: »

How are the media drive and DVD player connected to the TV, scart/hdmi? A Saorview STB/indoor aerial used in conjunction with the TV i.e. connected to the TV via scart/HDMI, is capable of receiving & exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception.

So are most displays devices ....... are you implying that a TV licence is needed for monitors?

It appears that the definition of a TV might have been changed if the wording of the letter is correct ...... in which case it is dependent on the capability of the device and not its original designed purpose.

I have no personal experience of this, but simply declaring that you have no device capable of receiving broadcast signal would be correct and in a situation such as yours I would have no hesitation in doing so.

Under the 1972 definition I could not make a similar declaration as I would have a TV designed for reception, but under the definition you quoted I would not have a device capable of reception.

Just a personal opinion

The Cush · 13-07-2012 9:44am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So are most displays devices ....... are you implying that a TV licence is needed for monitors?

No doubt this has already been discussed here in the thread after 22 pages of posts on the subject, if not the Dept of Comms should provide clarification.

Sam Russell · 13-07-2012 10:34pm

If it was ever a TV, it still is. Broken is not enough as the law considers it could be repaired. I would think it is likely a monitor could be cosidered as requiring a licence if it is used in conjuction with other devices.

I would not like to try to convince a court of the difference.

Johnboy1951 · 13-07-2012 11:36pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it was ever a TV, it still is. Broken is not enough as the law considers it could be repaired. I would think it is likely a monitor could be cosidered as requiring a licence if it is used in conjuction with other devices.

I would not like to try to convince a court of the difference.

The declaration as quoted above demands that a device is capable ...... a broken TV is no longer capable of receiving the broadcast signals.

Elmo · 14-07-2012 11:58am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The declaration as quoted above demands that a device is capable ...... a broken TV is no longer capable of receiving the broadcast signals.

Then you should throw out your TV and not have it collecting dust in your home.

An analogue TV or a non-compatible Saorview TV is still capable of receiving TV signals even if those signals aren't available.

Even if your TV, STB, VCR, DVD Recorder (devices) are not connected to an aerial, satellite or cable network you are still required to have a licence.

Sam Russell · 14-07-2012 12:22pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The declaration as quoted above demands that a device is capable ...... a broken TV is no longer capable of receiving the broadcast signals.

The word 'capable' means that it was 'designed or modified to be able to ...' in this context. If a car is broken down it still needs road tax. The fact of the breakdown does not remove the requirement to be taxed, the criterion is whether it is on the public road.

If any TV is broken, it can be fixed. The law on this has been well tested. If it ever was a TV, it still is.

Stark · 14-07-2012 12:46pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

If a car is broken down it still needs road tax.

Not strictly true. If you declare a car to be off the road, you don't have to pay motor tax on it.

Sam Russell · 15-07-2012 7:21pm

Stark wrote: »

Not strictly true. If you declare a car to be off the road, you don't have to pay motor tax on it.

If you read the whole piece, I covered that point. Declaring a car 'off the road' when it is not - is equivalent to having a TV without a licence. If you have a TV, working or not, you need a licence. Saying it is broken is not a defence.

If a car is broken down it still needs road tax. The fact of the breakdown does not remove the requirement to be taxed, the criterion is whether it is on the public road.

Johnboy1951 · 15-07-2012 8:06pm

BigGeorge wrote: »

We dont have a TV aerial but use a TV screen connected to a media drive & DVD player . I've damaged the TV cable point on the TV unit beyond repair & do not have any sort of saorview / satellite box or receiver.

I received a 'statutory declaration' from An Post & need some advice / previous experience on it, text verbatim is below. By disabling the TV as I have , have I met the requirement of the statutory declaration?

(1) is there a 'television set' at this address?

'Television Set' means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving & exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception ( whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus

I would only point out yet again, that this declaration does not mention 'designed for' as in the 1972 act.
It refers only to 'capable of' ...... and no broken device is capable of performing the function it was designed for.
So making a declaration on the basis of this wording, when possessing a broken device which was designed to receive and display TV broadcasts, is truthful and factual.

If the 'designed for' definition is still in place then why has it not been used for the declaration?

leeroybrown · 16-07-2012 12:10pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The declaration as quoted above demands that a device is capable ...... a broken TV is no longer capable of receiving the broadcast signals.

In practice the interpretation of the wording "capable of" has always included broken apparatus that could be fixed and disabled apparatus that could be re-enabled. In theory a court challenge could change that but i would suspect a judge would side with the established practice.

Johnboy1951 · 16-07-2012 5:51pm

leeroybrown wrote: »

In practice the interpretation of the wording "capable of" has always included broken apparatus that could be fixed and disabled apparatus that could be re-enabled. In theory a court challenge could change that but i would suspect a judge would side with the established practice.

Seems rather weird ..... but I am not doubting you.

The declaration is for 'ordinary people' to read, and not those who are knowledgeable about legal interpretation of terms.
The 'normal use' interpretation would not be as you indicated.

I don't know if the wording of the 1972 act is still in play here, but if it is why would it not be used for this declaration?

I honestly find this rather odd.

Nevertheless, I would have no qualms about signing a declaration that a broken TV (or any other device) is not capable of performing the function for which it was designed and built.

.... all very odd ....

Stercus Accidit · 02-08-2012 4:55pm

I've removed the tuner from our television, it only has scart and hdmi inputs now, I assume it is no longer a TV? I hate TV, and don't want to watch it, and certainly don't want to support RTE. We have no other devices in the house for television, and the tuner is in the bin, irreparably removed from the TV. I'm in the clear I assume?

Elmo · 02-08-2012 5:10pm

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I've removed the tuner from our television, it only has scart and hdmi inputs now, I assume it is no longer a TV? I hate TV, and don't want to watch it, and certainly don't want to support RTE. We have no other devices in the house for television, and the tuner is in the bin, irreparably removed from the TV. I'm in the clear I assume?

As long as you don't have any STBs, Cable or Satellite TV, I assume so as long as you can prove it should you be asked.

Stercus Accidit · 02-08-2012 8:02pm

Elmo wrote: »

As long as you don't have any STBs, Cable or Satellite TV, I assume so as long as you can prove it should you be asked.

We legitimately do not watch television in our household, it is muck most of it and with games, the internet, books etc. I have no desire to rot my brain with whatever trash is being used to fill up the hours. We don't have any kind of satellite TV or whatever, we have broadband and that is the only thing we will need.

I guess this post is a proof in itself, as are the pics I took of the nasty little tuner being ripped out by the solder joints, should it ever go to court.

danger_mouse_tm · 03-08-2012 8:20pm

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

We legitimately do not watch television in our household, it is muck most of it and with games, the internet, books etc. I have no desire to rot my brain with whatever trash is being used to fill up the hours. We don't have any kind of satellite TV or whatever, we have broadband and that is the only thing we will need.

I guess this post is a proof in itself, as are the pics I took of the nasty little tuner being ripped out by the solder joints, should it ever go to court.

So i've often pondered that if i remove the tuner then am I exempt. Now as someone mentioned, if the tuner is removed, does it no longer make it a TV? At the end of the day if it did go to court, the judge could just turn around and ask a professional if the tuner could be re- installed. Based on the answer he could rule that the TV licence is still applicable.

I did look down the other route of getting a 32 inch monitor. It's cheaper to buy a licence for ten years!

I can't get TV here, even if i wanted to. We are down in a dip and the management company forbids us from mounting a dish on the outside of the apartment block. Even if we did decide to go ahead and mount a dish we would have to mount the dish on the peoples apartment above us to get a signal.

All the content we watch is either streamed or downloaded. Not illegally either. I have a zune pass, an itunes account and a media server that myself and some of the neighbours share. We also have netflix. I think, in the future the law will be amended to reflect the way we watch media so that everybody pays.

Johnboy1951 · 03-08-2012 9:28pm

So i've often pondered that if i remove the tuner then am I exempt. Now as someone mentioned, if the tuner is removed, does it no longer make it a TV? At the end of the day if it did go to court, the judge could just turn around and ask a professional if the tuner could be re- installed. Based on the answer he could rule that the TV licence is still applicable.

On that basis he could equally rule that a monitor should be licenced ..... because it too can have a tuner attached ..... and much more easily by plugging in a STB.

I guess it all depends on the wording ...... if it is "capable" of receiving then the tunerless TV would not require a licence ..... but if the wording is 'designed for' then it probably would require a licence ..... but a judge could decide it doesn't and it would essentially be broken and not as it was designed

Whether it is worth the chance to an individual to go to court on the matter or not, is a personal decision.

Stark · 03-08-2012 9:34pm

It's "designed for". Doesn't matter if the TV's tuner is removed or if the TV is broken, you still need a license.

Stercus Accidit · 04-08-2012 7:00pm

Stark wrote: »

It's "designed for". Doesn't matter if the TV's tuner is removed or if the TV is broken, you still need a license.

Designed by who?

I designed the TV to not be capable of receiving an analogue signal when I planned to and then did remove the tuner.

BigGeorge · 04-08-2012 7:03pm

Posted the text of the statutory declaration that an post sent us to sign a few weeks ago. it asks two questions

(1) Do you have a television? *
(2) Do you have a licence?

At the bottom of the page, marked by the * it goes to define what a television is, its very clear on ' being capable of' ...nothing at all to do with ' designed for'

Johnboy1951 · 04-08-2012 8:52pm

BigGeorge wrote: »

Posted the text of the statutory declaration that an post sent us to sign a few weeks ago. it asks two questions

(1) Do you have a television? *
(2) Do you have a licence?

At the bottom of the page, marked by the * it goes to define what a television is, its very clear on ' being capable of' ...nothing at all to do with ' designed for'

Yes, I highlighted that point earlier in the thread ....... which is that there would be no difficulty in signing that if the tuner was removed ..... BUT to comply with the law which apparently still says "designed for" might be a different matter.

Sam Russell · 05-08-2012 10:30am

danger_mouse_tm wrote: »

So i've often pondered that if i remove the tuner then am I exempt. Now as someone mentioned, if the tuner is removed, does it no longer make it a TV? At the end of the day if it did go to court, the judge could just turn around and ask a professional if the tuner could be re- installed. Based on the answer he could rule that the TV licence is still applicable.

That is not the way our courts work. The prosecution enters their evidence. You enter yours, and the Judge decides.
TV Inspector: 'The premises was not listed as having a licence. I saw a TV in the room, the defendent said he did not have a TV licence (because the TV had no tuner). It looked like a TV to me.'
You: 'I removed the tuner so I could not receive any broadcast and therefore do not need a licence.'
Judge:'So it was a TV, and you had no licence. Fine €500. Next case'

Judges do not have experts at their disposal. They find on the basis of the evidence presented before them. A TV remains a TV as far as most non-experts are concerned. If you want to argue otherwise, you will need an 'expert' (acceptible to the court) to argue on your behalf that a TV without a tuner is no longer a TV. Good luck with that.

Johnboy1951 · 05-08-2012 10:42am

Let me correct that for you ......

TV Inspector: 'The premises was not listed as having a licence. I saw a TV in the room. The defendant said he did not have a TV. It looked like a TV to me.'

You: 'The device the inspector saw was a display unit (Monitor) incapable of receiving broadcast signals, and used to display images from DVD Player or computer. I possess no device that is capable of receiving broadcast TV signals.'

Judge:' So it was a monitor! Why has the court's time been wasted with this? Dismissed! Next case'

Sam Russell · 05-08-2012 11:44am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Let me correct that for you ......

TV Inspector: 'The premises was not listed as having a licence. I saw a TV in the room. The defendant said he did not have a TV. It looked like a TV to me.'

You: 'The device the inspector saw was a display unit (Monitor) incapable of receiving broadcast signals, and used to display images from DVD Player or computer. I possess no device that is capable of receiving broadcast TV signals.'

Judge:' So it was a monitor! Why has the court's time been wasted with this? Dismissed! Next case'

You assume the Judge will take the defendants side and consider the TV Inspector could waste the Courts time. I think that is wishful thinking. If you are taken to Court over this, make sure you have your experts lined up and can prove what you contend. The Judge is unlikely to know the difference between a monitor and a TV, and a TV without a tuner is still a TV.

If you do waste the Courts time, they have ways to waste your time.

Johnboy1951 · 05-08-2012 12:09pm

and a TV without a tuner is still a TV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television

"A standard television set comprises multiple internal electronic circuits, including those for receiving and decoding broadcast signals."

I would be interested in viewing a definition of a TV set that does not have receiving capabilities.

The Judge is unlikely to know the difference between a monitor and a TV

If there happens to be a judge in the land who deals with such cases that does not know the difference it would take little time to explain it ....... the one can receive & decode broadcast TV signals and the other cannot.

TV Licence - ALL TV licence discussion/queries in this thread.

Comments