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

The Cush · 14-11-2015 12:12am

sirbidders wrote: »

I find it grossly unfair that TV3 do not receive some portion of the licence fee to aid their broadcasting.

I don't, that's a condition of the commercial licence they bid for, were awarded and accepted and renewed a few years ago. They could've returned it at any time if they weren't happy with it. Add to that they were owned by Doughty Hanson, a company worth $8bn, since 2006 and are now owned by Liberty Global, a company worth over $70bn. They had an Anglo loan of €80m+ written off plus a further write-down of almost $9m when they bought back their own loans from IBRC, over €90m of state aid.
RTÉ's licence fee will now be up against the financial might of Liberty Global and ITV owned TV3, UTVI respectively.

sirbidders wrote: »

On a second note, does anyone know if SKY or UPC pay any fee to RTE for broadcasting their channels through their subscription service? I ask as when you have an "inactive" SKY box (subs expired) only the UK freeview channels are available. I would assume as RTE is a free to air channel this would be able to be viewed also unless there was a fee? Anyone able to shed any light on this?

UPC and Sky don't pay RTÉ for the right to transmit their channels and likewise RTÉ doesn't charge them for their channels. The problem is programme rights, the Irish channels buy programming for a population of 6m (if you include NI). Broadcasting FTA via satellite covers a very large footprint of over 100m (incl. UK/western Europe) which the Irish channels could not afford hence the reason they're encrypted and only available to an Irish audience. The UK channels are available FTA because they pay for the rights to cover overspill into Ireland and parts of Europe.

This from a Dáil Committee discussion with RTÉ a few years ago

The BBC, ITV and a number of other companies have put their services on one of the wideband Astra satellites. The services are broadcast unencrypted, or “in the clear” as we call it. The trouble with those wideband satellites is that they have a very big footprint. If RTE were to be put up on a wideband satellite, its services would be in the clear to the UK, France, Holland and many other countries. One might ask why that should not be done, to which I would respond that we do not have the resources to purchase the rights to enable us to broadcast into those countries. We buy programming that allows us to broadcast to 4.5 million people. We do not have the money to broadcast to 100 million people. Therefore, the option taken by the BBC when Freesat was launched is not available to us.

Johnboy1951 · 14-11-2015 12:42pm

The Cush wrote: »

UPC and Sky don't pay RTÉ for the right to transmit their channels and likewise RTÉ doesn't charge them for their channels. The problem is programme rights, the Irish channels buy programming for a population of 6m (if you include NI). Broadcasting FTA via satellite covers a very large footprint of over 100m (incl. UK/western Europe) which the Irish channels could not afford hence the reason they're encrypted and only available to an Irish audience. The UK channels are available FTA because they pay for the rights to cover overspill into Ireland and parts of Europe.

I think the point was that the Irish channels could be available to an Irish audience only, on an expired Irish Sky card without the channels being generally FTA. They could be FTV even with an expired Sky card.

I don't know if that is possible .... I suspect it might be .... but Sky have no incentive at all to do it. They would likely lose customers if they did, IMO.
(I do not use Sky so have no recent experience of what the various expired cards might achieve in the different aged Sky boxes or third party boxes.)

sirbidders wrote:

On a second note, does anyone know if SKY or UPC pay any fee to RTE for broadcasting their channels through their subscription service? I ask as when you have an "inactive" SKY box (subs expired) only the UK freeview channels are available. I would assume as RTE is a free to air channel this would be able to be viewed also unless there was a fee? Anyone able to shed any light on this?

The Cush · 14-11-2015 1:07pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I think the point was that the Irish channels could be available to an Irish audience only, on an expired Irish Sky card without the channels being generally FTA. They could be FTV even with an expired Sky card.

I don't know if that is possible .... I suspect it might be .... but Sky have no incentive at all to do it. They would likely lose customers if they did, IMO.

Yes I see that point, it is possible of course but would come at the cost to the broadcasters involved, encryption and card management costs etc. This is taken care of at the moment we believe by Sky and there would be no inventive, as you say, for Sky to make this option freely available. Also Sky cannot offer an Irish only channel package for a fee as per the Broadcasting Act, although my brother was made such an offer when he was cancelling his Sky sub some years ago.

pappyodaniel · 09-12-2015 12:54pm

Are detector vans still a thing?

How can an inspector know that you have a TV?

Fred Swanson · 10-12-2015 1:50pm

This post has been deleted.

cerastes · 14-12-2015 3:13am

therealgirl wrote: »

Hi,
TV licence question
We had a TV licence provided by our landlord in our last house...
We recently moved to a house where the previous tenant had her own licence, so obviously this new address has no TV licence.

Obvious? since the tv licence inspecter turned up? I suppose.
We brought our Sky subscription with us, but a few days later we found we were going to be cut a lot of money from wages...
So I cancelled the Sky subscription & our TV is now sitting in the attic.

Just before I cancelled the sky I got a visit from the TV licence inspector.
He asked my details & had we a TV, I said yes but I'm cancelling everything tomorrow...
He took down my details & said I need a licence...
Silly you
We've always had our landlord provide TV licence before as he has provided a TV at our old address...
So how does this work now?

You buy your own tv?

Someone told me if I had a TV on the day the inspector called I'll need a licence..

Well, they are somewhat right, if you had a tv on, then you have a tv, so yes, you'd need a licence for that, just because its off, broken or whatever doesnt exempt you from it.

This was two days ago...I have an email from sky today to confirm my account is cancelled...
Anyone know what I should do next?
Should I email and ask for inspector to visit again to see there's no TV?

Your sky or other tv subscription has no bearing on whether you are meant to get a tv licence or not.

Thanks

therealgirl wrote: »

Thanks Fred, I see Boards still has its helpful idiots ðŸ˜’

You told the tv licence inspector you had a tv???

therealgirl wrote: »

Well it's definitely not going to get used here... We've no sky, no boxes or anything... I'll give it to my mum.

You told the tv licence inspector you have a tv though, too late now, should have held out or not answered the door.

So do I email them so with a copy of the sky sub cancellation email attached?

Emailing them about you tv subscription cancellation wont matter a jot, not now or ever, they dont care about that.

therealgirl wrote: »

About six weeks... We had no sky transferred over til last week though

Wont make a bit of difference

therealgirl wrote: »

Also...do I need to get someone to remove the dish& cables that are on the house?

You're renting this house you say, Id advise against doing that as it may be the landlords, even if its from someone elses previous subscription, any damage done may be blamed on you.

crossmolinalad wrote: »

Do the same as in Holland
Cut the fee in half and put it up with the property tax
Problem solved

Or Portugal and cancel it, half would be reasonable, do you really think they will halve it if they do that, even if it cuts the cost of administering it?

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Disconnect the sky/upc box and leave at a friends place that has a licence.

Thats not necessary though really, you cant display a tv signal through it without a tv, if I was in that situation I would go to court if thats all I had.

pappyodaniel wrote: »

Are detector vans still a thing?

How can an inspector know that you have a TV?

By admission of guilt, see above.

I have a tv licence, but only because my other half insists on it and declines to close the curtains. Id be happy to get rid of the tv, but that has been declined unfortunately.

Mark2665 · 27-01-2016 10:50pm

I had a call from the tg licence inspector this evening while I was out, left a card saying the property has no tv licence get one within 5days to avoid further problems and will be back within 21days etc. I am only renting this property here about 4months had it on my list to do forgot until now. My question is I never had one before and want to get one now can I sign up and do the direct debits as a new customer and just pay for the year as I go along monthly? Or is that just for the coming year as in 2017? Any help greatly appreciated

Mark2665 · 27-01-2016 10:53pm

I had a call from the tv licence inspector this evening while I was out, left a card saying the property has no tv licence get one within 5days to avoid further problems and will be back within 21days etc. I am only renting this property here about 4months had it on my list to do forgot until now. My question is I never had one before and want to get one now can I sign up and do the direct debits as a new customer and just pay for the year as I go along monthly? Or is that just for the coming year as in 2017? Any help greatly appreciated

brightspark · 27-01-2016 10:56pm

http://www.anpost.ie/AnPost/MainContent/Personal+Customers/More+from+An+Post/TV+Licence/tvlicence250108.htm

icdg · 28-01-2016 12:09am

Not just a duplicate thread, we have a rule that all TV Licencing questions MUST be asked in the sticky.

icdg · 28-01-2016 12:17am

Cerastes no more of the bold red text here please

r@t · 03-02-2016 12:59am

hi

I live in a house with 4 other people its a house share with my name and one other on the lease. today i got a statutory declaration. it was in my name and not sure how they got it. there is no tv in the common areas of the house and none in my room, however after asking the other people in the house one has a tv in his room and he has no license. i showed him the letter and he isn't bothered. i told him to get rid of the tv but he said he doesn't want to, he wants to chance his arm so to speak. as its in his room which i have no access to i have no control over this situation . what can i do? can i call up and explain the situation or am i responsible regardless as its addressed to me?

EDIT: for anyone interested i will be meeting a solicitor at the citizen information center later tonight... illl post how it goes

SARCHER · 05-02-2016 12:16pm

It is my understanding that the fees collected from the TV Licence are to go to the funding of Public Broadcasting. I own a television set, but it is not connected to any service and does not receive any channels, it's basically a monitor at this point.

I am having a difficult time paying a fee for a service that I don't use. I've written the communications division and am told that regardless of whether I use the service or not I have to pay the fee and that there is no appeal process.

I feel like there has to be some other legal recourse as I don't use Public Broadcasting and should not have to pay for it. Additionally I believe that a station should be funded by it's advertisers and not the public purse but that is a different kettle of fish.

Does anyone know the best way to go about fighting this?

Dodge · 05-02-2016 12:22pm

SARCHER wrote: »

I own a television set

Does anyone know the best way to go about fighting this?

You can't. You own a TV set, you must pay for it's license. End of story.

SARCHER · 05-02-2016 12:32pm

Surely there is some recourse. I can't imagine that I am the only person that has a problem funding a service that I don't use. I license my car because I use it. If I had a car that wasn't in use, I could cancel the tax, so why can't I 'unsubscribe' to a service that I don't use?

whippet · 05-02-2016 12:36pm

SARCHER wrote: »

Surely there is some recourse. I can't imagine that I am the only person that has a problem funding a service that I don't use. I license my car because I use it. If I had a car that wasn't in use, I could cancel the tax, so why can't I 'unsubscribe' to a service that I don't use?

it is provided for in legislation. If you have a device that you need to pay the charge. There isn't an avenue for recourse.

In theory it is about public broadcasting and a public service. Not a subscription to RTE Television. Also the fee goes towards RTE radio.

Dodge · 05-02-2016 12:52pm

SARCHER wrote: »

Surely there is some recourse. I can't imagine that I am the only person that has a problem funding a service that I don't use. I license my car because I use it. If I had a car that wasn't in use, I could cancel the tax, so why can't I 'unsubscribe' to a service that I don't use?

You don't subscribe to it. You have to pay it if you own a TV

You can waffle all you like, but it's as simple as that

SARCHER · 05-02-2016 1:08pm

I don't consider it waffling Dodge. It's hard to fathom that people are forced to pay for a service they don't use. I am not prepared to do that and thus have sought feedback on ways around it.

It seems it may be prudent for me to rid myself of the TV set altogether and simply purchase a monitor if there is no alternative legally.

I think you have made your point, let's let others who may have more positive responses reply at this juncture as I am seeking suggestions/solutions which is why I wrote the post in the first place.

Thanks for your feedback.

eeguy · 05-02-2016 1:12pm

SARCHER wrote: »

It seems it may be prudent for me to rid myself of the TV set altogether and simply purchase a monitor if there is no alternative legally.

What is the difference between a TV and a monitor in terms of TV licenses?

Can I buy a large monitor and claim it's not a TV since it has no capacity to receive a signal without additional hardware?

Kintarō Hattori · 05-02-2016 1:16pm

eeguy wrote: »

What is the difference between a TV and a monitor in terms of TV licenses?

Can I buy a large monitor and claim it's not a TV since it has no capacity to receive a signal without additional hardware?

Yes you can but the delayed broadcasting charge will render that loophole null and void when it eventually comes in.

FishOnABike · 05-02-2016 1:42pm

SARCHER wrote: »

... I own a television set, but it is not connected to any service and does not receive any channels, it's basically a monitor at this point....there has to be some other legal recourse as I don't use Public Broadcasting and should not have to pay for it...Does anyone know the best way to go about fighting this?

If you have no need for a television set then get rid of it and buy a monitor. As long as you have a television set (whether working or not or whether connected to any broadcast service or not) you have to have a television license.

The only way to avoid the legal requirement to have a television license is to not have a television.

FishOnABike · 05-02-2016 1:59pm

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Yes you can but the delayed broadcasting charge will render that loophole null and void when it eventually comes in.

A license would also currently be required for any combination of equipment (e.g. monitor and satellite / cable / saorview box, PC tuner card or USB tuner stick with a PC or laptop) capable of receiving a 'television' broadcast. So if you do get a monitor you would need to ensure there was no broadcast receiving equipment in the house in order to stay on the right side of the law.

As already posted, ownership or not of a television or broadcast receiving equipment may be moot if the proposed broadcasting charge is brought in to replace the current television license.

Your guess is as good as mine as to whether it is worth ditching the TV and buying a monitor in the hope that the proposed broadcasting charge is a long time (if ever) being introduced or whether it is better to pay for a TV license in the meantime. 160 might not get much of a monitor, 160 X ? years might get a good one, 1000 fine + court costs for not having a TV license would have bought a nice monitor.

cml387 · 05-02-2016 2:20pm

I suggest you hire a lawyer.

At a cost of 160 euro (the cost of a license) you should at least afford to get him to write a stiff letter.

Dodge · 05-02-2016 2:28pm

SARCHER wrote: »

I don't consider it waffling Dodge. It's hard to fathom that people are forced to pay for a service they don't use. I am not prepared to do that and thus have sought feedback on ways around it.
.

No you haven't. You've sought advice on not paying for something you're obliged to do

You have your own idea of what the licence is for but that doesn't really matter. You're wrong and you have to pay. I'm sorry it's not what you wanted to hear

Nomis21 · 05-02-2016 2:30pm

About three years ago I cut the wire which goes from my TV Ariel to inside my house.

I wrote and told the licensing authority that I did not have a TV set.

They sent a guy to my address who looked like the Irish equivalent of Mike Tyson to investigate the case.

I showed him the cut Ariel wire dangling from my roof and he said...

"Well I don't mind coming here, it gives me a job."

He then walked away, never to be seen again.

STB. · 05-02-2016 2:36pm

SARCHER wrote: »

It is my understanding that the fees collected from the TV Licence are to go to the funding of Public Broadcasting. I own a television set, but it is not connected to any service and does not receive any channels, it's basically a monitor at this point.

I am having a difficult time paying a fee for a service that I don't use. I've written the communications division and am told that regardless of whether I use the service or not I have to pay the fee and that there is no appeal process.

I feel like there has to be some other legal recourse as I don't use Public Broadcasting and should not have to pay for it. Additionally I believe that a station should be funded by it's advertisers and not the public purse but that is a different kettle of fish.

Does anyone know the best way to go about fighting this?

Once it has a tuner in it, it is capable of receiving a broadcast. If you seel so strongly then get a monitor not a TV.

It doesn't matter whether you watch the TV or not, the legislation is written that way. Public Service Broadcasting cannot survive on advertising money alone.

Finally there is a big humongous thread for whinging about the TV licence mechanism. Infact its a sticky at the top.

STB. · 05-02-2016 2:38pm

Nomis21 wrote: »

About three years ago I cut the wire which goes from my TV Ariel to inside my house.

I wrote and told the licensing authority that I did not have a TV set.

They sent a guy to my address who looked like the Irish equivalent of Mike Tyson to investigate the case.

I showed him the cut Ariel wire dangling from my roof and he said...

"Well I don't mind coming here, it gives me a job."

He then walked away, never to be seen again.

So what, you got lucky. The aerial is not the licensable item, the television is.

icdg · 05-02-2016 4:02pm

STB. wrote: »

Finally there is a big humongous thread for whinging about the TV licence mechanism. Infact its a sticky at the top.

Indeed there is. Threads merged.

Sam Russell · 05-02-2016 7:44pm

If you have a gun, you need a licence for it. Saying you are not going to shoot anyone with it does not remove your requirement for a gun licence. Same with a TV. You do not even need to have the TV working to need a licence.

People appear to be happy paying Sky up to €160 a month for their TV service but do not like paying €160 a year to An Post to cover the public broadcasting service that appears on Sky. That is some double think.

tharmor · 05-02-2016 11:58pm

SARCHER wrote:

I think you have made your point, let's let others who may have more positive responses reply at this juncture as I am seeking suggestions/solutions which is why I wrote the post in the first place.

eeguy wrote:

Can I buy a large monitor and claim it's not a TV since it has no capacity to receive a signal without additional hardware?

yes

Joo0 · 11-02-2016 12:18am

Sam Russell wrote: »

appear to be happy paying Sky up to €160 a month for their TV service but do not like paying €160 a year to An Post to cover the public broadcasting service that appears on Sky. That is some double think.

Paying Sky is a choice paying a TV licence is a legal requirement if you own a TV.

Sam Russell · 11-02-2016 10:49am

Joo0 wrote: »

Paying Sky is a choice paying a TV licence is a legal requirement if you own a TV.

But are the people, who willingly pay Sky as much as €160 per month, the same people who do not pay €160 a year for their TV licence?

Quandary · 11-02-2016 7:17pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

But are the people, who willingly pay Sky as much as €160 per month, the same people who do not pay €160 a year for their TV licence?

Sky don't force people to pay for their service just because they own a television.

brightspark · 11-02-2016 11:32pm

Quandary wrote: »

Sky don't force people to pay for their service just because they own a television.

I think the point is if you can afford €160 a month for Sky, there is no reason why you can't afford to pay for a TV license.

Quandary · 11-02-2016 11:54pm

brightspark wrote: »

I think the point is if you can afford €160 a month for Sky, there is no reason why you can't afford to pay for a TV license.

Oh I get that point. I personally just don't feel the need to pay €160 just because I own a TV. I have sky, I pay them for their service because I want to watch their to channels. I can easily afford to pay a TV licence but I refuse to pay it because I do not use any of the state broadcasting services. If RTE was shutdown in the morning and Sky Ireland took their place it would not bother me, or a lot of other people I'm guessing.

I'm lucky that I live in a 2nd floor apartment with security gates, fob access block doors etc.... so I don't have to deal with any surprise knocks on my door.

Sam Russell · 12-02-2016 12:17pm

Quandary wrote: »

I'm lucky that I live in a 2nd floor apartment with security gates, fob access block doors etc.... so I don't have to deal with any surprise knocks on my door.

It is for that reason that the broadcasting charge was proposed to be paid by all premises - whether they were liable for the Licence or not.

Also, I am surprised that An Post do not have access to a list of subscribers of pay TV companies, and purchasers of TVs. Most other countries approach enforcement this way - I was asked for my address when I purchased a TV product in the North.

runawaybishop · 12-02-2016 12:47pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Also, I am surprised that An Post do not have access to a list of subscribers of pay TV companies, and purchasers of TVs. Most other countries approach enforcement this way - I was asked for my address when I purchased a TV product in the North.

Data protection commissioner went mental when this was proposed.

brightspark · 12-02-2016 6:13pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is for that reason that the broadcasting charge was proposed to be paid by all premises - whether they were liable for the Licence or not.

Also, I am surprised that An Post do not have access to a list of subscribers of pay TV companies, and purchasers of TVs. Most other countries approach enforcement this way - I was asked for my address when I purchased a TV product in the North.

They should add €160 to the property tax (now efficiently being collected by revenue) and abolish the TV licence completely.

No need then to pay AnPost and less costs involved in administration.

(No doubt after a few years of it being included in the property tax, some one will say we are the only country without a TV licence and reintroduce it at a much higher rate :eek: )

Joo0 · 12-02-2016 9:49pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

But are the people, who willingly pay Sky as much as €160 per month, the same people who do not pay €160 a year for their TV licence?

Seems to be that way. It's unfair on us who pay the TV licence yet do not use the Rte services frequently. I don't think k it is possible to say you don't ever access any rte services.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-02-2016 10:38pm

brightspark wrote: »

They should add €160 to the property tax (now efficiently being collected by revenue) and abolish the TV licence completely.

No need then to pay AnPost and less costs involved in administration.

Income from the TV licence amounts to some €220 million a year. Eircode lists 2.2 million premises so €100 per address.

The opt-outs and premises without TV's should be covered by Collection Costs from An Post/Communications and Social Protection Departments – €9.62

At present those of us who pay €160 per year are subsidising An Post and the freeloaders. TV ownership was 98% in 2006 but has dropped to 95% presumably because more people consume media using laptops and stuff so there shouldn't be all that many opt-outs.

Rynox45 · 01-03-2016 10:33pm

Sorry if this has been addressed in this thread before, if so it appears it hasn't been for a least a year.

I got a statutory declaration form from the TV Licence Record Office stating there's no record of a TV licence at my address. I've lived here for about 10 years with my parents (I'm 20) and they don't pay their TV licence. I'm not sure why I'm getting this letter now or at what point I became a "customer" of the TV licence.

As far as I can tell this is their way of trying to get money out of this household by coming after me. I phoned the local Licence Record Office to ask about it and without asking for my name or address I was told that it doesn't matter who owns the house, I live there so I have to fill in the form and return it. I was also helpfully told that there was no need to ask the homeowner for the TV licence details. Okay...

If I fill out the form truthfully I'll be admitting there's a TV here and no licence. The thing is, it isn't my house and I don't own any of the TVs. If I fill out this form truthfully am I going to end up being fined for not having a TV licence? I've done enough research to know that I've never purchased or owned anything that requires a TV licence - I just don't want to have a criminal record because of something someone else did.

Has anyone else been in this situation?

icdg · 01-03-2016 11:37pm

You are going into legal advice territory here, and we can't give legal advice on Boards - you need to consult a solicitor.

Rynox45 · 02-03-2016 7:54am

Thanks icdg, I'll post this over on legal discussion with some more specific questions.

Johnboy1951 · 02-03-2016 12:35pm

Rynox45 wrote: »

Thanks icdg, I'll post this over on legal discussion with some more specific questions.

I would ask if there is any truth in what you were told

I phoned the local Licence Record Office to ask about it and without asking for my name or address I was told that it doesn't matter who owns the house, I live there so I have to fill in the form and return it.

The charter prevents legal advice being given ..... but someone might know whether this is, in fact, true or not.

reboot · 07-03-2016 12:28pm

Some story last week re a "Closing of the loophole", that allows people to access TV on mobile devices in the UK?

icdg · 07-03-2016 12:41pm

As i understand it - and details of the legislation haven't been published - it will involve placing an obligation on those who watch BBC programmes via catch up to pay.

However if that's the case it breaks the principle that you pay whether you watch the BBC or not, which is a very dangrous road to go down. That way lies a BBC subscription charge.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-03-2016 9:39pm

reboot wrote: »

Some story last week re a "Closing of the loophole", that allows people to access TV on mobile devices in the UK?

IIRC the UK "loophole" only applies to screens of 7" or less and even then only when battery powered, it being a mobile device n' all.

It ain't mobile while connected to a charger.

icdg · 07-03-2016 9:59pm

As I understand it's nothing to with screen size - rather it's a distinguishment between live TV and catchup. Licence needed for live, not for catchup. This is slightly different to here where as I understand a licence isn't needed for streaming online.

Fred Swanson · 07-03-2016 10:46pm

This post has been deleted.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-03-2016 11:03pm

icdg wrote: »

However if that's the case it breaks the principle that you pay whether you watch the BBC or not, which is a very dangrous road to go down. That way lies a BBC subscription charge.

Considering what they've done to BBC3 and the way they are expecting the BBC to become less populist* so as to allow the commercial stations to make £115 million extra, this is not good news.

*One reason the stuff is popular is because it's good. I'll admit it, I watch Horrible Histories

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

Comments