Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

1…1920222425…55

Comments

  • #632
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Broadcasting Act 2009 says
    “television set” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving
    and 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;


  • #633
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Rubberchikken wrote: »
    thought this new broadcasting licence would cover radio also. open to correction.

    The TV Licence doesn't just cover TV or Broadcasting or RTÉ. The New Broadcasting Levy is badly named IMO.


  • #634
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The broken set can repaired and so does require a licence. This has been covered many times before.

    The owner of a broken TV set CAN have it repaired or CAN go out and buy a new one. Either way until they do they DONT have electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services and therefore dont need a TV licence.


  • #635
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #636
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    zg3409 wrote: »
    Evidence they could use

    1) Saw a glow in the window, it was a TV

    Then it's your word vs theirs. .

    I was enriching th'aul uranium in my living room judge !


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Lava lamp, electric fake fire !


  • #638
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #639
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,360 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Which is why they are going to a 'broadcasting levy' on all houses, with or without a TV.


  • #640
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #641
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    But won't someone please think of poor old Columbo with nothing to do.

    Might have to get a real job ?


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    Lokhart
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭Lokhart


    Hello,

    I recently moved to Ireland (about 6 months) and just received an An Post notice in the mail (to the occupier) telling me to pay for the TV licence.

    Now, I don't have a TV (24'' PC monitor + PC without any form of decoder, and a PS3 also hooked to the monitor), from what I can understand from the FAQs and the law itself I should not pay the licence.

    Since I've got the notice today (or at least I noticed it in the mail today) I could not call them, so I've sent them an email on the address specified on the letter telling them that I do not own a TV and that they can come and inspect when they want.

    Do you know if I should still call them or that would be enought to be legally on the safe side?

    Thanks in advance.


  • #643
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #644
    Lokhart
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭Lokhart


    Well, to be honest the letter does say to contact them if I do not own a tv set...


  • #645
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #646
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Lokhart wrote: »
    I recently moved to Ireland (about 6 months) and just received an An Post notice in the mail (to the occupier) telling me to pay for the TV licence..

    If I post out invoices to people who don't actually owe me any money can I not be convicted of attempted fraud ?


  • #647
    Lokhart
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭Lokhart


    Well to be honest the notice did not say to pay,
    it actually said, if you own a tv, there is no licence paid for this apt, so please contact us and pay for it. If you don't have a tv please contact us and tell so.

    In any case it is quite annoying but I don't think they are breaking any law. It was just a reminder.


  • #648
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    Elmo wrote: »
    Lava lamp, electric fake fire !

    There are those tv light simulators that are for security purposes or someone could be playing a computer game?
    YourNameForMe wrote: »
    I'm not sure you can do anything. However, when the 10 months are up make sure there is no receiving equipment (e.g an antenna or satellite dish) in/on your house or else you'll still have to pay. I got caught for that, I was going to get rid of my TV when the license guy came a knocking but he said I'd still have to pay even if I got rid of the TV because there is an antenna on the apartment where I live.
    Fuzzy Clam wrote: »
    Aerials don't come into it;)

    It's being ignored but I've highlighted twice already what the law states.

    If you don't have a TV, then you don't have a equipment capable of exhibiting pictures. Simple.

    I started reading this thread, got to page 20, I have to jumpt to the end and ask my question,
    situation: I currently have a licence and I have sky at the moment and want to cancel when its up anyway. I might get freesat, but Im thinking of getting rid of the tv.

    Q. I know this has probably been mentioned, but Ive seen a few posts which suggest some quoted, even having a dish or the sky box/decoder (in that case this might even include the LNB?) could mean you have to get/have the licence, is this accurate or not? or a way to intimidate/trick/scam people into getting a licence they dont require to have?

    Or is it adequete to just not have the tv? sky leave the box and the dish, its a bit inconvenient to take it down or slightly less hassle to remove the LNB.


  • #649
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    An aerial/dish on its own doesnt require a licence (although there have reportedly been instances of licence inspectors claiming otherwise)

    A reciever (sky box) does require a licence unless one can prove its only used for radio maybe ?

    LNB's ( the bit that sits on the edge of a dish) are a bit of a grey area. As indeed are masthead amps.


  • #650
    radiowaves
    Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭radiowaves


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    A reciever (sky box) does require a licence unless one can prove its only used for radio maybe ?.

    Anything that's capable of receiving transmissions requires a licence - no matter what it might be used for.

    Indeed, anyone who had a VCR recorder feeding a B/W tv in the old days required a colour licence.

    It's nit what the apparatus might be used for - it is what it is capable of doing.


  • #651
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    radiowaves wrote: »
    Anything that's capable of receiving transmissions requires a licence - no matter what it might be used for.

    Indeed, anyone who had a VCR recorder feeding a B/W tv in the old days required a colour licence.

    It's nit what the apparatus might be used for - it is what it is capable of doing.

    Not quite, according to my reading of the rules ..... it must also be capable of 'exhibiting' the received signal.

    If there is no display in place then that would not be possible ...... and yes I am aware there are very few premises without some sort of display device.
    any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and 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)

    So an STB, hooked up to a dish or aerial, and feeding only a sound system, with no display device on the premises, should not require a licence.

    ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #653
    radiowaves
    Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭radiowaves


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    So an STB, hooked up to a dish or aerial, and feeding only a sound system, with no display device on the premises, should not require a licence.

    ;)

    I was informed by TV licence inspectors in exactly that scenario that a licence was needed. Wish I'd had the exact wording!

    However, as in the VCR example above, people with only monochrome sets were not capable of displaying colour signals but still required a colour licence.

    Whatever the truth of it the new charge will put a stop to any "technicalities".


  • #654
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    It was the conflicting views/opinions/interpretations, that had me stumped,
    I was concerned keeping my sky box would mean Id have to have a licence, after reading some of this thread, people seemed to think so.
    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    An aerial/dish on its own doesnt require a licence (although there have reportedly been instances of licence inspectors claiming otherwise)

    A reciever (sky box) does require a licence unless one can prove its only used for radio maybe ?

    LNB's ( the bit that sits on the edge of a dish) are a bit of a grey area. As indeed are masthead amps.

    I appreciate the other opinion, but from other posters it seems I could have a set top box, or a sky box, connected to a dish and possibly even still have the account active, but so long as I've no tv (which I always thought was the pertinent element) I wouldnt have to have a licence. (deciding whether to dispose of/leave the sky box out)
    radiowaves wrote: »
    Anything that's capable of receiving transmissions requires a licence - no matter what it might be used for.

    Indeed, anyone who had a VCR recorder feeding a B/W tv in the old days required a colour licence.

    ok, but not anymore, I know someone with a vcr (it was my old one) but that wouldnt be capable of picking up a tv signal? it was not a receiver, it output the signal to the tv.thanks for the reply, trying to keep it to STB, sky box, dishes etc`:)
    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    Not quite, according to my reading of the rules ..... it must also be capable of 'exhibiting' the received signal.

    If there is no display in place then that would not be possible ...... and yes I am aware there are very few premises without some sort of display device.

    So an STB, hooked up to a dish or aerial, and feeding only a sound system, with no display device on the premises, should not require a licence.

    ;)

    ok, this is what Id expect, but are inspectors going around insisting people need a licence for an old sky box disconnected under where the tv used to be?
    I dont think my tv is worth anything??? 2008 lcd philips 40or42", think I'll pass it to a relative
    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Thanks, well, I think I will hide the STB anyway in case I want it for freeview at another date.


  • #655
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #656
    radiowaves
    Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭radiowaves


    cerastes wrote: »
    It was the conflicting views/opinions/interpretations, that had me stumped,
    I was concerned keeping my sky box would mean Id have to have a licence, after reading some of this thread, people seemed to think so.



    I appreciate the other opinion, but from other posters it seems I could have a set top box, or a sky box, connected to a dish and possibly even still have the account active, but so long as I've no tv (which I always thought was the pertinent element) I wouldnt have to have a licence. (deciding whether to dispose of/leave the sky box out)



    ok, but not anymore, I know someone with a vcr (it was my old one) but that wouldnt be capable of picking up a tv signal? it was not a receiver, it output the signal to the tv.thanks for the reply, trying to keep it to STB, sky box, dishes etc`:)



    ok, this is what Id expect, but are inspectors going around insisting people need a licence for an old sky box disconnected under where the tv used to be?
    I dont think my tv is worth anything??? 2008 lcd philips 40or42", think I'll pass it to a relative



    Thanks, well, I think I will hide the STB anyway in case I want it for freeview at another date.

    VCRs are most certainly still capable of receiving and displaying a tv signal - in particular those using analogue UPC.

    Anyway, I included it as an example....


  • #657
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    radiowaves wrote: »
    VCRs are most certainly still capable of receiving and displaying a tv signal - in particular those using analogue UPC.

    Anyway, I included it as an example....

    I never owned a VCR that could display anything ..... yes they were capable of passing a signal to a display device, but that is something completely different.

    So such a VCR in conjunction with a monitor, would require a licence ...... but either of those devices without the other's capability, would not.


  • #658
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    I thought the broadcasting and media? charge was not to be implemented for some time? meaning if you dont have a tv in the interim you could save the fee, the interim could be anything from a year or two or indefinitely if people get off their arses and start complaining to their elected reps, at the least given the 100% compliance (sounds like a saddam election turnout) they should at least drop the fee to compensate for the 100% payment plus the zero cost of collection and admin.


  • #659
    radiowaves
    Registered Users Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭radiowaves


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    I never owned a VCR that could display anything .

    A word mix-up on my part. Although there were high-end VCRs that had a small display incorporated.
    So such a VCR in conjunction with a monitor, would require a licence ...... but either of those devices without the other's capability, would not.

    This keeps coming up yet I'm still stumped as to why people had to buy colour licences whilst owning a monochrome set and a VCR...


  • #660
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    radiowaves wrote: »
    A word mix-up on my part. Although there were high-end VCRs that had a small display incorporated.



    This keeps coming up yet I'm still stumped as to why people had to buy colour licences whilst owning a monochrome set and a VCR...

    When was the monochrome TV licence withdrawn?


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement