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

Household charge replacing Tv license to fund Rte

Options
  • 28-02-2013 1:22am
    #1
    lightspeed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭


    Im just watching Vincent Browne and they are discussing the household charge that is set to replace the tv license as nowadays not everybody has a TV and some have instead are watching tv on their iPads and smartphones.

    First off, i cant see how or why they think this is going to be a success. How are they going to know that i have an ipad, pc or smart phone?

    Secondly,the main debate focused on whether or not nearly all of the money raised from this fee should go to RTE which is currently the case. If i recall earlier in the programme, it was mentioned that 94% of the money raised from this fee goes to fund RTE. As RTE is a public broadcaster, it is required by law to offer the range of radio and television programmes that it does.

    From what i gathered, Vincent Browne was making the argument that many of the programmes shown on RTE are the same as shown on all the other non publicly funded stations. He also made the point that unlike the BBC, RTE gets additional revenue from advertising. As a result,the money it raises from the license fee allows it to buy better programming than that of TV3 and so it has an unfair advantage and ability to capture a bigger share of the market.

    I think he raises a fair point and if the people were giving the choice of not paying the yearly license fee and allowing RTE to crash and burn, i reckon most would happily see it collapse on its knees.

    Why should the citizens of this country have to pay €160 a year to fund the bloated salaries at Rte and for programmes that they wish to watch!

    As this fee is almost exclusively going to RTE, it is a fair point to make that if never watch RTE, why do i have to pay them?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Fannyhead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 85 ✭✭Fannyhead


    It's called a broadcast charge and have you not watched Fair City?


  • Options
    #3
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,280 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    lightspeed wrote: »
    First off, i cant see how or why they think this is going to be a success. How are they going to know that i have an ipad, pc or smart phone?

    My understanding of the new charge is that everyone's going to get hit with it, just like the household charge. They'll effectively be working on the assumption that everyone is watching TV on something, be it a television, PC, mobile device or whatever.
    lightspeed wrote: »
    As this fee is almost exclusively going to RTE, it is a fair point to make that if never watch RTE, why do i have to pay them?

    That argument doesn't work when trying to avoid paying the TV licence, so I doubt it'll wash for the new charge.


  • Options
    #4
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,178 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    it always makes me laugh when you look at these taxes. Being charged for something you own. It's a joke. But they aint going anywhere.


  • Options
    #5
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,280 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    it always makes me laugh when you look at these taxes. Being charged for something you own.

    Technically you're paying for the right to access public service broadcasting. It just happens that you need to own something to receive those broadcasts on.


  • Options
    #6
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    We shouldn't have to pay for Miriam, Fair City, Desperate Housewives etc.

    We should only pay for what we consume.

    **** you RTE, I'm gonna snort the 160 euro instead.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    lightspeed wrote: »
    ... As this fee is almost exclusively going to RTE, it is a fair point to make that if never watch RTE, why do i have to pay them?
    Because it's the law and has nothing to do with RTE.

    I thought all this on-going nonsense about TV licences / broadcast charges was to be corralled in a single numpties' thread, as decreed some time ago.


  • Options
    #8
    SparkySpitfire
    Registered Users Posts: 1,331 ✭✭✭SparkySpitfire


    Zaph wrote: »
    My understanding of the new charge is that everyone's going to get hit with it, just like the household charge. They'll effectively be working on the assumption that everyone is watching TV on something, be it a television, PC, mobile device or whatever.



    That argument doesn't work when trying to avoid paying the TV licence, so I doubt it'll wash for the new charge.

    It won't, but I think the point is that it shouldn't.


  • Options
    #9
    full_irish
    Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭full_irish


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    We shouldn't have to pay for Miriam, Fair City, Desperate Housewives etc.

    We should only pay for what we consume.

    **** you RTE, I'm gonna snort the 160 euro instead.

    Good luck with that, let me know how it goes for ya :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #10
    SparkySpitfire
    Registered Users Posts: 1,331 ✭✭✭SparkySpitfire


    RTÉ can crash and burn for all that I care, their programmes are crap and of nowhere near as good quality as BBC's own programmes. Besides that, any foreign (American, British) programmes they air can easily be accessed online or on other channels.


  • Options
    #11
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    full_irish wrote: »

    Good luck with that, let me know how it goes for ya :rolleyes:

    I don't take drugs.

    I just wanted to appear cool in front of my internet best friends.

    I think we both know who is the winner here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    illicit007
    Registered Users Posts: 371 ✭✭illicit007


    Fannyhead wrote: »
    It's called a broadcast charge and have you not watched Fair City?

    I never watched fair city ever or any of that other crap either.

    I've never paid a broadcasting fee in my life and never will.

    I don't listen to the radio either. Fuxk their broadcasting fee and their advertisements which they blare up louder than the actual content.

    If I want to watch tv I'll download or stream it on the Internet connection I'm happy to pay for as at least I actually use that!


  • Options
    #13
    delw
    Registered Users Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭delw


    Zaph wrote: »
    Technically you're paying for the right to access public service broadcasting. It just happens that you need to own something to receive those broadcasts on.
    I can see this issue going round in circles,anyway, people pay tax on whatever it is they purchase to receive a broadcast on plus people pay a tax on their internet provider bill but because it's Ireland we have to pay more tax on these things,it's like asking a person who walks everywhere to pay a more tax on their footwear because they use the paths


  • Options
    #14
    lightspeed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭lightspeed


    Well i figured because the tv licence inspector could easily prove that you have a television aerial or satellite. Im not sure what powers the government has at finding out who has Upc or Sky installed.

    But in the event, that i claim that i only have a standard phone without a TV or PC, Smart device, how can they prove otherwise.

    Given that you have netflix and quite a few apps to stream tv channels for free using an internet connection, could i not just purchase a pay as i use broadband dongle and plug it into my Ipad?

    You can even get Sky go on your smart phone or iPad so there is still a question of how can they prove you have been using a device capable of warranting the broadcast fee?


  • Options
    #15
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Was already done yesterday

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056890168


  • Options
    #16
    lightspeed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭lightspeed


    One of the guests in Vincent Browne raised that point that some years ago, RTE had almost 100% of the audience of radio listeners and got 100% of the license fee. However, now they only attract 30% of radio listeners and yet they still receive near 100% of the license fee.

    For me asking everybody using any device capable of streaming video and audio entertainment is to pay a tax to fund RTE is like asking anybody who uses a means of transportation other than walking to fund Iarnroad Eireann who is a subsidary of a state owned company.

    Can anybody explain how the EU can block Michael O'Leary's takeover bid of Aer Lingus on the basis that it would result in a loss of competition and yet RTE is entitled to collect a license fee and compete against other networks for revenue generated from advertising?

    How is one deemed a threat to fair competition and other is not?


  • Options
    #17
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,787 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    lightspeed wrote: »
    One of the guests in Vincent Browne raised that point that some years ago, RTE had almost 100% of the audience of radio listeners and got 100% of the license fee. However, now they only attract 30% of radio listeners and yet they still receive near 100% of the license fee.
    RTE 2 radio doesn't get funded because it's not public service, just like all the other pop music stations.


Advertisement