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

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

191012141555

Comments

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


    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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,258 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,853 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,258 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,563 ✭✭✭leeroybrown


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    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 ....


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    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?


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


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭danger_mouse_tm


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    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 :D

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,853 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭BigGeorge


    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'


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,258 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    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'


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,258 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,258 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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.



    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.

    Your missing the point. The TV was purchased as a TV, and remains a TV irrespective as to what you do with it. If you take the plug off, it is incapable of doing anything so does that count? I am not a lawyer and am just putting forward my own view. Removing part of something, suggests that it can be replaced.

    Judges tend to not rely on their own knowledge and require experts to advise (or at least that is what they are often qutoted as saying). They listen to evidence and arguement, put to them by both sides. In a 'he says ..., she says ... case, they tend to listen to the prosecution more than the defence, on the basis that 'he would say that, wouldn't he'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,981 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Your missing the point. The TV was purchased as a TV, and remains a TV irrespective as to what you do with it. If you take the plug off, it is incapable of doing anything so does that count? I am not a lawyer and am just putting forward my own view. Removing part of something, suggests that it can be replaced.

    Judges tend to not rely on their own knowledge and require experts to advise (or at least that is what they are often qutoted as saying). They listen to evidence and arguement, put to them by both sides. In a 'he says ..., she says ... case, they tend to listen to the prosecution more than the defence, on the basis that 'he would say that, wouldn't he'.

    No, I am not so much missing the point, as presenting the alternate view, which could well be argued.

    As I said previously, IF the criteria are that a device had to be designed originally for the purpose, and it matters not if it is capable of fulfilling that original purpose, and if it matters not what use it is put to now, then it is clear it would require a licence even if the tuner was removed.

    On the other hand, if it no longer fulfils the criteria then a licence is not required.

    After all a TV is a monitor without a tuner.
    It is possible to add a tuner to a monitor ...... but the monitor does not become licenceable except in conjunction with a tuner.
    That is the point which appears to be important, IMO.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,258 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    No, I am not so much missing the point, as presenting the alternate view, which could well be argued.

    As I said previously, IF the criteria are that a device had to be designed originally for the purpose, and it matters not if it is capable of fulfilling that original purpose, and if it matters not what use it is put to now, then it is clear it would require a licence even if the tuner was removed.

    On the other hand, if it no longer fulfils the criteria then a licence is not required.

    After all a TV is a monitor without a tuner.
    It is possible to add a tuner to a monitor ...... but the monitor does not become licenceable except in conjunction with a tuner.
    That is the point which appears to be important, IMO.

    Argueing a legal point in the district court is not for the faint hearted. Or for anyone short of funds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭Fizzical


    Does anyone know if the inspector has a legal right to inspect my house if I tell him/her that I have no television? I don't, btw, but am I obliged to let him/her in?

    (I'm assuming here that computers still don't need a tv license...)


  • Registered Users Posts: 55,433 ✭✭✭✭Mr E


    This forum is for discussing TV shows. I'll move this to the Broadcasting forum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,138 ✭✭✭snaps


    I could be wrong but i think computers and mobile phones need a tv license now. Also if you have an aerial or a dish up (Even if its not used), you still need a license.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    snaps wrote: »
    I could be wrong but i think computers and mobile phones need a tv license now. Also if you have an aerial or a dish up (Even if its not used), you still need a license.

    You need a license if you have a device capable of receiving a signal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭él statutorio


    snaps wrote: »
    I could be wrong but i think computers and mobile phones need a tv license now. Also if you have an aerial or a dish up (Even if its not used), you still need a license.


    I think it's anything "capable of receiving a TV signal" which is fairly broad...


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Fizzical wrote: »
    Does anyone know if the inspector has a legal right to inspect my house if I tell him/her that I have no television? I don't, btw, but am I obliged to let him/her in?

    Yes, from the broadcasting act.

    An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place."


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭Fizzical


    I suppose I'll let him/her in so!

    I searched the tv licence site online and found no mention of 'who needs to have a licence' - the assumption is that everyone will need one.

    I know there was a proposal to bring in a new form of licence, something like a telecommunications licence that would cover all forms of reception by pc etc but I didn't think it had come in yet. The site quotes the following from the Broadcasting Act:

    Any person in occupancy at an address where a television set is held is legally responsible for the licensing of the television set regardless of ownership of either the premises or the set itself.
    Under Section 148 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, it is a prosecutable offence to be in possession of an unlicensed television set. Fines for a first offence can be up to €1,000 and €2,000 for subsequent offences.


Advertisement