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.
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.
Comments
-
radiowaves wrote: »It's licence not license
The wording (and Citizens' Advice and An Post inspectors) in the Act seems to suggest different
Or do VCRs not need one because they're considered obsolete?
I assume you agree Sat receivers do need a licence?
You haven't really expanded on why you've come to the conclusion you have so I'm second-guessing a bit...
A monitor is not an electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception
Why?
A monitor cannot receive nor exhibit broadcasting services without the need of another apparatus
A VCR (PVR to be more modern) is an electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception
Why?
A VCR/PVR/STB can receive broadcast services without the need of another apparatus, it can also exhibit the received broadcast service but it is is dependent on the use of a display in conjunction with it to exhibit.
Cable, Sat Dish, Aerial is not electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception
Why?
Cable/Sat Dish/Aerial cannot receive nor exhibit broadcasting services without the need of another apparatus
When you say sat receiver do you mean a SKY STB? If not I don't believe it requires a Licence.
A VCR is a PVR service I often used a VCR in the same way that I use a PVR now. If a PVR requires a licence so does a VCR.
Anyone know where I can get a cheep
VCR?
Citizen Advice are clueless from my experiencerunawaybishop wrote: »Moot, not mute..
Bit of a Damp Squid 0 -
radiowaves wrote: »It's licence not license
The wording (and Citizens' Advice and An Post inspectors) in the Act seems to suggest different
Or do VCRs not need one because they're considered obsolete?
I assume you agree Sat receivers do need a licence?
You haven't really expanded on why you've come to the conclusion you have so I'm second-guessing a bit...
License or licence are both accurate. Moot or mute are different words :pac:
VCRs don't need a license, they have no capability to receive. VCRs with tuners also do not need a license unless you have a means to display the picture. STB do not need a license by themselves again you'd need one if you had something to display the picture.
Not all VCRs have tuners or can receive a picture. Even so, they have to be able to display it. Combined with a method to display that picture they do indeed need a license.A VCR (PVR to be more modern) is an electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception
Why?
A VCR/PVR/STB can receive broadcast services without the need of another apparatus, it can also exhibit the received broadcast service but it is is dependent on the use of a display in conjunction with it to exhibit.
Mind bottling isn't it :pac:Bit of a Damp Squid0 -
runawaybishop wrote: »License or licence are both accurate. Moot or mute are different words :pac:
VCRs don't need a license, they have no capability to receive. VCRs with tuners also do not need a license unless you have a means to display the picture. STB do not need a license by themselves again you'd need one if you had something to display the picture.
It is mute all the same because it would be unusual to have a PVR without a display of some kind. BTW I know that mute is the wrong word.
If you have a VCR get rid of it or put it on Ebay thanks. 0 -
It is mute all the same because it would be unusual to have a PVR without a display of some kind. BTW I know that mute is the wrong word.
If you have a VCR get rid of it or put it on Ebay thanks.
I'm sure there are plenty of old VCRs knocking about - they don't need licenses by themselves though. You would be completely unable to prove you could watch tv on them by themselves in court.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
runawaybishop wrote: »License or licence are both accurate. Moot or mute are different words :pac:
Licence is a noun. License is a verb. To license a TV set we award a TV licence.
runawaybishop wrote: »VCRs don't need a license, they have no capability to receive. VCRs with tuners also do not need a license unless you have a means to display the picture. STB do not need a license by themselves again you'd need one if you had something to display the picture.
Most VCRs have tuners to receive broadcast signals - they don't record from the TV. A video player has no tuner and wouldn't require a licence.
According to the Act an apparatus capable of receiving (tick) and displaying (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it - tick) broadcast TV requires a licence.
True in the case of both a sat receiver and a VCR - unless the VCR has no tuner.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, one is UK spelling one is US, both are correct.radiowaves wrote: »Licence is a noun. License is a verb. To license a TV set we award a TV licence.radiowaves wrote: »Most VCRs have tuners to receive broadcast signals - they don't record from the TV. A video player has no tuner and wouldn't require a licence.
According to the Act an apparatus capable of receiving (tick) and displaying (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it - tick) broadcast TV requires a licence.
True in the case of both a sat receiver and a VCR - unless the VCR has no tuner.
This is incorrect, as mentioned above. There is no ability to display.0 -
runawaybishop wrote: »No, one is UK spelling one is US, both are correct.
We use UK English in this part of the world.runawaybishop wrote: »
This is incorrect, as mentioned above. There is no ability to display.
I'll just keep on quoting the Act, will I!
"whether or not its use for that purpose [receiving or displaying] is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it"0 -
-
Welcome to the world wide web. I spell honour without the u sometimes also. I do not, however, spell Chicken d o g.radiowaves wrote: »We use UK English in this part of the world.radiowaves wrote: »I'll just keep on quoting the Act, will I!
"whether or not its use for that purpose [receiving or displaying] is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it"
You are just misinterpreting it, not actually quoting it right either.
“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.
^^ this is the proper snippet. The bit that causes the confusion is "whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith" but you are incorrect in extrapolating out that a VCR needs a license. Going by this logic you'd need a license for a generator as it provides the power needed to display a picture.0 -
radiowaves wrote: »I totally agree. As witnessed in the previous 20 or so posts it is open to so much interpretation, but I believe we've established that any machine capable of receiving and outputting broadcast signals requires a licence, even if the machine itself is dependent on another machine (eg TV set!) to display said signals.
An Post inspectors; Citizen's Advice and previous court cases all seem to concur with this too.
Nope, that is not established at all.
The act requires the device to be capable of exhibiting the broadcast, which is completely different from outputting which could be just sending the data to some other device.
I again draw people's attention to the actual wording which says the receiving and exhibiting device is a singular item and not a combination of two or more devices.“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;
The "television set" in the above wording is a single device.
There is no allowance there for a combination of devices to 'receive and exhibit' ...... the inclusion of other dependent devices is outside that part of the definition.
So the above reading of the definition would mean that an STB and monitor would not require a licence
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0018/sec0140.html0 -
runawaybishop wrote: »“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.
^^ this is the proper snippet. The bit that causes the confusion is "whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith" but you are incorrect in extrapolating out that a VCR needs a license. Going by this logic you'd need a license for a generator as it provides the power needed to display a picture.
In fairness we are not saying this
A VCR (with an installed Digital Terrestrial Tuner ) requires a TV licence because it can receive a broadcast signal and exhibit it with the use of a Monitor.
It's more like if a tree falls .... 0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »Nope, that is not established at all.
The act requires the device to be capable of exhibiting the broadcast, which is completely different from outputting which could be just sending the data to some other device.
I again draw people's attention to the actual wording which says the receiving and exhibiting device is a singular item and not a combination of two or more devices.
The "television set" in the above wording is a single device.
There is no allowance there for a combination of devices to 'receive and exhibit' ...... the inclusion of other dependent devices is outside that part of the definition.
So the above reading of the definition would mean that an STB and monitor would not require a licence
You're right (I think!).
I'm changing my mind on this a lot today :eek:
And outputting was just the wrong choice of words - typing with one hand with a one year old sleeping on my shoulder!0 -
-
-
Your right a TV set is a single device and that device is the device with the tuner regardless of it has a monitor attached to it.
Glad we agree it is a single device
That single device must be "capable of" both "receiving and exhibiting" the broadcast signals, even if it requires some other device to facilitate that. The "and" in the definition is very important!
Even if other devices are used to allow it to function properly, the single device itself is required to be capable of receiving and exhibiting the signals.
Other devices could be aerials or Sat dishes etc. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
radiowaves wrote: »Well based on all your arguments it is the only interpretation.
You've convinced me.
I genuinely thought I needed a licence for my satellite receiver even without a TV, so three years ago I bought a TV. I'll be buying a monitor when it needs replacing.
By the time it needs replacing the licence will be a thing of the past, and the new scheme will be in place, which no doubt will have new wording and most likely new definitions.
So I would not take any bets on this 'apparent' loophole to remain. 0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »By the time it needs replacing the licence will be a thing of the past, and the new scheme will be in place, which no doubt will have new wording and most likely new definitions.
So I would not take any bets on this 'apparent' loophole to remain.
Well the household charge is what it says on the tin so this way out (thanks again) will be a distant memory.
You're right, I won't feel the benefit but just making a point and sure if anyone else can exploit the wording before the new tax comes in well, then, job done.
Love the apparent in quotes btw. You've been arguing, without compromise, that the Act can only mean one thing all day, this despite others saying it's all really open to (mis)interpretation - and probably deliberately worded to confuse.
Now that you've convinced me that, yes it can only mean one thing, you're sidestepping? And now saying there's a "general" interpretation?
Weird.0 -
radiowaves wrote: »Well the household charge is what it says on the tin so this way out (thanks again) will be a distant memory.
You're right, I won't feel the benefit but just making a point and sure if anyone else can exploit the wording before the new tax comes in well, then, job done.
Love the apparent in quotes btw. You've been arguing, without compromise, that the Act can only mean one thing all day, this despite others saying it's all really open to (mis)interpretation - and probably deliberately worded to confuse.
Now that you've convinced me that, yes it can only mean one thing you're sidestepping?
Weird.
Not quite
I presented an interpretation which I believe is quite persuasive.
It is one which I also believe could be argued in a court of law.
As it has not been tested in a court, the interpretation is nothing more than opinion, and the loophole is dependent on such an argument being successful. So there is an 'apparent' loophole until such is tested in court.
I guess I was being careful that I did not present an opinion which might be interpreted as a fact
BTW ..... I still fail to understand why they did not define a TV set as
'a device, or combination of devices, capable of' etc.
There would be no ambiguity and it would have covered all TVs, and combinations of STBs & Monitors as well as PCs and so on.
Now that was weird, IMO
,0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »Not quite
I presented an interpretation which I believe is quite persuasive.
It is one which I also believe could be argued in a court of law.
As it has not been tested in a court, the interpretation is nothing more than opinion, and the loophole is dependent on such an argument being successful. So there is an 'apparent' loophole until such is tested in court.
I guess I was being careful that I did not present an opinion which might be interpreted as a fact
BTW ..... I still fail to understand why they did not define a TV set as
'a device, or combination of devices, capable of' etc.
There would be no ambiguity and it would have covered all TVs, and combinations of STBs & Monitors as well as PCs and so on.
Now that was weird, IMO
,
All fair enough mate.
It's been a pleasure debating with you.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnXKVY-_i2cAdvertisement