Best Get Your TV Licence Sorted

ceret

Cabaal wrote: »

However if you have Broadband and are running some variant of Linux or another OS that can't view the stream they will claim its still capable of receiving it you just got to undo the "modifications" by changing to another OS.

And what about a computer, eg an eeePC, that was bought with Linux installed. it's pretty much impossible to install MS Windows on one of them legally, since it doesn't have a CD drive. Does that count?

To think that changing the OS is just a minor modification similar to reinserting a circuit into the back of a TV is ridiculus.

Sponge Bob

Sparks wrote: »

Hmmm. Does this counteract it?

LOL . That is the sneaky bit . The definition of Broadcast .

The RTE Player is not an Internet Service in that it is a Timeshift service derived from a programme that was Broadcast . That is the opinion the minister has.

It is RTE+1 and RTE+2 up to RTE+500 or so .

The Act could have been worded very simply as in .

'Content sent across the Internet is not deemed to be Broadcast within the meaning of this Act '

But No. They did not do that . How hard is it to exclude the Internet in a 200 page act ?

If RTE made Internet ONLY programs and showed them in the Player that exemption would apply . Same with eircom 'Broadcasting' its AGM by Internet for example but not over the air at any stage .


Here are the definitions you mean Sparks, I enclose another key one from the following page that you did not highlight .

“broadcast” means the transmission, relaying or distribution by electronic
communications network of communications, sounds, signs,
visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general
public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or 5
signals are actually received or not;
“broadcaster” means a person who supplies a compilation of programme
material for the purpose of its being transmitted, relayed or
distributed as a broadcasting service (whether that person transmits,
relays or distributes that material as such a service or not); 10
“broadcasting code” means a code prepared under section 42;
“broadcasting contract” means a contract entered into under section
63, 64, 68 or 70;
“broadcasting contractor” means a person holding a broadcasting
contract; 15
“broadcasting rules” means rules prepared under section 43
“broadcasting service” means a service which comprises a compilation
of programme material of any description and which is transmitted,
relayed or distributed by means of an electronic communications
network, directly or indirectly for simultaneous or near- 20
simultaneous reception by the general public, whether that material
is actually received or not, and where the programmes are provided
in a pre-scheduled and linear order, but does not include:
(a) a service provided for viewing in a non-linear manner
where each viewer chooses a programme from a cata- 25
logue of programmes, or
(b) other audio and audiovisual services provided by way of

the Internet;

That is the bit you quoted from page 11 of the Act . Had you kept going to the VERY NEXT page you would have found this

“electronic communications network” means transmission systems
10 including, where applicable—
(a) switching equipment,
(b) routing equipment, or
(c) other resources,
which permit the conveyance of signals by wire, by radio, by optical
15 or by other electromagnetic means, and such conveyance includes
the use of—
(i) satellite networks,
(ii) electricity cable systems, to the extent that they are used
for the purposes of transmitting signals,
20 (iii) fixed terrestrial networks (both circuit-switched and
packet-switched, including the Internet),
(iv) mobile terrestrial networks,
(v) networks used for either or both sound and television
broadcasting, and
25 (vi) cable television and internet protocol television networks,

Sponge Bob says WATCH THE COMMA here

irrespective of the type of information conveyed;

This lumps the Internet equally in with cable satellite and wireless broadcast ...and fibre.

Now go back to Section 140 in the first post , Eamon Ryans Television Set definition

“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 'anything else in conjunction with it ' is the RTE Server that Serves RTE Player content :cool:

Sparks

SB, I wasn't taking a swipe, it's just that that question came up in comments on the slashdot article and on my blog post about this. I'm still waiting for a reply from the Minister for my own email as well, btw, so thanks for posting his earlier opinion!

doesnt anyone agree that we should ditch the license altogether? It seems silly that we debate these definitions instead of debating funding the "rte lifestyle" and the allegation George Lee made!

Capt'n Midnight

christophicus wrote: »

They give you a notice ? Just ship your stuff over to a friends house during the period that the inspector is set to come.

I've heard of one inspector getting the run around while the other people in the house moved the TV thorough sliding doors between him seeing the rooms

Belfast

iPlayer Doesn't Require A TV Licence... Yet

« Previous | Main | Next »
iPlayer Doesn't Require A TV Licence... Yet

Post categories: iplayer, licencefee

Ashley Highfield | 15:20 UK time, Wednesday, 9 January 2008

A question I often get asked is whether you need a TV licence to watch BBC programmes over the internet.

At the moment, the legal position is that you don't need a licence to watch TV purely on-demand, but you do if you are watching TV live (through any receiving device in the home).
more detail in the link below
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_not_require_a_tv_1.html


The British seem to be taking a different approach.
Legal issues

When a TV licence is required on TV licences

According to Act of Parliament, a TV licence must be obtained for any device that is "installed or used"[28] for "receiving a television programme at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public"[29].

According to TV Licensing, "You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, digital box, DVD or video recorder, PC, laptop or mobile phone to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV"[30].

Specific exclusions not requiring a TV licence are:

* digital box used with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds[30]
* television set installed and used solely for some purpose other than watching or recording television programmes (e.g. closed-circuit TV monitor, DVD or video player or games console)[31][32]
* If you are only watching on-demand services, after programmes have already been broadcast, you will not need a TV licence[33]. (This includes the BBC iPlayer service [34].)

The BBC have stated that a licence is not needed simply because a television receiver is owned[35].
more detail in the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

Sponge Bob

We are looking at a government that is desperately trying to widen its tax take Blindjustice.

I explained on page one of this thread that there are now 1.43 million licences issued for at least 1.73m households and businesses nationally which is quite a considerable shortfall . The Census tells us that over 90% of households have a TV .

The definition of "premises" also brings private cars into the net . I would think that this Act can realistically expand the number of 'licenceable' 'premises' to 2m quite easily as well as expand the number of collection agents who can hound you for that money .

Politically this means that Ryan can spin freezing the headline licence fee as a great success .

Typical of Ryan to dress his abject failure up as a glorious success may I add but at least a bicycle is not a premises I suppose

Belfast

Deleted User wrote: »

doesnt anyone agree that we should ditch the license altogether? It seems silly that we debate these definitions instead of debating funding the "rte lifestyle" and the allegation George Lee made!

I do.

Time to end the RTE Tax.

Perhaps it time to copy the example of the protests in the 1960s and publicly burn our TV Licences.

jor el

Sponge Bob wrote: »

“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 'anything else in conjunction with it ' is the RTE Server that Serves RTE Player content :cool:

Stall the bleedin' ball there for just a minute, I have an even worse interpretation of that. If you have a computer, but no Internet access, then you would think you don't need a licence. However, "whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it", that word dependent is very sneaky. Your computer is dependent on an Internet connection to display a television broadcast like RTE Player, but this may not exclude you needing a licence, as having the computer equipment alone would seem to be enough. The same could be applied if you have just a PS3, or Xbox360, and no TV or Internet access.

Am I being overly cynical here?

dubhthach

Time to install NetBSD on the home PC's given that there's no native port of Flash to it

I'm curious how this will affect Businesses. After all every business that has an internet connection will now have to Purchase a TV license even those who don't at the moment have a physical TV set. I wonder if blocking all traffic to RTE's IP block on the auld Cisco ASA would work with a TV inspector

Sparks

dubhthach wrote: »

Time to install NetBSD on the home PC's given that there's no native port of Flash to it

I'm curious how this will affect Businesses. After all every business that has an internet connection will now have to Purchase a TV license even those who don't at the moment have a physical TV set. I wonder if blocking all traffic to RTE's IP block on the auld Cisco ASA would work with a TV inspector

Neither would exempt you I'm thinking because you could undo those "modifications" by 'merely' installing windows or changing the settings on the router...

dubhthach

Sparks wrote: »

Neither would exempt you I'm thinking because you could undo those "modifications" by 'merely' installing windows or changing the settings on the router...

Indeed, though surely forcing mandatory usage of Windows could be problematic with EU anti-trust, maybe it's time to just use my IRIX box after all Windows doesn't run on MIPS

All Joking aside I still think there are serious implications for Businesses. Alot of businesses which do not currently have a TV (And thus no license) will be forced to purchase one because they have an internet connection and PC's.

I bet the mandarins in Finance are already rubbing their hands in glee.

ectoraige

Silly thread, I've highlighted the actualy important part:

“broadcasting service” means a service which comprises a compilation
of programme material of any description and which is transmitted,
relayed or distributed by means of an electronic communications
network, directly or indirectly for simultaneous or near
simultaneous reception by the general public, whether that material
is actually received or not, and where the programmes are provided
in a pre-scheduled and linear order,

The "pre-scheduled and linear" part excludes all on-demand content.

So does streaming ala Dail TV count?
Answer: A big, fat no.

Streaming content is only sent on request. Unless RTE start a massive dDOS by sending streams to every Irish Internet connection, then it does not qualify as a broadcast service, and hence you don't need a TV licence to use equipment to view it.

jor el

dubhthach wrote: »

All Joking aside I still think there are serious implications for Businesses. Alot of businesses which do not currently have a TV (And thus no license) will be forced to purchase one because they have an internet connection and PC's.

This looks like it's basically going to become a tax on every single building, be that home, business, shed, outhouse, or whatever, in the country. It's not a TV licence anymore, it's just tax, and it will apply to absolutely everyone.

Sparks

Think we covered that above ectoraige...

AtomicHorror

Damn TV license. All for the privilege of watching Pat Kenny interview D-listers and people who sell books about angels.

ectoraige

Sparks wrote: »

Think we covered that above ectoraige...

Not adequately. This part of the definition of a broadcast was glossed over:

intended for direct reception by the general
public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or
signals are actually received or not;

Unless they start sending udp packets at every device in the country, it's not a broadcast.

It's not a broadcasting service.

Thus the apparatus to view it is not a TV set.

You don't need a TV licence to view it.

jor el

jor el wrote: »

This looks like it's basically going to become a tax on every single building, be that home, business, shed, outhouse, or whatever, in the country. It's not a TV licence anymore, it's just tax, and it will apply to absolutely everyone.

you mean like a property tax, good man you see through it all!
While everybody argues about definitions and this and that nobody bothers with the what I see as the main issue - the tax itself. As long as people keep missing the real issues they will be swindled by cuter politicians.

Sparks

I don't think that follows - "intended for direct reception" doesn't mean "sent to everyone specifically". Besides, hasn't the minister's opinion on this already been posted above?

Jonathan

Are broadband providers going to get a cut of this new license fee, seeing as their networks and bandwidth are a form of transmission?

ectoraige

Sparks wrote: »

I don't think that follows - "intended for direct reception" doesn't mean "sent to everyone specifically". Besides, hasn't the minister's opinion on this already been posted above?

Forgive me, I can't find where the Minister's opinion was posted.

Sparks

ectoraige wrote: »

Forgive me, I can't find where the Minister's opinion was posted.

In post 93 above, at the start of the post:

Sponge Bob wrote:

The RTE Player is not an Internet Service in that it is a Timeshift service derived from a programme that was Broadcast . That is the opinion the minister has.

A_SN

ceret wrote: »

And what about a computer, eg an eeePC, that was bought with Linux installed. it's pretty much impossible to install MS Windows on one of them legally, since it doesn't have a CD drive. Does that count?

To think that changing the OS is just a minor modification similar to reinserting a circuit into the back of a TV is ridiculus.

The Linux defence is bollocks anyways, because you can watch the RTE News Live stream using VLC.

Same for NetBSD. Even then it wouldn't work because you could "undo" the "modification" by installing Windows back.

Jonathan

A_SN wrote: »

The Linux defence is bollocks anyways, because you can watch the RTE News Live stream using VLC.

Just because you don't install windows with a CD drive, it doesn't make it illegal.

A_SN

Jonathan wrote: »

Just because you don't install windows with a CD drive, it doesn't make it illegal.

What?

T-Square

paulm17781 wrote: »

First off, I agree with you.

AFAIK, you have to have a license if you own any equipment capable of receiving television. Now, I think this is nonsense classifying a PC as a TV but I think that's what they're doing and I don't think there's anything we can do to stop it. :mad:

I will never pay for any of these licenses, EVER.

I pay for my 32" TV and that's their lot, they offer miserable tv anyway.

Anybody coming to the door will be refused entry.

jaffa20

I'm sick of paying it.

This year i moved and got a reminder addressed to the previous tenant to pay her license.

Well, they don't know where i live. That's grand.]

If they find out, no bother cos i just wont answer the door. I'm on a 3rd floor apartment so i doubt they'll peak through the window.

Also, you can refuse entry and demand a permit from them to enter. So they can't even determine if you have a tv/computer or not.

Sparks

T-Square wrote: »

I will never pay for any of these licenses, EVER.
I pay for my 32" TV and that's their lot, they offer miserable tv anyway.
Anybody coming to the door will be refused entry.

If you have a TV licence already, you've already paid up. It's a per-premesis charge, not a per-piece-of-equipment charge. Just don't take your laptop/iPhone into the car (that's another licence) or your office (well, your boss probably has to pay that one) or anywhere else that doesn't already have a licence.

thebman

If we are going to be charged for laptops capable of receiving streamed tv from RTE's website then I would see that as the government admiting that they have an obligation to provide every household in the country with a laptop a broadband connection capable of receiving RTE's online streaming service.

hellboy99

thebman wrote: »

If we are going to be charged for laptops capable of receiving streamed tv from RTE's website then I would see that as the government admiting that they have an obligation to provide every household in the country with a laptop a broadband connection capable of receiving RTE's online streaming service.

You have more chance with them providing you a laptop than broadband