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.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
runawaybishop wrote: »The law is enacted via the judges interpretation. No judge will ask you to pay a tv license because you have a vcr, but you will be asked if you have a stb and a monitor.
People think laws are about pedantry, they are not.
Sorry mate, they are. A judge can't make stuff up.
Under the 2009 Broadcasting Act a person couldn't be done if they don't have an apparatus capable of both receiving and displaying broadcast TV.
Where's Johnboy gone?
Using your logic earlier, if I use a computer monitor with my computer and have a satellite receiver in the house I can be done.
Explain to me under which part of the Act?0 -
Advertisement
-
radiowaves wrote: »Sorry mate, they are. A judge can't make stuff up.
Under the 2009 Broadcasting Act a person couldn't be done if they don't have an apparatus capable of both receiving and displaying broadcast TV.
Where's Johnboy gone?
Using your logic earlier, if I use a computer monitor with my computer and have a satellite receiver in the house I can be done.
Explain to me under which part of the Act?
Judges interpret the law, thats part of their job description. Yes, if you have a STB and a monitor you can be done, assuming the monitor can be connected to the stb. if you can prove it cannot be then you won't. How is this so hard to grasp?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Johnboy1951 wrote: »I don't expect we will ever know .....
what the price of a decent sized monitor?
I'm just curious
0 -
-
-
-
@radiowaves,
thanks for reporting the opinion of the family friend.
I would point out a couple of things that might have a bearing on what you reported.He reckons that they deliberately used the word apparatus - as opposed to TV set - to cover STBs, VCRs or anything else with a tuner included.
They were defining a TV set, so they could not mention it in the definition!!!
Why only mention the tuner when the wording clearly says receive and exhibit?And what needs to be remembered is that the piece in brackets is part of a whole sentence.
Yes indeed it is.
Maybe what it would cover is the addition of an aerial for example for most TVs, but recognising that portable TVs would not need an external device (aerial) to function?It could be argued that the first part (before the brackets) is referring to a lone device capable of both reception and exhibition, but if that was the case the part in brackets would not actually be required.
The part in brackets also refers to a single apparatus .... and that is important to bear in mind.
It ensures that all devices with both receiving and exhibiting functions fall under the definition, regardless of the use of any other device.
If they wanted to uncomplicate it, they could have easily written 'device or combination of devices' as the definition and that would have covered everything.
What that would do is to apply the 'TV' definition even if the receiving and exhibiting were split into different devices.
They didn't do that, and the receiving and exhibiting are tied to a single device under the definition.
On the other hand, if you use a receiver to only listen to radio, and have a PC & monitor in the house, they would fall under my suggested wording. Another failure!For the purpose of exhibition of television broadcasting services a satellite receiver is an electronic apparatus which is dependent on the use of something else in conjunction with it.
True.
The same can be said of a Monitor or other device capable of exhibiting the broadcast signals .... it needs a receiver device to do so.
In that way, both are equal, as they both require a second device to fulfil the function of a TV set.For the purpose of exhibition of television broadcasting services a television set is an electronic apparatus which is not dependent on the use of something else in conjunction with it - the part in brackets also covers TVs that might now need an STB to receive digital signals but, in effect, the STB in isolation would be equivalent in the Act's definition to a satellite receiver etc.
Yes the TV set can receive and exhibit A broadcast signal.
For it to operate it requires an aerial or Sat disk and LNB, which are external apparatuses.
(No suitable signal needs to be available for the definition to be in force, so old analogue TVs are still TVs under the definition.)So is a licence required if you are using a satellite receiver to listen to radio and nothing else, say. In his opinion it is. The Act covers this with the piece in brackets so that the loophole I've talked about exploiting isn't actually a loophole.
This is where we diverge again.
There is nothing in most satellite receivers that can exhibit the received broadcast.
The 'apparatus' must be capable of doing both to require a licence.
Again I draw your attention to the piece in brackets .....(whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it)
This is clearly referring to the single apparatus which needs to be capable of both receiving and exhibiting the broadcast.
If they meant multiple devices then they could/should/would have written the definition to include a combination of devices to receive and exhibit. They didn't.
So is a licence required if you are using a satellite receiver to listen to radio and nothing else, say. In his opinion it is.
IMO he is plainly wrong.The Act covers this with the piece in brackets so that the loophole I've talked about exploiting isn't actually a loophole.
No, as explained above. The act defines a single apparatus and not a combination of them, which must be capable of both receiving and exhibiting.
So a receiver is not capable of exhibiting and thus does not require a licence.
A monitor is not capable of receiving and thus does not require a licence.
If one were to follow his logic then all monitors attached to PCs in the country would require a TV licence!But as he said, you'd need to go through a few hoops to prove that you have a dish and receiver to listen to radio which is also available online in this broadband age anyway, and 99.9% of households have some form of a TV set.
There are no hoops to go through at all.
A simple statement that you do not have, on the premises, a 'TV set', under the meaning of the act, is sufficient.
I suppose if living in a cave there would be no needSo, unless you're living in a cave there is no real way round it.
I believe your friend's logic is flawed.
The definition clearly addresses a single device capable of receiving and exhibiting ..... and refers to that single device in the part in brackets.
I fully accept that my reading of this is most likely not what they wanted to achieve ..... and would say that anyone who can view TV broadcasts *should* need a licence.
BUT ...... they do seem to have specified a single apparatus/device needing to be capable of receiving and exhibiting, whether or not it requires other devices to help it to do so. Other devices *could* be aerial, Sat dish etc.
Thanks again for reporting the friend's opinion. 0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »@radiowaves,
thanks for reporting the opinion of the family friend.
I would point out a couple of things that might have a bearing on what you reported.
Why only mention the tuner when the wording clearly says receive and exhibit?
Yes indeed it is.
Maybe what it would cover is the addition of an aerial for example for most TVs, but recognising that portable TVs would not need an external device (aerial) to function?
The part in brackets also refers to a single apparatus .... and that is important to bear in mind.
It ensures that all devices with both receiving and exhibiting functions fall under the definition, regardless of the use of any other device.
If they wanted to uncomplicate it, they could have easily written 'device or combination of devices' as the definition and that would have covered everything.
What that would do is to apply the 'TV' definition even if the receiving and exhibiting were split into different devices.
They didn't do that, and the receiving and exhibiting are tied to a single device under the definition.
On the other hand, if you use a receiver to only listen to radio, and have a PC & monitor in the house, they would fall under my suggested wording. Another failure!
True.
The same can be said of a Monitor or other device capable of exhibiting the broadcast signals .... it needs a receiver device to do so.
In that way, both are equal, as they both require a second device to fulfil the function of a TV set.
I suppose if living in a cave there would be no need
I believe your friend's logic is flawed.
Thanks again for reporting the friend's opinion.
Thanks again for your detailed and considered reply. I must also say that the family friend's opinion was based on me reading the relevant part of the Act over the phone and I had hijacked an unrelated phone-call to solicit his opinion!
And I do believe, on even further reflection, that he is right in what he says.
You say they are defining a TV set in the first part of the sentence but a TV set is a TV set, it doesn't require definition - so an "apparatus" is not necessarily a TV set.They were defining a TV set, so they could not mention it in the definition!!!
The second part of the sentence (in brackets) is what's causing confusion - sufficiently so, I believe, so that there is no absolute right or wrong. Whether the legislators did this deliberately is a matter of opinion...
The piece in brackets is not needed if the first part of the sentence is referring solely to a TV set. A TV set is not dependent on anything else to receive and exhibit, that's what a TV set does. An aerial or satellite dish alone won't allow an analogue or many modern TVs to receive or exhibit a television signal broadcast for general reception. In these instances a receiver is also needed - the TV set is dependent on the receiver (the receiver is dependent on the TV). So the part in brackets is referring to the single device in the first part but allowing for the addition of "something else" to enable it to do what the Act defines it as doing.
So I believe the piece in brackets does (obviously) mean the Act is referring to a single device - but allowing for a combination of devices to achieve the same result.
So, here's the bit we've been debating on and off and is probably the crux of the matter: whether a satellite receiver (for example) comes under the definition in the first part of the sentence.
A satellite receiver produces the broadcast pictures and has connectors to allow a monitor or TV set to exhibit them. In this instance the satellite receiver is the apparatus (or single device) but in order to do what the definition of apparatus requires it to do in order to require a licence it is dependent on "something else" to do it and it has the connectors to allow it to do so. You are surmising that the something else is an aerial or dish (surely, then, they would have specified these by using the words "a device to aid reception"?). I would surmise that the something else is exactly that: something (anything) else.
They also haven't defined what "television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception" are. This might also be disputed, even though, I think, we would all accept that it's anything available via conventional means ie OTA, satellite or cable. However an old analogue TV (even many modern TVs) is not capable of displaying these services without the addition of a receiver. In other words the TV in this instance is nothing better than a monitor, yet none of us would argue that having one of these TVs means no licence is required these days? Why? I would argue that a satellite receiver is more capable of reception than an analogue TV!(No suitable signal needs to be available for the definition to be in force, so old analogue TVs are still TVs under the definition.)This is where we diverge again.
There is nothing in most satellite receivers that can exhibit the received broadcast.
The 'apparatus' must be capable of doing both to require a licence.
The 'apparatus' (whether or not its dependent on anything else) must be capable of doing both to require a licence.
If it was capable of doing both on its own the piece in brackets is not required.The act defines a single apparatus and not a combination of them, which must be capable of both receiving and exhibiting.
So a receiver is not capable of exhibiting and thus does not require a licence.
A monitor is not capable of receiving and thus does not require a licence.
If one were to follow his logic then all monitors attached to PCs in the country would require a TV licence!
A monitor is only capable of exhibition -it has no connectors allowing it to be used for reception - so clearly not.
A satellite receiver is capable of reception and exhibition (although dependent on something else to allow it to exhibit thanks to the onboard connectors).BUT ...... they do seem to have specified a single apparatus/device needing to be capable of receiving and exhibiting, whether or not it requires other devices to help it to do so. Other devices *could* be aerial, Sat dish etc.
BUT .... you agree with me then! Other devices *could* really be anything.
In theory, maybe.There are no hoops to go through at all.
A simple statement that you do not have, on the premises, a 'TV set', under the meaning of the act, is sufficient.
In practice, do you really believe that?
I'm sorry if I've missed any points. This has been a bit rushed - I have a red-headed son and both the mother and myself are dark-haired so I'm anxiously awaiting a knock on the door.
Anyway we may have to agree to different interpretations on this one 0 -
You say they are defining a TV set in the first part of the sentence but a TV set is a TV set, it doesn't require definition - so an "apparatus" is not necessarily a TV set.
They must define the term for the act, as the same term is used in a lot of places.
That is why the act has many definitions within it.
Have a look at the link I posted earlier. There you will see the definitions I refer to
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0018/sec0140.html
including the TV 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 'TV set' apparatus must be capable of receiving and exhibiting.
IF ..... the word 'apparatus' could legally be interpreted as more than one device then I agree it could be a combination of receiver device and display device.
I am now coming to the view that this is where my interpretation falls down.
Apparatus might be interpreted as a combination of devices to produce a particular function ..... that of what we would normally consider a TV set.
In fact the more I think of this, the more I am inclined to that view.
A single apparatus (the TV set) could comprise of many devices.
.... but then why would the part in brackets be required?
.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apparatusFull Definition of APPARATUS
1
a : a set of materials or equipment designed for a particular use
b : a group of anatomical or cytological parts functioning together <mitotic apparatus>
c : an instrument or appliance designed for a specific operation
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apparatusap·pa·rat·us (p-rts, -rts)
n. pl. apparatus or ap·pa·rat·us·es
1.
a. An appliance or device for a particular purpose: an x-ray apparatus.
b. An integrated group of materials or devices used for a particular purpose
I believe that scuppers my argument completely
.0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »They must define the term for the act, as the same term is used in a lot of places.
That is why the act has many definitions within it.
Have a look at the link I posted earlier. There you will see the definitions I refer to
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0018/sec0140.html
including the TV set definition .....
The 'TV set' apparatus must be capable of receiving and exhibiting.
IF ..... the word 'apparatus' could legally be interpreted as more than one device then I agree it could be a combination of receiver device and display device.
I am now coming to the view that this is where my interpretation falls down.
Apparatus might be interpreted as a combination of devices to produce a particular function ..... that of what we would normally consider a TV set.
In fact the more I think of this, the more I am inclined to that view.
A single apparatus (the TV set) could comprise of many devices.
.... but then why would the part in brackets be required?
.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apparatus
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apparatus
I believe that scuppers my argument completely
.
The final twist!
Well spotted. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement