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
1…2526283031…55

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Anyone have one of our friends threaten to come back with a garda? If so how long did it take or did it ever happen? The visitor today did not like being told that we did not have a TV, he cant come in and it is up to him to prove I am guilty.


  • Options
    #813
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,591 ✭✭✭ps200306


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Anyone have one of our friends threaten to come back with a garda? If so how long did it take or did it ever happen? The visitor today did not like being told that we did not have a TV, he cant come in and it is up to him to prove I am guilty.

    Actually, it's not up to him to prove you're guilty and telling him to bugger off may not be in your best interest. He's entitled to inspect your premises at any reasonable time, without advance notice and without a warrant (Section 146(3) of the Broadcasting Act 2009). He can't force his way in, so he couldn't do so against your wishes. But if he has reasonable grounds to suspect you have a TV (e.g. aerial on roof), coupled with the fact that you refused entry, he can serve you with a fixed payment notice under Section 149(2) of the Broadcasting Act, and then you'll have to prove your innocence.


  • Options
    #814
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    steveon wrote: »
    There is no point in rendering a tuner in a tv useless as Regardless of how you watch tv-shows ie either broadcasted or on netflix you will now need the new broadcast license or whatever its been called, this has been done on purpose so that nobody will get away with watching any form of tv show either by streaming it on a computer, laptop, tablet watch etc....they are so clever on this regard....the people should do as our cousins do in the states and pay no tv license.....if a channel cannot survive on its own merit and from advertisments is should be left die especially in the case of with RTe with the exception of the news and primetime the rest is rubbish or is already free on bbc and itv and ch4.....

    And even with the old license system even a broken tv in your premises meant you needed a license...

    The whole point of making it necessary to have broken tv's require a licence I suppose is an early version of trying to cover all eventualities, in that case if people tempoorarily deactivated their tv, now it'll be the broadcast act, so they legislate fairly quickly to implement this kind of thing and we have no way of voting against it, as all the politicians are chasing the same gravy train and killing rte with its clout and support is too big a political thing for any party to even consider, so democracy, hm sure. If we cant get the right to have any say on this which most people seem disatisfied with how can we expect it on even bigger more important issues?
    If RTE had to survive on its own merit it would die rapidly, ie subscription service, instead it is forced upon us. State sponsored propoganda mouthpiece, we pay for it, we should have a say in it, we cant vote on it, or with our feet so it will never change.

    Even if the broadcast fee was fair and represented a reduced charge as everyone and even those that actually have no means or knowledge how to access the services provided will have to pay, so the fee should be reduced, no admin or collection cost.

    Im not even opposed to this method if the service improves and they get rid of the deadwood and overpaid idiots, but as we can have no say on it, which seems very undemocratic means it will never change, and they will keep reaching into our pockets for crap programming.


  • Options
    #815
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #816
    The Cush
    Registered Users Posts: 15,505 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    It'll happen, the bill was due to become before the Dáil around Easter, probably delayed until after the elections. It was in the programme for government and if I remember correctly in the manifestos for both parties. Cabinet musical chairs won't make any difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #818
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,855 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    I'd happily pay the broadcasting charge IF it's reduced by the amount of the An Post collection fee and the % of non-collection by An Post.

    Because like most people I pay my TV license, and that means we are subsidising a lot of muppets who want to "fight the powa"

    Anything more than €135 and they are raising revenue.
    ( certainly we could save a few more quid by getting rid of the monies that go to Setanta and reducing the wage bill of a dozen overpaid RTE "names" and upper management to market rates )



    The other way of collecting the license fee would be to have SKY , UPC and other providers do it.
    It'd be the first time SKY paid any proper tax here for starters
    The non payment rate would still be 15% so revenue neutral.


  • Options
    #819
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    In other countries, like France and the UK, evasion is more difficult as details of purchasers of TV equipment are passed to the authorities.

    If 15% currently do not pay and An Post get 5% to collect it, a figure of €135 would be reasonable. If it was collected through the lecky bill, then collection cost would be near zero, and evasion rates would be close to zero as well.

    I think a charge of €10 per month for the broadcast charge would be better and a further charge of €1 or €2 a month on broadband to make up the shortfall. Of course, how do you define broadband?

    Sky, UPC and other providers could also be used to collect the charge. People cannot say they do not have a TV if they pay for content.


  • Options
    #820
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    In other countries, like France and the UK, evasion is more difficult as details of purchasers of TV equipment are passed to the authorities.

    If 15% currently do not pay and An Post get 5% to collect it, a figure of €135 would be reasonable. If it was collected through the lecky bill, then collection cost would be near zero, and evasion rates would be close to zero as well.

    I think a charge of €10 per month for the broadcast charge would be better and a further charge of €1 or €2 a month on broadband to make up the shortfall. Of course, how do you define broadband?

    Sky, UPC and other providers could also be used to collect the charge. People cannot say they do not have a TV if they pay for content.

    I agree with 10 per month being reasonable, and the 1-2 for broadband, broadband must be at speeds above a certain value and consistently.
    I might even get an aerial then and watch RTE. Also it would be reasonable to collect it monthly than in one go, which makes it a big deal as most cant afford to pay it in advance.


  • Options
    #821
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,999 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    In other countries, like France and the UK, evasion is more difficult as details of purchasers of TV equipment are passed to the authorities.

    If 15% currently do not pay and An Post get 5% to collect it, a figure of €135 would be reasonable. If it was collected through the lecky bill, then collection cost would be near zero, and evasion rates would be close to zero as well.

    I think a charge of €10 per month for the broadcast charge would be better and a further charge of €1 or €2 a month on broadband to make up the shortfall. Of course, how do you define broadband?

    Sky, UPC and other providers could also be used to collect the charge. People cannot say they do not have a TV if they pay for content.

    I am unsure of the reasoning behind the charge for broadband .... why two separate charges on each household?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    I am unsure of the reasoning behind the charge for broadband .... why two separate charges on each household?

    Everyone has to pay the Broadcast charge. By collecting it through the lecky bill makes evasion impossible and collection costs near zero.

    The reason to go from TV licence was because people had moved away from direct viewing to web viewing. So by charging less for the basic charge, it is less onerous. Charging for broadband would be done thgrough the provider, so no room for evasion, and also zero collection charge.

    Other possibilities are charges on smartphones or text messages. Charges would be an average of €1 or €2 per month per user. The total of all the charges would be less than the current TV licence as evasion would be nil (currently 15%) and cost of collection would be zero (currently 5%).

    It would only work if they do not employ consultants and advisors etc.


  • Options
    #823
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #824
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    If you want to be exact, those on the housold package, such as OAPs, will not pay the broadcasting charge under the information released so far, but the bill has not been released yet alone passed.


  • Options
    #825
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,999 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Everyone has to pay the Broadcast charge. By collecting it through the lecky bill makes evasion impossible and collection costs near zero.

    The reason to go from TV licence was because people had moved away from direct viewing to web viewing. So by charging less for the basic charge, it is less onerous. Charging for broadband would be done thgrough the provider, so no room for evasion, and also zero collection charge.

    Other possibilities are charges on smartphones or text messages. Charges would be an average of €1 or €2 per month per user. The total of all the charges would be less than the current TV licence as evasion would be nil (currently 15%) and cost of collection would be zero (currently 5%).

    It would only work if they do not employ consultants and advisors etc.

    I am still not 'getting it'.
    If there is a charge on the electricity bill then why would they need to split it and apply a second part on the broadband bill?

    Broadband is of little use without electricity.

    One charge on one bill would cost less in administration/collection than splitting it onto two or more bills.


    I see the benefit of applying a household charge in place of the licence fee on the elec bill ........ I just do not see the need or benefit of splitting it across two or more bills.


  • Options
    #826
    The Cush
    Registered Users Posts: 15,505 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    Josephine Feehily, chairman of the Revenue Commissioners said back in early Jan they would have no problem collecting the broadcasting charge. Cheaper than paying the ESB collection fee I suspect.


  • Options
    #827
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,999 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    The Cush wrote: »
    Josephine Feehily, chairman of the Revenue Commissioners said back in early Jan they would have no problem collecting the broadcasting charge. Cheaper than paying the ESB collection fee I suspect.

    If it is to be a single charge per household then the Rev Comms would not as easily separate individuals from those liable to the charge.

    .... 5 people share a house but only one payment is due ...... it would seem to me that the obvious method would be the person responsible for payment of the electricity supply bill that should be charged.


  • Options
    #828
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The point of having two seperate charges is to reduce the TV licence fee from €160 per year to €120 per year. Since 15% do not pay and 5% goes to An Post, this would be about €135 per year ir €12 per month. Splitting it into a €10 charge for everyone and say a €3 charge for those with broadband the total money collected would be the same, but less onerous.

    Part of the reason for the broadcast charge is because of the general move from TV to web-based entertainment. Whether this is good or bad is not my point at all.

    The end result must be sufficent money raised to pay Ryan Tubridy and Marrion and all their friends. Even Gay Byrne, at 80 years of age, is still being paid by RTE (although he has promised to retire).


  • Options
    #829
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,999 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The point of having two seperate charges is to reduce the TV licence fee from €160 per year to €120 per year. Since 15% do not pay and 5% goes to An Post, this would be about €135 per year ir €12 per month. Splitting it into a €10 charge for everyone and say a €3 charge for those with broadband the total money collected would be the same, but less onerous.

    I don't follow that reasoning at all ..... if the amount is the same; the same entity pays it; the bill frequency is similar or the same (elec & broadband) how is it less onerous?

    All I see is that those who elect to receive TV over Sat and/or DTT without a broadband connection to the premises would pay less than those who do the same but also have a broadband connection.

    I see no equity in what you propose, nor any real reason to split the amount as you describe.

    One collection method rather than two would be more efficient.


  • Options
    #830
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Put the burden on Pay TV, phone and Broadband providers. Say that €200m has to be collect each year and it will be based on the number of customers they have.

    Everyone has some kind of pay service.

    If a telecom has 50% of the market then they pay over €100m. They build that into their costs.


  • Options
    #831
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    I don't follow that reasoning at all ..... if the amount is the same; the same entity pays it; the bill frequency is similar or the same (elec & broadband) how is it less onerous?

    All I see is that those who elect to receive TV over Sat and/or DTT without a broadband connection to the premises would pay less than those who do the same but also have a broadband connection.

    I see no equity in what you propose, nor any real reason to split the amount as you describe.

    One collection method rather than two would be more efficient.

    From a political point of view, an increase in tax is very unpopular but a reduction is popular. So reduce the TV licence fee by intoducing a broadcasting charge at a lower rate. =Popular.

    Intoduce a very small levy on something related, like broadband or smartphones and no-one will notice. = No protests so not so bad.

    A political solution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    087dannyboy
    Registered Users Posts: 169 ✭✭087dannyboy


    Apologies if this has been asked before but as this is a big thread I don't have time to read through it all.
    But I'm just wondering is the tv license back dated to the expiry of the previous licence or does it begin at the date of renewal even if it is a few months overdue?


  • Options
    #833
    Fuzzy Clam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,293 ✭✭✭Fuzzy Clam


    087dannyboy wrote: »
    Apologies if this has been asked before but as this is a big thread I don't have time to read through it all.
    But I'm just wondering is the tv license back dated to the expiry of the previous licence or does it begin at the date of renewal even if it is a few months overdue?
    Backdated.


  • Options
    #834
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #835
    picorette
    Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭picorette


    We do not have a television, and informed An Post by email after receiving a letter pointing out that we didn't have a licence.

    I have now been asked to complete a Statutory Declaration to say this. Does anybody know if this is a new requirement, and / or the implications ?

    Thank you


  • Options
    #836
    The Cush
    Registered Users Posts: 15,505 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    picorette wrote: »
    I have now been asked to complete a Statutory Declaration to say this. Does anybody know if this is a new requirement, and / or the implications ?
    If you don't have a TV then there shouldn't be a problem filling in the declaration.

    If you do have a TV and fill in the declaration stating you don't then when they do a spot check there will be implications naturally, no TV Licence/false declaration etc.


  • Options
    #837
    Yoda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Yoda


    I've had a TV licence for decades but will be moving to a new place where there is already a TV licence. Do I have to inform An Post about anything? I know the licence is for the premises, not the person. What happens when I leave my current residence?


  • Options
    #838
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #839
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    The Cush wrote: »
    If you don't have a TV then there shouldn't be a problem filling in the declaration.

    If you do have a TV and fill in the declaration stating you don't then when they do a spot check there will be implications naturally, no TV Licence/false declaration etc.

    And what if you dont at the time of the declaration? how long do you have to inform them if your status has changed?


  • Options
    #840
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,503 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    cerastes wrote: »
    And what if you dont at the time of the declaration? how long do you have to inform them if your status has changed?

    There is no grace period, you are liable from the moment you get a tv.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    ABajaninCork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,411 ✭✭✭ABajaninCork


    Not sure if this is really a Consumer Issue, but this seemed to be the best place to put this...

    I buy TV Licence stamps every two weeks. Usually, I buy two and stick them in my little book.

    What normally happens is when I go to buy the licence, if I'm over the E160, then the PO clerk will tear off the appropriate number of pages and hand me back the book.

    Today, I went to buy my licence. I handed over my book knowing there was E200 worth of stamps, and fully expected the book with the remaining page to be handed back to me.

    The clerk (this wasn't my usual PO) insisted on taking the entire book and giving me back ******* E40 worth of stamps and a new book! :eek: WTF???

    Has this happened to anyone else? And would this be normal for the PO to do this?


Advertisement