TV Licence query with Wireless Internet Dish

Brian

We have a Wireless-line-of-sight internet dish on our chimney, but no TV or TV tuner card in the house. Recently received a letter from An Post heavily implying that we're evading paying for a TV licence. Just wondered if anyone could clear up what their angle is and whether their claims are valid. I have read something about receivable frequencies in the >3GHz range but I don't know if this applies, and the dish obviously isn't hooked up to any TV tuning equipment (it plugs into our wifi router).

jhegarty

They send those letter out to every address that doesn't have a license. They persume everything has a tv.

Just ignore it.

Brian

OK, well the letter did mention that an inspector passed by and nobody was home (hardly surprising, they probably came at lunch time) ... is that usual too?

Sam Russell

Well, that is an interesting question. Your capable of receiving tansmissions but they are not broadcasts. You cannot receive any broadcast that could be deemed 'Television' because it is point to point.

Reply to the letter, keeping a copy, and point out that you do not have a TV. Do not mention the dish, as it will only cause trouble for you, as it draws questions you do not need to answer, and is irrelevant.

But isn't there the whole thing of broadband connections being liable for a licence? (due to their ability to access RTÉ Player) Or is that just proposed?

Mike 1972

Baza210 wrote: »

Recently received a letter from An Post heavily implying that we're evading paying for a TV licence.

Is defamation not a crime in Ireland then ?

jhegarty wrote: »

They persume everything has a tv.

Apparently theyre not big on that innocent until proven guilty stuff either.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Reply to the letter, keeping a copy, and point out that you do not have a TV.

Dont see why should the OP should waste their time bothering ? But if they do they should point out that they have not given permission for any protection racketeers TV licence inspectors to vist their property and should they do so again they shall be deemed to be trespassers and as such under the occupiers liability act their safety cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore any further communications from your goons office shall be construed as harassment (and possibly defamation) and will result in legal advice being sought and proceedings taken...............

And for gawdsake dont put a stamp on it (it is the post office after all)

Baza210 wrote: »

I have read something about receivable frequencies in the >3GHz range

Its actually 3 THz but its damn all to do with television licencing

Sam Russell

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Dont see why should the OP should waste their time bothering ? But if they do they should point out that they have not given permission for any protection racketeers TV licence inspectors to vist their property and should they do so again they shall be deemed to be trespassers and as such under the occupiers liability act their safety cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore any further communications from your goons office shall be construed as harassment (and possibly defamation) and will result in legal advice being sought and proceedings taken...............

The reason to reply to the letter is to show you have received it and to dispute the contents. Keeping a copy is evidence in any subsequent legal case, should there be one. Inspectors have a legal right to enter premises for the purposes laid down in the act. Denying them access would be unhelpful to the case, and could give rise to a prosecution. OP's case is that no broadcasts are being received. Therefore no license needed. An inspection is likely to prove this.

A license is not needed for broadband. [Not yet anyway!]

Mike 1972

Sam Russell wrote: »

Inspectors have a legal right to enter premises for the purposes laid down in the act.

Only with the householders permission or a search warrant

Sam Russell wrote: »

Denying them access would be unhelpful to the case, and could give rise to a prosecution.

A prosecution for what exactly ?

Sam Russell wrote: »

OP's case is that no broadcasts are being received. Therefore no license needed. An inspection is likely to prove this.

There is no onus on the OP to prove their innocence.

Minstrel27

Sam Russell wrote: »

Inspectors have a legal right to enter premises for the purposes laid down in the act.

No they don't.

Sam Russell

146.— (1) An issuing agent may appoint persons to be officers of the issuing agent for the purposes of this Part.

(2) A person appointed under subsection (1) shall, on his or her appointment be furnished by the issuing agent with a certificate of his or her appointment and when exercising a power conferred by subsection (3) shall, if requested by any person thereby affected, produce such certificate to that person for inspection.

(3) 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.

(4) An officer of an issuing agent may request any person on the premises or at the place where he or she finds a television set or evidence of such to produce the television licence for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place for inspection by the officer.


From the 2009 act.

Also
149.— (1) An officer of the issuing agent may, if and whenever he or she thinks proper so to do, send by post or deliver personally a notification in writing (“ reminder notification ”) to any person whom he or she believes to keep or be in possession of a television set at a premises or specified place other than in accordance with a television licence pointing out the requirements of section 142 .

(2) Where an officer of an issuing agent has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing or has committed an offence under section 148 he or she may, subject to subsection (4), serve the person personally or by post with a notice (“ fixed payment notice ”) in the prescribed form, stating that—

(a) the person is alleged to have committed the offence, and

(b) the person may during the period of 21 days beginning on the date of the notice make to the issuing agent at the address specified in the notice a payment of the appropriate amount specified in the notice, and accompanied by the notice and evidence of having obtained a television licence in respect of a premises or specified place to which the notice relates, and

(c) a prosecution in respect of the alleged offence shall not be instituted during the period specified in the notice, and—

(i) if the payment specified in the notice is made during that period, and

(ii) evidence of having obtained a valid television licence in respect of a specified premises or place to which the notice relates is given,

no prosecution in respect of the alleged offence shall be instituted.

(3) Where notice is given under subsection (2)—

(a) the person to whom the notice applies may, during the period specified in the notice, make to the issuing agent at the address specified in the notice the payment specified in the notice accompanied by the notice and evidence of having obtained a television licence in respect of a premises or specified place to which the notice relates,

(b) the issuing agent specified in the notice may receive the payment, issue a receipt for it and retain the money paid, and any payment received shall not be recoverable by the person who made it, and

(c) a prosecution in respect of the alleged offence shall not be instituted in the period specified in the notice, and—

(i) if the payment specified is made during that period, and

(ii) evidence of having obtained a valid television licence in respect of a specified premises or place to which the notice relates is given,

no prosecution in respect of the alleged offence shall be instituted.

(4) A fixed payment notice shall not be served on the person unless at least 2 reminder notifications have issued to the person and until—

(a) a period of 28 days has elapsed since the issue of the first reminder notification, and

(b) subsequent to that period, a period of 28 days has elapsed since the issue of the second reminder notification.

(5) Any payment made to the issuing agent under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance may direct.

(6) In a prosecution for an offence under section 148 the onus of proving that a payment pursuant to a notice under this section has been made lies on the defendant.

(7) In this section “ the appropriate amount ” means—

(a) an amount being one third of the amount of the television licence fee rounded down to the nearest whole euro amount, or

(b) where that amount is greater than one third of the maximum amount of the fine to which the person is liable on summary conviction under section 148 , such amount being not more than one third of the amount of that fine as prescribed and different amounts may be prescribed in respect of different classes of television licences.


A television has been redefined and now includes a laptop if it can receive broadcasts.

“ 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;
They seem to be broadening the scope of the TV license every time they change the broadcasting act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0018/index.html

Mike 1972

A person who forcibly enters land or a vehicle shall be guilty of an offence unless—

( a ) he is the owner of the land or vehicle, or

( b ) if he is not the owner, he does not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land or vehicle by the owner and, if requested to leave the land or vehicle by the owner or by a member of the Garda Síochána in uniform, he does so with all reasonable speed and in a peaceable manner


"land" includes—

( a ) messuages and tenements of any tenure,
( b ) land covered by water,
( c ) houses or other buildings or structures whatsoever (including caravans and mobile homes) and parts of any such houses, buildings or structures whether divided vertically, horizontally or otherwise,
( d ) incorporeal hereditaments of any tenure;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1971/en/act/pub/0025/sec0002.html#zza25y1971s2

Sam Russell wrote: »

(2) Where an officer of an issuing agent has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing or has committed an offence under section 148

They dont

STB

All this legislative quoting is irrelevant anyway.

Its An Post not the gestapo that you are dealing with. They are doing just their job in collecting licences and prosecuting evaders.

They work on the presumption that you have a TV (most people do). For example: Out of 1.397m private households, 1.373m households have a TV (70% of that number have 2)

The onus is on YOU to prove otherwise. And they are presuming that the dish is for SAT so you just tell them what its actually for. I presume its connected to nothing that has a tuner in it.

They should then leave you alone. Its not personal. I pay one mind you I do have a licence like the majority.... baaaaah!

Mike 1972

STB wrote: »

Its An Post not the gestapo that you are dealing with. .....They work on the presumption that you have a TV.....The onus is on YOU to prove otherwise.

Guilty until proved innocent ?

Fuzzy Clam

STB wrote: »

All this legislative quoting is irrelevant anyway.
It's a legal issue so it is relevant



The onus is on YOU to prove otherwise. Since when? And they are presuming that the dish is for SAT so you just tell them what its actually for.It's a wireless internet antenna, looks nothing like a SAT dish:( It may look like an MMDS antenna, though. I presume its connected to nothing that has a tuner in it. Did you actually read the ops post?

Presumption that you have a TV is a flimsey base for a case anyway. The op has to nothing until AN Post make contact again.