Who pays for RTE ?

th3 s1aught3r

Are they funded by the government in any way?
I know they are funded by the TV License , which is mandatory if you have a TV and obviously they earn from advertising
I just cannot understand how they can justify paying the wages they do to their "stars" if they were entirely commercial. If its all commercial money I have no problem with what they earn, if its subsidised then I have a big problem with it, especially when they have to act sympathetic with the rest of us who are all in this recession together
And yes, I am a begrudger !

Riamfada

I cant believe no one copped this before, I think your onto sometihng

OutlawPete

I do .. as part of a Sky Plus package at least.

ejmaztec

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Are they funded by the government in any way?
I know they are funded by the TV License , which is mandatory if you have a TV and obviously they earn from advertising
I just cannot understand how they can justify paying the wages they do to their "stars" if they were entirely commercial. If its all commercial money I have no problem with what they earn, if its subsidised then I have a big problem with it, especially when they have to act sympathetic with the rest of us who are all in this recession together
And yes, I am a begrudger !

You should ask Pat Kenny to devote a Front Line programme to the problem. I'm sure he'd do it if the money was good.

plein de force

the TV licence pays for them which is a form of government subsidisation

Celly Smunt

rte,a public funded private company which we are obliged to donate to

sollar

The TV license which we have to pay and advertising. But so long as the public have to pay a license then we should have a say.

The norwegian ambassador was on the mooney show on friday and he says they have a similar state station in their country and nobody is paid more than 100K.

In RTE is there many paid less than 100K (apart from a few admin staff, cooks and cleaners)??

thetonynator

The tv licence, advertising and the government.

iPlop

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

I just cannot understand how they can justify paying the wages they earn

Eh you pay Cowan and his cronies their wages

th3 s1aught3r

ejmaztec wrote: »

You should ask Pat Kenny to devote a Front Line programme to the problem. I'm sure he'd do it if the money was good.

Whats he on 600k ?
I wouldnt mind but hes a **** TV performer also

De Dannan

pmcmahon wrote: »

rte,a public funded private company which we are obliged to donate to

Exactly
If they can afford to pay their top stars half a million a year then they should be made carry on without a compulsory license fees from the public. If they can sustain themselves by commercial means then fine, I suspect they cannot

ScumLord

sollar wrote: »

The TV license which we have to pay

You don't have to pay it, I don't think a TV is worth the asking price any more.

If you don't agree with the license just get rid of your TV, mumbling complaints while vegging out in front of the thing is pointless if you really want to protest boycott.

FreudianSlippers

ScumLord wrote: »

You don't have to pay it, I don't think a TV is worth the asking price any more.

If you don't agree with the license just get rid of your TV, mumbling complaints while vegging out in front of the thing is pointless if you really want to protest boycott.

This argument makes no sense to me.

I pay for UPC, there are hundreds of channels I can watch other than RTÉ.

Say I don't even use it to watch TV, I just use it as a monitor for my computer and DVDs and PS3 or whatever. I still have to pay the licence.

The government is taxing me for just owning a TV, regardless of whether or not I use it to watch RTÉ. IMO this tax is outside the scope of governmental powers.

jay93

ScumLord wrote: »

You don't have to pay it, I don't think a TV is worth the asking price any more.

If you don't agree with the license just get rid of your TV, mumbling complaints while vegging out in front of the thing is pointless if you really want to protest boycott.

Exactly.! Dump the tvs and watch stuff online witout getting ripped for a licence

FreudianSlippers

jay93 wrote: »

Exactly.! Dump the tvs and watch stuff online witout getting ripped for a licence

My home media server connects to the HTPC connected to my TV. I watch shows "online" through this "monitor" (read: TV) but I still have to pay licence as the "monitor" is capable of receiving TV signal.

ScumLord

OisinT wrote: »

This argument makes no sense to me.

I pay for UPC, there are hundreds of channels I can watch other than RTÉ.

Say I don't even use it to watch TV, I just use it as a monitor for my computer and DVDs and PS3 or whatever. I still have to pay the licence.

The government is taxing me for just owning a TV, regardless of whether or not I use it to watch RTÉ. IMO this tax is outside the scope of governmental powers.

You can replace your tv with a large monitor although as far as I can tell monitors only go up to 30" and are quite expensive. The other thing you could do is replace the TV with a projector which also doesn't have any means of receiving a broadcast.

Quandary

If your TV is incapable of receiving a signal do you still have to have a licence I wonder?

FreudianSlippers

ScumLord wrote: »

You can replace your tv with a large monitor although as far as I can tell monitors only go up to 30" and are quite expensive. The other thing you could do is replace the TV with a projector which also doesn't have any means of receiving a broadcast.

Why though? I don't want to and shouldn't have to do that.

Besides, the legislation mandates that it must be paid for equipment that can potentially decode TV signals. This could be extended to include a monitor hooked up to a computer.

“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
signals are actually received or not;

“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 legislation is extraordinarily draconian and does not necessarily exclude monitors, laptops or projectors.

ScumLord

OisinT wrote: »

Why though? I don't want to and shouldn't have to do that.

Besides, the legislation mandates that it must be paid for equipment that can potentially decode TV signals. This could be extended to include a monitor hooked up to a computer.




The legislation is extraordinarily draconian and does not necessarily exclude monitors, laptops or projectors.

Your not receiving a broadcast though. Your downloading files. They can't include computers and monitors under the scope of the license or every business in the country will leave.

FreudianSlippers

ScumLord wrote: »

Your not receiving a broadcast though. Your downloading files. They can't include computers and monitors under the scope of the license or every business in the country will leave.

Under the legislation they could if they wanted to.

ScumLord

OisinT wrote: »

Under the legislation they could if they wanted to.

Your not receiving a broadcast though, so it doesn't apply.

FreudianSlippers

any software or
assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus

It's hard to say. The point is that one shouldn't have to get rid of their monitor (read: TV).

Projectors don't necessarily have the same quality of a TV (not my new LED anyway) and monitors don't have the size.
Plus projectors are not good for small rooms like a 40" TV may be.

ScumLord

OisinT wrote: »

It's hard to say. The point is that one shouldn't have to get rid of their monitor (read: TV).

Projectors don't necessarily have the same quality of a TV (not my new LED anyway) and monitors don't have the size.
Plus projectors are not good for small rooms like a 40" TV may be.

That's true, it's not the most convenient option but it is an option and if you really feel you shouldn't have to pay a license to watch advertising then you shouldn't pay it. There's no point in complaining and feeling your wronged and then continuing to support the system you disagree with. The only way you'll get your point across in this day and age is to keep your money in your pocket.

You would lose out on very little by dumping your TV, you may even prefer life without one.

gurramok

OisinT wrote: »

It's hard to say. The point is that one shouldn't have to get rid of their monitor (read: TV).

Projectors don't necessarily have the same quality of a TV (not my new LED anyway) and monitors don't have the size.
Plus projectors are not good for small rooms like a 40" TV may be.

Well said

The TV tax should be scrapped. TV3 can survive on its own, why not RTE who get ad revenue as well?

FreudianSlippers

I don't watch TV much. I watch all shows through my HTPC connected to TV.

ScumLord

OisinT wrote: »

I don't watch TV much. I watch all shows through my HTPC connected to TV.

So now your paying (double as you UPC is your provider) to have a service you don't even use?

I wouldn't pay a tax just to own a tele, I'd get rid of the thing I don't like anything having a hold over me, I'd rather go without than pay for something I didn't believe in but I'm stubborn that way.

gurramok

OisinT wrote: »

I don't watch TV much. I watch all shows through my HTPC connected to TV.

Similar here. I was saying that you are a victim of the tv tax as anyone else who does not watch RTE. The bigger picture is why does RTE need the tv tax when TV3 does not.

FreudianSlippers

ScumLord wrote: »

So now your paying (double as you UPC is your provider) to have a service you don't even use?

I wouldn't pay a tax just to own a tele, I'd get rid of the thing I don't like anything having a hold over me, I'd rather go without than pay for something I didn't believe in but I'm stubborn that way.

TV is included in the bundle with Internet and Phone, plus it's handy for BBC Three and things. I'm not super worried about money, it's the principle that I believe the legislation requiring a TV licence is draconian and over-reaching.

FreudianSlippers

gurramok wrote: »

Similar here. I was saying that you are a victim of the tv tax as anyone else who does not watch RTE. The bigger picture is why does RTE need the tv tax when TV3 does not.

I have no problem with RTÉ getting funding if they show no ads and TV3 gets money too.

I also have no problem funding the radio stations.

JohnathanM

OisinT wrote: »

I have no problem with RTÉ getting funding if they show no ads and TV3 gets money too.

I also have no problem funding the radio stations.

I remember reading a while ago that RTE were currently under an EU review, as they shouldn't be allowed to receive both their tax and money from advertising. There was also some comment on the amount of foreign TV they were showing, which the EU argued undermined its position as a national broadcaster. Don't see the fee going anywhere, as that's easier to earn than advertising revenue.

How well enforced is the law, though? Around my parts, I get a letter once a year and that's it. No visits, no follow up. I'm not sure I would quietly pay a fee if they tried to nab me on owning a monitor, without a tuner in the PC though. That's as tapped as the tax they talked about applying to broadband recently, to give to broadcasters in lieu of licence payments.

FreudianSlippers

Some interesting info really:

Approximately 7% of licence revenue goes to the BCI Broadcasting Fund. Revenue from this fund can be applied for by independent producers / broadcasters for specific projects of a public service nature. In addition, An Post is paid for providing collection and enforcement services.

Why are there ads on RTÉ?

The majority of RTÉ’s activities are of a public service nature. The cost of providing these services, however, exceeds the amount of licence fee revenue which RTÉ receives. As a result, RTÉ engages in commercial activities to bridge the funding gap.

Distribution of funds: http://www.rte.ie/about/images/licence_graph.gif



Interestingly in France, their licence is €118 per annum (a lot less than us) and they have a ban on advertising after 8pm.

I also prefer the UK method:

A television licence is required to receive any live television transmission in the United Kingdom, whether it is received via terrestrial, satellite, cable or the internet. It is not, however, required for those possessing a TV set, for the purpose of watching pre-recorded content, or for use as a monitor for video games or computers.

The current annual cost for is £145.50 (approximately €164)

mikom

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Who pays for RTE ?

Mugs.

mikemac

gurramok wrote: »

why not RTE who get ad revenue as well?

If you want Premiership level presenters like Pat Kenny then you need to pay premiership level wages. He said so himself

Pat Kenny is the highest paid but certainly isn't the most overpaid.
The bould Marion would get that role, 570K for four hours airtime.

TG4 do an amazing job on a small budget, RTÉ need to try the same

FreudianSlippers

Marian Finucane is worth it IMO.

mikemac

JohnathanM wrote: »

How well enforced is the law, though? Around my parts, I get a letter once a year and that's it. No visits, no follow up.

Do you pay it though?
Once you are on the system they have you and generally do follow up

I'd be surprised if they sent one letter, you didn't pay and they did nothing

gurramok

Why keep paying Marion and Pat those wages?

They're hardly going to get paid that amount of money if they leave RTE to TV3 or the UK. I'm sure there are also a big list of wannabe candidates within RTE willing to do their job for a fraction of the wages.

JohnathanM

feelingstressed wrote: »

Do you pay it though?
Once you are on the system they have you and generally do follow up

I'd be surprised if they sent one letter, you didn't pay and they did nothing

I'm a bit surprised, too, but I do just receive the same form letter once a year. That's why I was curious. Didn't bring a telly when I moved house, so it's from a standing start. I do live in the sticks though, which is probably a big part of the reason.

ScumLord

OisinT wrote: »

TV is included in the bundle with Internet and Phone, plus it's handy for BBC Three and things. I'm not super worried about money, it's the principle that I believe the legislation requiring a TV licence is draconian and over-reaching.

It's not a money thing for me either, I'm simply that stubborn. I will boycott anything I don't agree with at the drop of a hat.

Getting rid of the live TV signal is something I won't be going back on ever though, I much prefer life without a live TV service I couldn't ever imagine paying any company (especially sky) to watch the rubbish they transmit.

Dman001

If you just look at the state of the National Broadcasting system here, you just can't help but laugh.

We pay a TV Licence, and yet there is still advertisements shown 24 hours, we are only beginning to roll out a digital TV service, we have a very limited Catch Up service, and no sign of a HD channel until mid-2011, and we pay our top stars hundreds of Thousands who a very small population seem to like to see on our TV/Radio.

I know we are a small country with a small population, but still such a joke.

Wertz

OisinT wrote: »

Marian Finucane is worth it IMO.

LOL

mikemac

We do have the RTÉ Symphony Orchestra and RTÉ String Quartet,

There's your money keeping people in employment, hurray

De Dannan

feelingstressed wrote: »

If you want Premiership level presenters like Pat Kenny then you need to pay premiership level wages. He said so himself

He said that he wasnt paid a lot compared to premiership footballers

mikemac

gurramok wrote: »

They're hardly going to get paid that amount of money if they leave RTE to TV3 or the UK. I'm sure there are also a big list of wannabe candidates within RTE willing to do their job for a fraction of the wages.

Joe Duffy is on 400k or so

Philip Boucher Hayes filled in for a few days now and again and he's far, far better.
He got of a bit of fan club craze going over in Radio forum

Give PBH 100K and sack Joe, instant money saver

De Dannan

feelingstressed wrote: »

Joe Duffy is on 400k or so

Philip Boucher Hayes filled in for a few days now and again and he's far, far better.
He got of a bit of fan club craze going over in Radio forum

Give PBH 100K and sack Joe, instant money saver

Not many of them are any good. They have been in RTE most of their working lives and have just 'moved up the ranks' similar to the civil service, taking massive pay rises along the way
I mean, what would Pat Kenny or Marion do if they were sacked, go to TV3 and take a 70% wage cut ? let them. you could get any Joe Soap to present a TV show, after a bit of practice, I dont know what is the big skill involved that commands the huge salaries

the purple tin

What sort of wages do DJ's from non RTE national radio stations get paid?

artvandulet

OisinT wrote: »

It's hard to say. The point is that one shouldn't have to get rid of their monitor (read: TV).

Projectors don't necessarily have the same quality of a TV (not my new LED anyway) and monitors don't have the size.
Plus projectors are not good for small rooms like a 40" TV may be.

You can buy a monitor of any size you can get a tv. I've seen a 105" panasknic monitor for instance. I have a 42" monitor myself-no tuner.
The law is way out of date and needs updating. It's been discussed here before. I think if we were receivng a service anywhere near the quality of BBC there would be less complaining. BBC get licence fees too but they don't have any ads and they are generally considered to be the worlds best broadcast service.
I wonder what the chances of a grassroots campaign to get the law changed would do anything. Something like a facebook campaign! Unlikely but it needs someone to get the ball rolling. People have been complaining about it for years.

It will have to change soon anyway, as technology changes. You'll end up paying the licence for the Internet or something.

orourkeda

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Are they funded by the government in any way?
I know they are funded by the TV License , which is mandatory if you have a TV and obviously they earn from advertising
I just cannot understand how they can justify paying the wages they do to their "stars" if they were entirely commercial. If its all commercial money I have no problem with what they earn, if its subsidised then I have a big problem with it, especially when they have to act sympathetic with the rest of us who are all in this recession together
And yes, I am a begrudger !

Sure sure sure sure sure sure sure sure sure sure

Jesus Wept

I hate RTE.

sollar

ScumLord wrote: »

If you don't agree with the license just get rid of your TV, mumbling complaints while vegging out in front of the thing is pointless if you really want to protest boycott.

I never really mentioned anything about protesting i said you have to pay it if you own a TV. Plenty of countries don't have TV licenses e.g. USA, Spain, Australia, Holland, Canada etc.

Maybe we should try to get rid of the license rather than our TV's.

Venom

OisinT wrote: »

Marian Finucane is worth it IMO.

Like **** she is.

4 hours a week not including the many weeks she seems to be away on holidays for €500k+ a year is a total insult never mind a complete joke.

ilovesleep

Rte is making a fool out everyone who pays that licence. The ****e that rte produce and the ****e they show is unreal. I have a tv and I watch it and sometimes watch rte but never will i pay a license.