Saorview and TV Licence

Soarer

Morning all.
A quick question for ye that one of the lads in the office asked me this morning.

Analogue is being switched off next year.
He has an old telly that only receives analogue.
Is he going to be obliged to get a tv licence even though he can't receive the signal? Surely not.

mickstupp

Hope not. I have no intention of upgrading my TV or getting a set top box. I only use the thing for dvds.

sesswhat

It may make no difference by then.

Sam Russell

sesswhat wrote: »

It may make no difference by then.

If you have a tuner in your TV, you need a TV licence, even if you cannot receive anything. Removing the tuner is not enough, as it could be repaired/restored.

paddyandy

'THREW that mayhem machine out along time ago and anybody who has one is complicit in it's harmful effects on our society.

sh7289

I'm in the exact same situation. No intention of getting the Saorview and having to pay €170 for something I'm going to have to pay another €100 or so to watch seems like a load of crap.

Macy0161

Can't see them giving an exemption to people who may have an stb hidden/ removed when an inspector calls.

maygitchell

In all fairness lads, for the first time ever il get my moneys worth out of the licence fee with 3e Rte Chill and what not

moceri

Pay up lads, RTE needs every penny so that it can continue to pay overrated presenters such as Marian Finucane, who gets paid 580K per year to do 2 X 2 hours Radio slots per week and have 12 weeks off in the Summer. She gets paid about E50 per minute. This is shameful.

minisla

Now time for you to purchase a saorview box.

I've no intention of paying it I will hand them the tv if they threaten a court appearance. RTE is a load of bull****. The programming is ridiculous. Watched the Late Late tonight, watched a guy who's paid a ridiculous amount of money to host a ****e program. I say get rid of the tossers who are on such saleries. maybe then if the fee comes down in price and programs improve i may consider it but until then RTE and Saorview can shove their licence :mad:

Mike 1972

In answer to the OP's question as the law (in Ireland) currently stands you will still need a licence for an analouge only TV after ASO in the same way as you still need a licence now for a 405 line only TV.

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you have a tuner in your TV, you need a TV licence, even if you cannot receive anything. Removing the tuner is not enough, as it could be repaired/restored.

Im sorry but thats a ridiculous statement.

By that logic one should be obliged have a TV licence even if theyve got rid of their TV since they could get another one.

watty

You can get an adaptor for 405!

There are people in UK watching Freeview

Aerial -> Freeview box -> Aurora Adaptor -> 405line TV.

Saorview has no effect at all on TV licence.

Thread on TV licence: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055794011

If you only watch DVDs, play games you can get a Monitor.

STB

Mike 1972 wrote: »

In answer to the OP's question as the law (in Ireland) currently stands you will still need a licence for an analouge only TV after ASO in the same way as you still need a licence now for a 405 line only TV.



Im sorry but thats a ridiculous statement.

By that logic one should be obliged have a TV licence even if theyve got rid of their TV since they could get another one.

Mike I think the point is that the spirit of the legislation is not to catch people out. It is written so that there will be no loopholes for people that simply refuse to pay it. Most households have TVs.

If the TV has no tuner then fine, you don't need a licence. Best of luck with those who risk blowing the bejaysus out of themselves removing tuner modules!

I see the gobsh itism that goes on here in threads from people who think because they subscribe to Sky they dont need to pay to people who think I watch the odd program but use the TV for my DVD player etc. Just pay the damn money like everyone else. There will always be spongers who refuse to contribute in any way.

Gotham

I'd like a proper answer to the same question, I have an old crt TV here that I never used. It's got an analogue tuner in it and I want to know if a TV license is required when I CANNOT receive tv on it.

Additionally - It's sickening that a TV licence (and taxes?) go toward paying for stations with advertisements on it.
That's like... buying Xbox gold and still showing adverts on a premium service...

formerly scottish paddy

Gotham wrote: »

I'd like a proper answer to the same question, I have an old crt TV here that I never used. It's got an analogue tuner in it and I want to know if a TV license is required when I CANNOT receive tv on it.

Additionally - It's sickening that a TV licence (and taxes?) go toward paying for stations with advertisements on it.
That's like... buying Xbox gold and still showing adverts on a premium service...

Yea well loads of people still pay for SKY and are there ads on SKY?

Gotham

formerly scottish paddy wrote: »

Yea well loads of people still pay for SKY and are there ads on SKY?

Sky as a service is more than just SKY channels, but the Sky owned channels should be advert free.

Bruthal

formerly scottish paddy wrote: »

Yea well loads of people still pay for SKY and are there ads on SKY?

Are they brought to court if they dont pay for sky?

lucernarian

watty wrote: »

You can get an adaptor for 405!

There are people in UK watching Freeview

Aerial -> Freeview box -> Aurora Adaptor -> 405line TV.

Saorview has no effect at all on TV licence.

Thread on TV licence: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055794011

If you only watch DVDs, play games you can get a Monitor.

I'm not sure that the situation with the move from 405 lines to 605 lines and the analogue switch-off example are sufficiently similar. Partially because there are more distinct physical and conceptual differences between the viewing apparatus of DVB-T and PAL-I and partially because the judgement relating to the museum you've cited before was made in an age before most home computers could have a tuner added for less than €15. The ambiguity that the law provides for the ease of adding DVB-T capability is a key point, even if the equipment in question was originally purchased or used for something entirely different to TV reception.

Honestly I'd regard this as something that ought to go before a judge again. It is much more likely now than in the past that people might have analogue-only TVs for use with game consoles or as a DVD player for classrooms, function rooms, club halls and the like.

IMO, the real solution would be to provide a universal taxation element for the core funding needs of RTÉ's public service obligation.

Gotham

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

IMO, the real solution would be to provide a universal taxation element for the core funding needs of RTÉ's public service obligation.

I don't have a TV and I don't watch RTE. I have other hobbies. I don't like the idea of a universal tax because I will probably get hit with it unfairly, I wouldn't be alone there.

It's a solution, but like the existing one it's unfair. Also I'm not sure this government would be trustworthy enough to not increase the taxes every year.
Unfortunately with the advent of the internet, their extreme laziness and noncooperation will most likely result in this kind of taxation. Just give me one more reason to leave this country...
Moving forward into the internet age, there are lots of options that need consideration, it's made even more difficult by multiple broadcast mediums.

Ultimately, I would prefer the British system if one had to be picked. And by that - I mean that the stations show quality programming without adverts. (I know you guys probably think my advert ranting is stupid but it's one more thing that's blindly accepted as ok and the BBC have proved it's not required to survive). Unfortunately I don't think there's enough money involved to run a British style system.

sesswhat

Gotham wrote: »

Ultimately, I would prefer the British system if one had to be picked. And by that - I mean that the stations show quality programming without adverts. (I know you guys probably think my advert ranting is stupid but it's one more thing that's blindly accepted as ok and the BBC have proved it's not required to survive). Unfortunately I don't think there's enough money involved to run a British style system.

So you have the best of both worlds. Living here the licence is cheaper, while you can still watch all the UK channels for free!

Hotblack Desiato

Gotham wrote: »

I'd like a proper answer to the same question, I have an old crt TV

Gotham wrote: »

I don't have a TV

Schrodinger's TV set?

Hotblack Desiato

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Honestly I'd regard this as something that ought to go before a judge again.

Careful what you wish for, the law says that a device capable of receiving broadcasts, with or without the addition of another device, needs a licence.

Computer + USB Tuner = Receiver so your judge may well decide that ownership of a computer (even if you don't own a USB TV tuner) is enough to need a licence.

Gotham

ninja900 wrote: »

Schrodinger's TV set?

It's a TV that was left here by the previous owner, I don't count it as mine and I've never bothered to throw it out, I forget about it sometimes and don't really consider it mine. I feel bad for getting rid of working equipment but I also don't want it around if I'm supposed to get it licensed, especially since it now cant receive any TV at all. I use it now as a bedside table

sesswhat wrote:

So you have the best of both worlds. Living here the licence is cheaper, while you can still watch all the UK channels for free!

I actually had to ask a coworker could you get British TV on terrestrial TV over here. And you can - didn't know that.
I guess that would be unfair too.

Hotblack Desiato

Best get rid of it so before the inspector calls, they don't care if you consider it yours or not!

winston_1

Not too sure about the law in Ireland but in the UK the licence is to receive TV programmes. Simple possession of a TV does not require a licence if you never use it.

STB

Gotham wrote: »

..........you guys probably think my advert ranting is stupid but it's one more thing that's blindly accepted as ok and the BBC have proved it's not required to survive). Unfortunately I don't think there's enough money involved to run a British style system.

The British have a population of 66m. Any idea how much the BBC get from the licence fee ?

Sam Russell

winston_1 wrote: »

Not too sure about the law in Ireland but in the UK the licence is to receive TV programmes. Simple possession of a TV does not require a licence if you never use it.

As I understand it, in the UK you need to be using the set but here possession is all that is required. (That used to be the case in the UK many years ago - it might have changed since.)

Antenna

watty wrote: »

You can get an adaptor for 405!

There are people in UK watching Freeview

Aerial -> Freeview box -> Aurora Adaptor -> 405line TV.

.

I can't see how that could be used as an argument, The Freeview box (or any digital TV STB) by itself need a licence anyway, even if it were used purely for radio stations hooked up to a hi-fi with no TV on the premises.

It is far easier to interface a Freeview etc box to a monitor (which by itself need no licence) than a vintage UK 405-line TV. Depending on the monitor, by just a direct connection, or else a VGA converter (I got one for just a few Euros).

If someone with the above set-up refused to get a licence, I suspect there would be more focus on the need for the freeview box to have a licence than for the antique TV for a defunct TV system switched off in the UK around 30 years ago!

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I'm not sure that the situation with the move from 405 lines to 605 lines and the analogue switch-off example are sufficiently similar. Partially because there are more distinct physical and conceptual differences between the viewing apparatus of DVB-T and PAL-I

A 405 line TV could be made display a picture of sorts from a VHF 625 line signal by some fiddling around.

I remember reading how decades ago TV DXers in the UK with UK 405 only sets received 625 line signals from the continent - by adjusting the H-lock control on many of these TVs , the TV's horizontal scan could be made lock to half the 625 horizontal frequency - such that you got two horizontally squashed pictures side by side! !
There was also the difference with 405 using positive modulation and most 625line TV systems using negative modulation, but that could be easily overcome.
There would also be no sound from the 405-line TV (without significant modification) but some multiband radios (or a scanner) could have been used to try receive the sound if desired.

On the otherhand a digital signal is of course going to be just 'static' to an analogue receiver regardless what you do with the analogue recever (without adding a digital STB)


The current radio ads about the requirement for a licence not changing on 24th October is I suspect aimed at viewers currently using purely FTA satellite (with no Saorsat setup) who might believe they need no licence.

lucernarian

ninja900 wrote: »

Careful what you wish for, the law says that a device capable of receiving broadcasts, with or without the addition of another device, needs a licence.

Computer + USB Tuner = Receiver so your judge may well decide that ownership of a computer (even if you don't own a USB TV tuner) is enough to need a licence.

That would still be a better outcome than the current situation of legal ambiguity. And it would remove the contradiction between a historical judgement and modern reality.

The thing is, directly tying in computer ownership in with the TV license would prove a tipping point. Such a judgement would precipitate legislative change. Businesses which have only computers would immediately need a TV license. Thousands of households would be included, many of which would have dispensed with TV sets to avoid the cost of a TV license. The uproar which would ensue would be something to behold.

The new realities of watching TV speak for themselves. The archaic way of defining "receiving equipment" cannot stand up to the 21st century and it's better that a more equitable and easier-to-administer system is developed instead.

watty

A 405 line TV could be made display a picture of sorts from a VHF 625 line signal by some fiddling around.

No, it can't. Not at all for most 405 Sets. You need a Standards converter. Which are readily available. Google Aurora Converter

Vision is different polarity
15.625KHz vs 10.125KHz Line rate
Sound FM vs AM on 405
Sound offset frequency completely different.

Antenna

watty wrote: »

No, it can't. Not at all for most 405 Sets. You need a Standards converter. Which are readily available. Google Aurora Converter

Vision is different polarity
15.625KHz vs 10.125KHz Line rate

What I said was that these TV DXers in the UK could have at least some such sets lock to HALF the 625 line rate = 7.8125kHz (not too much different from 10.125 kHz) , but this lead to two horizontally squashed pictures side by side !

The French 625 system (system L) was always positive polarity (same as 405) not negative. Some other countries (Belgium) had this in the distant past as well - see System C here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_television_systems

Sound FM vs AM on 405
Sound offset frequency completely different.

I know that, these DXers might have used a sound receiver seperate to the TV, as I said in my previous post.

eirman

moceri wrote: »

Pay up lads, RTE needs every penny so that it can continue to pay overrated presenters such as Marian Finucane, who gets paid 580K per year to do 2 X 2 hours Radio slots per week and have 12 weeks off in the Summer. She gets paid about E50 per minute. This is shameful.

I thought that grossly excessive figure has been reduced. The only reason the show is so popular is the format and time slot. Any substitute presenters such as Claire Byrne do an equally good if not better job.

Hotblack Desiato

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

That would still be a better outcome than the current situation of legal ambiguity. And it would remove the contradiction between a historical judgement and modern reality.

The thing is, directly tying in computer ownership in with the TV license would prove a tipping point. Such a judgement would precipitate legislative change. Businesses which have only computers would immediately need a TV license. Thousands of households would be included, many of which would have dispensed with TV sets to avoid the cost of a TV license. The uproar which would ensue would be something to behold.

The new realities of watching TV speak for themselves. The archaic way of defining "receiving equipment" cannot stand up to the 21st century and it's better that a more equitable and easier-to-administer system is developed instead.

You say it would be a better outcome, then describe how unfair it would be
So what definition of 'receiving equipment' would be better than what we have now?
It's not fair to make a computer without TV tuner pay a licence.

Hotblack Desiato

Antenna wrote: »

I can't see how that could be used as an argument, The Freeview box (or any digital TV STB) by itself need a licence anyway, even if it were used purely for radio stations hooked up to a hi-fi with no TV on the premises.

AFAIK, in the UK no licence needed if it's used purely for radio.

lucernarian

ninja900 wrote: »

You say it would be a better outcome, then describe how unfair it would be
So what definition of 'receiving equipment' would be better than what we have now?
It's not fair to make a computer without TV tuner pay a licence.

You should read my post again. It's implausible that computer ownership would ever equate to needing a TV license. The legislation would be changed in response to such a judgement.

Hotblack Desiato

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

You should read my post again. It's implausible that computer ownership would ever equate to needing a TV license. The legislation would be changed in response to such a judgement.

It's not implausible at all, it's what the law says.
I wouldn't have any faith in our legislators to correct minor inconveniences when they can't legislate for matters of life and death.

Bruthal

ninja900 wrote: »

You say it would be a better outcome, then describe how unfair it would be
So what definition of 'receiving equipment' would be better than what we have now?
It's not fair to make a computer without TV tuner pay a licence.

The definition used will always be one to encompass as many premises as possible within the licence net. Its as simple as that. The term tv set did it before because at one time, that was the only reason for having one.

If you now have a tv just for dvd`s or a ps3, its liable, they dont care if such a tv only works on mars,and that`s simply because they want everyone to pay for the service, regardless of intention or non intention of availing of it. It likely will include computers in time if/when it becomes the broadcast charge, and again, that is to widen the list of items that make people liable.

watty

No, it wont be specific to adding computers. That's FAR too complicated. It will simply be a Universal Tax. Cheaper to collect and in reality very few people don't consume stuff from UK or Irish TV or Radio via Broadcast or Internet. Far few people would be unfairly penalised than at present were the law abiding are subsidising a very large number of real licence evaders, far fewer people will be penalised "unfairly" than other taxes (maybe you will never have Children, why should your tax pay for schools? Maybe you never use a Library, why should your tax be paying for it.)

It's actually a poor mean selfish society where some things are not freely available because people are "taxed". It will only be one charge per premises, as it is now no matter how many TVs or people.

Bruthal

I was not being specific about computers really. They just want the money from every premises. They will use a licencing description to ensure all premises are liable as much as they can, the same as it always was. If a house has no tv, they may still have to prove they are not liable with a broadcast charge, where as before, not having a tv was proof enough.

lucernarian

ninja900 wrote: »

It's not implausible at all, it's what the law says.
I wouldn't have any faith in our legislators to correct minor inconveniences when they can't legislate for matters of life and death.

That's just being silly now, do you honestly think your average Centra will end up paying for a TV license? There's been computers capable of receiving broadcast TV for a long time now. If the state was serious about getting revenue about such sources, they would have promptly enforced this at the nearest opportunity.

As well as suggesting that DCENR/An Post themselves do not believe the definition applies to PCs (which given their "knowledge" of modern IT use is a distinct possiblilty), I think it indicates simple political inertia and not willing to make dramatic changes to license fee collection. Cue the calls to Joe Duffy etc.

Sam Russell

Adding €12 per month to each electricity bill would be simple, cheap and effective. Nearly everyone who has electricity also has a TV and if you do not have an electricity bill, you are unlikely to have a TV. Very few people would be unfairly caught.

Gotham

Sam Russell wrote: »

Nearly everyone who has electricity also has a TV and if you do not have an electricity bill, you are unlikely to have a TV.

This might have been true 5 or 10 years ago, I cant agree that its the same for 2012, and its certainly trending away from TVs. None of my colleagues watch tv, I can count about 12 off the top of my head.
And I want to clarify - I don't agree with being charged (by RTE) when I don't watch RTE stations (or TV for that matter).

mathepac

Gotham wrote: »

... And I want to clarify - I don't agree with being charged (by RTE) when I don't watch RTE stations (or TV for that matter).

and I'd like to clarify, yet again, that you don't get charged for a licence by RTE.

An Post, as agents for the Minister for Communications etc, collect the TV licence fee. Prosecutions against illegal non-licence holders are brought by the Minister.

If you live in this country and have receiving equipment that is capable of receiving a TV signal from any source, foreign or domestic, you must pay a licence fee, that is the law; maybe it'd help if you were clear on the law before you started clarifying your position & thinking about a law you clearly don't understand.

Gotham

mathepac wrote: »

and I'd like to clarify, yet again, that you don't get charged for a licence by RTE.

An Post, as agents for the Minister for Communications etc, collect the TV licence fee. Prosecutions against illegal non-licence holders are brought by the Minister.

If you live in this country and have receiving equipment that is capable of receiving a TV signal from any source, foreign or domestic, you must pay a licence fee, that is the law; maybe it'd help if you were clear on the law before you started clarifying your position & thinking about a law you clearly don't understand.

Lets step back a few years ok. Without RTE we would have no need for TVs here, so the main reason for a TV was to watch RTE. The money is taken from license payers and given to keep RTE alive. It's a roundabout way of doing things, but one department is feeding another department. An Post and RTE are both state owned companies afaik. So what if the people who collect it aren't the people who spend it. I understand the basics of the law, and I'm saying I disagree with it. Are you assuming that I don't know the law because my stance differs from it, and that my stance is any less valid?

Johnboy1951

So ....... if a universal licence charge is applied to every premises/household those who presently do not pay the licence will have to pay it ....... and the amount collected will jump greatly, if I am to believe there are a large number avoiding the licence.

That might encourage the law makers to reduce the amount of the licence fee ........ in my dreams!

It would though encourage people to accept such a charge if the overall payment was reduced for those who pay in the normal course of events.

***

Does anyone know what the situation is for someone living in a mobile dwelling ...... such as a motor home?

If there is no fixed address how can the licence be attached to such an address?

Some years back a co-worker lived in a motor home for a couple of years while 'homeless' and of course never licenced his TV ......... but is there a facility for people in his situation to do so?

mathepac

Gotham wrote: »

... Without RTE we would have no need for TVs here, so the main reason for a TV was to watch RTE. ...

Incorrect yet again. The east / south-east coastal areas and many border areas had TVs before there was ever a RTE TV channel. People watched, with varying degrees of awfulness reception-wise, BBC & UTV/ITV. These people were required by law to have TV licences even in the absence of an Irish TV channel at the time.

Duiske

I would have no problem with a Universal media/broadcast license, so long as it was not used to increase revenue beyond what it would be if 100% of those eligible to pay the TV license did so. It's estimated that the figure for TV license evasion is roughly 15%, so I think a Universal catch-all charge of €150 would be fair. It would see an increase in revenue to broadcasters, license evaders would finally have to cough up*, and those who already abide by the law would see a slight reduction in cost.

*Phil Hogan could be drafted in to show how to successfully collect a Universal charge.

Duiske

mathepac wrote: »

These people were required by law to have TV licences even in the absence of an Irish TV channel at the time.

Incorrect. RTE began broadcasting 31st December 1961 and the TV license was introduced in 1962. You are probably thinking of the "wireless license", as a TV fell under the definition of a wireless device.

watty

TV licence was discussed from 1950s when NO plans for Irish TV, due to people watching UK TV.

The TV licence came in around August 1961. The Wireless Licence (Radio sets) MUCH older.

Gotham

mathepac wrote: »

Incorrect yet again. The east / south-east coastal areas and many border areas had TVs before there was ever a RTE TV channel. People watched, with varying degrees of awfulness reception-wise, BBC & UTV/ITV. These people were required by law to have TV licences even in the absence of an Irish TV channel at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#History
This excerpt says differently:
Television licences were introduced for the establishment of Telefís Éireann (now RTÉ) in 1962.

The licence came out in 62, RTE was founded 2 years beforehand in 1960.

And people in the north east couldn't receive Irish channels until a massive mast was (illegally) built on the mountainside. On a slightly related note: I also don't think its fair to tax people on another country's assets.

watty

Wikipedia is misleading.

Television licences were introduced for the establishment of Telefís Éireann (now RTÉ) in 1962.

Yes, that was the final justification. But the TV licence came first, they had wanted to do it for years. I guess Public launch of TV slipped to 31st Dec 1961


The Government could have quite legally and constitutionally brought in a TV licence in 1950s. They very nearly did several times.

RTE TV didn't start till evening of 31st December 1961.

I also don't think its fair to tax people on another country's assets.

It's not Assets, its an "imported service". Of course they can tax it and if there was NO Irish TV, there would still be a TV licence. It might be less of course. They likely would not have abolished the Radio licence and made it Universal because of Portable Radios.