A compulsory 'Broadcast tax' next on the list for homes in Ireland

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is clarity about the need to save money, but none in terms of what a 'national broadcaster' should be doing.

http://www.rte.ie/documents/about/rte-pss-2010v1.pdf

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/documents/about/rte-pss-2010v1.pdf

Here's some more fiction for you.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/ProgrammeforGovernmentFinal.pdf

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Here's some more fiction for you.

No pleasing you, is there?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

No pleasing you, is there?

We are discussing RTE's failure in it's remit as a public service broadcaster and you post a statement from RTE?


Roight!

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

We are discussing RTE's failure in it's remit as a public service broadcaster and you post a statement from RTE?


Roight!

It provides the clarity as to what they're supposed to do as a public broadcaster. A clarity that you said was missing.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It provides the clarity as to what they're supposed to do as a public broadcaster. A clarity that you said was missing.

It's self seving waffle and criticism about it's implementation is all over this website and elesewhere.

Here is a statement which has clarity and shows that the way forward has been thought through and is under constant review.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/publicpurposes/communication.html

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's self seving waffle and criticism about it's implementation is all over this website and elesewhere.

Here is a statement which has clarity and shows that the way forward has been thought through and is under constant review.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/publicpurposes/communication.html

Nah - that's self serving waffle - and I've read criticisms of the beeb all over the interwebs - it's terrible altogether.

See how that works?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Nah - that's self serving waffle - and I've read criticisms of the beeb all over the interwebs - it's terrible altogether.

See how that works?

Good for you Al, brilliant!

Now get your mop, Derek Davis has made a mess in the canteen again.

Happyman42

It says a lot about our 'national broadcaster' and the media in general that this story isn't being talked about. Has anybody heard this discussed or investigated on RTE? (genuinely interested to know) I'm kinda shocked that as a listener to RTE's daily news and current affairs programming and a reader of The Irish Times that I am only becoming aware of this story today.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/09/19/difficult-to-quash/

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/sep/17/irish-independent-ireland

bgrizzley

Happyman42 wrote: »

It says a lot about our 'national broadcaster' and the media in general that this story isn't being talked about. Has anybody heard this discussed or investigated on RTE? (genuinely interested to know) I'm kinda shocked that as a listener to RTE's daily news and current affairs programming and a reader of The Irish Times that I am only becoming aware of this story today.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/09/19/difficult-to-quash/

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/sep/17/irish-independent-ireland

What passes for the media in Ireland is pretty disgusting at this stage. You can expect the continued cull of any integrity left. The only thing to do is not watch their tv, buy their papers and magazines, or click on their websites.
Staunch the flow of money and maybe they will get the message.

In Ireland, he who doesnt pay the piper calls the tune...

Happyman42

I am genuinely dumbstruck on this one.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm kinda shocked that as a listener to RTE's daily news and current affairs programming and a reader of The Irish Times that I am only becoming aware of this story today.

I thought you were too 'savvy' to let that kind of thing happen.

Neither Gemma O'Doherty or her ex-employer are talking about this so far, so it's kind of hard to find legs on the story.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I thought you were too 'savvy' to let that kind of thing happen.

Fair point, but it just shows the importance of a properly functioning national broadcaster.

Neither Gemma O'Doherty or her ex-employer are talking about this so far, so it's kind of hard to find legs on the story.

Why would they have to wait for the above to comment? Others see a news worthy story here, including me.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why would they have to wait for the above to comment? Others see a news worthy story here, including me.

Comment on what exactly though? So far all we know is she's been laid off, and she hasn't made any noises about unfair dismissal.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Comment on what exactly though? So far all we know is she's been laid off, and she hasn't made any noises about unfair dismissal.

The surrounding controversary, the petition, and international media interest is also unworthy of reporting and analysis?
The gentleman doth defend too much.

hopperdavy

I personally have the ability to interpret radio and tv signals without using any off air tuner , these. Signals are sent out into the Irish airspace by the broadcasters. If they want to earn money they should only send them to selective invividuals that specifically ask for or subscribe to them The airwaves are cluttered up eneough as it is. Why does. Mr rarebit want to charge us for taking in something that broadcasters. Send out .

If I go out on the street and start shouting out loud. I've loads of people who don't want to hear what I say. Should I charge them for receiving something they may not want .

Same scenario applies to. Unwanted radio and tv signals. I like to watch judge judy but don't bother with the news .

hotbabe1992

If I go out on the street and start shouting out loud. I've loads of people who don't want to hear what I say. Should I charge them for receiving something they may not want .

Thats exactly how i feel about this broadcasting charge,and a lot of what and who is on RTE i would not want the company of or to hear what they have to say..Its alright for rabbitte whats another bill to a millionaire,but whats another bill to those who are struggling to get by everyday???

This mealy mouthed double chinned w**nker should try and live on the wages some of us are living on,he would think twice about implementing this unjust charge.

I was wondering does anybody on here know if it is possible to take an action against the state on the issue of this forced broadcasting charge,i know an auld fella who doesnt have a television set,i phone or i pad etc,why the f*ck should he pay for this broadcasting charge..

hopperdavy

Might not be possible to take an action against the State at this moment , but upon the new bill becoming law , the only possible action would be to resist its implementation on a person , ie refuse to pay or refuse to accept to validity of the Bill.

The Airwaves of the country are a natural resource , we can breath the air without paying for it , we can talk through the medium of the air at no charge,
So why should we have to pay for so called service that we never asked for in the first place ?
So some Gimp of a DJ on a local radio station decides put on an hour of crap music and talk , thats his problem and the radio stations problem , Im not payin for something I dont want or need ,

alastair

hopperdavy wrote: »

Might not be possible to take an action against the State at this moment , but upon the new bill becoming law , the only possible action would be to resist its implementation on a person , ie refuse to pay or refuse to accept to validity of the Bill.

The Airwaves of the country are a natural resource , we can breath the air without paying for it , we can talk through the medium of the air at no charge,
So why should we have to pay for so called service that we never asked for in the first place ?
So some Gimp of a DJ on a local radio station decides put on an hour of crap music and talk , thats his problem and the radio stations problem , Im not payin for something I dont want or need ,

The water of the country is a natural resource too. Shifting both the water, and the public broadcasting systems through the environment, involves an overhead, unlike the air that you breath (carbon taxation notwithstanding). You're not being taxed on the airwaves (or the water), you're being taxed on provision of public broadcasting (or the water distribution network). There aren't any airwaves involved in much of the Internet side of things in any case.

hotbabe1992

Okay i understand you are being taxed for a service provided to you,thats fair enough ,but what if i do not avail of that service where does that leave me?

Its a serious question that should be asked in a court room.

alastair

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

Okay i understand you are being taxed for a service provided to you,thats fair enough ,but what if i do not avail of that service where does that leave me?

Its a serious question that should be asked in a court room.

Do you avail of cardiac surgery provision? You're taxed for that too. I'll make a wild guess and say that you're going to be more likely to make use of some public broadcast service than many other facilities that you pay taxes for.

Godge

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

Okay i understand you are being taxed for a service provided to you,thats fair enough ,but what if i do not avail of that service where does that leave me?

Its a serious question that should be asked in a court room.

Every man is this country is taxed for the provision of pregnancy services even though they will never get pregnant.

Should men get a tax reduction because of that?

The notion that you shouldn't pay a particular tax because you don't avail of a particular service makes a nonsense of the public good.

hotbabe1992

Do you avail of cardiac surgery provision? You're taxed for that too. I'll make a wild guess and say that you're going to be more likely to make use of some public broadcast service than many other facilities that you pay taxes for.

Every man is this country is taxed for the provision of pregnancy services even though they will never get pregnant.

Should men get a tax reduction because of that?

The notion that you shouldn't pay a particular tax because you don't avail of a particular service makes a nonsense of the public good.

The two of you seem to be missing the point here,a television service is not an essential life-saving service..

Maternity services are needed,so are cardiac services,but a television service is not life - or - death.

Why should i pay for that???

Show me where not paying a tv license makes a nonsense of the public good,where exactly does that happen?

You haven't a clue.

Here we are in ireland paying through the nose for a service that some of us do not and NEVER will use.

Why should it be compulsory for ALL to pay for this tv license,to bump up the nepotists of RTE's salaries..

If you ask me watching RTE is a nonsense of the public good,watching sub standard programmes and repeats of CSI miami and reeling in the years..

Hardly a hard working television station if you ask me.


How come in the phillipines or america you can get an unlimited amount of channels,without having to pay for it.I'll tell you why they dont have to pay for it,because of advertising if you havent realised television stations CAN pay for themselves via advertisting fees.

But us gobsh1tes here pay for this sub-standard service,so they get OUR money and advertising fees also.No wonder they all have cheesy grins, because of us fools..

Whenever my phillipino friends(who have moved back to the phillipines),and american relatives,hear about how i have to pay for RTE,they just laugh at the whole idea,and i couldnt blame them!

Phoebas

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

The two of you seem to be missing the point here,a television service is not an essential life-saving service..

Maternity services are needed,so are cardiac services,but a television service is not life - or - death.

Why should i pay for that??

There are loads of examples of non life saving services that are paid from the public purse but aren't universally accessed.
The third level education service, big parts of the social welfare service, right down to museums and libraries.

Why should you pay for any of these?

TireeTerror

They can do what they like, they will not get a single cent out of me. They can send me to jail, when they try to arrest me I will be sure to give them a good reason to do so. I will not allow anyone to put me in jail without a fight because I choose not to pay for a tv licence.

Even if I have 500 TV sets in my house and watch them all the time, I dont care. If they do not want people to watch without paying, then encrypt it and make it available to those who do want to pay for hour after hour of crap Irish drivel and repeats of shows Ive watched 3 years prior via torrents.

The technology has been around for years to provide it on a subscription basis, the same way as Sky etc. The reason they dont want to do that is because they know that few would pay for such garbage and it would collapse, so they will try and bully the people and force them. It is about time people stood up and told them where to go, but of course most are sheep and will moan but ultimately they will bend over and take it, they have done for centuries.

hotbabe1992

There are loads of examples of non life saving services that are paid from the public purse but aren't universally accessed.
The third level education service, big parts of the social welfare service, right down to museums and libraries.

Why should you pay for any of these?

I would say that on the barometer of what is essential i would say life saving services are absolutely nessecary.For the public good i would say that third level and second level /primary education in also nessecary although not life saving,it is for the public good.Ie skilled workers,third level workers,etc etc,this could benefit the economy and fill up positions in the country that are available in the market.
No problem with that at all.Libraries are a service,as citizens information is and i think it is a vital service,for the betterment of the public at large.

However i don't see how paying for a substandard service RTE is vital,for instance i can pick up a newspaper i don't need this ''service'',in fact these RTE people are not doing me a service,they are doing themselves a service,they are putting thier hands in my pocket for no good reason,and not for the betterment of the public at large.

Outline coherently how they are for the betterment of the public and give credible examples of this.

hotbabe1992

If they do not want people to watch without paying, then encrypt it and make it available to those who do want to pay for hour after hour of crap Irish drivel and repeats of shows Ive watched 3 years prior via torrents.

The technology has been around for years to provide it on a subscription basis, the same way as Sky etc. The reason they dont want to do that is because they know that few would pay for such garbage and it would collapse, so they will try and bully the people and force them.

I wholeheartedly agree with this point,i think that is the crux of it all really,RTE's issue is they know full well if it was on subscription service they wouldnt be raking as much euro in the door,but now that they have forced everybody on no uncertain terms rich and poor into paying for this substandard television they are guaranteed big salary bulk ups for doing f*ck all.

Repeats of CSI miami reeling in the years and nationwide is not the result of hardworking television there are a lot of newsworthy slots also that RTE news miss on a regular basis - i get all my news from local newspapers etc.

I couldnt be even bothered watching RTE and their late news which usually centers around dublin the center of the universe,like nothing ever happens down the country..

You'd swear we dont exist at all.

Phoebas

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

I would say that on the barometer of what is essential i would say life saving services are absolutely nessecary.For the public good i would say that third level and second level /primary education in also nessecary although not life saving,it is for the public good.Ie skilled workers,third level workers,etc etc,this could benefit the economy and fill up positions in the country that are available in the market.
No problem with that at all.Libraries are a service,as citizens information is and i think it is a vital service,for the betterment of the public at large.

However i don't see how paying for a substandard service RTE is vital,for instance i can pick up a newspaper i don't need this ''service'',in fact these RTE people are not doing me a service,they are doing themselves a service,they are putting thier hands in my pocket for no good reason,and not for the betterment of the public at large.

You've completely changed your position from 'life and death' to 'the betterment of the public at large' in a matter of a few hours.

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

Outline coherently how they are for the betterment of the public and give credible examples of this.

News, current affairs, some of the investigative reporting carried out by RTE. Educational programming maybe.
I think most people who agree that much of this falls into the 'betterment of the public' category, at least as much as, say, the library service (a service you are willing to fund) does.

There's a lot of rubbish on RTE, but much of that earns more revenue than it costs.

hotbabe1992

You sound hysterical,im not changing my mind im simply giving options - Option one: Life - and - death (ie vital hospital services) Option 2. The betterment of the public at large,ie education.

There is nothing two faced about that,what are you trying to accuse me of?



I can see investigations of organisations carried out by newspaper journalists,my point is i can pick up a newspaper and read about these events - you dont nessecarily need a television in order to do that. Prime time investigations are not doing the service they could there is plenty wrong with this country (ie job bridge sucking up paid jobs from the jobs market)but they wont comment on this.You see because the montrose crowd in RTE are not impartial like they make out they are the mouthpiece of the government and wont upset the government too much by investigating anything about job bridge etc. This is not just one issue,there are plenty of issues close to the government bone they will not touch with a long pole.
They are subsidised by the government,the government are in cahoots with RTE,they are a state funded television org.

And..Television is just another form of communication,lets face it the internet have passed and various talented journalists in newspapers have passed RTE out in a lot of stakes and they KNOW this. They are AFRAID of what that means,so then as a result of insecurity resort to bully-boy tactics and force EVERYONE to pay this broadcasting charge,even on those who do not OWN a television.Call that fair?Do you really think you live in a just and fair and equitable society when people can force you into paying for a service you wont and never will avail of and also that is not 1. a life or death service 2. a service for the betterment of the public at large,ie education.


RTE is not something we need,we need a better service,if we naturally let RTE die a death,there would be other stations teaming up to take RTE's place who knows maybe an irish american channel branching out with journos working all over ireland to provide a better service.

We could have had something better but instead we were complicit in propping up this zombie state funded nepotistic channel.




What my point is why is it fair for people to pay who have no interest in the service,and how exaclty are they causing a nuisance by not paying.


This service is NOT VITAL.Everybody knows this,you can easily access other forms of communication,or pick up a newspaper and read the news from another outlet,not nessecarily irish channels such as RTE.


Of course RTE know this and are afraid of the implications of this,so resorted to forcing us to pay the broadcasting charge.


You do know before the broadcasting charge there were a lot of millionaires in RTE?

They can more then pay for themselves through advertising fees,but want another source of euro through us , how is that fair,how are people ever going to stimulate the economy with no pennies in their pocket paying for the likes of zombie channels that if they had to work out on the coal face would have been dead long ago.


Why prop up a zombie channel,why pay for a so called service that gives f*ck all back only parrots the government line,why have people pay for the service who will never use it or avail of it,and it is not one bit essential if i can go down the road and pick up a newspaper.

Phoebas

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

You sound hysterical,im not changing my mind im simply giving options - Option one: Life - and - death (ie vital hospital services) Option 2. The betterment of the public at large,ie education.

There is nothing two faced about that,what are you trying to accuse me of?



I can see investigations of organisations carried out by newspaper journalists,my point is i can pick up a newspaper and read about these events - you dont nessecarily need a television in order to do that. Prime time investigations are not doing the service they could there is plenty wrong with this country (ie job bridge sucking up paid jobs from the jobs market)but they wont comment on this.You see because the montrose crowd in RTE are not impartial like they make out they are the mouthpiece of the government and wont upset the government too much by investigating anything about job bridge etc. This is not just one issue,there are plenty of issues close to the government bone they will not touch with a long pole.
They are subsidised by the government,the government are in cahoots with RTE,they are a state funded television org.

And..Television is just another form of communication,lets face it the internet have passed and various talented journalists in newspapers have passed RTE out in a lot of stakes and they KNOW this. They are AFRAID of what that means,so then as a result of insecurity resort to bully-boy tactics and force EVERYONE to pay this broadcasting charge,even on those who do not OWN a television.Call that fair?Do you really think you live in a just and fair and equitable society when people can force you into paying for a service you wont and never will avail of and also that is not 1. a life or death service 2. a service for the betterment of the public at large,ie education.


RTE is not something we need,we need a better service,if we naturally let RTE die a death,there would be other stations teaming up to take RTE's place who knows maybe an irish american channel branching out with journos working all over ireland to provide a better service.

We could have had something better but instead we were complicit in propping up this zombie state funded nepotistic channel.




What my point is why is it fair for people to pay who have no interest in the service,and how exaclty are they causing a nuisance by not paying.


This service is NOT VITAL.Everybody knows this,you can easily access other forms of communication,or pick up a newspaper and read the news from another outlet,not nessecarily irish channels such as RTE.

How is the library service (a service you are willing to fund) more 'vital' than public service broadcasting?
Can you outline the substantive attributes of the library service that you feel qualify it for public financing that public service broadcasting doesn't possess?