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

Banjo String

On a side note.

I don't think Dobbo did RTE any favours branding a member of the public an idiot on the news this evening.

That's your wage payer you insulted Dobbo. Mask/slipped.

Mr.Micro

Sky, UPC and Netfilx and others are popular in Ireland. Clearly then RTE fayre
is not enough for many and thus choose to subscribe to others to try to get extra or better.

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Sky, UPC and Netfilx and others are popular in Ireland. Clearly then RTE fayre
is not enough for many and thus choose to subscribe to others to try to get extra or better.

Wow - people like more than one or two options shocker!

Given all of that - have a look at the Tam ratings and see which channel comes out on top - even amongst those with multi-channel packages.

Mr.Micro

alastair wrote: »

Wow - people like more than one or two options shocker!

Given all of that - have a look at the Tam ratings and see which channel comes out on top - even amongst those with multi-channel packages.

Let me guess?.......

Jimmy Garlic

Banjo String wrote: »

On a side note.

I don't think Dobbo did RTE any favours branding a member of the public an idiot on the news this evening.

That's your wage payer you insulted Dobbo. Mask/slipped.

The mask slipped alright.

On principal I refuse to pay as much as a cent towards RTE. Scum.

hotbabe1992

I cannot f**king stand brian dobson or any of the RTE presenting staff they just really get up my nose. Especially that brian tubridy he is a rubbish interviewer,brian o conell on the saturday night show is miles better and thats saying something..

We have a lot of mediocres on RTE and they don't deserve to be pulling euro from both advertising and the people of the state.

They should be let out to fend for themselves,this would have toughened them up and streamlined their staff and expenses,which is what this tv station could have done with.

But instead of that they are pulling money from both advertising and the people..

As one boards user said its the governments big gift to RTE,and we wonder why RTE is more like the governments mouthpiece everyday???

Banjo String

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The mask slipped alright.

On principal I refuse to pay as much as a cent towards RTE. Scum.

In fairness he was correct qto refer to us as idiots tbh.

We, the tax payers, fund this dopes €193k a year salary. €193 a year, to read off an auto cue. :cool:

Al will be along soon to tell me he's worth every penny too.

Jimmy Garlic

Banjo String wrote: »

In fairness he was correct qto refer to us as idiots tbh.

We, the tax payers, fund this dopes €193k a year salary. €193 a year, to read off an auto cue. :cool:

Al will be along soon to tell me he's worth every penny too.

The likes of Dobson are not even pretending to be impartial anymore. I can sleep well in the knowledge that I haven't contributed to that lowlife cretins salary.

Phoebas

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

The likes of Dobson are not even pretending to be impartial anymore. I can sleep well in the knowledge that I haven't contributed to that lowlife cretins salary.

Its great when a principled stand also saves you money, isn't it?

Phoebas

dlouth15 wrote: »

Did anyone submit anything to the public consultation?

Doubtful. They'll evade the licence fee, dress it up as a principled political stand, complain that RTE is useless, complain that the staff are paid too much, and come up with all sorts of pie in the sky ideas for subscription based funding models.

But will they contribute any of this to a public consultation process? Not a chance!

For Reals

alastair wrote: »

Did you actually read his full quote?

Emmm yeah. As I understand it, he's eluding to the fact that anyone who doesn't have access to or watch television, (and other potential media platforms) would be a Caveman. Gold Star?

For Reals

It's sad but if people start making brass rubbings and passing them around as a form of entertainment, RTE would start doing it and then the Broadcast Tax would be amended to include 'rubbings'. In that vein, I'm surprised the government haven't legalised cocaine and included that under the tax as something RTE does, therefore everyone should pay RTE for any in-house coke habits under the reasoning that whether we do it or not, we've all got noses and the potential to be over paid bloated broadcasters.

Mr.Micro

For Reals wrote: »

It's sad but if people start making brass rubbings and passing them around as a form of entertainment, RTE would start doing it and then the Broadcast Tax would be amended to include 'rubbings'. In that vein, I'm surprised the government haven't legalised cocaine and included that under the tax as something RTE does, therefore everyone should pay RTE for any in-house coke habits under the reasoning that whether we do it or not, we've all got noses and the potential to be over paid bloated broadcasters.

You don't mean Dobson, do you?

Banjo String

"Would you pay a charge if you were unhappy with the service"???

Phoebas wrote: »

Its great when a principled stand also saves you money, isn't it?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/phil-hogan-refuses-to-pay-4k-service-charges-on-his-portugal-holiday-penthouse-26838412.html

Yep.

alastair

For Reals wrote: »

Emmm yeah. As I understand it, he's eluding to the fact that anyone who doesn't have access to or watch television, (and other potential media platforms) would be a Caveman. Gold Star?

Not quite. Those 'other potential media platforms' would be the Internet - so quite why you believe he's not familiar with the 'trend away from television' is something of a mystery.

alastair

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

I cannot f**king stand brian dobson or any of the RTE presenting staff they just really get up my nose. Especially that brian tubridy he is a rubbish interviewer,brian o conell on the saturday night show is miles better and thats saying something..

Maybe you mean Brian Griffin? Neither of these Brian's work at RTE.

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

...streamlined their staff and expenses,which is what this tv station could have done with.

But instead of that they are pulling money from both advertising and the people..

Possibly you've missed the news out at RTE? Staff cut by 21%, pay cut by up to 30%, longer working hours for the same pay, €150 million cut in operating costs?

hotbabe1992

It doesnt take 150 million to operate a news station,some basic news stations operate out of the most basic studios,not one with a montrose address.

And yes brian dobson does work at RTE,everytime he addresses the nation he says im brian dobson this is the news/goodnight.

Possibly you've missed the news out at RTE? Staff cut by 21%, pay cut by up to 30%, longer working hours for the same pay, €150 million cut in operating costs?

Should have been cut by another 79% when are they going to get in line with the real world of workers,many people have it too good at RTE,they should have had longer working hours to begin with..They should not be overpaid by hundreds of thousands for doing one hours presenters work per week,its just ludicrous to think we paid people like pat kenny 900,000 per year - and even then the man was insatiable at that!!!He had to have more so moved over to newstalk for a million a year or whatever..Its just unbelievable these are the types of ungrateful greedy f*cks RTE is chugging out,its no wonder!!!
These people couldnt possibly work in the real world for a start they wouldnt get out of bed for less than hundred grand..The arrogance of some of them knows no bounds..

alastair

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

It doesnt take 150 million to operate a news station,some basic news stations operate out of the most basic studios,not one with a montrose address.

RTE is a 'basic news station'?

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

And yes brian dobson does work at RTE,everytime he addresses the nation he says im brian dobson this is the news/goodnight.

I'm talking about your other 'Brians' (hence the 'neither').

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

Should have been cut by another 79%

Ah - right so.

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

its just ludicrous to think we paid people like pat kenny 900,000 per year - and even then the man was insatiable at that!!!He had to have more so moved over to newstalk for a million a year or whatever..Its just unbelievable these are the types of ungrateful greedy f*cks RTE is chugging out,its no wonder!!!
These people couldnt possibly work in the real world for a start they wouldnt get out of bed for less than hundred grand..The arrogance of some of them knows no bounds..

Isn't Pat working in the 'real world'? And RTE was paying him less than market value for his work?

nacho66

From wiki

Advocates argue that one of the main advantages of television fully funded by a licence fee is that programming can be enjoyed without interruptions for advertisements. Television funded by advertising is not truly free of cost to the viewer, since the advertising is used mostly to sell mass-market items, and the cost of mass-market goods includes the cost of TV advertising, such that viewers effectively pay for TV when they purchase those products. Viewers also pay in time lost watching advertising.

RTE program is interrupted for advertisement. They get an income that way. So paying TV license is 'investing' in a way, isn't? So what is my equity in RTE business?

alastair

nacho66 wrote: »

RTE program is interrupted for advertisement. They get an income that way. So paying TV license is 'investing' in a way, isn't? So what is my equity in RTE business?

Just phone up Joe Duffy and ask for your dividend. He'll have your Late Late Toy Show tickets too.

hotbabe1992

Advocates argue that one of the main advantages of television fully funded by a licence fee is that programming can be enjoyed without interruptions for advertisements. Television funded by advertising is not truly free of cost to the viewer, since the advertising is used mostly to sell mass-market items, and the cost of mass-market goods includes the cost of TV advertising, such that viewers effectively pay for TV when they purchase those products. Viewers also pay in time lost watching advertising.

This is the problem i have here,is that RTE are pulling from both advertising and the people of the state..

It should be one or the other not both,but i think thats what contributes to making RTE the bloated overpaid nepotistic organisation that it is..No imagination no real talent here at all..

How many people go online just to watch RTE,i'd say very few..

Isn't Pat working in the 'real world'? And RTE was paying him less than market value for his work?

No pat isn't working in the real world,pay should be performance related for a start,and monkeying around with figures like 900,000 and 1 million is ludicrous for the hours of work he puts in per day,is out of this world..

alastair

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

How many people go online just to watch RTE,i'd say very few....

How many people go online for just any one thing?

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

No pat isn't working in the real world,pay should be performance related for a start,and monkeying around with figures like 900,000 and 1 million is ludicrous for the hours of work he puts in per day,is out of this world..

Well - he's only garnering the sort of pay that the market will offer him - so how's that not a 'real world' situation? You've clearly got a special perspective on what constitutes 'real world'.

hotbabe1992

Why would anybody bother with RTE when they go online,there are many BETTER options out there well to touch on one netflix and so much more is out there than RTE player to watch fair city??I mean forget it..

Its not a real world situation to be asking for a million for only a couple of hours work i'll tell you why there are people who work in companies and factories all over the world who only get pay rises and promotions and the like based on their work performance.Some take YEARS to get that payrise/promotion..You have to put in not just the work but show you have the experience.

Pats performance would be limited given the hours he puts in,that doesnt justify a payment of a million i dont care what news station it is..

alastair

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

Its not a real world situation to be asking for a million for only a couple of hours work i'll tell you why there are people who work in companies and factories all over the world who only get pay rises and promotions and the like based on their work performance.Some take YEARS to get that payrise/promotion..You have to put in not just the work but show you have the experience.

Pats performance would be limited given the hours he puts in,that doesnt justify a payment of a million i dont care what news station it is..

No-one was forced to offer him whatever he's being paid - like it or not, it's an arrangement based in his value to the station. And that's about as 'real world' as you'll get.

hotbabe1992

Okay lets take for example marian 4 hours work finucane and what she gets paid nearly half a million for 4 hours work in a a radio station once a week,call that real world..

Lets face it these guys never had to do real slog or real work in their lives,all they do is say a few words,interview a few people and get paid obscene amounts of money..

The arrogant and self-righteous attitudes of some of them and their entitlement mind-set doesn't exactly help either..

There are plenty of qualified presenters that would do the job for over less than half what they are getting,time for RTE to wake up and realise they are not hollywood stars,on top of that the population doesnt justify the amount they get paid for their scant hours work..

I can understand in america why they might get paid huge amounts of money,i woulds say the viewership is in the billions and the population is there to support such payments..

Phoebas

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

Okay lets take for example marian 4 hours work finucane and what she gets paid nearly half a million for 4 hours work in a a radio station once a week,call that real world..

4 hours on air != 4 hours work.

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

I can understand in america why they might get paid huge amounts of money,i woulds say the viewership is in the billions and the population is there to support such payments.

Seriously - you should just have a little think about what you're saying before you press the submit button.

alastair

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

I can understand in america why they might get paid huge amounts of money,i woulds say the viewership is in the billions and the population is there to support such payments..

Jay Leno (the US's most successful network talkshow host with the highest ratings, and a $15 million salary) pulls on average 3.5 million viewers nightly - with a potential audience of 114 million. The Late Late Toy Show tonight will probably pull 1.5 million viewers tonight - and the typical Late Late viewer figure is 550,000 - so 16% of Leno's ratings on any given night - but with only 4% of his potential audience. Marion Finucane pulls 700,000 listeners over a weekend. There's not much of a difference in actual audience terms - and no-one is anywhere near billions.

if you choose to use Leno's ratings and salary as a base, Ryan Tubridy should be getting paid twice what he actually earns - and that's ignoring his radio audience.

hotbabe1992

You should stop picking out on the smallest of things then you might have an actual argument instead of squabbling over figures..

Americas population is near enough to a billion as it is..Highlighting one mistake i made in bold and red font doesnt mean that your argument of paying the tv license is justified.

Nothing justifies these bloated salaries,and the fact they are pulling money from BOTH 1. advertising and 2. people of the state..

Nothing not even my mistake of saying oh theres a billion can justify your argument.

hotbabe1992

Jay Leno (successful network talkshow host with a $15 million salary) pulls on average 3.5 million viewers over a weeks worth of shows. The Late Late Toy Show tonight will pull 1.5 million viewers in a day - and the typical Late Late viewer figure is 500,000 - so pretty much the same ballpark as Leno on any given night. Marion Finucane pulls 700,000 listeners over a weekend. There's not much of a difference in actual audience terms - and no-one is anywhere near billions.

Population is there to support it - not just in listenership/viewership terms,but in terms of advertising,lets say a couple of million tune in and see a few infomercials,whether they watch the show or not,also if they were all to pay a tv licence let say IF they were..They would have the money to support these crazy salaries..

For Reals

alastair wrote: »

Not quite. Those 'other potential media platforms' would be the Internet - so quite why you believe he's not familiar with the 'trend away from television' is something of a mystery.

I could make two counter points; He mentioned television first and the rest as also rans or if in fact as you seem to say they were all listed and should be held in equal esteem.....either way my point stands. The only way your understanding would hold any water would be if he hadn't mentioned television at all.