Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

I dont watch any tv services in Ireland....

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Mr Pseudonym wrote: »
    I understand that. How is it relevant? Elmo's point was that the Motor Tax income is not solely spent on maintaining roads. It likely is also spent on counteracting the negative effects of driving: pollution, accident and emergency, etc. I would begrudge having to pay for those!

    Sorry I think I was mis-understood, I don't think Motor Tax fully covers the cost of the roads, other taxes are used.

    It is difficult to compare Road Tax to the Licence Fee.
    I'd happily pay for the BBC. But RTE. Ugh.

    You can't compare them. BBC has 3billion in licence fee revenue in comparison to 200m that RTÉ have, and then about 1billion in commercial revenue in comparison to RTÉs 150m.


  • Options
    #63
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    Elmo wrote: »
    It is difficult to compare Road Tax to the Licence Fee.

    Yes it's not a clear analogy.

    I don't mind paying for a public service but I do think a blanket broadcast charge is just another tax.


  • Options
    #64
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    Elmo wrote: »
    .

    You can't compare them. BBC has 3billion in licence fee revenue in comparison to 200m that RTÉ have, and then about 1billion in commercial revenue in comparison to RTÉs 150m.

    You CAN OBVIOUSLY compare two state broadcasters funded by a tv license system.

    If RTE can't produce something that people want to pay for it should be shuttered and replaced with a commercial alternative.


  • Options
    #65
    Mr Pseudonym
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,237 ✭✭✭Mr Pseudonym


    Okay, Daith. I'm going to bow out. I don't think you are presenting particularly compelling arguments. I am aware that income from taxes is spent in a variety of ways, including on roads - as I made clear in one of my previous posts. What I meant was that I would begrudge a stand-alone tax levied against me which was to counteract the negative effects of an activity in which I don't partake.

    @Elmo: I'm unsure as to why there is confusion, but it appears obvious to me that I was supporting the point that you made.

    Edit: I've just reread your post, Elmo. I think I did misunderstand your point. I interpreted it as being that Motor Tax pays for a variety of services, whereas you meant that it is not the sole contributor to the upkeep of roads. Apologies


  • Options
    #66
    SmurfX
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭SmurfX


    Elmo wrote: »
    The TV Licence doesn't just cover TV. It also pays for national institutions like the concert orchestras.

    If you have a TV you need to pay for a TV licence, if you don't watch TV then you have no requirement for a TV.

    How else are you to watch DVDs / blu rays, use chromecasts for netflix or play video games without one? :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    SmurfX wrote: »
    How else are you to watch DVDs / blu rays, use chromecasts for netflix or play video games without one? :eek:

    Laptop?
    Mr Pseudonym wrote: »
    Okay, Daith. I'm going to bow out. I don't think you are presenting particularly compelling arguments. I am aware that income from taxes is spent in a variety of ways, including on roads - as I made clear in one of my previous posts. What I meant was that I would begrudge a stand-alone tax levied against me which was to counteract the negative effects of an activity in which I don't partake.

    You do take part in using the road though! Your analogy was flawed.


  • Options
    #68
    thomas anderson.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭thomas anderson.


    SmurfX wrote: »
    How else are you to watch DVDs / blu rays, use chromecasts for netflix or play video games without one? :eek:

    You can use a monitor


  • Options
    #69
    Mr Pseudonym
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,237 ✭✭✭Mr Pseudonym


    SmurfX wrote: »
    How else are you to watch DVDs / blu rays, use chromecasts for netflix or play video games without one? :eek:

    There's a great amount of ambiguity.

    This is a quote from Citizensinformation.ie:

    "If your household, business or institution possesses a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal, you are required by law to have a television licence. Even if the television or other equipment is broken and currently unable to receive a signal, it is regarded as capable of being repaired so it can receive a signal and you must hold a licence for it. You do not require a television licence to watch television on your computer or mobile phone. However, the computer must not be able to receive a signal distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks, for example, cable, satellite or aerial."

    A computer can be connected to a Sky Box using an HDMI cable. Therefore, oughtn't that to mean that one with a computer should pay? They mightn't have the cable, but in the same way as someone with a broken TV is seen to be in a position to rectify that, so too should one with a compute, IMO.


  • Options
    #70
    STB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,178 ✭✭✭STB


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    You CAN OBVIOUSLY compare two state broadcasters funded by a tv license system.

    If RTE can't produce something that people want to pay for it should be shuttered and replaced with a commercial alternative.

    Yes you can compare.

    BBC reveives €4 billion in licence fee income, RTE receives €200million. It we didnt have such high evasion figures (25%) that figure would be higher.

    Money makes TV.

    There is a commercial alternative, its called TV3, they have over twice the amount of adverts per hour. TV in america is painful for this very reason.

    TV3 our commercial alternative had €81m parked with the now defunct IBRC. Then they bought back their other €60million of "corporate loan" at a discount.

    There are people who never want to contribute to society and there is not point in arguing as they always have an excuse. I resent paying for them.


  • Options
    #71
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Mr Pseudonym wrote: »
    A computer can be connected to a Sky Box using an HDMI cable. Therefore, oughtn't that to mean that one with a computer should pay? They mightn't have the cable, but in the same way as someone with a broken TV is seen to be in a position to rectify that, so too should one with a compute, IMO.

    Your sky box is your TV, not the monitor.
    You CAN OBVIOUSLY compare two state broadcasters funded by a tv license system.

    If RTE can't produce something that people want to pay for it should be shuttered and replaced with a commercial alternative.

    The BBC are very well funded, no matter how good a production RTÉ have they can't compare to the BBC.

    RTÉ can afforded to produce one LOVE/HATE a year. Luther, Silk, Sherlock and many more are produced by the BBC.

    TV is expensive to make.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    Elmo wrote: »
    The BBC are very well funded, no matter how good a production RTÉ have they can't compare to the BBC.

    RTÉ can afforded to produce one LOVE/HATE a year. Luther, Silk, Sherlock and many more are produced by the BBC.

    TV is expensive to make.

    Is it RTE's job to make good TV or be a good public service broadcaster though?


  • Options
    #73
    Mr Pseudonym
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,237 ✭✭✭Mr Pseudonym


    STB wrote: »
    Yes you can compare.

    BBC reveives €4 billion in licence fee income, RTE receives €200million. It we didnt have such high evasion figures (25%) that figure would be higher.

    Money makes TV.

    There is a commercial alternative, its called TV3, they have over twice the amount of adverts per hour. TV in america is painful for this very reason.

    TV3 our commercial alternative had €81m parked with the now defunct IBRC. Then they bought back their other €60million of "corporate loan" at a discount.

    There are people who never want to contribute to society and there is not point in arguing as they always have an excuse. I resent paying for them.

    I agree with your position, but think your comparison isn't entirely correct. The BBC is fabulously funded, but it also offers numerous services that we wouldn't expect of RTE (the numerous regional TV and Radio stations, the World Service, a massive global news network, etc.), and must broadcast them to a significantly larger number of people.

    Elmo wrote: »
    Your sky box is your TV, not the monitor.

    I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that a Sky Box would be considered as "equipment capable of receiving a TV signal"?


  • Options
    #74
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Daith wrote: »
    Is it RTE's job to make good TV or be a good public service broadcaster though?

    Yes to both and for the amount of money that they get they do an excellent job.

    BBC spend the same amount on CBeebies as RTÉ do on RTÉ ONE.
    Mr Pseudonym wrote: »
    I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that a Sky Box would be considered as "equipment capable of receiving a TV signal"?

    Yes your sky box/Saorview Box/upc box (STB) is the TV.


  • Options
    #75
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    Mr Pseudonym wrote: »
    I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that a Sky Box would be considered as "equipment capable of receiving a TV signal"?

    Yes it is.


  • Options
    #76
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    Elmo wrote: »
    Yes and for the amount of money that they get they do an excellent job.

    Well again that's a matter of opinion. I think they do an average job and can be incredibly wasteful with money.


  • Options
    #77
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Daith wrote: »
    Well again that's a matter of opinion. I think they do an average job and can be incredibly wasteful with money.

    I think we expect too much from them with the amount of money they have.

    I agree like most public organisations they can be incredibly wasteful with money.


  • Options
    #78
    Mr Pseudonym
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,237 ✭✭✭Mr Pseudonym


    Elmo wrote: »
    Yes your sky box/Saorview Box/upc box (STB) is the TV.

    By that measure, as long as a TV (in the conventional sense) doesn't have an inbuilt tuner, one is permitted to have one without paying the License.


  • Options
    #79
    120_Minutes
    Registered Users Posts: 4,706 ✭✭✭120_Minutes


    My only further addition to this is to repeat: I want to be able to opt out, not forced to pay for something i currently do not use, and am not likely to in the forseeable future.

    I drive a car, therefore i must pay motor tax

    I have broadband, therefore i pay VAT on the bill

    These are things i want and need so i have no problem in paying for the services and any taxes that must be levied on top (even if i think they're a tad expensive)

    The closest analogy i can think of for paying for something i dont use now but might in the future is PRSI, but should the worst happen and i lose my job and i must obtain social welfare...thats what it's there for. I cant think of anything catastrophic that would force me to use RTE again (unless sky and the internet suddenly disappeared overnight)

    They will never make RTE sub based as the truth would hurt them in their coffers. and why should they when they can just slap another tax on the populace instead?


  • Options
    #80
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Mr Pseudonym wrote: »
    By that measure, as long as a TV (in the conventional sense) doesn't have an inbuilt tuner, one is permitted to have one without paying the License.

    If a TV has no TV tuner it is a Monitor, once a monitor is connected to "equipment capable of receiving a TV signal" its the "equipment capable of receiving a TV signal" that the licence is for, not the monitor.


  • Options
    #81
    Mr Pseudonym
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,237 ✭✭✭Mr Pseudonym


    Daith wrote: »
    Well again that's a matter of opinion. I think they do an average job and can be incredibly wasteful with money.
    Elmo wrote: »
    I think we expect too much from them with the amount of money they have.

    I agree like most public organisations they can be incredibly wasteful with money.

    I agree with both of you!! I think they do an average job of what they do, and that people expect that they ought to provide more than they are capable of.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Mr Pseudonym
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,237 ✭✭✭Mr Pseudonym


    Elmo wrote: »
    If a TV has no TV tuner it is a Monitor, once a monitor is connected to "equipment capable of receiving a TV signal" its the "equipment capable of receiving a TV signal" that the licence is for, not the monitor.

    Don't most "TVs" not have tuners?


  • Options
    #83
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    Elmo wrote: »
    I think we expect too much from them with the amount of money they have.

    I generally find TG4 can do an excellent job with a much smaller budget than RTE but again it's just my opinion.


  • Options
    #84
    120_Minutes
    Registered Users Posts: 4,706 ✭✭✭120_Minutes


    Elmo wrote: »
    If a TV has no TV tuner it is a Monitor, once a monitor is connected to "equipment capable of receiving a TV signal" its the "equipment capable of receiving a TV signal" that the licence is for, not the monitor.

    here's one for you: If I get rid of sky in the morning, throw out my sky box but keep my analogue tv and dont get a saor view box, do i have equipment capable of receiving a TV signal? :D


  • Options
    #85
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    120_Minutes wrote: »
    here's one for you: If I get rid of sky in the morning, throw out my sky box but keep my analogue tv and dont get a saor view box, do i have equipment capable of receiving a TV signal? :D

    It won't matter with the new broadcast charge. Your house could be empty and you'll still need to pay.


  • Options
    #86
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    Elmo wrote: »
    Your sky box is your TV, not the monitor.



    The BBC are very well funded, no matter how good a production RTÉ have they can't compare to the BBC.

    RTÉ can afforded to produce one LOVE/HATE a year. Luther, Silk, Sherlock and many more are produced by the BBC.

    TV is expensive to make.

    If the state can't compete in this arena it should bow out. Simple. We don't need tax funded crime dramas or pop music stations.


  • Options
    #87
    Mr Pseudonym
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,237 ✭✭✭Mr Pseudonym


    Daith wrote: »
    I generally find TG4 can do an excellent job with a much smaller budget than RTE but again it's just my opinion.

    As I demonstrated in this post, they are better funded than one might think. They also are not required to have an expensive News and Current Affairs division, and their content needn't appeal to as wide an audience - RTE is obliged to provide such diversity as Operation Transformation, Fair City, Prime Time, Nationwide, etc.


  • Options
    #88
    120_Minutes
    Registered Users Posts: 4,706 ✭✭✭120_Minutes


    Daith wrote: »
    It won't matter with the new broadcast charge. Your house could be empty and you'll still need to pay.

    I know this. I'm talking about right now.


  • Options
    #89
    Mr Pseudonym
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,237 ✭✭✭Mr Pseudonym


    120_Minutes wrote: »
    I know this. I'm talking about right now.

    You realise that analogue TVs have inbuilt tuners, right? So, I imagine that one would still be liable. I'm not especially familiar, but I suspect Smart TVs, for instance, don't have inbuilt signal receivers.


  • Options
    #90
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Mr Pseudonym wrote: »
    You realise that analogue TVs have inbuilt tuners, right? So, I imagine that one would still be liable. I'm not especially familiar, but I suspect Smart TVs, for instance, don't have inbuilt signal receivers.

    Smart TVs would just be Smart Monitors if they didn't have a built in tuner. Many even have satellite receivers built in.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    120_Minutes
    Registered Users Posts: 4,706 ✭✭✭120_Minutes


    Mr Pseudonym wrote: »
    You realise that analogue TVs have inbuilt tuners, right? So, I imagine that one would still be liable. I'm not especially familiar, but I suspect Smart TVs, for instance, don't have inbuilt signal receivers.

    Of course I do, my question is leading. My analogue tv has an analogue tuner. the analogue signal is turned off never to return. My tv is neither broken nor is it capable of receiving a tv signal without external equipment.

    So if i were to get rid of said equipment, under a technicality with the current wording of the legislation i should be exempt from the licence.

    In fact, i'm surprised this hasnt been challenged yet in the courts.


Advertisement