Minister wants An Post to be allowed access Sky and UPC subscription data

The Cush

Minister wants An Post to be allowed access Sky and UPC subscription data to tackle TV Licence evasion

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/rabbitte-seeks-cabinet-approval-for-tv-licence-crackdown-1.1859135

Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte will today ask Cabinet to permit An Post to access Sky and UPC subscription data as part of a drive to reduce TV licence evasion.

...

The Minister will seek Government approval to draft fresh legislation to enable the collection agent, currently An Post, to access subscription data held by TV service providers such as UPC and Sky.

channelsurfer2

ah good auld Pat... still seeking to be the centre of attention in his last days of office.

Mr. Incognito

Cant see this flying for data protection reasons

Chance The Rapper

Outrageous request.

Sam Russell

Why not put the onus on Eircom, NTL/UPC and Sky to collect the licence fee, or make them legally liable for their customers to have a licence? Insurance companies insist on seeing the driving licence before they insure a car.

This post has been deleted.

galtee boy

I don't see anything wrong with it,if people can afford Sky or UPC, then they can afford the licence.

Sam Russell

In France and the UK, and possibly elsewhere this is already the rule so what has taken Pat Rabbitte so long - the threat of the back benches?

icdg

Can we please keep any posts to the merits and or demerits of the idea at hand - play the ball not the man applies equally to public figures who are not here to defend themselves as it does to other posters

Seifer

Apparently it's been approved: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cabinet-approves-measures-for-tv-licence-crackdown-1.1859135

So if you have a UPC subscription does that automatically mean you have to have a TV licence?
Or do they still have to send someone out and have them actually see a TV to get you to pay?

Burgo

Looks like UPC won't be bowing down to Rabbitte's demands....yet.

UPC is not in a position to give An Post access to our cable subscription data because this would contravene our obligations under data protection.”

http://www.thejournal.ie/sky-upc-subscribers-tv-licence-fee-crackdown-1559918-Jul2014/

Arthur Beesley

Makes sense, don't see any reason for it not to happen. The 'data protection' concerns should not be insurmountable.

Have a TV? Get a TV licence. Simples.

Harry Palmr

I thought we were having a household charge for data?

Chance The Rapper

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Makes sense, don't see any reason for it not to happen. The 'data protection' concerns should not be insurmountable.

Have a TV? Get a TV licence. Simples.

Maybe people have issues because it's a joke of a tax being paid to a joke of a government to fund a joke of a broadcaster?

Chance The Rapper

UPC aren't giving it over without a fight anyway. Good to see.

Onthe3rdDay

I'm very confused here, this has to go before the Dail, they hope to have the legislation passed by the end of the year. Knowing how fast things move in the Dail it would be more realistic to say that it would be law by this time next year. However at that stage we are supposed to be only 6 months or so away from the new charge for broadcast services that will apply to all properties no matter if a TV is in them or not. (And they already are supposed to have a list of all households because of the property tax.)
So the logical mind can only come to two conclusions.

1. It's another silly announcement so they look like they're doing something

or

2. They know they won't be able to get away with the new broadcasting charge and they want to get in as much money as possible with the old system which will continue.

I hope it's two and not one!

Arthur Beesley

Chance The Rapper wrote: »

Maybe people have issues because it's a joke of a tax being paid to a joke of a government to fund a joke of a broadcaster?

And maybe your response is the real joke.


Usual guff, I suppose you'd do so much better in government.

Not a particular fan of RTE or many of the presenters but they are hardly a joke.
Again I'd like to see you do better.

with this level if negativity, it's a wonder the country is getting back on it's feet at all. The old hurler on the ditch mentality, just like SF and all the other looney left. Nothing constructive to add, happy to mouth off at the drop of a hat.

icdg

This is the second time today I have had to give a play the ball not the man warning. If people don't stop attacking other people, be they ministers or each other, then I'll have to close the thread.

I'm hoping people can make a rational argument based on the merits or demerits of the proposal at hand. If they'd prefer just to call each other names, well they can take that elsewhere.

lertsnim

Why not include the tv licence in the monthly UPC or Sky bill?

Arthur Beesley

lertsnim wrote: »

Why not include the tv licence in the monthly UPC or Sky bill?

Wouldn't cover saorview?

Delta2113

Why not stop this nonsense system and do what they do in New Zealand, Australia or Finland as an example.

No this is Ireland let's make things as complicated as possible!

Sam Russell

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Wouldn't cover saorview?

It could go on the monthly Saorview bill. Oh, wait a minute, Saorview is free. Well, it could go on the monthly Freesat bill. Oh, same problem.

Why do people pay Sky/UPC upto €100+ and not pay the much smaller licence fee? And why bitch about it?

lertsnim

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Wouldn't cover saorview?

Obviously if you have Sky/UPC you wouldn't need to buy a separate licence as it would be included in your bill. People without pay TV would still need to go to the post office

cerastes

Seifer wrote: »

Apparently it's been approved: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/cabinet-approves-measures-for-tv-licence-crackdown-1.1859135

So if you have a UPC subscription does that automatically mean you have to have a TV licence?
Or do they still have to send someone out and have them actually see a TV to get you to pay?

Ive a UPC subscription, but all I get off them is broadband and a phone, should UPC be forced to hand over my details? and I pay for a service which I dont receive/use?

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Makes sense, don't see any reason for it not to happen. The 'data protection' concerns should not be insurmountable.

Have a TV? Get a TV licence. Simples.

either its data protection or it isnt, unless the govt need to pilfer my pockets?

lertsnim wrote: »

Why not include the tv licence in the monthly UPC or Sky bill?

Well UPC provide services other than tv, and I believe sky may also (broadband? soon?/already?), so just bloodly well pay up.

lertsnim

Soon enough you will be paying the license if you only have broadband.

cerastes

soon enough (maybe), but not as of yet, so its a seperate topic to being charged just because someone has a subscription

Seifer

cerastes wrote: »

Ive a UPC subscription, but all I get off them is broadband and a phone, should UPC be forced to hand over my details? and I pay for a service which I dont receive/use?

Even if UPC were just to hand over TV subscribers would that be enough for the government to fine you if you don't have a TV licence?
Or does it just mean an inspector will call around?

Arthur Beesley

Delta2113 wrote: »

Why not stop this nonsense system and do what they do in New Zealand, Australia or Finland as an example.

No this is Ireland let's make things as complicated as possible!

What do they do there?

Arthur Beesley

lertsnim wrote: »

Obviously if you have Sky/UPC you wouldn't need to buy a separate licence as it would be included in your bill. People without pay TV would still need to go to the post office

So even more complicated than now...

Mondo 088

I don't get this at all. Don't an post already have a database of everybodys name and address ? the GeoDirectory ?

icdg

I don't know about Finland, but I do know about Australia and New Zealand...

In Australia the licence fee was abolished and the ABC and SBS are funded directly by the Exchequer. As a result this leaves the ABC in particular at the direct whim of the government of the day who can grant or cut funding on an annual basis. They don't know what they're getting from year to year so they have to play nice with the government 100% of the time.

As for NZ, the licence fee was taken off the BCNZ in 1989 and transferred to a government body called NZ On Air which doled it out (essentially it would be the same as giving 100% of the licence fee here to Sound and Vision). It has since been abolished and NZOA now gets Exchequer funding instead. What this means for TVNZ though is that they are effectively a fully commercial broadcaster and in recent years have even been required to pay the State a dividend.

Not the best of atmospheres for public service broadcasting in either case and I'd hold neither up as a model (though doubtless TV3 would love to see us go down the NZ route).