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.

Heisenberg.

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).

dublinman1990

This to me sounds like an unforeseeable and complicated PR stunt to be managed properly by this shower of a government.

Tell me, how would An Post know that if there are multiple 'evaders' not paying for a TV Licence in the house they currently reside in?

Would An Post do with the other 'occupants' of these homes rather than homeowners? Will they be asked to pay for an additional TV licence as well the homeowners already paying for or having a valid licence?

In my own situation, I was thinking of going back to UPC Analogue because I had switched to Saorview and didn't realise that I can still keep the ones from UPC. I will still keep Saorview but will my own personal data be infringed by going back to UPC after all that trouble and be asked to pay for the Licence Fee again?

I myself live with my mum. In legal terms that would make me an occupier of her home as she is the homeowner.

I also recently paid for the TV Licence on behalf of my mum because I paid for it for her on my behalf over the phone as she couldn't get it paid in the post office. It will be received in the post by either tomorrow or in the next few days. It will be a disgrace though to be asked to pay for another licence after getting one already.

Sam Russell

The licence is per property/address, so no you will not have to pay twice. If it works that UPC/Sky hand over addresses of those with TV service, it will be cross checked with the TV Licence database. No data protection issues there as the data will only be used for checking if there is a licence in force for that address, and that is the reason the data was passed over, in conformance with the proposed legislation.

The alternative method would be for UPC/Sky to get sight of the licence before providing service, as insurance companies do for car insurance and driving licences.

I only question why this has taken so long to even consider. Most countries did this many years ago. Why bring this up now when there is a broadcasting charge in the pipeline? Sounds like grandstanding to me.

dublinman1990

Sam Russell wrote: »

The licence is per property/address, so no you will not have to pay twice. If it works that UPC/Sky hand over addresses of those with TV service, it will be cross checked with the TV Licence database. No data protection issues there as the data will only be used for checking if there is a licence in force for that address, and that is the reason the data was passed over, in conformance with the proposed legislation.

Why bring this up now when there is a broadcasting charge in the pipeline? Sounds like grandstanding to me.

Another question to consider though is that when either An Post, UPC or Sky carry out this exercise on behalf of the government, it could cost them money to do this, Am I right in saying this if the government even receive half of the money back they were originally targeting for licence evasion?

Would Sky or UPC reflect this further loss in their customer's household bills when this PR exercise is implemented from the government?

I suppose that An Post might increase the broadcasting charge to have it higher than current the Licence fee for next year if they doing the same thing?

Sam Russell

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Another question to consider though is that when either An Post, UPC or Sky carry out this exercise on behalf of the government, it could cost them money to do this, Am I right in saying this if the government even receive half of the money back they were originally targeting for licence evasion?

Would Sky or UPC reflect this further loss in their customer's household bills when this PR exercise is implemented from the government?

I suppose that An Post might increase the broadcasting charge to have it higher than current the Licence fee for next year if they doing the same thing?

As with all these tax collection things, it is part of the cost of doing business. The benefit of the extra money goes to the fund, of which RTE get most and some goes to the Sound and Vision Fund. The Government do not get any of it (directly).

cerastes

icdg wrote: »

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).

It's not much different here then really, is it? thats whats effectively happening. Is it why RTe are independant and not subject to the whims of the govt here?? because that just isnt the case really.If anything thats an argument against keeping the licence fee, because RTE does play nice with the govt anyway and we are still paying for it.

lertsnim

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

So even more complicated than now...

Let's make it simple. Put it on energy bills. If you don't have a TV prove it. Job done and everyone pays.

A Primal Nut

Or just encrypt the signal and charge people the equivalent of the tv license to decrypt it; like Sky and UPC do; problem solved.

Sam Russell

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Or just encrypt the signal and charge people the equivalent of the tv license to decrypt it; like Sky and UPC do; problem solved.

No - encrypting costs a lot of money to do and undo.

It shou;d be on the energy biil. It shou;ld be charged monthly. It shou;d be required UPC and ky check to see if residents have a licence.

Make it easier to pay the evade. Simples.

Scoobydoo 2

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I thought we were having a household charge for data?

I thought we had a household charge for fine gael & labour muppets to have a a party

icdg

Report in today's Irish Times that the broadcasting charge will not now happen next year, which is why this interim legislation is proposed. That makes me cynical as to whether it will happen at all because the general election can happen no later than March 2016 and I cannot see the government bringing in something that potentially unpopular literally weeks before the election.

dublinman1990

^^

Here is the link to it if anyone is interested.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/media-and-marketing/proposed-broadcasting-charge-set-for-deferral-1.1872503

The question I would ask from is that article is how much of the, small but growing, percentage of people are there accessing RTE and TG4 on other devices rather than through a linear television set?

It might tell us a story into how the estimated evasion rates for TV licences will be lower of people watching TV shows online.

Onthe3rdDay

icdg wrote: »

Report in today's Irish Times that the broadcasting charge will not now happen next year, which is why this interim legislation is proposed. That makes me cynical as to whether it will happen at all because the general election can happen no later than March 2016 and I cannot see the government bringing in something that potentially unpopular literally weeks before the election.

It was pretty obvious two weeks ago when they announced they wanted UPC and SKY lists of subscribers that the broadcasting charge wasn't going ahead in this Dail term. While water charges and property taxes are imposed the government can say that you're using local services or drinking water.

On the other hand there are many people out there that never use RTE/TG4 services what so ever plus there are individuals in Ireland that live in houses without TV sets and have no interest in TV at all.

What about those houses that have a freesat dish, can't get saorview and have their radio permanently on the likes of Radio Kerry?

Some sort of broadcast charge will have to come in over the next few years but it will have to be shaped differently. I think the fairest would be a charge on Electricity like in other countries. If you don't use broadcast services you'd be able to opt out. Those with computers that used RTE player could be given a password linked to their electrical supply account number.

What really gets on my nerves are those awful ads for the TV licence saying the quality has gone through the roof in recent years, and most of them appear to be watching on Laptops and phones, the very devices that don't need a licence at this time.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sam Russell

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not so, the EU has rules about that, and anyway, they are registered for VAT here and will have to charge Irish VAT at some point.

Onthe3rdDay

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not so, the EU has rules about that, and anyway, they are registered for VAT here and will have to charge Irish VAT at some point.

Are they paying Irish VAT yet? I think they'll just ignore any demands for as long as possible, they might just go away. Knowing the Irish Government, it might just happen. It's quite possible the legislation won't get passed before the next election and then all the clocks are reset again.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

icdg

Being registered outside the jurisdiction does not give one cart blanche to ignore the law - if one simply needed to do that to avoid all Irish laws every business would be at it! That said Sky will probably take legal advice on the matter and its quite possible such advice may advise that if the UK Data Protection Act 1998 doesn't allow the disclosure of that data then they cannot disclose it.

Worth nothing however that BSkyB's own contract has a clause stating that contracts with customers in the Republic of Ireland are governed by Irish law.

mikeym

How if you have a Sky Ireland sub and your living abroad?

I thought the Tv Licensing crowd would be raking in the cash already.

Im sure theres probably one or two that slipped through the net.

Mondo 088

Was it ever the law in this country that shops had to take the names and address of people who bought television sets ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.