Why is the broadcasting charge postponed ?

Cork_chick_94

Too many vested interests in an post ?

Raspberry Fileds

Word on the street is that the General Election will be announced for end of 2015. Perhaps Government is trying to avoid negativity.

The Cush

Cork_chick_94 wrote: »

Why is the broadcasting charge postponed ?

A couple of recent newspaper articles on it

Proposed broadcasting charge set for deferral

New TV fee delayed to avoid water bill clash

RTÉ TV boss: ‘I’m not prepared to manage decline’

Revenue collection of broadcast fee blocked by Rabbitte

Elmo

IMO it was never going to be introduced by this government, Civil Servants need about 10 years to do anything.

Sam Russell

It is poorly thought out. It appears to be charging everyone for a TV licence whether they have one or not. It has been estimated that 15% of people do not pay for a licence, but 95% of houses (at least) are liable.

Using those figures, and the fact that An Post get 5% or so to collect it, a Broadcasting Charge of €129 per year would raise the same amount. If the charge was set at €120 per year or €10 per month. This sounds like a better deal, and if more revenue is needed, put a small charge on mobile phones (since they are benefitting from the release of spectrum) on, say, text messages. Alternatively, put a small levy on broadband charges of say €2 per month.

Collecting this charge through the energy bills would make collection cost free, and unavoidable.

The Cush

Sam Russell wrote: »

Collecting this charge through the energy bills would make collection cost free

Minus the ESB's administration fee of course, the Revenue would be closest to cost free but Pat Rabbitte had a future election in mind. Wouldn't look good if they were chasing his constituents (Dublin South West) for the TV Licence fee in the run in to an election.

Elmo

The Cush wrote: »

Minus the ESB's administration fee of course, the Revenue would be closest to cost free but Pat Rabbitte had a future election in mind. Wouldn't look good if they were chasing his constituents (Dublin South West) for the TV Licence fee in the run in to an election.

There is also a historic reason for not allowing Revenue collect the licence fee as the government may put political pressures on the Broadcasters. Though that is debatable under the current structure.

IMO the licence fee should be collected by ComReg from Broadband, PayTV and Telephone providers. Basically depending on their market penetration e.g. the figure is set as €200m if a company has 10% of the telecommunications market they pay €20m to the licence fee.

Cork_chick_94

The idea of a "Television licence" and arresting people for having an unlicenced television set is so last century though isnt't it ? Even the weekly payment option at the post office is still a book of stamps.

The Cush

Elmo wrote: »

There is also a historic reason for not allowing Revenue collect the licence fee as the government may put political pressures on the Broadcasters.

What happens now - a semi-state, An Post, collects the TV Licence for a fee for the Dept of Comunications. The Dept of Communications distributes the monies to RTÉ, BAI and TG4

What could happen in future - a state agency, the Revenue Commissioners, collects the TV Licence for no fee for the Dept of Comunications. The Dept of Communications distributes the monies to RTÉ, BAI and TG4

Note the difference.

Elmo

Cork_chick_94 wrote: »

The idea of a "Television licence" and arresting people for having an unlicenced television set is so last centery though isnt't it ? Even the weekly payment option at the post office is still a book of stamps.

I think you can Direct Debit it not sure if their is a monthly option for DD.

Putting people in prison for not paying fines of any kind isn't good.

I don't think the Department should give out the licence fee, that should be done by the BAI/ComReg shouldn't go near the Minister, one of the only reasons that department has such a big budget is the Licence Fee and it isn't even theirs.

The Cush

Cork_chick_94 wrote: »

The idea of a "Television licence" and arresting people for having an unlicenced television set is so last century though isnt't it ?

The licence fee is the way we fund our public service broadcaster like many other public broadcasters around Europe so that's a given, jailing people for non-payment isn't the way to go. Deduction at source, pay/pension/welfare like the LPT via the Revenue is the better option.

Cork_chick_94

At least though we are not as old fashioned as the uk, who still sell black and white tv licence.

The Cush

This from the Dept's briefing document to Alex White when he took over as Minister

Public Sector Broadcasting Charge/History

Programme for Government
The Programme for Government commits to “examin[ing] the role, and collection of, the TV licence fee in light of existing and projected convergence of broadcasting technologies, trans-form the TV licence into a household-based Public Broadcasting Charge applied to all households and applicable businesses, regardless of the device they use to access content and review new ways of TV licence collection, including the possibility of paying in instalments through another utility bill (electricity or telecom), collection by local authorities, Revenue or new contract with An Post.”

It also commits to review the funding of public and independent broadcasters to ensure a healthy broadcasting environment in Ireland. This commitment recognises the financial pres-sures that both public service and commercial broadcasters have faced in recent years as a result of the significant decline in commercial revenues. While this decline is primarily due to the impact of the recession, revenues have also been impacted by the increasing fragmentation of the broadcast market, as a result of an increased number of channels available on sat-ellite and cable, and through online and other emerging platforms.

Current Status:

• Work began in early 2011 on an alternative funding system for PSB. Following the Programme for Government launch in 2011, this work continued with a view to meeting the commitment of a household based charge.
  
• A presentation on the research findings was given to the Minister/Sec Gen on the 03 Oct 2011, the consensus of which was to seek the implementation of a PSB charge on the households & businesses.
  
• In 2013 DCENR completed a Value for Money (VFM) Policy Review on the proposals.
  
• A Public Consultation Process based on the key VFM findings ran from 26th August to 8th October 2013. During this process 385 submissions were received with 59 of these from relevant Stakeholders.
  
• A common theme that ran through the submissions was that the Revenue Commissioners should collect the Charge on the same basis as the Local Property Tax (LPT). Detailed discussions took place between the Department and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners to establish the feasibility of Revenue collecting the PSB Charge. Revenue indicated that it would only be feasible for them to collect the Charge on the same basis as the LPT on an “owner” basis and on a single liability date.
  
• The Division submitted a number of proposals to the Minister in Q1, 2014 requesting sanction to draft a Memo for Government to collect the Charge on this basis.
  
• On the 6 May, the Minister informed the Division that he regarded the proposed model for a PSB Charge as not being acceptable, notwithstanding the obvious ad-antages it offered. He asked that this Division prepare a note outlining the “the other options available and their respective merits, including in particular any steps that can be taken relatively immediately.”
  
• This Division prepared a note, outlining ten separate options for amendments to the system of collecting revenues to fund public service broadcasting, some substantial in nature, others more short term. The note concluded that the issues facing the pre-sent television licence fee collection system are such that a systemic overhaul is required; there are few, if any, any short term fixes available that might result in in-creased stability of funding or in increased revenues.
  
• On 18 June, the Minister responded that the Division should continue to probe as to whether there is an effective alternative collection method. In addition he requested the drafting of a short, single purpose Bill which would provide for access by An Post to the subscription data held by TV service providers in order to assist in li-cence fee collection.
  
• On 27 June, Broadcasting Policy Division circulated a copy of the Draft Memo for Government to all Departments for observations. The decision sought in the memo is the immediate drafting of legislation to enable access by the Minister’s TV Licence Collecting Agent (currently An Post) to the subscription data held by TV service providers in order to assist in licence fee collection, in advance of a broader legislative package arising from the Government response to the 5 Year Review of the adequacy of funding for public sector broadcasting. Observations received are now being examined.
  
• A Workshop was held on Wednesday, 2 July to look at how to generate short-term term operational and/or legislative ideas that will address evasion. Representatives from RTE, An Post and the Department attended Workshop. RTE, An Post and the Department attended Workshop.

Next Steps

• Following the Workshop the Department will draft and submit a response to the Minister setting out what options are available in the short-term to improve compliance and reduce evasion.

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/D80A9AC9-BC80-4E9C-AA72-BF3D8392A383/0/MinisterialBriefforDCENRWebsite.pdf

Sam Russell

Deleted

Elmo

During this process 385 submissions were received with 59 of these from relevant Stakeholders.

59 relevant stakeholders? bizzare number guess the viewer/listeners aren't relevant stakeholders, Lobby groups.

icdg

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

Word on the street is that the General Election will be announced for end of 2015. Perhaps Government is trying to avoid negativity.

This. The general election will be no later than April 2016. It may be sooner, if the Government thinks there is electoral advantage in it or some unforeseen circumstances led to it falling sooner. Either way, the Government would be faced with bringing in a controversial new tax right before the election at a time when they are actually looking at cutting taxes. Reform of the TV licensing system will have to wait for another day and another government and to be honest there's no political will to do it and the only person championing it was sacked in the reshuffle.

Elmo

icdg wrote: »

the only person championing it was sacked in the reshuffle.

Do you honestly think that Alex White stopped the change, pat rabbiitte had no interest in real reform he only wanted to see the licence fee removed from his holiday home. IMO

Cork_chick_94

I would have thought that the broadcasting charge would have only been unfair to a very tiny minorty of people who don't have any kind of Television ?

Elmo

Cork_chick_94 wrote: »

I would have thought that the broadcasting charge would have only been unfair to a very tiny minorty of people who don't have any kind of Television ?

Possibly but both names for such a tax is misleading in any case.

You pay the TV licence because you own a TV, but it funds much more than TV and more than just RTÉ (though much of it is under the umbrella of RTÉ).

The broadcasting change is a daft name when again the "charge" funds different aspects of the media and different media types.

Perhaps it should be called the Cultural Fund?

icdg

Elmo wrote: »

Do you honestly think that Alex White stopped the change, pat rabbiitte had no interest in real reform he only wanted to see the licence fee removed from his holiday home. IMO

No, I am saying that whoever was in office - including Pat Rabbitte - would have stopped the change anyway. Even if legislation was prepared and made it to Cabinet it would have gotten no further now, it's too near the general election.

Cork_chick_94

Elmo wrote: »

Possibly but both names for such a tax is misleading in any case.

You pay the TV licence because you own a TV, but it funds much more than TV and more than just RTÉ (though much of it is under the umbrella of RTÉ).

The broadcasting change is a daft name when again the "charge" funds different aspects of the media and different media types.

Perhaps it should be called the Cultural Fund?

A lot of the tv licence goes to radio. Austria have a radio licence that costs about €50 per year

Elmo

Cork_chick_94 wrote: »

A lot of the tv licence goes to radio. Austria have a radio licence that costs about €50 per year

I think Denmark or Sweden has an in car radio licence !!!

Sam Russell

If they want to gain by introducing the BC, they need to re-imagine it (if you pardon the expression).

1. It should raise no more money in total than the existing licence.

2. It should raise funds from text messages and from broadband.

3. I like the idea of changing its name, and Cultural Fund has a nice ring to it.

The household part of it should be collected by the ESB Networks charges on properties, or it should be collected along with the LPT.

makeorbrake

The whole crux of it is - do we need a national broadcaster!? Montrose being insulated by provision of guaranteed revenue stream each year is not likely to be leading to value for money for the irish tax payer.

If we need a national broadcaster on the basis that there is a state hand in disseminating 'spin' rather than potentially have foreign owned interests push their own agendas, then can they not trim this down to a state owned news/current affairs channel or wholesale provider of news/current affairs content - making any independent broadcaster utilise a certain minimum percentage of such content.

If this is the rationale, who is protecting us from inaccurate state propagated 'spin'?? The idea is outdated in any event given new channels via dissemination of info via internet.


Therefore, scrap the damned thing and either trim rte right down to the bare bones or wind it up. The irony...there were widescale protests in Greece when they closed down their public service broadcaster - no chance of them doing that here (closing rte down).

Sam Russell

makeorbrake wrote: »

The whole crux of it is - do we need a national broadcaster!? Montrose being insulated by provision of guaranteed revenue stream each year is not likely to be leading to value for money for the irish tax payer.

If we need a national broadcaster on the basis that there is a state hand in disseminating 'spin' rather than potentially have foreign owned interests push their own agendas, then can they not trim this down to a state owned news/current affairs channel or wholesale provider of news/current affairs content - making any independent broadcaster utilise a certain minimum percentage of such content.

If this is the rationale, who is protecting us from inaccurate state propagated 'spin'?? The idea is outdated in any event given new channels via dissemination of info via internet.


Therefore, scrap the damned thing and either trim rte right down to the bare bones or wind it up. The irony...there were widescale protests in Greece when they closed down their public service broadcaster - no chance of them doing that here (closing rte down).

Do you ever watch TV3? Xposed and the like?

makeorbrake

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do you ever watch TV3? Xposed and the like?

I'm not sure where this is going but no - I don't tend to. Having said that, I don't tend to watch a whole lot of rte either.

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

I'm not sure where this is going but no - I don't tend to. Having said that, I don't tend to watch a whole lot of rte either.

I think the problem still lies with funding. Often, and this is the case within RTÉ also, people view Radio and TV as a means of watching or listening to News and Current Affairs. Meanwhile largely speaking TV programming outside News have been reduced to a set of ads (Regardless of the TV channel, product placement).

People and again those TV executives in both RTÉ and TV3 seem to forget about other types of TV. Drama, Documentary (often Docs are Current Affairs in nature), Comedy and so on.

No matter how you distribute programming it is expensive to produce. And the question is how is it funded.

The TV3 experience isn't a good example of how a private company in a small country can produce TV, this is due in part to their own instance of 50% programming must be Irish, 12 hours of Irish TV on a tiny budget can't be good.

Sam Russell

^^^
Exactly. If you look at programmes that are made on the cheap, they are rubbish. A lot of programming (not just on Irish TV) has pursued making cheaper and cheaper programmes. Reality type programmes are cheap because the 'actors' are not paid, and it generally is not rehearsed. Quiz programmes are also cheap for much the same reason. Drama is ferociously expensive, and costume drama more so. Comedy is just not funny, because it needs loads of writers to wrtie the funny stuff and they are rare beasts.

Because of all this, we need RTE to bring a level of production values to programmes (because they have the budget) that sets a level that should be aspired to by all programme makres. They do not always succeed, particularly with comedy.

icdg

For what it's worth the proposed Bill for the Broadcasting Charge is still on the Government's legislative programme as of 17th September, albeit as one that had yet to go to cabinet and expected mid 2015. As I say I will be extremely surprised if it were to make it onto the statute book this side of the general election.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Glad it‘s looking likely to be put on the long finger.

munchkin_utd

Elmo wrote: »

I think Denmark or Sweden has an in car radio licence !!!

germany did too, and still effectively does for car radios in company cars.

but now that homes have multiple ways of recieving broadcasts/ public service content, it has a broadcasting charge on every household like is proposed in Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beitragsservice_von_ARD,_ZDF_und_Deutschlandradio

Since 2013, these fees must be paid by every household in Germany, regardless of whether the household actually has the capability to receive the broadcasts themselves.

The Cush

From the Indo today - Broadcast charge put on long finger until after poll

Sam Russell

The Cush wrote: »

From the Indo today - Broadcast charge put on long finger until after poll

What a surprise. It would need to have started by Jan 2014 to be less of a electoral liability.

Elmo

Sam Russell wrote: »

What a surprise. It would need to have started by Jan 2014 to be less of a electoral liability.

The easiest way to implement it would be to ditch the licence and put a charge on the telecoms companies, that they could pass on to their customers e.g. if the total is €200,000,000 per year to be collected ComReg charge the telecoms based on their market share e.g. if Eircom have a 40% share across phone, tv, broadband and mobile they pay €80,000,000, while UPC might have 20% share meaning they pay €40,000,000 and so on down the line. (percentages are off the top of my head and are not based on any actual figures, AKA examples).

I assume Sky Broadband and Phone is regulated in Ireland.

Sam Russell

Why not add it to VAT on telecoms and TV as Sky, UPC, Eircom, etc. all pay VAT in Ireland from Jan 2015. The amount to be raised would be the same as currently raised by the Licence, then the % required to raise that could be calculated.

The extra VAT would need to be ring-fenced, probably using razor wire.

icdg

It's a bit messy to do as some people don't get all their services from one provider and some don't take any at all (Saorview only homes in rural areas).

Elmo

icdg wrote: »

It's a bit messy to do as some people don't get all their services from one provider and some don't take any at all (Saorview only homes in rural areas).

That's why I am suggesting all telecoms companies not just TV. Anyway rural areas could point out that largely they haven't seen any of the digital dividend yet.

lertsnim

Elmo wrote: »

That's why I am suggesting all telecoms companies not just TV. Anyway rural areas could point out that largely they haven't seen any of the digital dividend yet.

What if you have more than one provider? For example Sky for TV and UPC for broadband. You pay the charge twice?

Elmo

lertsnim wrote: »

What if you have more than one provider? For example Sky for TV and UPC for broadband. You pay the charge twice?

No it's based on market share. So the larger the company market share the more they pay. It would be up to them how they charge customers.

ComReg would have to take into consideration the whole telecoms market including business customers, mobile, broadband, payTV, landlines, mobile broadband etc

So while you might have different providers they'd only charge you based on the service provided.

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

Anyway rural areas could point out that largely they haven't seen any of the digital dividend yet.

The tax is for the support of rte/tg4 - so digital divide doesn't come into it (given that everyone has access to them).



The issue is that not everyone is accessing/wants to access/wants to pay to access - so they're quite right to believe this is a political hot potato.


Whilst we may not like water charges, they are necessary - as it's an essential service that has to be paid for. Furthermore, taxing it will result in water conservation. It's a positive tax (...in principal...insofar as a tax can bee deemed to be positive).


A broadcasting tax is for a non essential service. Its one in which we are unlikely to see value for money. Why can't we do what the greeks did an shut the national broadcaster down!?

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

The tax is for the support of rte/tg4 - so digital divide doesn't come into it (given that everyone has access to them).

They had to invest in new equipment for largely the same service of RTÉ ONE, RTÉ2, TV3 and TG4 (yes clearly 3e, RTÉ NN and RTÉjr/RTÉ ONE +1 is 3 extra channel but are they really?).

Through the licence fee we all paid to free up spectrum for 4G, that was sold to 4 companies (now 3 companies), yet rural areas will be the last to see 4G.

The licence fee also supports Independent Producers and the BAI, and if the Oireachtas get their way OTV.

The issue is that not everyone is accessing/wants to access/wants to pay to access - so they're quite right to believe this is a political hot potato.

I don't particularly want a concert ocachstra but I still pay for it through the licence fee.

Whilst we may not like water charges, they are necessary - as it's an essential service that has to be paid for. Furthermore, taxing it will result in water conservation. It's a positive tax (...in principal...insofar as a tax can bee deemed to be positive).

It would be positive if there was a free amount of water rather than a standing charge. Water conservation will only work if you have a certain amount of free water (paid via direct taxes, rather than having that money pay back loans) and you can balance it so that you can avoid paying for it, seems to me that people will just use water as usual and incur extra costs. Water conservation is important but under the system it won't work.

A broadcasting tax is for a non essential service. Its one in which we are unlikely to see value for money. Why can't we do what the greeks did an shut the national broadcaster down!?

I believe they set up a new broadcaster which gets funding direct from the state and through electricity bills.

Anyway I am suggesting getting rid of the Licence Fee and placing a new tax on Telecoms. Also where do you think the 4G operators will pay for their licences? It looks to me like an extra tax on Mobile phone users.

The Cush

makeorbrake wrote: »

Why can't we do what the greeks did an shut the national broadcaster down!?

but they restarted it a few days later, now called NERIT (New Hellenic Radio, Internet and Television). They operate 3 TV and 3 radio channels and funding is via the electricity bill.

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

Through the licence fee we all paid to free up spectrum for 4G, that was sold to 4 companies (now 3 companies), yet rural areas will be the last to see 4G.

They upgraded to DVB-T standard. Freeing up spectrum was a bi-product of that - not saying that wasn't what they were aiming for but it's still a bi-product. It's going off point but 4G was always going to be rolled out in urban areas first - that's always the way with anything of that nature.

Elmo wrote: »

I don't particularly want a concert ocachstra but I still pay for it through the licence fee.

I take the point on-board. However, it wouldn't cost €160/year/household to fund the Concert orchestra. It's about value for money - and investing in Ryan Tubridy's salary is not value for money!

Elmo wrote:

Water conservation is important but under the system it won't work.

Again, I don't want to go too far into this as we are going off topic but if it's metered, then how can that not result in some level or consideration by the end user in terms of water usage as compared with no water tax at all (as in the system up until tomorrow morning)? I'm not going into the ins and outs of the specifics of the implementation of this water tax other than to say that by its very nature, it can only lead to some level of conservation and therefore, in that way there is a level of progression.

Elmo wrote:

Also where do you think the 4G operators will pay for their licences? It looks to me like an extra tax on Mobile phone users.

So what? The end user ultimately picks up the bill - this isn't news. The point is - they have a choice. I have not gone 4G yet because as it stands right now it doesn't represent value for money. When it does, then I'll upgrade. This is not a choice we have with this damned broadcasting tax. However, there's no reason why it couldn't be. i.e. if licensing/tax is scrapped and quality of programming goes downhill, people who are not satisfied can go pay tv route. Meanwhile, those who are not bothered or can't afford it are not forced to pay for something they don't see value for money in.

The Cush wrote:

but they restarted it a few days later, now called NERIT

The conservative-led government said ERT would reopen "as soon as possible" with a new, smaller workforce. It wasn't immediately clear how long that would take, and whether all stations would reopen.

After achieving savings - and therefore, more value for money. There's no reason why we couldn't take it a step further here and close the damned thing down!

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

They upgraded to DVB-T standard. Freeing up spectrum was a bi-product of that - not saying that wasn't what they were aiming for but it's still a bi-product. It's going off point but 4G was always going to be rolled out in urban areas first - that's always the way with anything of that nature.

It wasn't a bi-product it was a clear aim of the Digital Dividend. Why should you give a licence to role things out in Urban areas they have broadband from other providers. Give the licence out tell the holder of the licence you go rural first, and you'd see how quick they'd be to role out 4G to insure they get to Urban areas.

So what? The end user ultimately picks up the bill - this isn't news. The point is - they have a choice. I have not gone 4G yet because as it stands right now it doesn't represent value for money. When it does, then I'll upgrade. This is not a choice we have with this damned broadcasting tax. However, there's no reason why it couldn't be. i.e. if licensing/tax is scrapped and quality of programming goes downhill, people who are not satisfied can go pay tv route. Meanwhile, those who are not bothered or can't afford it are not forced to pay for something they don't see value for money in.

The money paid to the government for the spectrum/licence is just a tax on Mobile phones, the same as I am suggesting you put a tax on telecommunications in general, you have a choice not to use any telecommunications company.

After achieving savings - and therefore, more value for money. There's no reason why we couldn't take it a step further here and close the damned thing down!

I agree cost savings and new services could be achieved by re-organising public service broadcasting, the Greek's way was a bit hand fisted but as time as gone on here we prob need something to change.

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

It wasn't a bi-product it was a clear aim of the Digital Dividend.

Look, the primary objective was the roll out of dvb-t - that's what public money was used for. Don't start bringing in 4G in a discussion where it has no place.

Elmo wrote: »

Why should you give a licence to role things out in Urban areas they have broadband from other providers.

Because there was - and there very much still is an ongoing budget deficit and this money was contributing towards closing that - something I have no issue with.

Elmo wrote: »

Give the licence out tell the holder of the licence you go rural first, and you'd see how quick they'd be to role out 4G to insure they get to Urban areas.

What such service or utility EVER started off with rural first? Electricity, telecoms network, water, sewerage, etc., etc. (and can we please drop this as its not related to this discussion).

elmo wrote:

The money paid to the government for the spectrum/licence is just a tax on Mobile phones, the same as I am suggesting you put a tax on telecommunications in general, you have a choice not to use any telecommunications company.

There's a fundamental difference. Broadband is now an ESSENTIAL service - it's a utility - needed for business, education, etc, etc. The tube is outdated and it's largely dumb! It's not essential. Notwithstanding that, the network to deliver it is fully developed already - there's no further cost involved in that respect - as there is with the various telecoms infrastructures i.e. 4G, fibre, etc. Furthermore, people have the option of paying for telecoms if they so choose. They should have the very same right with television. That's the fundamental difference.

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

Look, the primary objective was the roll out of dvb-t - that's what public money was used for. Don't start bringing in 4G in a discussion where it has no place.
Because there was - and there very much still is an ongoing budget deficit and this money was contributing towards closing that - something I have no issue with.

Why role out DVB-T?

Who paid for that role out and where did the money come from?

What such service or utility EVER started off with rural first? Electricity, telecoms network, water, sewerage, etc., etc. (and can we please drop this as its not related to this discussion).

I believe it is because largely speaking rural dwellers had to spend money on upgrading their TV equipment for DVB-T and it is they that have been starved of good broadband. Surely they should get the benefit of the digital dividend before others? And what harm would it be to a telecom to start in the west and move east?

Just because something didn't happen in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the present or in the future. Most utilities have been role out by the government not by private interest, cable TV and mobile are possibly two exceptions to that rule, and as far as I know cable TV is not a designated utility and even then one of the largest company was own by public bodies. (Cablelink).

There's a fundamental difference. Broadband is now an ESSENTIAL service - it's a utility - needed for business, education, etc, etc. The tube is outdated and it's largely dumb! It's not essential. Notwithstanding that, the network to deliver it is fully developed already - there's no further cost involved in that respect - as there is with the various telecoms infrastructures i.e. 4G, fibre, etc. Furthermore, people have the option of paying for telecoms if they so choose. They should have the very same right with television. That's the fundamental difference.

I agree so it needs to be role out to all areas and possibly the areas that would have most need in an era where their TV signal could be gone in the morning, what do they do then? Go into the dark ages while the Urban areas race a head?

makeorbrake

@Elmo: Discussion of urban/rural divide with regard to television is going off on a totally different direction. Discussion for another day or another thread.

Bottom line - broadcasting tax is only equitable if people have a choice. Rolling it up with telecoms is not equitable.

BoJack Horseman

One day..... One day we may have a politician with the grapes to scrap it all together.

Let RTE look after itself & the world will keep turning.

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

@Elmo: Discussion of urban/rural divide with regard to television is going off on a totally different direction. Discussion for another day or another thread.

Bottom line - broadcasting tax is only equitable if people have a choice. Rolling it up with telecoms is not equitable.

No one has a choice about tax therefore tax is not equitable!

Most people see the licence fee as News and Current Affairs, I don't. I don't think the RTÉ do the best or the worst job of using the money. As I suggested I don't think it should ever have been called a TV Licence or now The Broadcast levy/fee/tax. No reason why the licence fee can be spent on programming for a Web audience. But while there is that great Urban/Rural divide most Video works will have to broadcast on traditional TV.

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

No one has a choice about tax therefore tax is not equitable!

Christ on a bike - it's as if you keep baiting me to discuss anything BUT the subject of this thread i.e. the broadcasting tax!
The point is that people can have it covered by general taxation, have it covered by a broadcasting tax or let it fend for itself. You wouldn't have it supported by either of the first two without good reason - and my view is that there isn't good enough reason for people to shoulder the expense of this (and with that, something that doesn't deliver value for money in any event).

Elmo wrote: »

No reason why the licence fee can be spent on programming for a Web audience. But while there is that great Urban/Rural divide most Video works will have to broadcast on traditional TV.

Would you give up on the confounded urban rural divide already!
DVB-T is superior to any other delivery method in Ireland right now so what the hell is anyone missing out on? We are still talking about television aren't we?

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

Would you give up on the confounded urban rural divide already!
DVB-T is superior to any other delivery method in Ireland right now so what the hell is anyone missing out on? We are still talking about television aren't we?

Why cann't a discussion dwell on the an issue that is part of the over all aspect of DSO, the digital dividend and the provision of the digital dividend.

Better reception is just one of the digital dividends. All people got from the Digital Dividend was better reception, particularly those who where most likely to have to switch. What was the point? It was just an expense IMO for as you point out a redundant medium. Many just got what they had before, nothing much changed, bar a better picture.

We are talking about so called "broadcasting tax" but as I said a badly named tax. Why not call it the "culture tax"?