TV licence requirement

Yorky

I haven't watched TV in nearly a year so I'm not going to renew the licence which is now due.

The dilemma I have is the TV is thirty years old- I bought it new- so I'd like to hang on to it and store it in the loft. Is this permitted?

If not, would the TV have any monetary value ? (it's a Panasonic 21" FST TX-C22 i still have the manual )

magicmushroom

Technically you're supposed to have the license just to own a set, regardless of if its being used.
However, if an inspector calls and can see no evidence of a set then they can hardly fine you.

If you're honestly not watching it at all and will be in the loft, I wouldn't pay.

Yorky

Thanks! Any idea about a selling price if I did decide?

magicmushroom

Yorky wrote: »

Thanks! Any idea about a selling price if I did decide?

Not a clue! sorry

Kirby

A thirty year old tv? Unless it is some sort of super rare tv I'd wager its value is nothing.

Atlantic Dawn

Yorky wrote: »

Thanks! Any idea about a selling price if I did decide?

Contact the national history museum.

KOR101

Make sure your house has no aerial or TV cabling as that is enough to mean you must pay.

brian_t

Yorky wrote: »

If not, would the TV have any monetary value ? (it's a Panasonic 21" FST TX-C22 i still have the manual )

Do you still have the original box and packing.

rubadub

KOR101 wrote: »

Make sure your house has no aerial or TV cabling as that is enough to mean you must pay.

There is no mention of this in the law.

CRTs are virtually worthless these days unfortunately; in fact, people are paying to get them taken away. I recently picked up a 28" Sanyo for €30 delivered and that only dates from 2003. If you check adverts.ie, you'll probably find some for free if you were willing to take it away yourself.

So you probably wouldn't get much, if anything, for it unless it was a rare model.

Bongalongherb

Just dump it in a skip or bring it to the recycling place. It was the best thing I ever done throwing mine in a skip years ago and haven't looked back.

No more brainwashing adverts.

KOR101

rubadub wrote: »

There is no mention of this in the law.

Are you sure? Pretty sure it says TV equipment or something like that. I had to pay because of UPC cabling.

Bongalongherb

KOR101 wrote: »

Are you sure? Pretty sure it says TV equipment or something like that. I had to pay because of UPC cabling.

It's not a cable license, it's specifically for the ownership of the TV electronically.

The license to own and use a TV-set only. Just because UPC have a cable going through your property, doesn't mean you actually physically have a TV-set. They can do nothing if you do not have a TV.

Well it won't matter soon after the elections when the new broadcasting charge comes in. Every-one will have to pay it.

The flaw regarding this TV license scenario is the fact that a TV-set is only a receiver - not a transmitter. If the TV-set was a transmitter using a frequency then I can understand the need to pay for a license to transmit as to pay to use a designated frequency, but it's just a receiver and no-one should ever have had to pay for a license in the first place imo.

AnonoBoy

You might offload the TV to a student film course.

Students love smashing old TVs in films.

I don't think anyone would pay for it though.

KOR101

Bongalongherb wrote: »

It's not a cable license, it's specifically for the ownership of the TV electronically.

The license to own and use a TV-set only. Just because UPC have a cable going through your property, doesn't mean you actually physically have a TV-set. They can do nothing if you do not have a TV.

Well it won't matter soon after the elections when the new broadcasting charge comes in. Every-one will have to pay it.

The flaw regarding this TV license scenario is the fact that a TV-set is only a receiver - not a transmitter. If the TV-set was a transmitter using a frequency then I can understand the need to pay for a license to transmit as to pay to use a designated frequency, but it's just a receiver and no-one should ever have had to pay for a license in the first place imo.

Okay a big retraction.

I see the definition...

“ television set ” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;

For Reals

KOR101 wrote: »

Okay a big retraction.

I see the definition...

“ television set ” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;

The communications bill seems dead but I reckon they'll expand it piece by piece.

"and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus"

Cell phone, laptop?

Sure it's all worth it to keep Lottie Ryan in face slap and damn it, any other Ryan who chooses a career in broadcasting!

Bongalongherb

For Reals wrote: »

The communications bill seems dead but I reckon they'll expand it piece by piece.

"and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus"

Cell phone, laptop?

Sure it's all worth it to keep Lottie Ryan in face slap and damn it, any other Ryan who chooses a career in broadcasting!

The communications bill was put on hold because of the 'Irish Water' problem. They didn't want to forward this bill just yet as it would cause more problems for government, so they will be waiting till elections are over and then bring it in fast.

zarquon

Yorky wrote: »

Thanks! Any idea about a selling price if I did decide?

Are you taking the mick? A thirty year old 21'' CRT! You'd probably have to pay someone to take it away. You have no chance of selling it, you might get lucky by someone taking it off your hands for free.

rubadub

KOR101 wrote: »

Are you sure? Pretty sure it says TV equipment or something like that. I had to pay because of UPC cabling.

Cabling probably gives them more of a reason to question you, and harder for you to try and deny it. If you had UPC cabling and no tvs you should have been fine, was this the case?

I have a commercial plasma TV with no tuner in it, so its exempt, its basically a 42" monitor. However I have it hooked up to a dvd recorder which has a tv tuner in it, in which case I do have to pay, even if I only watch dvds on it. This is why they use wording like apparatus.

I know a guy with a holiday who got a tunerless tv and only watches dvds on it, he did this just to avoid the tv licence.

Bongalongherb

The adverts and TV shows spurting out through the airwaves and internet streams from RTE are almost akin to the radiation released from an atom bomb, of which causes severe damage to the human body, and we have to pay for this insanity.