re-run it up the flag pole... public service broadcasting charge.

PabloAndRoy

from:https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1128/923283-tv_licence/

The Oireachtas Communications Committee has urged the Government to widen the funding regime for public service broadcasting, to include homes which do not have a television set.

Such a regime would involve the introduction of a public service broadcasting charge which would not be "device dependent".

Will this be a runner this time around?

What is the fairest way to do it?

Is "I don't have a TV and never watch RTE" a valid argument to not pay a fee?

Elmo

PabloAndRoy wrote: »

from:https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1128/923283-tv_licence/



Will this be a runner this time around?

What is the fairest way to do it?

Is "I don't have a TV and never watch RTE" a valid argument to not pay a fee?

It is daft after all of the work done that they return to exactly the same suggestion that each successive minister has come to and that is a household charge, this time however to be collected by revenue rather than an outside company, by the way very badly handeled by An Post management.

Firstly, we have an election to get through, even if Minister Naughten is still in power in June because of all they waffle he wont be in a position to implement 2 recommendations, 1. A Household Public Service Media Charge AKA the Broadcasting Charge, 2. index link the charge AKA increase the charge.

The report is very light it really covers nothing and its only intention is to raise funding it does not suggest what RTÉ, the BAI, TG4 or Independent Broadcasters should do with the funding that they might receive, save for any extra funding should be directed toward Indo producers (some that automatically happen if An Post cut down on evasion rates). And perhaps saving local newspapers (why?) and investing in community media, largely speaking news services, only reason to give politicians a voice, no word on Drama, Children's, Entertainment, Music and so on.

I remember the last time they looked at this, it was suggested that any future tax could be lower than the current licence fee due to reduced evasion. And now they want to increase it?

Schorpio

It's balls really. It essentially gives you no way of opting out from paying into RTE coffers - even if you don't consume their media in any way shape or form.

They may as well start calling it what it is - an internet tax. A tax on the ability to access the RTE player. Whether you actually go or not, is irrelevant.

Charging Sky/Virgin for carriage on the other hand - about bloody time.

TheBigEvil

So officially make it a Tax, by giving it to the Revenue. Fail to pay it and you're looking at a heft fine I presume. And increase it to €175 and link it to inflation with increases every 2 years. It's a joke really. People want to choose what they watch and where/how they watch it. Majority of it will just go to pay ridiculous wages for the likes of Tubbs, Dobbo and Duffs.

RTE have a revenue stream from their advertising on both TV and radio, why can't that fund them? They need to have more realistic wages for people who just read a f*cking teleprompter on TV or script on radio, not €250k+

Anyhoo.... so are there any jobs going there I wonder???

political analyst

Why is there no provision for an exemption for those who can prove they have no TV and no broadband? If people are forced to pay a licence fee even though they have no TV and no internet access of any kind then it's possible that it would be a violation of the constitutional right of free association.

endacl

political analyst wrote: »

If people are forced to pay a licence fee even though they have no TV and no internet access of any kind then it's possible that it would be a violation of the constitutional right of free association.

I may regret asking...

How?

Charles Babbage

This is all nonsense. Add it to the property tax, less €10 since you'll actually be able to collect it easily. Problem solved.
And no nonsense about not having a TV, not everyone uses every public service.
Then establish a clear basis for what the money is used for, which might include non RTÉ services, funding Saorview signals in areas where the signal is poor etc.

political analyst

endacl wrote: »

I may regret asking...

How?

Having to pay a licence fee even though you don't have a TV or internet access might be comparable to being forced to join a union, which would involved paying a membership fee (Meskell v CIE - 1973).

Charles Babbage

political analyst wrote: »

Having to pay a licence fee even though you don't have a TV or internet access might be comparable to being forced to join a union, which would involved paying a membership fee (Meskell v CIE - 1973).

Don't call it a licence fee then.

K.Flyer

If you don't own a car and never intend to own a car or drive, and you prefer taking public transport...
Should you be Made to obtain a driving licence, just in case you might ever want to change your mind?

endacl

political analyst wrote: »

Having to pay a licence fee even though you don't have a TV or internet access might be comparable to being forced to join a union, which would involved paying a membership fee (Meskell v CIE - 1973).

The following is best imagined in a David Mitchell voice:

Only if you were in the habit of seeking phenomenally tenuous links between things that are not otherwise linked in any way whatsoever? Nobody's being forced to 'join' RTÉ.

It might be compared to lots of things that it's not in the least bit comparable to, but the comparisons would be pointless, as they would not be comparable.

endacl

K.Flyer wrote: »

If you don't own a car and never intend to own a car or drive, and you prefer taking public transport...
Should you be Made to obtain a driving licence, just in case you might ever want to change your mind?

No. Of course not. That would be silly.

K.Flyer

endacl wrote: »

No. Of course not. That would be silly.

So is their proposed public service broadcasting charge that would not be "device dependent".
In other words, they want to charge everyone, or every household, this charge based on the notion that you may have or may not have a device that can view some type of content.

Schorpio

I don't agree with the comparisons which are being made to the UK model.

True, the license fee in the UK was expanded to 'catch-up' programming on the iPlayer. However, that does not mean that you are automatically liable for the fee just because you have a PC/tablet/phone etc. Upon navigating to the iPlayer, you are asked whether you have a valid TV license before you are allowed to continue.

If the government want to peddle that here, then by all means implement a similar system. But don't tell me that simply having an internet connection makes a household liable for the fee - I doubt there's a single household in Ireland which doesn't have either internet access or a television. If that's the case, call it what it is, a tax.

PabloAndRoy

My own view is as follows:

1. Public Service Broadcasting are a great band is a good thing and I believe that the concept serves a common good.

2. I have no issue paying a fee(tax, charge whatever...) for the provision of PSB.

3. Provide some transparency and more importantly quality control around how these funds are used in delivering a well defined public service broadcasting need.

The whole thing of "why should I pay if i don't use it" is in my opinion not a valid argument. I don't visit the National Gallery very often, but I believe it is good and proper that the State support that institution for the good of the nation.

Similarly with more mundane public services, I don't access them all every year but my taxes fund them. As a citizen I am entitled to access to those services should I need them. I see public service broadcasting in a similar light.

...that is my 16,000 cents worth.

icdg

Look, I don’t think the reasons that it wasn’t brought in the first (or second) time it was proposed have changed in any way. There’s absolutely no appetite for this or any other reform of the licence fee. None at all.

Schorpio

In fairness, good point well made. I hadn't thought about it like that.

However, it does reinforce the need to call it a tax then. A fee is something you pay to avail of a service. Whereas a tax is something you pay irrespectively.

I also think there should be some regulation covering the volume of advertising on RTE - particularly if they stand to gain more though a reduction in license fee evasion, and the introduction of the carrier charge. I listen to 'Morning Ireland' on occasion, and the amount of ad breaks is ridiculous. Not only that, but segments of the show are sponsored - such as the weather, sports news, etc. I feel that shouldn't be allowed on a PSB. But hey, possibly the talk for a different thread.

endacl

K.Flyer wrote: »

So is their proposed public service broadcasting charge that would not be "device dependent".
In other words, they want to charge everyone, or every household, this charge based on the notion that you may have or may not have a device that can view some type of content.

Just for clarity, I don't really have a strong opinion on way or the other on this. I was simply pointing out the inappropriate comparison.

Elmo

icdg wrote: »

Look, I don’t think the reasons that it wasn’t brought in the first (or second) time it was proposed have changed in any way. There’s absolutely no appetite for this or any other reform of the licence fee. None at all.

I do think there is an appetite for reform but its not just the collection method for the funding of PSB/PSM nor its name.

I agree with PabloandRoy.

RTÉ, TG4 and the BAI must become more transparent and cost effecient. We all give out about RTÉ but forget that both the BAI and TG4 reveive Licence fee revenue. Indeed An Post play a role in collection have they improved collection rates, should questions be asked as to why collection rates have not improved, are they lacking resources to collect the fee, how much does An Post spend collecting the fee versu what they make from the collection. As for the BAI Why does it insist on giving funding to eir a subscription based services that is only available to 50% of the pop at most.

Elmo

Schorpio wrote: »

In fairness, good point well made. I hadn't thought about it like that.

However, it does reinforce the need to call it a tax then. A fee is something you pay to avail of a service. Whereas a tax is something you pay irrespectively.

I also think there should be some regulation covering the volume of advertising on RTE - particularly if they stand to gain more though a reduction in license fee evasion, and the introduction of the carrier charge. I listen to 'Morning Ireland' on occasion, and the amount of ad breaks is ridiculous. Not only that, but segments of the show are sponsored - such as the weather, sports news, etc. I feel that shouldn't be allowed on a PSB. But hey, possibly the talk for a different thread.

It is know as the TV licence fee, if you don't have a TV you don't pay, hence its is not a tax at the most fundamental level, though I understand what you are saying.

RTÉ and TG4 can only sell 6mins on average per hour, and 9mins max per hour. TV3 can sell 12mins every hour while Indo Radio can sell average of 9mins and max of 12mins per hour. Sponsorship of news and current affairs is not allowed on TV, but bizarrely allowed on Radio. IBI lobbied heavily against bring the rule to Radio. Also remember RTÉ are not allowed avertise on either RTÉjr or News Now, while they do not carry advertising on RnaG or their digital radio services.

Schorpio

Elmo wrote: »

It is know as the TV licence fee, if you don't have a TV you don't pay, hence its is not a tax at the most fundamental level, though I understand what you are saying.

RTand TG4 can only sell 6mins on average per hour, and 9mins max per hour. TV3 can sell 12mins every hour while Indo Radio can sell average of 9mins and max of 12mins per hour. Sponsorship of news and current affairs is not allowed on TV, but bizarrely allowed on Radio. IBI lobbied heavily against bring the rule to Radio. Also remember RTare not allowed avertise on either RTr or News Now, while they do not carry advertising on RnaG or their digital radio services.

Hey Elmo, just for clarity - I wasn't saying that we should call the fee a tax in it's current form, I was referring to the anticipated change whereby you would likely be charged just by having an internet-capable device i.e. paying for the ability to access RTE online, irrespective of whether you do so or not. The charge at the moment is definitely a fee, not a tax.

I'm a big fan of News Now, RTE Gold etc. where ads are not allowed. The way it should be. Bizarre that the news rule isn't applicable to radio - never knew that. I also wonder whether the sponsored segments contribute to the 9 mins per hour (the traffic news is brought to you by.... etc.). 9 mins in itself doesn't sound like a lot, but it is actually 15% of the hour, so more that you might think!

Elmo

Schorpio wrote: »

I'm a big fan of News Now, RTE Gold etc. where ads are not allowed. The way it should be. Bizarre that the news rule isn't applicable to radio - never knew that. I also wonder whether the sponsored segments contribute to the 9 mins per hour (the traffic news is brought to you by.... etc.). 9 mins in itself doesn't sound like a lot, but it is actually 15% of the hour, so more that you might think!

Real issue with News Now is that it does very little. To me news now is RTÉ saying we can't afford this so we aren't going to put any real effort into providing a proper schedule. We have spoke about his before on Boards but lets face it RTÉ could provide the following prime time schedule on News Now and make it 10 times better.

5:30 Nuacht
6 six one news
7 repeat of Current Affairs shows, TWIP, PT, LQ, Claire Byrne
8 repeat of RTÉ2 sports analysis shows Against the Head, Sporting Moments, Sunday Game, Soccer Republic
9 Nine News
9:30 As RTÉ ONE CA shows
10 selection of reports from the above shows over the hour
11 RTÉ2 News on 2/Oireachtas Report (yes RTÉ should provide news on RTÉ 2 of some kind)
11:30 Nuacht TG4

As for RTÉ Gold listen to morning show, why not use news headlines from Radio 1 or 2FM? They use the presenters to read the news.

IBI lobbied heavily to retain News and CA sponsorship on Radio, there was a point where the BAI were going to ban it across the board. AFAIK Sponsorship is in addition to Advertising minutes, I don't know. However a TV/Radio promo is not considered as part of the 9/12 mins.

Allot less than 20% considering TV3 make up a good proportion of TV viewing. Weather we like ads or not RTÉ have other obligations that other Broadcasters do not have along with having fewer adverts. I'd like to see RTÉ return to no ad breaks during half hour shows.

Also RTÉ could start selling ads on their Digital Radio stations.

Harry Palmr

Why are people determined to make a simple thing complicated? Just add it to the electric or Property Tax and with the savings made freeze the data fee for the next 5 years.

STB.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Why are people determined to make a simple thing complicated? Just add it to the electric or Property Tax and with the savings made freeze the data fee for the next 5 years.

1. Electricity. But what about the poor people on social welfare etc.

2. Property tax. Landlords are not necessarily viewers at the property.

They do 1 in Greece as they are worse at trying to dodge any tax than us. In France they have a living tax whereby bits and pieces go to various services. Its compulsory.

Harry Palmr

Poor people pay the TV licence (or should).

Only the elderly regardless of income get freebies. people below a certain income get the winter fuel allowance (€607.50).

Property tax if it were used would simply mean rentals would be a few euro a week higher than is the case.

STB.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Poor people pay the TV licence (or should).

Only the elderly regardless of income get freebies. people below a certain income get the winter fuel allowance (€607.50).

Property tax if it were used would simply mean rentals would be a few euro a week higher than is the case.

I have heard the arguement that those unemployed possibly watch more tv than those at work alright. Many have Sky !!

Anyhoo. The poor people argument is all fine, but when push comes to shove, these decisions are political.

The property tax route would be legally challenged. Landlords are not responsible for the entertainment of their tenants. The same way they are responsible for paying other utility bills.

Elmo

It should be placed on the Telecommunication operators. A basic 6.6% of their revenue should go toward the licence fee, perferably not passed to their customers and applied by the Regulators, ComReg, CPCC and the BAI, the BAI distribute the fund.

Or if it does go on to mobile phone, broadband bills then a 6.6% that everyone pays depending on their usage and contract. e.g. of your 20 euro top up 1.32 goes to the fund, on a year basis 15.84.

Business cannot claim it back, only older people by registering with the DSW.