Dee Forbes banging the RTE TV licence drum again 60m uncollected fee *poll not working - pl ignore*

Harry Palmr

I wonder how much Olympic coverage they have in the vaults. We could thrill to Michelle's triple gold and Eamon Coughlan finishing 4th in Moscow.

ButtersSuki

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I wonder how much Olympic coverage they have in the vaults. We could thrill to Michelle's triple gold and Eamon Coughlan finishing 4th in Moscow.

Not the best example really is it?

Nevin Parsnipp

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Not the best example really is it?

We could watch while sippin a thimble o Bushmills ?

Harry Palmr

I'm just being mean. Showing the boxing would be the best thing, something Ireland has done very well in and without much controversy (in the ring)

elperello

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I nominate the 1998 Belgian GP.

I second that.
Hosted by EJ

AndyBoBandy

They should definitely show the 1994 Eurovision in full on the night this years Eurovision was supposed to take place.

Rock n Roll Kids
Riverdance

Hook it up to my veins...


Then if they wanted, on the Tuesday & Thursday before (the semi finals nights), they could show the 1993 & 1996 shows.

We win them all

garrettod

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Seriously!! bit of cop on now


These people will have contracts. They will continue to get paid like a huge percentage of the population.



Yes people are been let go, people are been put on social welfare, this is terrible but it is not the case for everyone. Trying to bash RTE for having contracts with people at a time like this is stupid and childish.

While I take your point about employment contracts, continuing to pay excessive sums to individuals, though a loss making organisation that relies on the people of the state to fund it, while hundreds of thousands of others are experiencing true financial hardship caused by job losses or significant pay cuts, and the nation has to further increase its already significant level of debt, simply cannot be ignored.. or tolerated!

Why should RTE be wrapped up in cotton wool, while any comparable entity in the private sector would either have to make serious cutbacks, or else go bust?

You've called on someone else here to show a bit of cop on, so can we now please ask the same if you?

Shefwedfan

garrettod wrote: »

While I take your point about employment contracts, continuing to pay excessive sums to individuals, though a loss making organisation that relies on the people of the state to fund it, while hundreds of thousands of others are experiencing financial hardship, and the nation has to further increase its already significant level of debt, simply cannot be ignored.. or tolerated!

Who is ignoring it?

I said they should reduce wages in line with reduced advertisement

I doubt any of the sports people on news are on hugely excessive wages? Unless I could be told otherwise

The problem is with RTÉ from top down it’s fun badly, picking on one group and not looking at the total problem is not really going to answer the problem

They should be dumping 2fm and all the people in that, not going after about 4-5 people

RabbleRouser2k

Gonna be interesting (ie depressing) times ahead in light of the announcement that we're heading into another recession.

RTE have a bias against anyone that isn't Fianna Fail, so we'll see how they cover this upcoming crisis.

sligojoek

garrettod wrote: »

While I take your point about employment contracts, continuing to pay excessive sums to individuals, though a loss making organisation that relies on the people of the state to fund it, while hundreds of thousands of others are experiencing true financial hardship caused by job losses or significant pay cuts, and the nation has to further increase its already significant level of debt, simply cannot be ignored.. or tolerated!

Why should RTE be wrapped up in cotton wool, while any comparable entity in the private sector would either have to make serious cutbacks, or else go bust?

You've called on someone else here to show a bit of cop on, so can we now please ask the same if you?

Well put.

RTE's advertising revenue is virtually zilch right now so they can't say the 'talent' is bringing in revenue any more.

garrettod

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Who is ignoring it?

I said they should reduce wages in line with reduced advertisement...

That's no where near enough, when your dealing with a company that's running at a loss.

Let's say that we agree in principal about selling 2FM. I would immediately do the same with RTE 2, and probably a couple more of the radio stations. With the relevant staff either transferring to new private ownership, or being made redundant.

Do you know that the percentage split is in RTE's revenue between say : the licence fee, commercial advertising and other sources of income? I'm asking in a general context here, ideally looking for averages over say the least 3 years, rather than just what it might be you'd month, for example.

Ask yourself, if we sell off RTE2, 2FM etc then how does that split change, going forward? In broad terms, would you agree that advertising reduces, while the licence fee remains roughly the same?

So, should the licence fee then be reduced, or should the "right sized" RTE then get the benefit of the same level of licence fee income, to spend as it see's fit?

How can we be sales to have confidence in the current leadership and management in RTE, to spend that money wisely in the future, given what we've seen from them to date - particularly with regards to pay, and thereafter with regards to them giving their friends assignments any time they feel like it, regardless of how poor quality the resulting broadcast may turn out?

garrettod

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

... RTE have a bias against anyone that isn't Fianna Fail, so we'll see how they cover this upcoming crisis.

I would actually go a step further and say that RTE have a bias against anyone that hasn't worked in RTE. :rolleyes:

RabbleRouser2k

garrettod wrote: »

I would actually go a step further and say that RTE have a bias against anyone that hasn't worked in RTE. :rolleyes:

I'd partially agree on that. They tend to be none too kind to former employees.

I remember they never really spoke to Tony Fenton once he left RTE. His death barely even got a mention on the news at the time.

Shefwedfan

sligojoek wrote: »

Well put.

RTE's advertising revenue is virtually zilch right now so they can't say the 'talent' is bringing in revenue any more.

Is it? Did they announce this?

sligojoek

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Is it? Did they announce this?

Have you listened to the radio in the last week? The only 'ads' are for other RTE shows or government public announcements.

sligojoek

First break in the News at One.

TV licence
Government Covid 19 announcement.
Liveline

RabbleRouser2k

sligojoek wrote: »

Have you listened to the radio in the last week? The only 'ads' are for other RTE shows or government public announcements.

I don't buy it, but I noticed the RTE guide was also significantly reduced in the number of pages it had.
Saw a copy while getting groceries for the week, and the Covid 19 pamphlet had almost more pages.

flanna01

Television License should be abolished, it's outdated, and no longer relevant in todays society...

Back in the day, shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs, RTE was television, there was no other choice, and the programs had to be paid for, obviously by the viewing / listening public...

Fast forward to modern civilisation, and we no longer depend on what RTE has to offer, with the majority of the watching public choosing what they want to watch, and paying for it independently too.. (Sky / Virgin / TV Box)

Like many others, I subscribe to Sky, I pick out what I want to view and pay for it accordingly (Too much in my opinion, but that's for another thread).

So why should I be made pay for the service that RTE provide? I neither watch, want it, or use it.... But I am threatened with a conviction, my name splashed across the local papers, and an additional fine if I do not pay up for a TV License...???

RTE has no bearing in my life what so ever... Why should I pay for the directors wages???

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee guys, times have changed!

sligojoek

2nd break

Government announcement Covid 19

An Post Covid 19

flanna01

flanna01 wrote: »

Television License should be abolished, it's outdated, and no longer relevant in todays society...

Back in the day, shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs, RTE was television, there was no other choice, and the programs had to be paid for, obviously by the viewing / listening public...

Fast forward to modern civilisation, and we no longer depend on what RTE has to offer, with the majority of the watching public choosing what they want to watch, and paying for it independently too.. (Sky / Virgin / TV Box)

Like many others, I subscribe to Sky, I pick out what I want to view and pay for it accordingly (Too much in my opinion, but that's for another thread).

So why should I be made pay for the service that RTE provide? I neither watch, want it, or use it.... But I am threatened with a conviction, my name splashed across the local papers, and an additional fine if I do not pay up for a TV License...???

RTE has no bearing in my life what so ever... Why should I pay for the directors wages???

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee guys, times have changed!

Not just Sky, but there are homes all around the country where the television is used solely for NetFlix. 6.99 a month.

My sky went down during one of the big storms recently and I had zero terrestrial TV. Could not get RTE because I don't have a saorview box.

I'm honestly waiting for someone to legally challenge the law. A regular TV can no-longer access RTE without additional equipment.

fritzelly

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm honestly waiting for someone to legally challenge the law. A regular TV can no-longer access RTE without additional equipment.

How old is your tv

elperello

flanna01 wrote: »

Television License should be abolished, it's outdated, and no longer relevant in todays society...

Back in the day, shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs, RTE was television, there was no other choice, and the programs had to be paid for, obviously by the viewing / listening public...

Fast forward to modern civilisation, and we no longer depend on what RTE has to offer, with the majority of the watching public choosing what they want to watch, and paying for it independently too.. (Sky / Virgin / TV Box)

Like many others, I subscribe to Sky, I pick out what I want to view and pay for it accordingly (Too much in my opinion, but that's for another thread).

So why should I be made pay for the service that RTE provide? I neither watch, want it, or use it.... But I am threatened with a conviction, my name splashed across the local papers, and an additional fine if I do not pay up for a TV License...???

RTE has no bearing in my life what so ever... Why should I pay for the directors wages???

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee guys, times have changed!

I agree that the licence is outdated and should be abolished.

However I do support Public Broadcasting and I have said several times on this thread that I would prefer it to be funded from direct taxation.

That way everyone pays and there are no collection costs or need to chase after evaders.

You would still end up paying for something you don't use but that applies to a lot of things funded from taxation.

end of the road

garrettod wrote: »

That's no where near enough, when your dealing with a company that's running at a loss.

Let's say that we agree in principal about selling 2FM. I would immediately do the same with RTE 2, and probably a couple more of the radio stations. With the relevant staff either transferring to new private ownership, or being made redundant.

Do you know that the percentage split is in RTE's revenue between say : the licence fee, commercial advertising and other sources of income? I'm asking in a general context here, ideally looking for averages over say the least 3 years, rather than just what it might be you'd month, for example.

Ask yourself, if we sell off RTE2, 2FM etc then how does that split change, going forward? In broad terms, would you agree that advertising reduces, while the licence fee remains roughly the same?

So, should the licence fee then be reduced, or should the "right sized" RTE then get the benefit of the same level of licence fee income, to spend as it see's fit?

How can we be sales to have confidence in the current leadership and management in RTE, to spend that money wisely in the future, given what we've seen from them to date - particularly with regards to pay, and thereafter with regards to them giving their friends assignments any time they feel like it, regardless of how poor quality the resulting broadcast may turn out?

whatever about 2fm, and i would expect that would be extreme luck if anyone bought it, there is no hope of anyone buying the others, at least not without turning them into a cloan of the already existing stuff which isn't exactly setting the world alight. and that is assuming that any objections to the change away from the public service content wouldn't be upheld, which it is likely they would be upheld and for good reason.
i would expect there are a whole load of other things that would have to be gone through also, so i would expect any sales would not be anywhere near as simple as the few who want them would like.

flanna01 wrote: »

Television License should be abolished, it's outdated, and no longer relevant in todays society...

Back in the day, shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs, RTE was television, there was no other choice, and the programs had to be paid for, obviously by the viewing / listening public...

Fast forward to modern civilisation, and we no longer depend on what RTE has to offer, with the majority of the watching public choosing what they want to watch, and paying for it independently too.. (Sky / Virgin / TV Box)

Like many others, I subscribe to Sky, I pick out what I want to view and pay for it accordingly (Too much in my opinion, but that's for another thread).

So why should I be made pay for the service that RTE provide? I neither watch, want it, or use it.... But I am threatened with a conviction, my name splashed across the local papers, and an additional fine if I do not pay up for a TV License...???

RTE has no bearing in my life what so ever... Why should I pay for the directors wages???

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee guys, times have changed!

the funding from the tv license goes to rte to provide the news and current affairs output which is needed to insure we do not end up with particular media organisations becoming the main stay of our news which would be bad for plurality, times have changed means that we need rte's current affairs and news output more then ever.
directors and all other staff working in any company have to be paid for unless they all decide to work for free.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not just Sky, but there are homes all around the country where the television is used solely for NetFlix. 6.99 a month.

My sky went down during one of the big storms recently and I had zero terrestrial TV. Could not get RTE because I don't have a saorview box.

I'm honestly waiting for someone to legally challenge the law. A regular TV can no-longer access RTE without additional equipment.

it never really could unless you had one of the small television with a built in arial, if not then you had the rabbit ears on top of the television, or an external arial on the roof, both of which would technically be extra equipment.
now days televisions come with saorview boxes built in.
so i expect any challenge to the law on that basis would fail, all though i'm no legal expert.

Elmo

end of the road wrote: »

whatever about 2fm, and i would expect that would be extreme luck if anyone bought it, there is no hope of anyone buying the others, at least not without turning them into a cloan of the already existing stuff which isn't exactly setting the world alight. and that is assuming that any objections to the change away from the public service content wouldn't be upheld, which it is likely they would be upheld and for good reason.
i would expect there are a whole load of other things that would have to be gone through also, so i would expect any sales would not be anywhere near as simple as the few who want them would like.




the funding from the tv license goes to rte to provide the news and current affairs output which is needed to insure we do not end up with particular media organisations becoming the main stay of our news which would be bad for plurality, times have changed means that we need rte's current affairs and news output more then ever.
directors and all other staff working in any company have to be paid for unless they all decide to work for free.



it never really could unless you had one of the small television with a built in arial, if not then you had the rabbit ears on top of the television, or an external arial on the roof, both of which would technically be extra equipment.
now days televisions come with saorview boxes built in.
so i expect any challenge to the law on that basis would fail, all though i'm no legal expert.

2fm is a clone. RTÉ2 is no more than VirginMedia FOUR.

The license fee isn’t just for news.

DTT was signaled for years before it went live, most recent big storm was 2018, TV would be older than 10 years, analogue existed in 2010

theoneeyedman

sligojoek wrote: »

First break in the News at One.

TV licence
Government Covid 19 announcement.
Liveline

I'd say the Government agencies are paying very well for all that advertising. This is a terrible time for most, but a lot of Pork available for advertising agencies with an inside track to Government agencies etc.... A blank cheque to help make up for the drop in adverts from real businesses.
I'd expect the same is the case for RTE, why wouldn't they charge full whack when they can.......nobody in government is going to question it nowadays.

Shefwedfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not just Sky, but there are homes all around the country where the television is used solely for NetFlix. 6.99 a month.

My sky went down during one of the big storms recently and I had zero terrestrial TV. Could not get RTE because I don't have a saorview box.

I'm honestly waiting for someone to legally challenge the law. A regular TV can no-longer access RTE without additional equipment.

Every tv in my house can access it, my laptop, iPhone, tablet etc

Unless your living in the dark ages you have loads of method to connect to RTÉ

Why would someone challenge the law? Especially now when having RTÉ has proved tv is still the best form of media to get information to the public from the government and health agencies

Shefwedfan

sligojoek wrote: »

Have you listened to the radio in the last week? The only 'ads' are for other RTE shows or government public announcements.

So they haven’t announced it?

In reality the drop in advertisement money will be next month or month after....not today

Companies pay in advance, very few I would expect ring up on a Friday to start an ad campaign in a week

That’s why RTÉ need to know look at how to change, if they wait till the advertisement does drop off a hill then the tax payer will get hit

Shefwedfan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Every tv in my house can access it, my laptop, iPhone, tablet etc

Unless your living in the dark ages you have loads of method to connect to RTÉ

Why would someone challenge the law? Especially now when having RTÉ has proved tv is still the best form of media to get information to the public from the government and health agencies

I've been on the Saorview website and can confirm my 42" Samsung flatscreeen is not saorview compatible. On its own, therefore, it is not capable of picking up a TV signal, while it is a Television.

The Rte Player is not fit for purpose, however, I don't need a license for my laptop to try and use it.

There very much is a grey area in that, if I have a sky box plugged into a computer monitor, why do I need a Television license? If I have a computer monitor solely for watching NetFlix, why do I need a television license, or even do I?

Finally, I'd argue radio is the best and most appropriate medium to get information to the public.

Shefwedfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've been on the Saorview website and can confirm my 42" Samsung flatscreeen is not saorview compatible. On its own, therefore, it is not capable of picking up a TV signal, while it is a Television.

The Rte Player is not fit for purpose, however, I don't need a license for my laptop to try and use it.

There very much is a grey area in that, if I have a sky box plugged into a computer monitor, why do I need a Television license? If I have a computer monitor solely for watching NetFlix, why do I need a television license, or even do I?

Finally, I'd argue radio is the best and most appropriate medium to get information to the public.

No it’s not a grey area

If you don’t have a tv you don’t pay a license, but you have a tv so you pay a license, it’s not rocket science

DrSerious3

Anyone remember 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' on RTE?