TV license - do you pay?

homeOwner

I noticed on another thread here only 2% said they pay the TV license. I pay mine but I know alot of people who dont. I also heard that they cant check who does or who doesnt because they dont have access to information from the cable companies as to who is paying for cable so they cant cross reference with people who are/aren't paying the license.

I personally seldom watch RTE because there is usually nothing on worth watching. I watched the Charlie Haughey programme and some of the GAA matches recently but thats about it. If you dont watch RTE, do you have a case for not paying the license? Seems like an easy way for RTE to get money for not doing a whole lot. It should be state subsidised and get the rest of moeny from ads if they want to keep a state-run tv station and expenses should be cut way back. I read recently where they spend a fortune in taxi bills ferrying staff to and from the station. WHY??? No other job does that.

OK rant over.

jhegarty

homeOwner wrote:

I noticed on another thread here only 2% said they pay the TV license. I pay mine but I know alot of people who dont. I also heard that they cant check who does or who doesnt because they dont have access to information from the cable companies as to who is paying for cable so they cant cross reference with people who are/aren't paying the license.

I personally seldom watch RTE because there is usually nothing on worth watching. I watched the Charlie Haughey programme and some of the GAA matches recently but thats about it. If you dont watch RTE, do you have a case for not paying the license? Seems like an easy way for RTE to get money for not doing a whole lot. It should be state subsidised and get the rest of moeny from ads if they want to keep a state-run tv station and expenses should be cut way back. I read recently where they spend a fortune in taxi bills ferrying staff to and from the station. WHY??? No other job does that.

OK rant over.

I don't (except once when I got the knock at the door)...

never watch rte/tg4.....

Baz_

homeOwner wrote:

I also heard that they cant check who does or who doesnt because they dont have access to information from the cable companies as to who is paying for cable so they cant cross reference with people who are/aren't paying the license.

Shouldn't you have a tv licence regardless? I thought that even if you don't watch the tv at all, you still had to pay the licence... I am of course open to correction.

homeOwner wrote:

I read recently where they spend a fortune in taxi bills ferrying staff to and from the station. WHY??? No other job does that.

If you are due into work when there is no public transport available, your job is required to provide transport for you, even when I was working in Dunnes they provided a mini bus home when the night-packing shift ended, and when working in a job where my start time was 8am on a Sunday morning a Taxi had to be provided. With the amount of night time deejaying going on (staff in no way being restricted to deejays either) there would be a lot of taxis required for RTE staff. In saying that, you would imagine that a lot of the staff working in RTE would be able to afford a car themselves...


Anyway this link should clear the TV licence issue up somewhat: http://www.oasis.gov.ie/public_utilities/telecommunications/tv_licences.html

bullrunner

as far as i'm aware you are required to pay for a tv license so long as there is at least 1 tv in your house that is capable/set up to receive tv signals...regardless of what station you watch or dont watch.



As for ferrying staff by taxi...companies are not required by law to do so...they only do it because if they didnt they would have staff working unsociable hours.

MorningStar

I really can't believe people don't pay these bills. In case you ever wonder who people refer to as scum it's you if you don't pay your TV licence. Unless you are in dire poverty there is no excuse. You are required by law to have a tv licence for any device that recieves TV signals.

I would have assumed most would say they don't pay TV licences is because many are youngish and live at home.

seamus

MorningStar wrote:

I would have assumed most would say they don't pay TV licences is because many are youngish and live at home.

Or a lot of them may be renting and the landlord pays the licence for the TV he supplied.

People who deliberately don't pay the TV licence are the same one who wonder why it's crap cos they don't have the money to spend on programmes :rolleyes:

county

i pay the license but wheres the value for money??

Gegerty

They have radars that can detect if you're watching TV Only kidding of course. They only way they can get you IMO is if you pay for your first one then they have you in their database. you could say you chucked the TV out i suppose but they'll just look in the window when you're least expecting it or they'll just look out for the blue flashes from your window. you can't hide forever.

homeOwner

I think you are required to pay per TV not per household. Many people have more than 1 but only pay for the 1 license. I think its a bit of a rip off myself although I pay it for fear of being caught.

MorningStar

seamus wrote:

Or a lot of them may be renting and the landlord pays the licence for the TV he supplied.

There are very few landlords that provide TVs and pay licences. I also thought it was the person who lived in the property who is responsible. They can always ask the landlord to take the TV away if they don't want to pay.

homeOwner

seamus wrote:

Or a lot of them may be renting and the landlord pays the licence for the TV he supplied.

When I rented a few years ago I had to pay the license, the landlord did supply a TV but told me I had to pay the license myself which I suppose is fair enough.

astec123

Interestingly the UK (I accept has a larger market) has the licence system, but comparatively is so much better. The BBC has no ads during programs, where as RTE cant go 15 mins without TV3 length ads, and then the 2+ RTE promo ones are driving me mad. How come a national broadcaster in the UK with 100s of stations (both Radio TV, and a large website[one of the busiest in the world]) can survive without ads but RTE with a handful of radio stations and only 3 channels needs to advertise.

It is annoying paying the TV licence but its the law, those who dont pay are as bad as drug runners who dont get caught.

Chalk

homeOwner wrote:

I think you are required to pay per TV not per household. Many people have more than 1 but only pay for the 1 license. I think its a bit of a rip off myself although I pay it for fear of being caught.

1 household,
1 license

MorningStar

astec123 wrote:

Interestingly the UK (I accept has a larger market) has the licence system, but comparatively is so much better. The BBC has no ads during programs, where as RTE cant go 15 mins without TV3 length ads, and then the 2+ RTE promo ones are driving me mad. How come a national broadcaster in the UK with 100s of stations (both Radio TV, and a large website[one of the busiest in the world]) can survive without ads but RTE with a handful of radio stations and only 3 channels needs to advertise.

It is annoying paying the TV licence but its the law, those who dont pay are as bad as drug runners who dont get caught.

You can't really compare the BBC and RTE. Firstly the population in the UK is so much bigger. It also a early pioner in the field back in the days it had an empire so it's orginal network and audience was huge. To compare BBC to RTE is as fair as comparing Guiness to any other stout on the market. RTE has improved a lot and is begining to sell programs to other channels along with ideas. Believe it or not "THe Lyrics Borad" format was sold all over the world. THey still don't have enough money because so few pay.

Gegerty

If they ever get their act together and start broadcasting on sky to the whole of the UK then maybe after 5 or 10 years they'll be a decent channel. To be fair to them they are improving but it'll take a hell of alot more money than the TV licence can provide. It's in the best interest of all Irish people to pay a TV licence IMO.

seamus

The difference, astec is purely in terms of revenue coming in.

The UK licence is £121, ~ €175, so that's €20 more than us.
There are 1.3 million households in this country. It's fair to say that the proportion of those without a TV is negligible. So 1.3m * €155 = €201.5m

The UK has a population 15 times greater than ours, so let's assume they've 19.5m households. 19.5 * €175 = €3,412m. A budget in fact 17 times more than RTE have.

Talliesin

Gegerty wrote:

They have radars that can detect if you're watching TV Only kidding of course.

They used to use those, but these days it's just handier to turn up at the door of households that don't have them.

You are required to have a license for the ownership of any equipment that can receive terrestrial television signals. That means televisions, tv cards in computers, vcrs etc. You do not need to have one for equipment that can play DVDs but cannot receive TV signals (e.g. most computers without TV cards these days).

They cannot come into your house to ensure that you do not have a television. If you refuse entry they have to go and get a garda and a warrant, giving you enough time to make it to the post office if they call early enough in the day. Normally they call in the evening.

The last time an inspector called I answered the door holding two crying babies and said "your ****ing nuts if you think I'm looking for the license now". I had a license, but he was ****ing nuts if he thought I was looking for it then. He conceded defeat and went away.

MorningStar

Talliesin wrote:

You are required to have a license for the ownership of any equipment that can receive terrestrial television signals.

I don't think that can be right as you only need one per household not by item. So in a shared house each person who owns a TV does not need to buy a licence each but they could all be charged for not having one each as each had responsibility.
Not sure of it all but it's definitely by household not item.

astec123

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/channels/

Thats a lot of channels so to say it has a bigger budget is useless as budget is only significant when its broken down, it goes to a lot of channels. I can think of 12 stations owned by the BBC, and another 3 paper publications off the top of my head. RTE has 3 channels and 2 radio stations. It also does ad breaks every 15 mins and out selling. It is a perfect comparison as in truth the BBC has a similar budget per channel as RTE do.

MorningStar

astec123 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/channels/

Thats a lot of channels so to say it has a bigger budget is useless as budget is only significant when its broken down, it goes to a lot of channels. I can think of 12 stations owned by the BBC, and another 3 paper publications off the top of my head. RTE has 3 channels and 2 radio stations. It also does ad breaks every 15 mins and out selling. It is a perfect comparison as in truth the BBC has a similar budget per channel as RTE do.

You are completely ignoring the other revenue BBC gets. RTE show BBC shows they pay BBC for like "One Foot in the Grave". Some of the other BBC channels create revenue in other parts of the world through subscription like BBC world. BBC documnetries are sold around the world to TV channels and on DVD. RTE doesn't get any revenue from this stuff on the same scale. THe Office was the biggest selling DVD in the UK ever for a while there. THE BBC also get revenue from the American versions of it's shows.
You are in a dream world if you think RTE 1 and BBC 1 have the same budgets for TV shows. Their budget is also going to be weighted on the BBC channels with some costing very little as they are really repeats of shows from the main channels. Just because it is a channel doesn't mean it has new shows or a large budget. BBc 3 is really a channel that shows programs from the other ones not a huge cost.

Sleipnir

Chalk wrote:

1 household,
1 license

That's completely wrong. You have to have one for each T.V. on the premises. They made a fortune going after pubs because of this recently.

kasintahan

The concept of a "TV licence" is one that is totally alien to most of the rest of the world.

Though I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, after all it can (does?) allow RTE to concentrate on more expensive less "popular" highbrow programming without recourse to advertisments to fund those programmes entirely.

kasintahan

Sleipnir wrote:

That's completely wrong. You have to have one for each T.V. on the premises. They made a fortune going after pubs because of this recently.

Liar.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/public_utilities/telecommunications/tv_licences.html?search=tv+licence

If the equipment capable of receiving a television signal (i.e., a television set, a personal computer), etc. is held in a household (i.e., apartment, flat, house), then one television licence will cover multiple pieces of equipment. In other words, if you have a television set in your living room and kitchen, one television licence covers both sets.

Sleipnir

kasintahan wrote:

Liar.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/public_utilities/telecommunications/tv_licences.html?search=tv+licence

aaahhh, so basically, if you're just a homeowner, one will do but if you're a landlord with flats etc, you need one for each.
I suppose a pub's lounge and bar are "separate" for this so would require one for each separate space.

homeOwner

kasintahan wrote:

The concept of a "TV licence" is one that is totally alien to most of the rest of the world.

Not totally sure thats true. I would imagine that any country with a government owned TV station they would collect a fee. I know Germany, France and Norway have one.

In the US they dont have a government owned TV station so there is no issue of collecting a fee - they are all privately owned (or publicly traded companies) or in the case of community stations/public access stations, receive donations from the public.

MorningStar

Sleipnir wrote:

aaahhh, so basically, if you're just a homeowner, one will do but if you're a landlord with flats etc, you need one for each.
I suppose a pub's lounge and bar are "separate" for this so would require one for each separate space.

Did you read the supplied link? It is all explained the landlord NEVER has to pay for the licence for his tenants regardless of who owns the TV.
I never understand why people are so lazy to actually look at the information provided yet think it is great to comment on it! :mad:

Bamboozled

homeOwner wrote:

I think you are required to pay per TV not per household. Many people have more than 1 but only pay for the 1 license. I think its a bit of a rip off myself although I pay it for fear of being caught.

What a joke. Its one per household on the provision there is something there that can receive a signal.

I pay for the licence. Its used to fund the TV stations, radio stations and the Symphony Orchestra and the like.

If you're living in a block of new apartments and no one has a license, and one gets a license, the whole block will be queried.

I got a knock on the door one day. I had only finished moving in the boxes into the house (rented) and yer man knocked on the door. I had my handbag on my shoulder and the book of TV stamps (easier to pay €4 a week than the €150+ in a lot) in my hand on the way to the post office. The girl that had lived there before me never got a license and had always said she was getting one on pay day. He called a few times, and eventually the agency told her leave because it wasnt just that bill that she was behind on. I was lucky that its one of the first things i do when i move, because he came back that evening. He shouldnt have bothered - as it would have been in the computer by then.

If someone lived in a house before you and have changed their records to reflect their new address on the license, then they will check up either on their records/computers or call to the old address - when they have the time.

There was a case a few years ago about a woman living on one of the islands off the coast, and she had a TV but could never get a signal so she watched video's from the video shop on the mainland.
They took her to court over the license - even though she couldnt get a signal. Eventually she won, otherwise she'd have had a lot to pay and they'd be able to do it to everyone.

Now they also require you to list your car's reg number on the licence if you've got a TV in your car.

Spocker

Sleipnir wrote:

aaahhh, so basically, if you're just a homeowner, one will do but if you're a landlord with flats etc, you need one for each.
I suppose a pub's lounge and bar are "separate" for this so would require one for each separate space.

I'm afraid not Sleipnir - from the Oasis link:

Every household, business or institution in Ireland with a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal (i.e., an aerial, satellite dish, etc.,) must have a television licence...
(sic)... then one television licence will cover multiple pieces of equipment

Given that a pub is a business, then they are covered for all equipment by one licence

However, if the building in which the equipment is kept (i.e., the house, etc.) is sub-divided into flats, apartments, separate living quarters, then a separate television licence must be held for each of these quarters. In other words, an individual licence must be held for each separate flat, apartment, etc.

Each flat, apartment, duplex, whatever you want to call it, is still a "household" - no mention of landlords or any of that crap - if you watch it then you have to pay.

I pay for mine BTW, and while I do not watch a lot of home grown stuff, mainly current affairs, the imports such as CSI:XXX and Lost still cost money after all

Spocker

Bamboozled wrote:

Now they also require you to list your car's reg number on the licence if you've got a TV in your car.

Interesting, when did they bring that in?

Chalk

Sleipnir wrote:

That's completely wrong. You have to have one for each T.V. on the premises. They made a fortune going after pubs because of this recently.

apology accepted then.

Bamboozled

Dr. Spock wrote:

Interesting, when did they bring that in?

Yonks ago. The last two times i've gone for mine they asked was it for a house or a car, and there's space there for the car reg. no.

MorningStar

Aren't most of the car TVs just DVD players without any reciever?

Talliesin

MorningStar wrote:

I don't think that can be right as you only need one per household not by item. So in a shared house each person who owns a TV does not need to buy a licence each but they could all be charged for not having one each as each had responsibility.
Not sure of it all but it's definitely by household not item.

Yes, I meant that the possession of one or more of such items requires a license - hence if you don't have a TV but you do have a TV card you still need a license.

garred

Sadly and I am ashamed, as of yet I have not got my T.V. licence. Years ago the Irish channels were crap but now they have improved 10 fold so I have no excuses. So just to clarify, if you have 2/3 tvs in an apartment you only need one licence?

Talliesin wrote:

Yes, I meant that the possession of one or more of such items requires a license - hence if you don't have a TV but you do have a TV card you still need a license.

Is that true, if you have a tv card? Technically would you need a tv licence if you had a rabbits ears but no tv?

Civilian_Target

seamus wrote:

The UK has a population 15 times greater than ours, so let's assume they've 19.5m households. 19.5 * €175 = €3,412m. A budget in fact 17 times more than RTE have.

And I believe that accounts for less than 50% of the BBCs total income. BBC makes an *ENORMOUS* amount of money selling some of their excellent programming abroad, not to mention that they sell news coverage to smaller networks like RTE who can't afford, for example, a Turkmeinistan correspondant of their own.

And to answer the original topic, of all the places I've rented, there's only one where we didn't pay the TV license - and in just over 3 years of rental I've been inspected once.

Chalk

garred wrote:

Sadly and I am ashamed, as of yet I have not got my T.V. licence. Years ago the Irish channels were crap but now they have improved 10 fold so I have no excuses. So just to clarify, if you have 2/3 tvs in an apartment you only need one licence?

Is that true, if you have a tv card? Technically would you need a tv licence if you had a rabbits ears but no tv?

i suppose by saying "having a tv card" he presumes youll also have a pc and a monitor,
and therefore the ability to receive and view terestial tv signals.

Baz_

i suppose by saying "having a tv card" he presumes youll also have a pc and a monitor,
and therefore t[he ability to receive and view terestial tv signals.

according to the link above: http://www.oasis.gov.ie/public_util...v_licences.html not only does your presumption appear to be wrong on the pc/monitor/screen issue:

Every household, business or institution in Ireland with a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal (i.e., an aerial, satellite dish, etc.,)

it also appears to be wrong in relation to the terrestrial issue:

Every household, business or institution in Ireland with a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal (i.e., an aerial, satellite dish, etc.,)

However as is standard on that type of site, the information does fall under the caveat:

No document on the site is a legal interpretation and should not be seen as such. If you need professional or legal advice you should consult a suitably qualified person.

so you would really have to look at the legislation or contact a solicitor to be fully sure, it seems proposterous to expect someone to have a tv licence who doesnt have a screen to watch what is received on the rabbit ears, but then again a lot in law is proposterous...

MorningStar

Baz_ wrote:

... it seems proposterous to expect someone to have a tv licence who doesnt have a screen to watch what is received on the rabbit ears, but then again a lot in law is proposterous...

Not really people used to hide the TV when inspectors came along so they changed it so that if there was the evidence of TV viewing they could charge. If they find rabit ears they won't really prosecute.

SixShot

its when you don't pay it the feckers will knock on your door

SixShot

yeah Hideing the TV tryed that once with the Dogs when the Dog Lnc person came to the door the Dog's were barking like Crazy & we tryed to say we did not have DOg's but now we get what ever Lnc is needed dog,TV,Pi5sing one & the other crap you have to pay for

crazymonkey

When i lived in usa, they would get a good laugh at our expense, whenever the subject of having to get a tv licence ever came, they could not understand why we would be required to have one,

MorningStar

crazymonkey wrote:

When i lived in usa, they would get a good laugh at our expense, whenever the subject of having to get a tv licence ever came, they could not understand why we would be required to have one,

From the country that uses 90% of the earth resourse and doesn't pay the most . I'd rather people paid their way

po0k

Sleipnir wrote:

That's completely wrong. You have to have one for each T.V. on the premises. They made a fortune going after pubs because of this recently.

No, you're wrong.

You need a license for the house if you own one or more devices capable of receiving tv [and/or radio?] signals.
It was once 1 license per device, but with the proliferation of TVs (alot of households would have a TV and a VCR at the minimum, probably more than one TV) has made that pointless.

Also, you can now move the license around with you if you move home, speak to your local post-office, check anpost.ie or look at oasis.ie

Victor

crazymonkey wrote:

When i lived in usa, they would get a good laugh at our expense, whenever the subject of having to get a tv licence ever came, they could not understand why we would be required to have one,

Yes, but if you don't have cable / satellite in the states, TV just isn't worth watching, at all.

Captain Trips

homeOwner wrote:

It should be state subsidised and get the rest of moeny from ads if they want to keep a state-run tv station and expenses should be cut way back.

Yes! Make the government pay for it!!! They have loads of money and billions to spend in a budget! And then let the government carry the expenses! Ha! That will teach those idiots! Who will they get the money off then, huh?

FYI, it *is* state subsidised and also gets money from ads. Either pay the fee or else we get *no license fee* and a *higher amount in tax that could be going to healthcare*.

TV is a luxury without doubt. It's neither education nor is it healthcare, etc., . You can choose to have a TV or not. Having one supports the national broadcaster.

MorningStar

Captain Trips wrote:

TV is a luxury without doubt. It's neither education nor is it healthcare, etc., . You can choose to have a TV or not. Having one supports the national broadcaster.

It's very hard to call TV a luxury in this day in age. I agree with what you are saying about tax etc... It's not really a luxury anymore as I would guess 99% of the population have access in their home. It may make more sense to pay for it from a central fund rather than hope people pay their way. It is obvious from some comments here that people don't pay their way so a tax for TV might make sense.

Baz_

MorningStar wrote:

It's not really a luxury anymore as I would guess 99% of the population have access in their home.

Just Because a large amount of people can afford luxury, doesn't make it any less of a luxury, thats a stupid argument.

And 99% seems a bit high...

garred

Don't know if I would classify it as a luxury. Sure you can get versions (plasma, flat screen) that could be classified as a luxury but not a joe bloggs tv. Like I would'nt classify a bed as a luxury or a car (some people need them because of lack of public transport).
Think a tax would be a fair system (can't believe I'm agreeing to another tax) for the licence issue. Also think an extra small tax to get rid of that bloody toll bridge but thats another story.