RTE want to raise tv licence by €43!!

theciscokid

Robert

why should we pay more money to RTE for the poor quality of programs that they provide. The only good thing on RTE network is the sapranos. If they are showing a rugby/soccer match i will allways turn to a nother channel ie BBC if they are broadcasting it. I thing close down RTE and give the lisence fee and equipment to TV3 at least they can't make it any worse then it iswith RTE. RTE qets enough money from adverts ande existing licence fee money. they need to sort out there stqaffing levels & costs

Mossy Monk

an increase? what for?

a) more useless imports
b) maybe another pointless talent spotting show like the one going on at the moment for the Eurovision

they receive advertising money on top of what they already get. they should give their so called stars a reasonable wage instead of what they are getting now. these demands for increases should be thrown out the window :mad:

watty

A few euro increase would pay for FTV scheme.

I think it should not be allowed unless there is a basic FTV pack on Digital MMDS (with folk allowed to buy a box) and basic FTV pack on Sky (Everyone already owns their gear and can cancel tomorrow and still have the FTA channels).


The DTT proposal is Dead.

The licence increase MUST be tied into basic FTV pack on the Digital Platforms that DO exist.

Lot of people have poor analog signal or none at all.

Proposed FTV pack:
RTE1
NET2
TV3
TG4
Euronews *
CNN *
TCM *
Boomerang *
BBC World OR DW TV OR TV5 Europe (all are "free")

Later add RTE News 24 and Dial Channnel.

(* Already FTA on cancelled Sky platform, need added to Chorus / NTL Digital-MMDS).

Analog MMDS should be closed at once (doubles capacity of Digital MMDS to over 120 channels)

DMC

watty, I'm sorry but I have to say once again, there will never be an Irish FTA system, on a par with the UK on Sky Digital or any other platform.

You go out and get legislation changed, get the cable co's in a huff, and produce some half backed fudge.

Its a good dream, but I'm realistic.

icdg

Indeed... it simply isn't viable. Chorus and NTL will not open their MMDS networks to all comers, end of story. As for Sky, the only market would be Sky subscribers who have cancelled their subscriptions, not a lot of people there...

Anyway, thread moved to the Broadcasting Forum.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Robert
why should we pay more money to RTE for the poor quality of programs that they provide. The only good thing on RTE network is the sapranos. If they are showing a rugby/soccer match i will allways turn to a nother channel ie BBC if they are broadcasting it. I thing close down RTE and give the lisence fee and equipment to TV3 at least they can't make it any worse then it iswith RTE. RTE qets enough money from adverts ande existing licence fee money. they need to sort out there stqaffing levels & costs

RTE is so crap because they've been disallowed by the government from increasing the fee. It's a deliberate government tactic to keep RTE under the trings of government. I can't understand it myself but the evidence is there.

The RTE telly license has to be increased but it should be worked out so that it's income linked or at least so that there are concessions for students and the less fortunate. Furthermore, the IRTC (which is not the independent regulating body it pretends to be) has to introduce conditions of the fee increase which RTS must honour - in particular, more money spend on homegrown talent. TV3 promised all this years ago but it's since become a limp station carrying VH1 piffle and sub-standard American sit-coms (excluding Seinfeld and Futurama of course because the IRTC has no power to enforce rules for quality television.

I think most people would pay the TV license increase if they were convinced they'd be getting their money's worth.

watty

Originally posted by DMC
watty, I'm sorry but I have to say once again, there will never be an Irish FTA system, on a par with the UK on Sky Digital or any other platform.

You go out and get legislation changed, get the cable co's in a huff, and produce some half backed fudge.

Its a good dream, but I'm realistic.

It's a more realistic dream than DTT ever was....

Perhaps the equation will change WHEN (not if) NTL and Chorus go bust / pull out / lose licence... Certianally it is only Cable, not MMDS that can compete with Sky.

rlogue

RTÉ should get the licence fee increase - but only if they spend the money gained on home produced programming only - and not paying more money to their "talent".

Furthermore, RTÉ should also commit themselves to a proper breakfast time TV service, the 24 hour news channel, and use the silent 252 kHz frequency to rebroadcast Radio 1 to the UK.

The deficit RTÉ face should not be paid off by an increased licence fee. RTÉ should pay off the deficit by selling their expensive real estate and sacking some of its overpaid presenters!

By the way, let's put things into perspective - I pay stg£112 per year for my licence. The new Irish licence fee would still be cheaper than its UK equivalent.

why should we pay more money to RTE for the poor quality of programs that they provide. The only good thing on RTE network is the sapranos. If they are showing a rugby/soccer match i will allways turn to a nother channel ie BBC if they are broadcasting it. I thing close down RTE and give the lisence fee and equipment to TV3 at least they can't make it any worse then it iswith RTE. RTE qets enough money from adverts ande existing licence fee money. they need to sort out there stqaffing levels & costs

Hmmm...your point? Maybe RTÉ's output is a little too challenging for you??

watty

I agree, RTE need FAR more money or there won't be anything worth watching

They also need to stop trying to compete directly with UK TV on imported soaps and sport.

There is more to TV than soap and sport

UK TV is more a reality that it ever was, not just in Dublin Cable Land, but in perfect quality (better than most of RTE's transmission network) in Rural Ireland via Sky.

NTL and Chorus missed boat. They should have completely upgraded MMDS to digital only 3 years ago and compete directly on price.

I'd be for a 250 Euro licence. Sky is looking to make 450 Euro per susbscriber.

But Irish TV has to deliver Quality content, Choice and Quality reception. It isn't delivering any of these.

Why should I fork out more to Sky than to Irish Broadcasters?

(TV3 doesn't hardly count as it is practially an ITV region. If we subtract what Granada is paid back in Riights for ITV programs it must cost peanuts. It would make sense for Granada to buy the other 20% as then it really costs less...)

watty

Originally posted by rlogue
RTÉ should get the licence fee increase - but only if they spend the money gained on home produced programming only - and not paying more money to their "talent".

Furthermore, RTÉ should also commit themselves to a proper breakfast time TV service, the 24 hour news channel, and use the silent 252 kHz frequency to rebroadcast Radio 1 to the UK.

The deficit RTÉ face should not be paid off by an increased licence fee. RTÉ should pay off the deficit by selling their expensive real estate and sacking some of its overpaid presenters!

By the way, let's put things into perspective - I pay stg£112 per year for my licence. The new Irish licence fee would still be cheaper than its UK equivalent.

Absolutely. Smaller country = less to gather. Cost to produce not less due to less viewers. So licene should be MORE than UK.

The Sky Deal is Stupid.

RTE could be MAKING money out of Sky. Make sure rights allow TX to UK market. Have a DECENT UK pay channel.

Sky ought to be PAYING rte for privilidge of enhancing their pay TV package.


Spot on Richard?

DMC

Totally what Richard said. If they get any increase, let that go into home programming and technology (widescreen, etc) and any other costs such as admin, wages and so on, be out of the existing budget.

Cork

Originally posted by DMC
Totally what Richard said. If they get any increase, let that go into home programming and technology (widescreen, etc) and any other costs such as admin, wages and so on, be out of the existing budget.

Judging RTE from their past proformance - funding will be writtled away and they will be looking for more increases.

Does RTÉ have a charter?
Sink or swim,public service/home produced quality drama should be their mandatory remit.
Failure to abide and their licence fee is reduced,borrowing should not be allowed and obviously profit making activities like 2fm should be encouraged.
Good management is requred and actually it would be simple enough for the goverment to bring that about, it's not rocket science.
It just involves cutting out whats not affordable and concentrating on making a quality job of what is.


I'm all in favour of a licence increase of forty odd Euro or more if , it's spent well in a better leaner, fitter RTÉ.
Subject to the usual government subsidy of free licences being given to all that cannot afford them.
mm

byte

Originally posted by watty
The Sky Deal is Stupid.

RTE could be MAKING money out of Sky. Make sure rights allow TX to UK market. Have a DECENT UK pay channel.

Sky ought to be PAYING rte for privilidge of enhancing their pay TV package.

I think you've made it very clear that you don't like RTE on Sky (via Family Pack) :rolleyes:

But at the time that RTE went on Sky, I was under the impression that RTE and Sky had plans up their sleeves for a Tara replacement (wholly owned by RTE which may have been the biggest reason to close Tara), plus the carriage of RTE in NI. Nothing has happened in either department. Whose fault is it?

A license fee increase would be OK if RTE improved their service dramatically by introducing anamorphic widescreen, digital text service or other interactive services on digital tv (Sky being the only realistic option at present thanks to no one caring about DTT), a 24-hour News/Current affairs channel, and importantly, a Tara replacement (which should pay for itself if done properly).

rlogue

I would certainly pay an extra subscription for a Tara TV replacement - an extra £5 a month wouldn't be onerous.

There is a demand for RTÉ in Britain - It would be interesting to work out how many Irish Sky boxes are over here at the moment - I'm sure there are a few hard core RTÉ viewers over here!

rlogue

...as opposed to RTÉ viewers who like hard core!!!!

Darby OGill

Does anyone know the kind of income RTE has at the moment- I mean combined licence fees AND advertising?

How much is spent on home-produced programming/imports/staff costs/infrastructure maintenance or upgrading?

Maybe if we knew these figures we could have a more rational debate...... I don't think we can just say RTE is useless/hopeless.

While I don't like a lot of what it does, I would not like to be without a national broadcaster, or be stuck with one with no separate identity (RTE still has one, just about, in my opinion).

I would not like to think that TV3 represents the way RTE should go.

Tazz T

The idea of a television licence is as outdated as a dog licence. If other companies - ITV, Ch4 etc exist solely off advertising revenue and aren't permitted to charge a licence fee. why should BBC or RTE be allowed? It's an uncompetitive and unfair practice.

And before someone says this is Ireland, not the UK - we get BBC already and we don't pay the UK's licence fee. And there is absolutely no reason why RTE shouldn't be available in the UK if we have their channels here.

If RTE can't make it with what they got, I'm sure there are plenty of other companies willing to come in and take their place...
... and do a better job.

After all, isn't that how business is supposed to work.

DMC

Nor can it.

At least as the national broadcaster, it cant be bought by a Murdoch/Granada person. We will be protected in that regard.

Its a 60/40 split in favour of Ads. The licence is only around 40% of the income of RTÉ.

Their 2000 Annual Report is here

rlogue

If RTE can't make it with what they got, I'm sure there are plenty of other companies willing to come in and take their place...

Fine. In your world we would have something like TV3 for RTÉ.

The highlight of the evening's schedules would be "Car crashes that Kill"

And quality stuff like Bachelor's Walk or Prime Time would be gone as they would be too unprofitable for a commercial broadcaster to make.

We would have no Irish TV programmes other than the News.

Maybe we could do without the news too.

If you want to see what the commercial alternative to RTÉ is, then why not switch on TV3 and see what quality TV Movie or ITV relay they are showing.

Tazz T

TV3 is not a good example. But apart from Films RTE ain't so good either.

In the UK, I would consider ITV/Channel 4 a far superior alternative to BBC.

Our man in Havana

If RTE want a rise in the licence fee then advertising should be banned like on the good old beeb.

DMC

Then RTÉ will have less money than before. For the size of population, a public service broadcaster of any weight cannot survive on just the TV licence.

This is the problem. You cant compare like with like. RTÉ is nothing like TV3, nor the BBC. A fair comparison would be comparing RTÉ to TVNZ in New Zealand, RTP in Portugal etc.

watty

Without adverts the TV licence would be about as expensive as Sky Movie World package. But for 2 and 1/2 channels instead of 250!

Elmo

The idea of a television licence is as outdated as a dog licence. If other companies - ITV, Ch4 etc exist solely off advertising revenue and aren't permitted to charge a licence fee. why should BBC or RTE be allowed? It's an uncompetitive and unfair practice.

C4 is a semi state company and gets some money from the bristish exchequer. Sky exist on both advertising revenue and advertising (I know its not compulsary to have sky).

TV3 can bearly exist on advertsing revenue if RTE where to excist solely on Advertising revenue we would have tv1 tv2 tv3 and teilfise 4.

RTE have €140,000,000 est on lience fee and around the same on advertising revenue but you have to remember that the pay for 2 tv channels, 4 radio stations, 3 musical groups, they employ 1,000 people est.

TG4 have €35,000,000 from RTE and the exchequer and have mainly indepent producers make there programmes.

TV3 have around the same as TG4 (make Popcorn (Is it a show or an advert?) ) and have two of the biggest media companies in the world backing them. Oh and they employ 135 employees. And there advertising revenue is getting greater all the time due to coro and emmers.

Perhaps RTE should just sell of N2 and 2fm

Elmo

can any students here actually afford one at the moment let alone a €43 price hike

Have you seen the add on the BBC for students who don't pay there telly lience. Its a Grand Add. lol.

Originally posted by Tazz T
The idea of a television licence is as outdated as a dog licence. If other companies - ITV, Ch4 etc exist solely off advertising revenue and aren't permitted to charge a licence fee. why should BBC or RTE be allowed? It's an uncompetitive and unfair practice.

And before someone says this is Ireland, not the UK - we get BBC already and we don't pay the UK's licence fee. And there is absolutely no reason why RTE shouldn't be available in the UK if we have their channels here.

If RTE can't make it with what they got, I'm sure there are plenty of other companies willing to come in and take their place...
... and do a better job.

After all, isn't that how business is supposed to work.

I don't normally reply to someones post in the following tone...but the above is very ridiculous uninformed and complete nonsense.
Without a licence fee, there would be no public service broadcasting full stop.
Ok you might, have some programming, that has a public service element like , what you see on ITV, but only programmes that can attract advertising. In RTÉ's case the advertising pool, would be so small as to mean that even those programmes that they would show with a small P.S remit would be proportionately a lot less than on ITV, due to a lack of funds.

And as regards saying:

we get BBC already and we don't pay the UK's licence fee. And there is absolutely no reason why RTE shouldn't be available in the UK if we have their channels here.

RTÉ is available via an aerial in many parts of the UK free to those that want it, in the same way that BBC and ITV is here.
They don't have to pay for that, I'm talking about large parts of Northern Ireland,Wales and North west England.
Sky digital family pack subscribers do pay the BBC , it is why Sky increased their Subscription fee's in 2001.
and of course, Cable subscribers also pay for UK services as part of their cable sub.

If other companies - ITV, Ch4 etc exist solely off advertising revenue and aren't permitted to charge a licence fee. why should BBC or RTE be allowed? It's an uncompetitive and unfair practice.

Simply because,a majority of people want public service broadcasting. And to have that guaranteed, It has to be funded and not be only available on a cherry picked basis, determined by how much advertising income it will provide.
Although, a majority will want it, the variety within that majority means that individuals tastes in programming can be catered for, even if it has smaller audiences.

Next, you'll be saying, let market forces determine which of our streets are to be cleaned:rolleyes:
If it's a poor area, shur let it be dirty, the folks there cannot afford, the cleaning:rolleyes:
mm

corkviewer

In my view Rte needs to become much more competitive if they want to survive in the marketplace. If this means selling off some of their radio/television stations so be it.

Many of their services are of little interest to the majority of the population. So if for example they switched off Lyric fm and radio na gaeltachta I don't think many people would miss them too much. Likewise the orchestra. Why does a broadcasting organisation have an orchestra? It makes no sense. They should disband all of these unecessary services and then they would find plenty of money to run their core broadcasting outlets.

Public service broadcasting is one thing - funding an orchestra and radio service for the arty farty 0.5 percent of the population is another.

DMC

I'm a believer that RTÉ should not have to sell off a thing in order to "survive in the marketplace" 2FM makes a profit, and is a popular music service. If the profits are seen to be channelled into RnaG and Lyric FM and yes, the orchestras, then great! RTÉ is the custodians of Irelands 2 premier orchestras, a youth choir philharmonic choir and a string quartet. If funding from the popular services are seen as being driven into minority (and I'm not denying that) musical tastes, then that's a wonderful thing.

And Public Service Broadcasting is for all, each and every one of us. And that is including the 0.5 you think like the orchestras and the population of our Gaeltacht communities. I don't like dance music much, but I don't mind 2FM playing dance at all. We might not think that they do anything for us, but they sure as hell are necessary.

watty

Originally posted by corkviewer
In my view Rte needs to become much more competitive if they want to survive in the marketplace. If this means selling off some of their radio/television stations so be it.

Many of their services are of little interest to the majority of the population. So if for example they switched off Lyric fm and radio na gaeltachta I don't think many people would miss them too much. Likewise the orchestra. Why does a broadcasting organisation have an orchestra? It makes no sense. They should disband all of these unecessary services and then they would find plenty of money to run their core broadcasting outlets.

Public service broadcasting is one thing - funding an orchestra and radio service for the arty farty 0.5 percent of the population is another.

IN YOUR OPINION....

This is the exact point. Without a PSB commitment funded by Licence or Gov, there would only be lowest common denominator Soaps, Sport, Quiz shows and so called "reality TV". There would be no point in RTE existing at all. It would become a clone of TV3, which is a second rate clone of UTV, less relevant to ROI than UTV is to North.

I think you find that a lot more than 0.5% of UK listen to R3 and a lot more than 0.5% listen to Lyric.

Would you close Art Galleries, Museums and Book Libriaries etc too as being unrelevent to "Majority"?

Without extra funding and quality & specialist programing RTE would become a poorer Irish version of "Five" or Living TV.

A purely commercial broadcaster regards TV & Radio as a plaform to sell Advertising, the programs are a necessary evil to be done without ever taking risks on new ideas, new formats etc and solely to maximise ratings.

It is a fact that programs regarded by viewers as better than say Cornation Street never have as big an audience. The better a program is it often is more specialised. So for example 10 specialist programs might cover 85% of population with each only having 15% viewers, but each of those viewers might rate it 10 out of ten, wheras the regular Coronation Viewers might rate the soap lower than a good specialist program they like.

Even "blockbuster" films like LOTR, Harry Potter or Starwars are hated by some people. Other people may prefer "Fried Green Tomatoes" or "Housekeeping" or "Remains of the Day".

I agree RTE is very poor at the moment. But if there was no licence it would be WORSE than the pathetic TV3, which relies on Granada's Backing. RTE needs MORE money not less. It does need some reform. But junking/sell off stations is not the answer.

rlogue

The whole point of Lyric FM, Raidio na Gaeltachta and the RTÉ Orchestras is that they cater for a minority of people in this country who want either Arts programming or programmes in the Irish language.

The essence of true public service broadcasting is to provide these services to those who want them. Do you think a commercial broadcaster would even bother with these services in Ireland? Of course not.

corkviewer

"I think you find that a lot more than 0.5% of UK listen to R3 and a lot more than 0.5% listen to Lyric.

Would you close Art Galleries, Museums and Book Libriaries etc too as being unrelevent to "Majority"?"

Well we all have our opinion. I was just stating mine. Slight correction though I never mentioned 0.5 % of UK listen to R3 (whatever that is) and no I wouoldn't close Art Galleries, Museums and Book Libriaries as I'm not the one paying to keep them open. Its a bit draconian forcing people to subsidise services they do not avail of or believe in.

In any case Rte could also save money by scaling down their daytime tv output. They must spend vast sums of money on childrens programming from 6am when the school going audience are only watching from 3 o clock onwards.
I can well remember the days when Network 2 started at 2.30 with Bosco with the Den following at 3 o'clcok. That was quite adequate then - whats changed?

DMC

Originally posted by corkviewer
........and no I wouoldn't close Art Galleries, Museums and Book Libriaries as I'm not the one paying to keep them open. Its a bit draconian forcing people to subsidise services they do not avail of or believe in.

You are either a prisoner, a student or the President of the Republic of Ireland, and I claim my €10.

Darby OGill

Point well made DMC. This is a good debate though.

I think the majority view is that RTE (and other public services that commercial interests are unlikely to provide) will always depend on public funding to a greater or lesser agree.

If we all accept this, the challenge is to ensure/demand that we, as the bill payers, get value for money from that service provider.

Is RTE giving us value for money? If yes, an increase in the licence fee is deserved, in my opinion, as costs obviously are rising.

If no, what improvements does RTE need to undertake in order to justify the increase, 'cos the costs are still rising. Some contributers feel that cutting non-essential (non-broadcasting) services will lead to savings, which could meet RTE's demand for more cash. Possibly.

What other suggestions for improvements are out there?

Tazz T

Originally posted by DMC
Then RTÉ will have less money than before. For the size of population, a public service broadcaster of any weight cannot survive on just the TV licence.

This is the problem. You cant compare like with like. RTÉ is nothing like TV3, nor the BBC. A fair comparison would be comparing RTÉ to TVNZ in New Zealand, RTP in Portugal etc.

Wasn't the TV licence recently abolished in New Zealand?

DMC

Yes it has, but at what expense?

It has a charter now and gets payments from the government, but I feel if you go down that road, a broadcaster can be seen to be more pro- or anti-government, when it is looking for more funding directly from the Treasury, and often be caught as not being independent enough.

The licence fee means you have a direct say in the funding of TV. But I will say this, the collection of the licence fee is not efficient enough. An Post take a good percentage cut of each licence fee, for collection, and they have problems collecting it from each and every house that should be paying it. Changes needed there anyway.

icdg

Originally posted by DMC
Yes it has, but at what expense?

It has a charter now and gets payments from the government, but I feel if you go down that road, a broadcaster can be seen to be more pro- or anti-government, when it is looking for more funding directly from the Treasury, and often be caught as not being independent enough.

Something its neighbour the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has found for years - its licence fee was abolished eons ago, and it finds itself under threat from the government often (we'll cut your block grant if you don't say the right things, that sort of thing).

Let me nail one thing - Channel 4 does not recieve any tax-payers money to fund its regular operations. It is funded by its own advertising sales alone. From 1982 to 1993 it was funded by advertising sales by the ITV companies on its frequency, afterwards by its own advertising sales (with a Support System in place by which ITV would pay C4 money to keep it in business if it made a loss. Channel 4 now makes a quite large profit though, so this was abolished some years back, otherwise it would have meant C4 paying a rebate to ITV). See www.itc.org.uk for details on all this.

seamus

Normally I would have been against it, ie They can barely do anything decent as it is.......but after the whole Ray Burke/Century FM thing emerged, it's easy to see why RTE's quality has suffered so much.

Frankly, I think an increase could do great things, but only if it's spending is monitored, and not left to it's own devices (just like everything else in this country)