RTE want to double TV licence fee

Mr E wrote: »

http://entertainment.ie/tv/news/Everybody-relax-you-wont-have-to-pay-double-for-your-TV-license-fee/391629.htm

That is the sound of backpedalling,

Ive no idea what the statement in entertainement.ie means, "that is the sound of digging up"??? I googled it and nothing comes up, but results for exhuming and digging graves, I'm guessing its one of those bluesky meaning/aka bull$hit speak, is entertainment.ie connected to rte?

suicide_circus wrote: »

I have no traditional tv service. We stream stuff on the laptop and chromecast it to the telly screen. RTE do a couple of things well such as Prime Time Investigates and some radio shows like John Creedon. Most of their "original content" (read poor imitations of hit British shows) is truly dreadful car crash cringeworthy viewing. Joe Duffy's misery porn show is a self parody at this stage. Ray D'arcy is insufferable beyond belief. And yet i pay the license fee....but i wont be paying double. I can only assume that the controller general is aiming high with the ridiculous sum of €320 in the hope of getting some slight increase.

this is what it is, to make the x figure they pull out of their ar$e more palateable,

Venom wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

The TV license is based on your TV having a tuner hence RTE and various political stooges have made noises about changing it to include devices that can access the internet in the past.

This would be great for RTE but add unwanted expense onto the backs of the general public who could get hit with a bill even if they only have a wi-fi/internet linked heating system, washing machine or fridge nevermind a mobile phone!

no forward thinking, just watching some programming (not tv, its on bbc.co.uk) with interesting information on the IOT, internet of things and some insight intot the disadvantages, I cant say Im that happy that in the future standalone device like washing machines etc will likely be unavailable in a non connected/networked form, but it seems its coming.
Im sure RTE will confirm the licence will cover washing machines though, proabaly better watching that than RTE.

kidneyfan wrote: »

In Japan the license fee is extracted from your bank account once a year and there is no appeal against it.

Yeah... but Japanese TV is absolutely fantastic

animaal wrote: »

Yes, my understanding is that the relevant law refers generally to devices capable of receiving broadcasts, rather than specifically to a "TV". So a screen or Monitor by itself without a tuner is fine, but a cable box (Sky/Virgin/Saorview) would be considered to be a "device capable of receiving a broadcast".

I wonder if the current law would stand up to a legal challenge in this day and age, if they tried to prosecute someone who used a Sky/VM box for not paying the license fee.

While I see how Sky even tho they use such a closed system, could be considered a broadcaster in the general sense would Virgin, as to me there more like a streaming service?

1874 wrote: »

no forward thinking, just watching some programming (not tv, its on bbc.co.uk) with interesting information on the IOT, internet of things and some insight intot the disadvantages, I cant say Im that happy that in the future standalone device like washing machines etc will likely be unavailable in a non connected/networked form, but it seems its coming.
Im sure RTE will confirm the licence will cover washing machines though, proabaly better watching that than RTE.

IOT devices still have to come a huge way before they could be considered mainstream enough for most of the public to get on board. Currently each device needs its own app so an open standard needs to be in place so everything can be controlled from 1 app.

You also have the issue of companies changing their product line every few years just to get consumers to buy there new toys which is wearing thin for phones and tablets but for things like heating, lights, fridges and washing machines is just a no go.

lertsnim wrote: »

Anything with a television tuner. So you can have an old VCR and no television but would still be required to have a tv licence. If you have a Sky box a licence is also required even if you dont have a television.

What about having a TV without any kind of reception gear (ie aerial, sky box, freebox, etc) ?

Just a TV sitting on the table, nothing attached.

previous user wrote: »

Haven't payed a Tv license since
I was born, so y'all can go suck it!!!!

Worst thing you can do is to make the mistake of getting yourself on a database, once they have that, they pretty much have you.

masculinist wrote: »

Unfortunately the legislation states that if the yoke can be repaired then you're liable for a TV licence.

So either get a Vizio branded tunerless TV or get a flat screen computer monitor [which never came with a Tuner] with remote control which looks identical to a TV but isnt.

Believe me, unleashing me with a solder iron it'd be well beyond repair

Just googling Vizio, they're actually quite a bit cheaper than I thought they'd be, not really looking at the 120" unit lol but.......:D

Why do some people have such a hard time believing others don't watch RTE at all.

Last thing I watched on RTE was Perriers Bounty four or five years ago.
I don't watch sports or Love/Hate or any of the other ****e they churn out on a regular basis.

Between Youtube, Netflix etc why would I bother?

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Are they gonna finally get rid of the Angelus and all then?

wish they would - this irritating jingle has been going on long enough - must be the oldest programme in the whole world:p

fxotoole wrote: »

Already knew this but thx anyway for the link.

Instead of jacking up the fee, they should implement proper enforcement. In the UK, every TV sale is reported to the TV Licensing body, who then send you a bill for your TV licence annually. Outlets are obliged to get the customer to fill out a form with their name/address. If you don't pay, licence enforcers have proper powers to prosecute evaders.

He'll, they could even reduce the fee by, say, 25% if they had proper enforcement here. Lower rates might also encourage people to pay because it would be more affordable.

But why should i be forced to pay €160 for a service i dont use?
I already paid 23% vat when i bought that thing.
I know i also pay motor tax on something i paid vat already but i do get to use roads for that.
There is absolutely nothing that €160 pays for that i use. Not that i can think of anyway.

That is why a certain amount of my salary vanishes every month and why there is VAT.
I am here 15 years now, not 1 day unemployed so i dont use "the dole" either. But i also dont have to pay an extra fee for a "license to dole" every year.

I pay for many services via my tax i dont use and likely never use either but if push comes to shove and i do need them i cant do without them.
I can do very well without RTE i know from experience.
It is ridiculous that some twat on tv makes €500000 a year in a country this small.
But why not try to squeeze another €160 out of the few people who do actually still take care of themselves.

filbert the fox wrote: »

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

I don't pay it anyway. Double €0 is still €0. No change for me.:)

Ok so now we have gotten to the crux of the matter.

Since time immemorial the threat of being caught without a TV Licence was emphasised whether it be "the TV detector van" or that moronic "...better way to blow €1000 than..."
there is a culture of evasion in this context.

The 265,000+ tv consumers who won't pay for a paltry €3.075 a week (19% of Television owners) are directly responsible for this situation.

it's not the point. Imagine evetilmr paid up, there would be even more obscene waste and ott pay. Actually the less people that pay, the better ...

animaal wrote: »

That's the way state-provided services work. There are plenty of such services that I don't use, but am forced to contribute to through my taxes. Many of these fall into the category of entertainment. State funding of "the arts"? Croke Park?

There's certainly a valid debate as to whether all services should be "pay as you use", but it's not specific to RTE.

I mostly agree with the above, but I would add that there should be a clear mission statement for those services and they should only be funded if they achieve that goal. In the case of Croke Park and even though I have been there very rarely, I can see what is being delivered and what value it brings to Ireland.
When I look at RTE however, it doesn't meet what I think should be the mission statement of a public broadcaster. To me it should combine cultural and educational content with a wide range of political opinions within its journalist so that it doesn't only give one point of view and represents Irish society as a whole. And I see it as failing on both aspects as it is very much entertainment based as most private channels would be, and there is very little variety of opinion in their editorial line.

This is why I think there is a valid point in questioning the legitimacy of the TV licence. And even when you listen to RTE's director who describes it as "value for money" compared to other channels there is clearly no sense that it is a public service and it is rather seen by its staff as an independent subscription based network competing with other ones (except that at the same time the big lie is that they know the "value for money" will never really be tested because as opposed to a true private subscription based channel people can't vote with their feet as they don't have a choice and have to keeping paying that money).

kidneyfan wrote: »

In Japan the license fee is extracted from your bank account once a year and there is no appeal against it.

No it isn't. I don't know where you heard that but it's wrong.

Yes, you can voluntarily set up a payment through your bank, but it is not mandatory. Otherwise, NHK (the public broadcaster) will send houses notification and you pay at the post office or conveneince stores or similar places.

However, it used to be the case that there was no punishment of any kind for failing/refusing to pay. Not sure about now though.

The kernel of the problem in RTE is they have too much content to produce to keep 3 TV stations and 4 radio stations fed so to speak.

At the bottom of this post is a list of journalists ( 76 of them! ) that are camera-facing that I compiled from Wikipedia etc. I reckon these people if all on €80,000 plus Employers PRSI then they cost RTE €6.7 million, out of income of €327 million.

''Top'' talent in the station cost €2.6 million in 2014 according to this

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/revealed-top-10-highest-earning-rte-presenters-tubridy-earns-250k-less-per-year-than-in-2012-34542421.html

I accept there is possible double counting, however there are many presenters like Donal Skehan who dont feature on either list.

Heres another article ( from 2013 )with some details on how much the management is paid in RTE with 80 people sharing €10 million - average earnings of €125,000

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-pays-80-staff-10m-on-top-of-3m-for-star-broadcasters-29166095.html

The average salary ( for employees ) was €63,000 in 2011, I'm not sure if this figure has gone up or down.

All this is like a fairy story for the average worker who is likely to be on half of these salaries.

Now they are selling part of their assets - land - so that they can continue to pay themselves these salaries instead of restructuring, cutting back on all this output they need to produce, by closing one TV station and one radio station.

Greg Allen
Phillip Boucher Hayes
Fergal Bowers
Phillip Bromwell
Des Cahill
Anne Cassin
Tony Connelly
Dyane Connoe
Richard Crowley
Paul Cunningham
David Davin Power
Bryan Dobson
Richard Dowling
Brian Dowling
Richard Downes
Eileen Dunne
Kate Egan
John Finnerty
Martina Fitzgerald
Helen Fletcher
Sharon Gaffney
Samantha Libreiri Gaffney
Tommie Gorman
Cathy Halloran
Katie Hannon
Geraldine Harney
Eamon Horan
Conor hunt
Jacqui Hurley
Sandra Hurley
Sinead Hussey
Fergal Keane
Ray Kennedy
Aine Lawlor
George Lee
Michael Lehane
Joe Little
Aengus MacGrianna
Joe MacRaollaigh
Eileen Magnier
Teresa Mannion
Justin McCarthy
Cathal McCoille
David McCullagh
Pat McGrath
Helen McInerney
Clare McNamara
Ingrid Miley
Fiona Mitchell
Sinead Morris
Ciaran Mulooly
David Murphy
John Murray
Evanne NiChuillin
Sharon NoBheolain
Brian O'Connell
Orla O'Donnell
Shane O'Donoghue
Una O'Hagan
Emma O'Kelly
Sean O'Rourke
Jennie O'Sullivan
Colman O'Sullivan
Catriona Perry
Paul Reynolds
Paschal Sheehy
Joe Stack
Damien Tiernan
Sharon Tobin
Sharon Tobin
Vivienne Traynor
Justin Treacy
Clodagh Walsh
Eileen Whelan
Mary Wilson
Brendan Wright

LeeroyJ. wrote: »

So you agree paying 160 euro for owning a TV for consoles is justified? Even when you don't have or want access to broadcasting?

Nonsense in my opinion, could just as well have a sleeping tax for owning a bed but you don't have to pay it if you decide so sleep in a sleeping bag in your room.

The problem is that given people's tendency to lie about their use in order to evade TV licences and the difficulty to check on whether they actually use their TV as a TV, you have to have a simple verifiable criteria to tell who needs to pay.

If you never use your TV to watch TV broadcasts, you might want to look into buying a tuner-less monitor (with the 160 euros per year it will save you in TV licences and the money you'll get from selling the old TV, it should pay for itself fairly quickly).