"Progressive TV Licence system" proposed by FG Senator

ThisRegard wrote: »

Hasn't been mentioned once in this thread, nor is it related to the topic.

FFS people, do you get benefits if you display symptoms of attention deficit disorder or something? The topic is straightforward, there's no shortage of RTE bashing threads if you want to take it there.

Simple, its not progressive by any stretch of the word, its out of date by at least 5 years probably 10 and it will be pointless and a useless idea in another 10 due to how fast tech moves.

ThisRegard wrote: »

Hasn't been mentioned once in this thread, nor is it related to the topic.

FFS people, do you get benefits if you display symptoms of attention deficit disorder or something? The topic is straightforward, there's no shortage of RTE bashing threads if you want to take it there.

In the real world, RTE has to depend on the licence fee and advertising revenue. It overpays people like Tubridy and other presenters and they would found it difficult to command the same fees in an open market. This "progressive" TV licence system is an attempt to impose paying for these useless zelebrities on people who don't want to watch or listen to their shows. Perhaps you didn't realise that. The whole TV broadcast model has shifted, over the last ten years or so, from the old synchronous viewing model (where most of the audience had to watch a programme as it was broadcast) to an asynchronous viewing model (where the audience now effectively decides when it wants to watch a programme). Perhaps you'd be happier on some RTE bashing thread defending RTE rather than discussing the complexities of broadcasting models and revenue streams.

Regards...jmcc

ThisRegard wrote: »

I do, but as to the relevance of people who in the past mentioned that BBC wanted Tubridy, there is none.

I don't think that you do. BBC gave Turbidy a run and he lost listeners. The BBC operates in a very competitive environment and it simply decided that losing audience numbers was not commerically viable. RTE isn't really operating as a business in a free market as it has a licence fee support and advertising revenue and still can't break even. One of the biggest problems that RTE has is the lethal combination of overpaid zelebrities and falling audience figures. One of the biggest reasons for those falling audience figures has been the impact of cable television (1970s onwards) and satellite television (from the 1980s onwards) and latterly the rise of alternative programming via the Internet. This "progressive" TV licence fee is an attempt to sustain the old RTE licence fee by other means.

Regards...jmcc

ThisRegard wrote: »

Again, nothing to do with the proposed revision of the system by the Senator.

Unlike you and the senator, I consider this "progressive" TV licence system to be the product of someone who really does not understand the technology of broadcast, distribution, the Internet and licencing. It will, no doubt, get some coverage by happy-clappy "technology journalists" and that's probably the intent.

Regards...jmcc

animaal wrote: »

Or a subscription service.

A subscription based system would be very difficult to protect because there is over the air delivery (Saorview) /broadcast, cable television delivery, satellite delivery (Saorsat) and internet delivery of the service. There would have to be a shared system which would allow subscribers to use it. And there will always be someone who could find a way around the protection. Even Sky was compromised in about five seconds and that was one of the most secure systems at the time. The current licence model is probably the one that will be built upon but the collection of the fee might change. There's talk of having Revenue collect it.

Regards...jmcc

ThisRegard wrote: »

Oh, I didn't realise we were required to in order to be critical of the proposal as she currently details it.

When you deal with these clueless proposals, it is best to be able to take them apart efficiently. Most of them are by clueless people who don't understand the field/business.

For someone who sees my opinion of no value you sure do feel the need to respond to it every time.

I can be a condescending fecker at times.

Regards...jmcc

I'm totally in agreement with Catherine Noone.

I really think we should pay a contribution to the government for our broadband, phone and tv usage... perhaps an additional 23% on top of the service charge? We could call it 'taxation on added value' or something snappier. Going further - we could even pay this 'T.A.V.' tax on every device we purchase to consume the services and on the electricity that powers them and on the house in which we operate them etc. etc. etc.

Jesus, we seem to be suckers for double taxation in this kip.

[font=Arial, "Times New Roman", Verdana, Garamond]Moreover, this new system makes collection much simpler, as it would be collected by Telecoms companies, thus doing away with the need for the ‘TV Licence Inspector’.[/font]

Oh great and we then get to pay 23% vat on top of the €4 / €8 / €XX* each month, just like the scummy p.s.o. levy on energy bills.
*(god knows what they propose if you've tv/phone/broadband/mobile)

ThisRegard wrote: »

Ha, I'm a bit riled up over other stuff.

My main bone of contention is the charging for having a landline, for reasons which appear to be regardless of having broadband, TV, or even radio. Relative to broadcasting I see no reason as to why this charge would exist, other than revenue collection.

Landline charges are already the highest in Europe, from what I remember. (Approximately 23 Euro a month.) The whole proposal is a very poorly conceived brainfart that really doesn't have any basis in reality.

I'm aware that they want every household to pay towards the fee, and that revenue has been suggested as been collectors of the fee.

This is a very dangerous step because it will change a licence fee into effectively being a tax and it will cost politicians votes. There may be some pushback from Revenue over being put in this position.

But if you're going to use the existence of a landline as one of the basis for being charged, why then double up on it if you also have broadband.

Basically, Noone is clueless. There has been a shift away from landlines over the last twenty years as mobile phones became more popular. Virgin (formerly UPC etc) gutted Eircom's dominance of the market and Eircom didn't have the money to compete with higher speed broadband while it was stuck on ADSL. Because Virgin was based in the main cities, it effectively chopped the legs from beneath Eircom in terms of numbers. It also began to offer phone services via cable. Virgin also carries the RTE services on its basic tier so people are already paying for RTE via cable. Now adding an extra fee per month would have people paying approximately 13 Euro extra and it would put the cable TV company in the position of collecting the licence. That arrangement would have to be negotiated with Virgin.

It still leaves the over-the-air problem of Saorsat. That would have to be encrypted and be subscription based. While most TVs would already have a slot for a possible decryption card/conditional access module, it would introduce extra costs for the user unless the device was given away free. And RTE would end up paying for that for a few decades. There would still be no guarantee that the encryption would remain secure.

Having a landline and broadband doesn't enable you to double up on the media consumed over someone with broadband and no landline. So there's no logic that I can see.

It looks like a random politician heard some buzzwords and decided to issue a press release in the hope of getting elected.

Regards...jmcc