TV Licence - ALL TV licence discussion/queries in this thread.

ps200306 · 03-11-2020 6:21pm

Is it possible you bought it at end of December, rather than January. Your first one runs from the start of the month you bought it, plus eleven more months. Basically if you buy at the end of a month they screw you for a month's worth that you didn't get. Check the license itself -- the dates should be written on it.

elperello · 03-11-2020 7:40pm

If you bought online check the transaction date to confirm exact date.

Asus X540L · 03-11-2020 8:35pm

lol found out on Citizen's Information your first TV license is only valid 11 months!

Truly bizarre.

When you buy your first-time licence, it is valid until the end of the 11th month following the month it was issued. For example, if the licence was issued in the middle of April it is valid until the end of March the following year. When you renew it at the end of that period, the new licence is valid for 12 months.

elperello · 03-11-2020 9:02pm

ps200306 wrote: »

Is it possible you bought it at end of December, rather than January. Your first one runs from the start of the month you bought it, plus eleven more months. Basically if you buy at the end of a month they screw you for a month's worth that you didn't get. Check the license itself -- the dates should be written on it.

Asus X540L wrote: »

lol found out on Citizen's Information your first TV license is only valid 11 months!

Truly bizarre.

When you buy your first-time licence, it is valid until the end of the 11th month following the month it was issued. For example, if the licence was issued in the middle of April it is valid until the end of March the following year. When you renew it at the end of that period, the new licence is valid for 12 months.

Not really.

It's as PS said above.

If you want to get the full value you buy at the start of the month and then it lasts 12 months.

Sooner the better they do away with it altogether and then we won't have to worry about anomalies like this.

ps200306 · 21-11-2020 6:35am

Bob24 wrote: »

On price, monitors are pretty much always more expensive than similarly sized TVs, I don’t think you can get around that. But given the savings on the licence it is irrelevant as long as you know you will keep it for some time. Each year you can deduce 160 euros from the price of the monitor vs having a TV, so within a year (or max 2 years) you usually break even and then it becomes cheaper each year.

Size is a bit of a problem though: if you want to go above 43in they are usually for professional use (with that size it is usually for public display rather than individual use on a desk), and can get rather pricy. I can see this one on Amazon though: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CRMGLPX/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fab_icSGFbAG04C1M

I've taken the plunge! Was looking at monitors like Bob24's link (and its smaller 48-inch sibling) but then found this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B085TS9C7T (it also has an even larger 65-inch sibling). It's basically an Android Smart TV sans tuner. The "KAGIS" designation means "keine GIS". GIS is the Austrian TV licensing system, very similar to our own, where the ability to receive broadcast signals with a tuner requires you to buy a license for an eye-watering €320 -- twice the price of the Irish one!!!

Anyway, I'm satisfied that this falls outside the purview of the Irish Broadcasting Act. Couldn't find a manual online, but there's a youtube unboxing review in German. I suspect it's one of the earlier 4K displays but I'm willing to give it a punt. Arrives next Friday.

Bob24 · 21-11-2020 10:44am

ps200306 wrote: »

I've taken the plunge! Was looking at monitors like Bob24's link (and its smaller 48-inch sibling) but then found this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B085TS9C7T (it also has an even larger 65-inch sibling). It's basically an Android Smart TV sans tuner. The "KAGIS" designation means "keine GIS". GIS is the Austrian TV licensing system, very similar to our own, where the ability to receive broadcast signals with a tuner requires you to buy a license for an eye-watering €320 -- twice the price of the Irish one!!!

Anyway, I'm satisfied that this falls outside the purview of the Irish Broadcasting Act. Couldn't find a manual online, but there's a youtube unboxing review in German. I suspect it's one of the earlier 4K displays but I'm willing to give it a punt. Arrives next Friday.

Nice find! I had never came across one of these. I assume it will be a no brainer and just work as expected, but keep us posted if there is any surprise.

Hopefully this type of device won’t become too mainstream though, or governments will start to take notice and will want to legislate around it to keep forcing us to pay for poor public TV we don’t watch ...

styo · 25-11-2020 7:28pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Considered so by whom?

Under what section of the act?

Has the definition of 'broadcast' been changed in the act?

considered so by the TV license authority, and by Eir, who provide Eir TV.

Whether this is legal under the terms of the broadcast act is debatable, I agree, but it is an obligation under the contract terms of Eir TV to hold a valid TV license.

Where this seems to have settled is that if you restrict your tv viewing to using viewer apps like rte's appalling player, then you don't need a tv license, but if you choose to consume TV channels, even streamed to a computer over from a TV Internet broadcasting service like Eir TV, then you are obliged to pay the TV license.

It will be interesting to see if the courts agree I suppose

It does seem to be a bit of a legal stretch to consider Eir TV to require equipment capable of receipt of general broadcast signal.

styo · 25-11-2020 7:37pm

Bob24 wrote: »

The examples the OP referred to are very clearly and specifically listed in the TV licence FAQ: https://www.anpost.ie/AnPost/MainContent/Personal+Customers/More+from+An+Post/TV+Licence/General+TV+Licence+FAQs.htm

"Viewing any TV Programmes broadcast for general reception over broadband (e.g. Eir TV/Vodafone TV) on your monitor requires a TV Licence."

Note that RTE Player and the likes are not listed as requiring a licence, so the FAQ clearly differentiate between these and an Eir/Vodafone tv box.

Now if people want to say An Post is publishing wrong information and test it in court, they are free to do so - but clearly the TV licence FAQ does include this type of use in what the act calls an "electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception".

So the FAQ is not a legal document.

Sorry for stating the obvious, but the question is whether the broadcast act is restricted to the licensing of equipment for receipt of over the air signals, or covers equipment for receipt of IP communication where the signal is used to transmit TV signals.

My understanding is that it is limited to the licensing of equipment capable of receipt of the old analogue signals. It doesn't even cover the Freeview digital signalling. But, the gotcha is that most TVs have this equipment built in and so one is obliged to license them, even if that equipment is not used. Even if one breaks that component of the tv, because it could be repaired.

My understanding is that the receipt of TV programming streamed over an IP connection does not require equipment capable of receipt of the old broadcast signals, and therefore the license authority is going beyond the law.

Clearly the tv license authority is trying to infer that it does, but is there as yet case law supporting that? I doubt it.

Johnboy1951 · 25-11-2020 8:45pm

styo wrote: »

So the FAQ is not a legal document.

Sorry for stating the obvious, but the question is whether the broadcast act is restricted to the licensing of equipment for receipt of over the air signals, or covers equipment for receipt of IP communication where the signal is used to transmit TV signals.

My understanding is that it is limited to the licensing of equipment capable of receipt of the old analogue signals. It doesn't even cover the Freeview digital signalling. But, the gotcha is that most TVs have this equipment built in and so one is obliged to license them, even if that equipment is not used. Even if one breaks that component of the tv, because it could be repaired.

There is no mention that I recall of analogue or digital signals.
Equipment capable of receiving broadcast signals must be licenced .... even if that is a combination of devices to achieve the capability.
It does not even matter if such signals are being broadcast in the locality, just that the equipment is capable of receiving such signals whether or not they exist.

My understanding is that the receipt of TV programming streamed over an IP connection does not require equipment capable of receipt of the old broadcast signals, and therefore the license authority is going beyond the law.

Clearly the tv license authority is trying to infer that it does, but is there as yet case law supporting that? I doubt it.

That is my view also.

styo · 25-11-2020 10:24pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There is no mention that I recall of analogue or digital signals.
Equipment capable of receiving broadcast signals must be licenced .... even if that is a combination of devices to achieve the capability.
It does not even matter if such signals are being broadcast in the locality, just that the equipment is capable of receiving such signals whether or not they exist.

I'd have to check, but my recollection is that the nature of broadcast signals is defined in a way that de facto implies classic analog broadcasting, with tower and all.

And it doesn't matter if they actually broadcast that way any more - if the equipment will take an arial connection and decode, it's licensable.

if it every went to court I'd guess it would come down to broadcast vs. stream - ie. the parallel distribution of a channel to multiple customers, as opposed to the more modern individual click and stream. I suggest that the current legislation would side with government on TV over IP channels maybe, so long as on demand wasn't part of the service feature set.

Sam Russell · 25-11-2020 10:38pm

My understanding is that it is broadcast if it is received simultaneously or nearly so with the signal from an aerial or satellite. IP services would be covered by this (Eir, Vodafone etc). However yet to be decided in court.

Streaming on demand is different. However, expect this to be included next time they have a broadcast bill.

styo · 25-11-2020 10:53pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

My understanding is that it is broadcast if it is received simultaneously or nearly so with the signal from an aerial or satellite. IP services would be covered by this (Eir, Vodafone etc). However yet to be decided in court.

Streaming on demand is different. However, expect this to be included next time they have a broadcast bill.

Yes that makes sense.

I doubt the broadband household charge will ever see the light of day though, but that's just me. If RTE want to charge streamers, then they just have to put a license registration paywall in place.

My view is that if you watch RTE and other programming paid for by the TV license, then you should be paying the license fee. And that if RTE was a genuine public service broadcaster, then it could claim an obligation for that delivery. But in reality its a subsidised regular commercial TV channel provider that I have no use for.

ps200306 · 25-11-2020 10:59pm

styo wrote: »

I'd have to check, but my recollection is that the nature of broadcast signals is defined in a way that de facto implies classic analog broadcasting, with tower and all.

Definitely not the case. The relevant section of the Broadcasting Act says that "a person shall not keep or have in his or her possession anywhere in the territory of the State a television set save in so far as such keeping or possession is authorised by a television licence for the time being in force".

A television set is defined as "any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus".

I'm 100% certain that cable TV is covered which is neither analogue (Virgin Media switched that off in 2019) nor over-the-air. By the same token I would say that Eir TV is covered because it is a "broadcast service for general reception".

Notwithstanding that, I don't believe that IPTV in general is covered, otherwise every PC and smartphone -- which we know don't need a license -- would be liable as they are capable of running an IPTV player. The crucial distinction (as I interpret it) is between a broadcast or multicast service and a narrowcast or video-on-demand service. IPTV is capable of both. If you use a broadcast IPTV service you need a license, otherwise not.

Our legislation is very similar to Austria's Gebühren Info Service (GIS). Their definition is: "Broadcasting reception equipment (TV, radio etc.) are all technical appliances which are designed to directly receive broadcasts. The type of equipment is therefore not the issue at hand, the decisive factor is that this equipment can receive TV and radio broadcasts". In Austria you can buy an Android TV without a DTV/satellite/cable tuner and it does not require a license, any more than a computer + monitor would. (I'm about to do the same here

).

elperello · 25-11-2020 11:38pm

styo wrote: »

Yes that makes sense.

I doubt the broadband household charge will ever see the light of day though, but that's just me. If RTE want to charge streamers, then they just have to put a license registration paywall in place.

My view is that if you watch RTE and other programming paid for by the TV license, then you should be paying the license fee. And that if RTE was a genuine public service broadcaster, then it could claim an obligation for that delivery. But in reality its a subsidised regular commercial TV channel provider that I have no use for.

RTE is 100% State owned.

"The state owns RTÉ, Ireland’s largest television and radio organisation, which operates as a commercial, semi-state body."

https://fora.ie/who-owns-irelands-media-3382010-May2017/

Sam Russell · 25-11-2020 11:59pm

RTE must be funded in part (or wholly) by the licence fee so that it can withstand the political interference that the BBC is suffering from at the moment. Even at that, the Gov has refused increases to the licence which is interference.

I would be in favour of a Household Charge of some kind levelled on every home regardless of TV ownership. If it were structured such that net income would be similar to current yield (perhaps a bit more) giving an annual charge of say €150. This would suit RTE as they would not have to pay An Post to collect, nor to pay for enforcement.

Add a small charge for broadband, and a tiny charge on each text message, and fund Saorview from it so all main channels are HD. Use the balance to fund the arts, and cultural events, and the Irish language.

RTE would then be constrained to live within their budgets, only augmented by their advertising revenue, plus any commercial ventures.

ps200306 · 26-11-2020 1:15am

Sam Russell wrote: »

RTE must be funded in part (or wholly) by the licence fee so that it can withstand the political interference that the BBC is suffering from at the moment.

Depending on a legislatively mandated license fee is the exact opposite of political independence. The BBC is over 90% funded by the UK licence fee, with the rest coming from commercial subsidiaries. RTE gets about half its revenue from the license with the rest coming from advertising. Why would RTE be less prone to political interference than the BBC?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Even at that, the Gov has refused increases to the licence which is interference.

RTE can't pass legislation. It is beholden to the government for funding.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would be in favour of a Household Charge of some kind levelled on every home regardless of TV ownership. If it were structured such that net income would be similar to current yield (perhaps a bit more) giving an annual charge of say €150. This would suit RTE as they would not have to pay An Post to collect, nor to pay for enforcement.

That's a license fee by another name, but unfairly levied on all regardless of usage.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Add a small charge for broadband, and a tiny charge on each text message, and fund Saorview from it so all main channels are HD. Use the balance to fund the arts, and cultural events, and the Irish language.

I don't think our government is likely to tax the internet after a similar move brought the Hungarian population out onto the street in protest, and the European Commission called it "a shame on the Hungarian government".

Sam Russell wrote: »

RTE would then be constrained to live within their budgets, only augmented by their advertising revenue, plus any commercial ventures.

Or RTE could try living within its existing budget right now.

styo · 26-11-2020 12:27pm

ps200306 wrote: »

Definitely not the case. The relevant section of the Broadcasting Act says that "a person shall not keep or have in his or her possession anywhere in the territory of the State a television set save in so far as such keeping or possession is authorised by a television licence for the time being in force".

A television set is defined as "any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus".

I'm 100% certain that cable TV is covered which is neither analogue (Virgin Media switched that off in 2019) nor over-the-air. By the same token I would say that Eir TV is covered because it is a "broadcast service for general reception".

Notwithstanding that, I don't believe that IPTV in general is covered, otherwise every PC and smartphone -- which we know don't need a license -- would be liable as they are capable of running an IPTV player. The crucial distinction (as I interpret it) is between a broadcast or multicast service and a narrowcast or video-on-demand service. IPTV is capable of both. If you use a broadcast IPTV service you need a license, otherwise not.

Our legislation is very similar to Austria's Gebühren Info Service (GIS). Their definition is: "Broadcasting reception equipment (TV, radio etc.) are all technical appliances which are designed to directly receive broadcasts. The type of equipment is therefore not the issue at hand, the decisive factor is that this equipment can receive TV and radio broadcasts". In Austria you can buy an Android TV without a DTV/satellite/cable tuner and it does not require a license, any more than a computer + monitor would. (I'm about to do the same here ).

agree.

So it was described to me thus by a staffer in the tv license division: if your device is not capable of receiving live television and is not connected to anything that gives you live feed, then you do not need a television license. the emphasis on "live" is the key. that is what defines broadcast, and more importantly receipt of broadcast. Indeed, analog one the air transmission, cable etc, all deliver this. And I suspect Eir TV and Vodafone TV, being Digital broadcast of a signal consumed by many people simultaneously also qualifies.

forgive my clumsy language re. analog broadcast - this is what I was attempting to drive at. receipt of a broadcast transmission. ie. not on demand click and watch a la YouTube etc. If you are watching a feed that is live broadcast then it's licensable. If you are clicking and initiating a server to client individual transmission of data, then its not broadcast.

which is quite ironic - you need a license to avail of a lower grade schedule based broadcast transition but do not need a license to avail of the superior on demand viewing of content.

My youngest kids don't even know what a tv schedule is.

Johnboy1951 · 26-11-2020 1:26pm

It is a long time since I looked so have forgotten .....

is 'broadcast' defined in that legislation?

I seem to recall some ambiguity because of this.

ps200306 · 26-11-2020 5:17pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

is 'broadcast' defined in that legislation?

EDIT: yes it is (I was mistaken earlier). It defines both "broadcast" and "broadcasting service" and it's the latter definition that's important here:

“broadcasting service” means a service which comprises a compilation of programme material of any description and which is transmitted, relayed or distributed by means of an electronic communications network, directly or indirectly for simultaneous or near-simultaneous reception by the general public, whether that material is actually received or not, and where the programmes are provided in a pre-scheduled and linear order, but does not include:

a service provided in a non-linear manner where each user of the service chooses a programme from a catalogue of programmes, or
other audio and audiovisual services provided by way of the Internet;

In other words, on-demand content is specifically excluded in the legislation.

styo wrote: »

if your device is not capable of receiving live television and is not connected to anything that gives you live feed, then you do not need a television license. the emphasis on "live" is the key. that is what defines broadcast, and more importantly receipt of broadcast.

I agree with what you're trying to say, though I think "live" is the wrong word. It's probably trying to capture the "simultaneous or near-simultaneous reception" part of the definition I quoted above. But that on its own is not sufficient. A live broadcast normally refers to the broadcasting of events as they occur, by contrast with a pre-recorded broadcast. They are both still broadcasts in the sense that you receive it at the same time as the transmitter sends it to everyone else. As Wikipedia puts it:

"Broadcasting is the distribution of audio or video content to a dispersed audience via any electronic mass communications medium, but typically one using the electromagnetic spectrum (radio waves), in a one-to-many model."

It's the one-to-many model that puts the "broad" in broadcasting. That's why IPTV can be both broadcast and on-demand. IP multicasting allows protocols like UDP to be sent to subscribers as a group, as well as the more common one-to-one connections.

styo wrote: »

which is quite ironic - you need a license to avail of a lower grade schedule based broadcast transition but do not need a license to avail of the superior on demand viewing of content.

Totally agree, it's just weird (though hard to fix as I note below). Oftentimes the on-demand content is something that might have been broadcast just hours before, as with catch-up TV services. Even stranger is that if you do the time-shifting yourself, i.e. by recording a live broadcast for playback later, you do need a license.

In the UK this loophole is partly closed off. You need a license to watch any broadcast TV, as here, but you also need one to watch BBC iPlayer and that includes computers as well as TV sets. The latter is not strictly enforced though -- you have to declare that you have a license and provide your postcode when you sign up to an iPlayer account but the license is not actually checked. Also in the UK you are not assumed to be watching live broadcasts just by virtue of owning a TV set capable of receiving them.

Therein lies the dilemma for broadcasters and licensers. You have to either use a trust model like the UK, or an unfair blanket model like our proposed broadcasting charge. The only other option needs expensive custom hardware, akin to a Sky box with its card-based content decryption. It could be done in software only but you would be limiting reception to those with a computer. And even then you can only protect the public broadcaster's content. If you want to tax people merely for having a TV, you still need surveillance and enforcement.

I think all of this reveals a schizophrenic attitude to public service broadcasting on the part of some governments. Back when it was easy to define what a physical TV set was and public service TV channels were the only ones available, they made it a TV license. TV ownership and public service broadcast reception were synonymous. That is no longer true. So do we continue with a tax on TVs when a physical TV is no longer required to receive TV signals? Or do we shift the tax to reception of the public service broadcast by any means? That implies an opt-out for people who choose not to consume it. The real implication of the proposed mandatory broadcasting charge in Ireland is that the government knows a large number of people would not voluntarily pay for the ad-riddled low quality content they produce.

Johnboy1951 · 26-11-2020 6:23pm

Seems the simplest solution would be to add a specific amount to the LPT.
Those who would not ordinarily pay a TV Licence Fee could easily be excluded by application.

The fee should be named to reflect its purpose ...... to maintain a public broadcasting infrastructure and service for this country that does not depend on anyone not under our government's control.

styo · 26-11-2020 6:35pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Seems to be the simplest solution is to add a specific amount to the LPT.
Those who would not ordinarily pay a TV Licence Fee could easily be excluded by application.

The fee should be named to reflect its purpose ...... to maintain a public broadcasting infrastructure and service for this country that does not depend on anyone not under our government's control.

well that's a political question because what you are suggesting is that citizens who own property should be forced to pay not merely for "infrastructure" to make possible national broadcasting but for a specific service or services that broadcast.

I actually think the present arrangement is perfectly good, with a few tweaks.

Anyone who presently consumes TV has a television set that is capable of receipt of broadcasts. They pay the license fee and get value for the collective service provided one presumes. People like me who don't consume TV, simply have to avoid having TV sets with tuners. Increasingly that is not a hard thing to do. Digital Signage displays, which contain better quality components and last longer than TV are increasingly priced close enough to a TV set to make the difference covered by a years license fee saving or two. Now 4k/UHD is here, I don't think we're going to see 8k for quite some time, so a display purchased today should last a very long time.

I think that works fine. I see no reason why I should be forced to pay for TV services that I have taken steps not to consume. I don't see TV broadcasting as a national good. I've no problem paying for hospitals roads the police, schools and libraries. I do have a problem paying for the wall to wall crap that RTE and others produce. RTE do provide a small proportion of what would be called public interest broadcasting, but tbh its a very small component of their output.

I would pay a charge for broadcast infrastructure perhaps, but that would be a very small charge compared to 160 presently charged. I am already paying for the national broadband scheme as is every other citizen, so that strikes me as enough.

The tweak I would make would be to include the use of the rte player and any other software player that provides access to broadcast content licensable.It is not ethical to avoid the TV license and yet still consume that which the license is designed to pay for. That's theft in my book.

that would not be hard - the player could require license registration for display of channels and a registration/pin combination could be issued with a tv license exactly as is issued for motor tax etc. These would be inputted into he player at a registration point once the users seek to consume broadcast channels rather than archived on demand content. It would be rather simple to restrict the use of a code to a single parallel play or relatively minimal set of playing. This kind of thing is routinely done by music streaming services such as tidal.

In my view freeeview should have had exactly the same requirement. That it was not I think points to the prevailing myth that RTE and others would like to continue, that TV consumption is an absolute majority activity and that all should pay for it. That those of us who don't are cavemen as the rabbit famously suggested. In fact the reverse is the case. TV is dying. Even venerable institutions like the BBC are very concerned at the accelerating switch off, and that the vast majority would be better served by government subsidised broadband than access to RTE. my 2c.

A further tweak that I would add is to make a connected cable to viewing configuration licensable, not merely a component in the chain. So for example, a great many people have a TV set in the home but it is unconnected to cable or an arial. That should not require a license. If a house has a dish or antenna, or an internal arial or TV set capable of receipt of broadcast signals without attachments, that should be licensable. But a screen that happens to have a cable input should not require licensing in and of itself. The present arrangement whereby most people pay the TV license is maintained by the de facto annual taxation of the purchase of an LED panel, whether it is connected to broadcasts or not. I recall the tv license authority campaign that tried to suggest that watching a box set required a license. that was deeply dishonest - it did not. buying a tv with an onboard broadcast signal input, used or not, is what the license fee is attached to.

In summary. I don't want TV services, and do not want to pay for them thanks. I think there are enough of you that do to pay for it yourselves. And good luck to you, but don't expect me to join in.

Johnboy1951 · 26-11-2020 7:02pm

Just because you choose not to watch a service that is provided nationaly, does not mean that others with similar equipment to yours act in the same manner.

The licence fee is not solely to permit viewing of programmes.

styo · 26-11-2020 7:06pm

That implies an opt-out for people who choose not to consume it. The real implication of the proposed mandatory broadcasting charge in Ireland is that the government knows a large number of people would not voluntarily pay for the ad-riddled low quality content they produce.

hole in one.

styo · 26-11-2020 7:09pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Just because you choose not to watch a service that is provided nationaly, does not mean that others with similar equipment to yours act in the same manner.

The licence fee is not solely to permit viewing of programmes.

Your first point is of course true. But changes nothing. The question remains, why should I pay for that consumption?

The second point is I think technically true (the license fee is specifically for the keeping of certain equipment on your premises whether you use it or not) but in spirit entirely wrong - the license fee is used to fund RTE and certain other channel/content providers. In so far as people who have TV sets in the home to play PS4 games or watch box sets for example, are required to pay a TV license, this payment is in effect to subsidise the consumption of viewing by others of RTE and similarly funded organisations. It thus is a fair question to ask, is the enforced payment/tax funding a public good, is it proportionate to the need, and are there better ways to spend taxes than this? I'd rather they took 160 a year from me to keep libraries open for kids after school for example.

It would be an interesting exercise to list the content delivered weekly by RTE that fits a public interest standard. And to ask does that require an organisation such as RTE that runs a number of channels, often by buying in content available far more cheaply to the viewing public via alternative services.

This is a value for money question but is also a deeper question. Where is the public interest? Is it in maintaining a broadcast organisation or is it in maintaining the generation of public interest content? In the internet age, its a very weak case to make to suggest that "infrastructure" is what we are paying for.

Sam Russell · 26-11-2020 7:33pm

The TV licence predates RTE.

The Household charge/Broadcast charge would be used to fund various cultural activities', which should include art galleries, free cultural events, orchestras, opera and ballet companies, museums, and even the zoo, plus Irish language support, as well as TV and radio services.

The fact that you do not subscribe to these ideas or support these activities is not an argument not to pay for them. To support such things out of general taxation would be short sighted, because in time of recession, they get cut and in times of plenty, they are in the gift of village pump-ism favoured by many ministers. Perhaps one should question why we have museums and the National Gallery.

Collecting the charge is best done from likely consumers, rather than LPT payers because they include landlords rather than householders. Electricity bills fits the requirement.

The TV licence is a relatively small charge when Sky subscribers pay a similar sum per month that is the annual charge for the licence. The Saturday Irish Times every week costs a similar sum.

Similar objections are made against Motor Tax, water charges, in charges, etc. Most people object to taxes, charges, levies, etc. Especially when they are first introduced.

Now if water charges were introduced as a Waste Water & Sewerage Charges perhaps there would have been fewer objection. Particularly the swimmers of Dublin Bay having to put up with nasty smells, and brown dirty water.

styo · 26-11-2020 7:39pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The TV licence predates RTE.

The Household charge/Broadcast charge would be used to fund various cultural activities', which should include art galleries, free cultural events, orchestras, opera and ballet companies, museums, and even the zoo, plus Irish language support, as well as TV and radio services.

The fact that you do not subscribe to these ideas or support these activities is not an argument not to pay for them. To support such things out of general taxation would be short sighted, because in time of recession, they get cut and in times of plenty, they are in the gift of village pump-ism favoured by many ministers. Perhaps one should question why we have museums and the National Gallery.

Collecting the charge is best done from likely consumers, rather than LPT payers because they include landlords rather than householders. Electricity bills fits the requirement.

The TV licence is a relatively small charge when Sky subscribers pay a similar sum per month that is the annual charge for the licence. The Saturday Irish Times every week costs a similar sum.

Similar objections are made against Motor Tax, water charges, in charges, etc. Most people object to taxes, charges, levies, etc. Especially when they are first introduced.

Now if water charges were introduced as a Waste Water & Sewerage Charges perhaps there would have been fewer objection. Particularly the swimmers of Dublin Bay having to put up with nasty smells, and brown dirty water.

Please list the percentage of the license fee that goes to these causes?

The idea of trying to use museums to defend reruns of love island is frankly ludicrous.

Sam Russell · 26-11-2020 7:56pm

styo wrote: »

Please list the percentage of the license fee that goes to these causes?

The idea of trying to use museums to defend reruns of love island is frankly ludicrous.

Love Island does not appear on RTE, and anyway would not be considered cultural, and reruns would hardly qualify as entertainment.

If broadcast TV is failing vs on demand streaming, then funding should be used for a broader range of activities.

styo · 26-11-2020 7:59pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Love Island does not appear on RTE, and anyway would not be considered cultural, and reruns would hardly qualify as entertainment.

If broadcast TV is failing vs on demand streaming, then funding should be used for a broader range of activities.

I'll answer the question for you so.

RTE get almost all of the cash (86%) less . Not a museum in sight, according to RTE.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0802/1066686-licence-fee-breakdown/

You merely beg the question, what activities? There is no answer to that question that is not political.

Sam Russell · 26-11-2020 9:09pm

styo wrote: »

I'll answer the question for you so.

RTE get almost all of the cash (86%) less . Not a museum in sight, according to RTE.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0802/1066686-licence-fee-breakdown/

You merely beg the question, what activities? There is no answer to that question that is not political.

Yes it is political.

I am suggesting moving culture out of the grasp of politicians. Having such matters left to the politicians means the local interests of ministers trump the general requirements driven by less parochial matters.

ps200306 · 26-11-2020 9:46pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Seems the simplest solution would be to add a specific amount to the LPT.
Those who would not ordinarily pay a TV Licence Fee could easily be excluded by application.

The fee should be named to reflect its purpose ...... to maintain a public broadcasting infrastructure and service for this country that does not depend on anyone not under our government's control.

I don't think we should talk about solutions until we know what problem we are trying to solve. What is the purpose of a public broadcasting infrastructure? If it's for public emergency alerts, the government already has my mobile phone number and can send a text. If it's to broadcast RTE's current content, no thanks. I haven't watched it in years, in fact I can't even receive it, though up till now I've still been paying for it. Soon, even the extraordinary measure of eschewing a television set altogether will not be enough. Ironically, that announcement is what has spurred me to action. It's the last chance to give two fingers to RTE broadcasting, even though it's going to cost me money to do so.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Household charge/Broadcast charge would be used to fund various cultural activities', which should include art galleries, free cultural events, orchestras, opera and ballet companies, museums, and even the zoo, plus Irish language support, as well as TV and radio services.

The fact that you do not subscribe to these ideas or support these activities is not an argument not to pay for them. To support such things out of general taxation would be short sighted, because in time of recession, they get cut and in times of plenty, they are in the gift of village pump-ism favoured by many ministers. Perhaps one should question why we have museums and the National Gallery.

So is it to pay for broadcasting infrastructure or to pay for the zoo? We need to get our story straight. Politicians will happily add to your dolly mixture of worthy causes, because they will never tire of offering us goodies paid for with our own money. I happen to agree with many of the items on your list, however they're not what the license fee pays for. It does pay for orchestras, which I support, but the overwhelming amount goes on crap TV which I count as a public evil that we would actually be better off without. I also pay an individual "pay per view" every time I go to see a publicly funded orchestra so I'm paying on the double. It must also be said that the choice available is pretty dire.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The TV licence is a relatively small charge when Sky subscribers pay a similar sum per month that is the annual charge for the licence. The Saturday Irish Times every week costs a similar sum.

There's no such thing as a small charge for something you don't use. I don't subscribe to Sky or the Irish Times either, so the value of those things to people who choose to pay for them is completely irrelevant.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Similar objections are made against Motor Tax, water charges, in charges, etc. Most people object to taxes, charges, levies, etc. Especially when they are first introduced.

Interesting you should mention water charges. That's an example of something that was already paid for out of general taxation. The people who were out on the streets protesting about water charges were the ones who weren't paying much in general taxes. You could make an argument either way -- that people should pay equally for the individual services they use, or that those who earn more should pay a greater share of the cost of vital infrastructure. But if you're going to argue for adding broadcasting to general taxation, then you need to make the case for how it is "vital infrastructure". And currently you would also need to make the case for how reruns of Eastenders laced with advertising is part of that.

styo wrote: »

I see no reason why I should be forced to pay for TV services that I have taken steps not to consume. I don't see TV broadcasting as a national good. I've no problem paying for hospitals roads the police, schools and libraries. I do have a problem paying for the wall to wall crap that RTE and others produce. RTE do provide a small proportion of what would be called public interest broadcasting, but tbh its a very small component of their output.

That's the nub of it. If anyone can convince me that reruns of Eastenders is a public good, I'll happily pay for it.

styo wrote: »

The tweak I would make would be to include the use of the rte player and any other software player that provides access to broadcast content licensable.It is not ethical to avoid the TV license and yet still consume that which the license is designed to pay for. That's theft in my book.

Totally agree. You are effectively talking about making RTE a fully commercial organisation able to stand on its own two feet.

styo wrote: »

TV is dying. Even venerable institutions like the BBC are very concerned at the accelerating switch off, and that the vast majority would be better served by government subsidised broadband than access to RTE... In summary. I don't want TV services, and do not want to pay for them thanks. I think there are enough of you that do to pay for it yourselves. And good luck to you, but don't expect me to join in.

Exactly. Once upon a time I used to watch TV for the educational content available. Can't remember any of them being on RTE. But the BBC had the Open University content which was great. That eventually disappeared, leaving us with programmes like Horizon, which then got progressively dumbed down until it was no longer worth watching. I voted with my wallet. I paid through the nose to do an Open University degree, and other online education. Nowadays I'm also able to get an astonishing amount of high quality educational content through youtube. I simply have no interest or use for traditional TV. Don't like it, don't watch it, don't want to pay for it.

TV Licence - ALL TV licence discussion/queries in this thread.

Comments