Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Time to change the TV licence?

  • 15-12-2008 08:19PM
    #1
    themont85
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭


    This has been discussed before, but i find its mainly discussed in Britain and pushed heavily by anti-BBC folks. Does anybody think its time to scrap the Tv licence system in Ireland? I believe it is time to completely overhaul the system in Ireland.

    I believe in PSB and I believe RTE do a decent job cosidering our population size. It is dissapointing that we can't have a service like the BBC, extremely comprehensive and provides something for the whole population(which some fools in Britain don't get), with no ads. The reality is we need PSB and a regulated system is needed to enforce this, involving some form of public funding. Instead of the TVL i think it should be taken out of general taxation. This would reduce collecting costs(TV licence inspectors, TV ads ect), avoidance and be far more equitable.

    Now the arguments against it being out of general taxation was always, what about people who don't own TV sets? Why should they pay for others service? Well the reality is 99% of the population have a TV set and we already pay taxes for services we may never use i.e Hospitals, Third level education, social welfare ect, all for the general good of the country. Now some will say, how can you compare education to TV? Well, we also pay for librarys and this is just hazording a guess but i'd say more people use the medium of television than a library, and the tv is a great way of informing the population. With the fact that almost everything is becoming available online i think we may see in the future less people buying tvs because they access what they want online without the need for a licence, thus reducing the money for RTE for PSB. I read an article recently about an elderly couple in Britain who got rid of their tv because BBC's iplayer gives them everything they want without the need for a licence. What they are doing isn't wrong technically but will certaintly have an effect long term.

    I think the Irish Govt should act immediately to change the system.


«134567

Comments

  • #2
    barneyeile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 101 ✭✭barneyeile


    Totally agree with you! A big debate needed. The licence fee is too readily accepted in Ireland without too much debate unfortunately. The link that follows kind of starts it off : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58277268#post58277268


  • #3
    Eurorunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Eurorunner


    barneyeile wrote: »
    The licence fee is too readily accepted in Ireland without too much debate unfortunately.
    Theres a lot of resistance but its very hard to fight it - they make an example of a couple of dozen every year by prosecuting - resulting in jail time.
    I always thought it was scandalous - but now with hard times upon us - its totally ridiculous. They already have advertising revenue. The license fee pulls in one hell of an amount of revenue - which is all being squandered in D4.
    Don't know how a reversal could be achieved as vested interests have the powers of state behind them..


  • #4
    icdg
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,757 Mod ✭✭✭✭icdg


    themont85 wrote: »
    This has been discussed before, but i find its mainly discussed in Britain and pushed heavily by anti-BBC folks. Does anybody think its time to scrap the Tv licence system in Ireland? I believe it is time to completely overhaul the system in Ireland.

    I believe in PSB and I believe RTE do a decent job cosidering our population size. It is dissapointing that we can't have a service like the BBC, extremely comprehensive and provides something for the whole population(which some fools in Britain don't get), with no ads. The reality is we need PSB and a regulated system is needed to enforce this, involving some form of public funding. Instead of the TVL i think it should be taken out of general taxation. This would reduce collecting costs(TV licence inspectors, TV ads ect), avoidance and be far more equitable.

    Now the arguments against it being out of general taxation was always, what about people who don't own TV sets? Why should they pay for others service? Well the reality is 99% of the population have a TV set and we already pay taxes for services we may never use i.e Hospitals, Third level education, social welfare ect, all for the general good of the country. Now some will say, how can you compare education to TV? Well, we also pay for librarys and this is just hazording a guess but i'd say more people use the medium of television than a library, and the tv is a great way of informing the population. With the fact that almost everything is becoming available online i think we may see in the future less people buying tvs because they access what they want online without the need for a licence, thus reducing the money for RTE for PSB. I read an article recently about an elderly couple in Britain who got rid of their tv because BBC's iplayer gives them everything they want without the need for a licence. What they are doing isn't wrong technically but will certaintly have an effect long term.

    I think the Irish Govt should act immediately to change the system.

    The biggest argument against general taxation is that would allow the Government to cut RTÉ's budget almost on a whim depending on the mood of the minister of the day. The licence fee is practically never decreased and is (Sound and Vision nothwithstanding and - indirectly - TG4 aside) ring-fenced for RTÉ, so the government has no real incentive to decrease as any decrease would be instantly looked on as a punishment for RTÉ.

    Funding from general taxation however is a different kettle of fish - the government could argue that it is taking funding from RTÉ to give to more deserved causes (and, almost certainly RTÉ's funding would have been cut drastically in the budget thus gone). It would essentially turn RTÉ from a state-owned broadcaster to a Government broadcaster - a mouthpiece for the government, afraid to seriously question any decision or ruffle any feathers.

    The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a prime example of what happens to a licence-fee broadcaster who is turned over to general taxation funding.


  • #5
    themont85
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭themont85


    icdg wrote: »
    The biggest argument against general taxation is that would allow the Government to cut RTÉ's budget almost on a whim depending on the mood of the minister of the day. The licence fee is practically never decreased and is (Sound and Vision nothwithstanding and - indirectly - TG4 aside) ring-fenced for RTÉ, so the government has no real incentive to decrease as any decrease would be instantly looked on as a punishment for RTÉ.

    Funding from general taxation however is a different kettle of fish - the government could argue that it is taking funding from RTÉ to give to more deserved causes (and, almost certainly RTÉ's funding would have been cut drastically in the budget thus gone). It would essentially turn RTÉ from a state-owned broadcaster to a Government broadcaster - a mouthpiece for the government, afraid to seriously question any decision or ruffle any feathers.

    The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a prime example of what happens to a licence-fee broadcaster who is turned over to general taxation funding.

    Thats an excellent point about it turning into a Government broadcaster. But already isn't RTE at the whim of the Government funding wise, ie they could decrease it or increase depending on the incumbent minister of communications.


  • #6
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    barneyeile wrote: »
    Totally agree with you! A big debate needed. The licence fee is too readily accepted in Ireland without too much debate unfortunately. The link that follows kind of starts it off : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58277268#post58277268

    Could we not merge the 2? But let me also point out that the Broadcasting debate must also discuss TV3 and its remit as a Private public service broadcast which is what their licence is for.

    I don't think we need to change the lience fee but what I think we need is a strong regulator that understands the importance of good commerical TV which can compete with RTE and ensure that RTE can improve. TV3 need different requirements in different genres rather then just news and an overall percentage. When TV3 does compete we do see substantial changes in RTE which is a good thing. If TV3 aren't interested in driving this competition forward it is up to the regulator to drive it for them.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    DMC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,732 ✭✭✭✭DMC


    One thing that is seldom discussed regarding the TV licence, is collection and how much goes back to the broadcasters. An Post make a fair bit out of it. €9.40 out of each licence, combined with collection from the departments of Social Welfare and Communications. (RTÉ Annual Report 2007)


  • #8
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,608 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The cheapest way to collect the TV fee is to get the ESB to collect it, as every TV has to be connected to the ESB. In fact, if the fee was changed to a Public Broadcasting Levy, it could be levied on every ESB bill, whether they have a TV or not. Everyone benefits from PSB and could pay towards it.
    A benefit of ESB collection would be that it would be paid every two months and by everyone. Collection cost - nil, evasion - nil.
    Obviously, ESB would need to do a bit of programming, but no more than they had to when they unbundled some of their charges. A few bob towards them would be required.

    The change could be helped by a commitment to freeze the charge for 5 years, say.


  • #9
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The cheapest way to collect the TV fee is to get the ESB to collect it, as every TV has to be connected to the ESB. In fact, if the fee was changed to a Public Broadcasting Levy, it could be levied on every ESB bill, whether they have a TV or not. Everyone benefits from PSB and could pay towards it.
    A benefit of ESB collection would be that it would be paid every two months and by everyone. Collection cost - nil, evasion - nil.
    Obviously, ESB would need to do a bit of programming, but no more than they had to when they unbundled some of their charges. A few bob towards them would be required.

    The change could be helped by a commitment to freeze the charge for 5 years, say.

    Your assuming that the ESB is going to remain a monopoly. But it seems like a good approach. I cann't imagine the licence fee increasing this year.


  • #10
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,608 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I should have said ESB Networks, rather than the ESB. The bills will be collected by a single entity, so whoever that is, they can do it a t no cost (not necessarily no charge).
    The change from having to prove someone has a TV to just having a bill would make life so much easier. Each bill carries the levy, simple.


  • #11
    Koloman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Koloman


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The cheapest way to collect the TV fee is to get the ESB to collect it, as every TV has to be connected to the ESB. In fact, if the fee was changed to a Public Broadcasting Levy, it could be levied on every ESB bill, whether they have a TV or not. Everyone benefits from PSB and could pay towards it.
    A benefit of ESB collection would be that it would be paid every two months and by everyone. Collection cost - nil, evasion - nil.
    Obviously, ESB would need to do a bit of programming, but no more than they had to when they unbundled some of their charges. A few bob towards them would be required.

    The change could be helped by a commitment to freeze the charge for 5 years, say.


    As has been said before if you are to pay a licence fee for RTE then the Advertisements on RTE should stop, like the BBC. You can have ads or a licence fee, but not BOTH!


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Mossy Monk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 28,128 ✭✭✭✭Mossy Monk


    Koloman wrote: »
    As has been said before if you are to pay a licence fee for RTE then the Advertisements on RTE should stop, like the BBC. You can have ads or a licence fee, but not BOTH!

    Rubbish. Do you even realise how much money the BBC get from the licence fee? Obviously not if you are going to make a statement like that. You would swear that Ireland is the only country in the world with this situation.


  • #13
    Koloman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Koloman


    Mossy Monk wrote: »
    Rubbish. Do you even realise how much money the BBC get from the licence fee? Obviously not if you are going to make a statement like that. You would swear that Ireland is the only country in the world with this situation.

    Obviously I am aware how much the BBC gets in licence fee money. rolleyes.gif What you need to realise is the blatant abuse RTE has made with licence fee money to outbid TV3 and the like for American imports instead of re-investing its money in home produced programmes. The licence fee is unfair on other broadcasters, plain and simple.


  • #14
    Mossy Monk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 28,128 ✭✭✭✭Mossy Monk


    Koloman wrote: »
    Obviously I am aware how much the BBC gets in licence fee money. rolleyes.gif What you need to realise is the blatant abuse RTE has made with licence fee money to outbid TV3 and the like for American imports instead of re-investing its money in home produced programmes. The licence fee is unfair on other broadcasters, plain and simple.

    The same licence that all channels can apply for, including TV3?

    Did you also know that TV3 are allowed more advertising time per hour?


  • #15
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Koloman wrote: »
    Obviously I am aware how much the BBC gets in licence fee money. rolleyes.gif What you need to realise is the blatant abuse RTE has made with licence fee money to outbid TV3 and the like for American imports instead of re-investing its money in home produced programmes. The licence fee is unfair on other broadcasters, plain and simple.

    Oh No Koloman I didn't think you would suggest that the BBC aren't commercial and that the BBC are a public service broadcaster; with their DVD Sales, how many magizines (Lonely Planet, The Radio Times, etc), their sales of programming to the rest of the world, UKTV (They own 50% of that service), BBC America, BBC Canada etc all carry ads. (Imagine the BBC flashing up on the screen just like in Qi :), don't take the talking down part too seriously)

    The BBC Worldwide, the most commercial public service broadcaster in the world.

    And to think the BBC don't show adverts on a few of their channels. :) Don't compare RTÉ to BBC.

    As for your American imports, RTÉ and TG4 were under investigation by the EU and the EU found that TV3 did not buy the same types of programmes and when they were owned by Canwest and ITV they had exclusive deals with Fireworks (a Canwest company) and ITV for Imports (now the EU did not find TV3 were anti-competitive but I can see them being just as anti-competitive.)

    TV3 earn 60,000,000 a year, 11,000,000 on home produced shows and around the same on imports. Chi Ching

    Also one word about the BBC's expenditure on US imports HEROES


  • #16
    Koloman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Koloman


    Mossy Monk wrote: »
    The same licence that all channels can apply for, including TV3?

    Did you also know that TV3 are allowed more advertising time per hour?


    A tiny fraction of money is allowed under the Sound and Vision scheme. You cannot compare it with the licence fee. The extra advertising per hour probably puts people off watching if anything!


  • #17
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Koloman wrote: »
    A tiny fraction of money is allowed under the Sound and Vision scheme. You cannot compare it with the licence fee. The extra advertising per hour probably puts people off watching if anything!

    TV3 are a very health company they own 22% of Setanta sport and they are earning in the region of 60,000,000 per annum. They are the second most watch TV channel in the country. Most of their revenue is tied up in investments or going back to investors. Their deal with ITV will last until 2013, RTÉ may wish to have Coronation Street back but it is unlikely that they want the other shows involved in that contract.

    €3,000,000 was provided to Independent producers from the license fee for programs that were broadcast on TV3 in 2008.

    The only thing preventing TV3 getting any more is how much they are willing to invest in the programs in the scheme. TV3 are unlikely to want to invest 10,000,000 to receive 10,000,000.

    RTÉ spend 25,000,000 on around 11,000 hours of television, all of which the get return to them via advertising revenue plus profit. TV3 is in the same situation they spend around 10,000,000 - 15,000,000 on imports and make profits on those shows, they do not buy in 11,000 hours but that is due to contract arrangements with the BCI i.e. 25% of all programming must come from Ireland. Do the maths to figure how much they buy in.


  • #18
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,608 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The money should go for public service broadcasting - not Expose type programmes. Having a skinny, skimpily dressed dolly standing on a table with three screens behind her flashing the programme name, while she talks on and on about what nonentities are upto, or which is the latest handbag/shoe/nail polish/shampoo to have is not public service broadcasting, meanwhile the bored cameraman presses the zoom in and zoom out buttons, and tilts the camers about a bit (otherwise it would be boring!).

    The production values of TV3 are at the 'Kids with Cameras' level - cheap and nasty.
    They should not get any money atall atall.
    Rant over.


  • #19
    mjsmyth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,108 ✭✭✭mjsmyth


    If TV3 are the second most watched channel, then they are obviously giving people what they want. Whilst Xpose and its ilk may not be to evryones liking, obviously someone likes it enough to keep it on the air.

    mj


  • #20
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,608 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Expose is a very very cheap programme. Very cheap. TV3 have to produce Irish programmes, after the news, this is Irish and cheap. Even if nobody watched it, it is still worth producing because it is Irish content and they have to have Irish content. It is also total rubbish.


  • #21
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Expose is a very very cheap programme. Very cheap. TV3 have to produce Irish programmes, after the news, this is Irish and cheap. Even if nobody watched it, it is still worth producing because it is Irish content and they have to have Irish content. It is also total rubbish.


    Very true. In 2006 TV3 had to ask the BCI (Broadcasting Commission of Ireland) to allow them replace their only prime time news with Xpose. They stated the following reasons for this change to the schedule. 1. The News a 6:30 was not get enough viewers due to RTE Six One, 2. The News was basically a repeat of what had been run at 5:30 and 3. It didn't provide the audience with a choice.

    Now if I was the BCI I would have stated: -

    1. This is out of the BCI control
    2. If the editors/producers of the 6:30 news want to change its format and news coverage that is up to them not up to the BCI
    3. TTV and Sile both provide a similar service to the proposed programme this would undermine the choice of the viewer in 4 TV land.

    Now TV3 really wanted was a show they could repeat. Xpose only gets 78,000 and hasn't done as well as 6:30 news, but unlike the news they can repeat it at 10am on TV3 and at 6:30 on 3e.

    In terms of Entertainment the Licence fee should be used. There was a interesting documentry on the BBC over christmas stating why the Head of Entertainment felt that it was very important to the BBCs remit.

    To Entertain, To Inform and To Educate.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    mjsmyth wrote: »
    If TV3 are the second most watched channel, then they are obviously giving people what they want. Whilst Xpose and its ilk may not be to evryones liking, obviously someone likes it enough to keep it on the air.

    mj

    Coronation Street, Emmerdale and Xfactor. If they had the courage to produce significant show surrounding these ones they could double their audience and actually compete with RTE ONE.


  • #23
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,608 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    TV3 only rebroadcast ITV1 for most of the time, home produced is done on poor quality kit in 4:3 format, out of focus with dreadful camera work. I cannot watch the antics of the zoom-zoom merchants who keep jumping the picture back and forth. Why oh why do they do it. I think 12 year olds would do a better job with the camera and probably presenting as well. Bad, bad, bad.


  • #24
    watty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,461 ✭✭✭✭watty


    TV3 are a commercial not PSB licence.

    If they can't do good stuff or run their station properly they will go bust or lose licence.

    No-one MADE them take out the licence. They are entitled to nothing nor any sympathy, or TV licence funding in my view.

    It's possible IMO to run a genuinely Irish station with good English and some Irish language content without it being an ITV clone with cheap US imports bolted on.

    If it's good there will be an audience and then the Advertising revenue is there.


  • #25
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    watty wrote: »
    It's possible IMO to run a genuinely Irish station with good English and some Irish language content without it being an ITV clone with cheap US imports bolted on.
    Yes, and it's called TG4.

    TG4 produce some really quality original programming on a budget that equals the turnover of the RTE canteen.

    The old argument about how everything will turn into TV3 if RTE gets privatised is a bit of a lame duck considering how well TG4 manage on shoestring type budgets.

    RTE suffer from the same malaise as do the HSE; fat, bloated, bureaucratic and ultimately politicised.


  • #26
    watty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,461 ✭✭✭✭watty


    TG4 is a PSB station


  • #27
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,608 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    watty wrote: »
    TG4 is a PSB station
    Yes and a good one. TV3 is a mistake. Only they got access to Coronation Street, they would be long gone.


  • #28
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Yes and a good one. TV3 is a mistake. Only they got access to Coronation Street, they would be long gone.

    No TV3 would still be what it was back in 1998 bar audience. Canwest know how to create a channel of cheap imports that doesn't require any kind of respectable audience. If TV3 hadn't got ITV involved they would have survived with the 7% of the audience they had back in 2000.
    TV3 are a commercial not PSB licence.

    Have to disagree with you there watty. TV3 was set up as a commercial public service broadcaster, rather then just a commercial broadcaster like FIVE in Britain.
    It's possible IMO to run a genuinely Irish station with good English and some Irish language content without it being an ITV clone with cheap US imports bolted on.

    I totally agree with you on that, watty. RTÉ have it cosy with their audience because the majority of the News and Current Affairs coming from RTÉ is good and TV3 just don't do anything else, they don't compete with RTÉ even for cheap Entertainment audiences. Look at how well the Apprentice did, no reason why another Entertainment show couldn't do just as well on TV3. Of course TV3 are concentrating too much on Money, Their new marketing strategy is totally flawed and will see them loose viewers IMO. The new look sucks.


  • #29
    watty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,461 ✭✭✭✭watty


    RTE is Commercial and PSB.

    If TV3 is PSB whatsoever it's a very wierd definition of it. They deserve to lose licence or go bust. If the BCI had any bottle they would pull licence due to lack of coverage (< 80%) due to not paying to be on all transposers/repeaters and lack of local content. It's a pointless environmental waste of electricity. It would be more honest of BCI simply to licence ANY ITV region simply to use the TV3 network.


  • #30
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    watty wrote: »
    If TV3 is PSB whatsoever it's a very wierd definition of it.

    They provide the news, they consider that PSB, it what they want the BCI fund to go towards.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    watty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,461 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Providing news does not make a Station be a PSB. Almost all National stations in all countries do news as part of licence. Here all Local Radio most National Radio and TV3 must provide news as part of licence conditions. It doesn't make them be a PSB. A PSB has a much wider remit.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement