nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

TV licence

Tea_Bag

not really sure what forum to post this on, but ill try here...

Got a letter in the post this morning informing me that my house hasnt got a TV license on record and that an inspector will be in the area in the near future. it also goes on to say that its €160 or something for the license.

Now, i'm a pretty broke student, but some of my housemates are even more broke than me, so getting 40 euro from each of them isnt gonna be easy. i can barely get bills paid because they take soo long to come up with the cash.

My question is, should i get a license, or is the letter just some bluff and no inspector is really coming.

i wouldnt mind paying if it wasnt so expensive, and if i ever watched rte, but the channel is crap whenever i turn it on and it just seems a little rich to be paying for something i dont use..

Find more posts tagged with

tv license

Quick Links

Comments

Tea_Bag

MYOB wrote: »

Its wholly irrelevant if you don't watch RTE.

It does not go to RTE in its entirity.
That which does go to RTE also funds its radio stations
Its not a large amount of money - if you can afford a TV, you can afford. Just pay the damn thing.

contradiction in bold?

im sorry Mr. Heartless and obviously rich inspector MYOB, not only do i not watch RTE ever, but i dont infact listen to any radio stations, because i have no interest in obituaries, which seem all the time, and i get most all of my news from the interwebs, which is free in college btw. i also dont own a car (im guessing that will come up, as it has a radio built in) oh and im not on the dole, so no house/living/rent allowance or €200 every week for me.

also, this "cheap" tax of €160 might be pretty cheap for you and your steady job, but 160 euro can feed me for 3 three months. no typo there either. my one housemate has lived for longer on less. 1/4 of a years possible food. ill note that its not easy living on a budget like that, but it can be done.

MYOB wrote: »

Its only ever tight whingebags that complain about it.

you repeat lines like that often, but it makes no difference to me.

I use my tv for playing a bit of xbox and movies (blah blah if i can afford that blah blah, ever heard of presents? tis the season and all anyway.)
my xbox was a combined birthday and Christmas present last year, not that its any of your business.

if you are indeed my licence inspector, as i suspect you are one, ill drop my €40 tv, that buzzes an awful lot, off the balcony onto your car/feet, which ever one seems more insulting at the time.

1. now please rip this post apart with your repetition of the law.
2. now please rip this post apart with your repetition of the law.
3. think of something new, cause im really just going to para-read whatever you write, and not feel in any way more obliged to get a licence.

L1011

I'm not a licence inspector; I'm just someone who resents paying a higher licence fee due to those who avoid paying something they're oblidged to. You can justify it as "its a €40 TV" and "The xbox was a present" but you're able to afford DVDs and games to watch/play on said xbox.

You're also in a shared house so it wouldn't be €160 per person.

You can bang on all you want about living on a budget, but a TV is a luxury and its a luxury with running costs - electricity and the licence fee. Don't have one if you can't afford them.

Also, advocating criminal damage/assault against licence inspectors isn't a particularly sensible idea.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Tea_Bag wrote: »

if you are indeed my licence inspector, as i suspect you are one, ill drop my €40 tv, that buzzes an awful lot, off the balcony onto your car/feet, which ever one seems more insulting at the time.

Calm down or leave this thread. Your choice.

Mike 1972

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Back to cavan with you... Polish TV channels aren't exactly broadcast widely here you know, cop on with your stupid analogies and pay your licence fee you tight arse.

1) Not from Cavan dont live there never have
2) Dont even live in RoI
3) I actually do pay a licence fee (mainly because of 2)
4) Polish TV is available (several channels free to air) just about everywhere in Ireland (unlike RTE in some instances)
5) The personal abuse really doesnt show your argument in a good light

MYOB wrote: »

infracted rant you link to..

Infracted over a reference to Beverley Flynn since removed so infraction not relevent.

MYOB wrote: »

You own a TV, you are liable for the licence...

For the 4,793,212th time :rolleyes:
1) WE KNOW
2) Repeatedly stating the law in relation to something in no way address the issue of whether the law (or the manner in which is implemented) is reasonable or equitable.

MYOB wrote: »

Nothing fair or unfair about it. The "points" you link to are whimpers about "but I only use the TV for...". These are irrelevant...

Compaints regarding the unreasonableness or inequity of a tax, the manner in this tax is collected or the purpose for which this tax is collected/manner in which the money raised from this tax is spent are "irrelevent" ? -I see :rolleyes:

MYOB wrote: »

Its not unfair in the slightest.

Fairness being an entirely objective concept independent of extraneous circumstances etc.....? :rolleyes:

aligator_am

You can setup a direct debit to pay it, that's what I did, it's about €13 a month so it should make it easier to get the blood money from the housemates

L1011

In this case, considering how blatantly simple the rules for liability are, yes. Fairness is entirely objective. There is only one way you become liable to pay (owning a TV tuner) and one way to ensure you're not liable (don't own a TV tuner). There is no way you can claim this is inequitable.

Anything else is irrelevant. Complain about the way the cash is spent seperately, not about its collection.

Mike 1972

MYOB wrote: »

In this case, considering how blatantly simple the rules for liability are, yes..

Look up "simplicity" "Fairness" and "Equitable" in the dictionary and come back to us

MYOB wrote: »

Fairness is entirely objective...

(Facepalm)

MYOB wrote: »

Anything else is irrelevant. Complain about the way the cash is spent seperately, not about its collection.

So the purpose for which revenue from a tax happens to be earmarked ha nothing to do with the fairness or reasonableness of tthe tax in question ?

I see :rolleyes:

L1011

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Look up "simplicity" "Fairness" and "Equitable" in the dictionary and come back to us

If you knew the definition of any of these terms, you wouldn't be wittering on with your inane argument.

The licence fee is levied fairly and equitably - there is one and only one qualifying factor. End of. You haven't even attempted to explain your repeated claims of it being unfair or inequitable.

I notice you admit to not only not living in Ireland but paying your own countries licence fee - so why do you feel qualified or justified to argue against Irelands?

mikom

MYOB wrote: »

I'm just someone who resents paying a higher licence fee due to those who avoid paying something they're oblidged to.

You are coddin' yourself if you believe the current fee is as it stands due to the evasion factor.
If everybody stumped up the blood money tomorrow RTE would still go crying to the guberment for an licence fee increase..........for fear of loosing one of their overpaid "stars"

Red_Marauder

Can't you just say, "No I don't have a television or television equipment, I don't even have electricity. And no you can't come in."

I'd have a real problem with paying the license to RTE if I were a homeowner. Is going the extra half inch by providing some Irish language news and some public affairs programmes really worth €160 to a person?

L1011

mikom wrote: »

You are coddin' yourself if you believe the current fee is as it stands due to the evasion factor.
If everybody stumped up the blood money tomorrow RTE would still go crying to the guberment for an licence fee increase..........for fear of loosing one of their overpaid "stars"

In the era when people just paid it, the licence fee didn't increase for ten years - and then didn't increase for another 5. This is within living memory of pretty much everyone old enough to pay a licence.

Its only in the era when RTE became expected to provide extra services (a fourth radio channel, funding and programming for TG4, digital radio, web services, etc, etc) and masses of the population started evading it that they needed an increase.

So no, I'm not deluding myself. If people paid the licence fee the costs of collection would go down (less money spent chasing those that refuse to) and RTE would lose any justification to seek increases.

mikom

MYOB wrote: »

In the era when people just paid it, the licence fee didn't increase for ten years - and then didn't increase for another 5.

Its only in the era when RTE became expected to provide extra services (a fourth radio channel, funding and programming for TG4, digital radio, web services, etc, etc) and masses of the population started evading it that they needed an increase.

When it had had a TV monopoly, a time when it could effectively charge what it liked for spot advertising.
Along came the competition, ad revenue dropped and RTE balled it's eyes out for a licence increase.
Not forgetting all the advertising revenue that all these extra "services" you mentioned garner (TG4 excluded)
RTE's bread is buttered on both sides if you ask me.......

Wow.... all that and they still made a balls of their hosting on a satellite platform.
No FTV, no FTA.
Pay you licence fee peasants and don't forget to pay your satellite provider as well for the privilege of watching Killinaskully.

RTE should be available free on the Astra satellite for all to receive.
BBC, ITV Channel 4 channels in the UK and nearly all other EU national broadcasters are available free on satellite so why not RTÉ?
Shur let's put it down to licence evasion again I guess.

L1011

mikom wrote: »

When it had had a TV monopoly, a time when it could effectively charge what it liked for spot advertising.
Along came the competition, ad revenue dropped and RTE balled it's eyes out for a licence increase.
Not forgetting all the advertising revenue that all these extra "services" you mentioned garner (TG4 excluded)
RTE's bread is buttered on both sides if you ask me.......

RTE lost its terrestrial TV monopoly during the ten year price freeze. Indeed it lots its monopoly for Irish-targetted adverts before that due to cable.
Lyric FM carries virtually no adverts.
RTE Digital radio carries *no* adverts at all.
I'd seriously doubt the advertising on their web services cover the cost of bandwidth and development, seeing as they've provided streaming channels and archive content for many years - many years before any other English language broadcaster did so.

mikom wrote: »

Wow.... all that and they still made a balls of their hosting on a satellite platform.
No FTV, no FTA.
Pay you licence fee peasants and don't forget to pay your satellite provider as well for the privilege of watching Killinaskully.

RTE should be available free on the Astra satellite for all to receive.
BBC, ITV Channel 4 channels in the UK and nearly all other EU national broadcasters are available free on satellite so why not RTÉ?
Shur let's put it down to licence evasion again I guess.

No national broadcasters from a similarly sized country with a similar language overspill risk are FTA. At all. Most do offer FTV, but:

FTV on the Sky platform costs an insane amount of money - tens of millions of euro. If RTE were on 28E encrypted in non-Videoguard encryption there would be uproar from Sky subscribers. Carrying it twice on the one satellite would, again, lead to people critiscing them for waste. Carrying it FTV on another satellite would lead to uproar due to multiple reasons. They're in a no win situation when it comes to satellite carriage.

As it stands their satellite carriage costs them nothing as Sky gift it to them - FTV would cost the tens of millions of encryption fees, card distribution and management etc AND the price of carriage.

Also, there is effectively nowhere in the country that cannot get RTE1, RTE2 and TG4 off-air reliably for free. Currently 80% of the country are able to receive them (and TV3, RTE News Now and the radio services) in digital, again free. This number is rising. Sky is not required, at all, to view RTE.

The BBC's budget is massive - they can afford the rights to go FTA. So is ITV's. Channel 4's budget is higher than RTE's, they don't have to provide radio/transmission networks and they have scale on their size for rights. Five block content on FTA and put their expensive content on Fiver/Five US. None of them are comparable to RTE

PirateShampoo

mikom wrote: »

..........for fear of loosing one of their overpaid "stars"

Thats the funny thing, where exactly are they going to go? TV3 lol.

L1011

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Thats the funny thing, where exactly are they going to go? TV3 lol.

On radio the Communicorp stations do pay quite a bit.

On TV, nowhere really. The UK already nicks the ones they want, so they should just let them bugger off.

me-skywalker

MYOB wrote: »

On radio the Communicorp stations do pay quite a bit.

On TV, nowhere really. The UK already nicks the ones they want, so they should just let them bugger off.

So basically what your saying is that the TV Licence Fee is a load of crap and we shouldnt pay it?

Thanks.

L1011

me-skywalker wrote: »

So basically what your saying is that the TV Licence Fee is a load of crap and we shouldnt pay it?

Thanks.

Er. No. Congratulations at the worst failure at twisting someones words ever.

Mike 1972

MYOB wrote: »

I notice you admit to not only not living in Ireland but paying your own countries licence fee - so why do you feel qualified or justified to argue against Irelands?

Lived in the Republic for many years. Still have family/friends living there. But apparently being resident in another country means Im no longer allowed have an opinion on Irish affairs now ? Perhaps I shouldnt even be allowed on Boards.ie at all. But Ill l leave that one up to the mods.

MYOB wrote: »

If RTE were on 28E encrypted in non-Videoguard encryption there would be uproar from Sky subscribers.

Let them eat cake.
Especially since

MYOB wrote: »

Sky is not required, at all, to view RTE.

There is no good reason why RTE cant broadcast FTA (or with encryption for foreign programmes and FTA for the home produced stuff if rights holders insist on it) on 28 East. As long as they arent on any EPG's outside of Ireland most people (other than Irish expats and the odd satellite anorak) would even notice their presence.

there is effectively nowhere in the country that cannot get RTE1, RTE2 and TG4 off-air reliably for free

RTE (NL)'s own coverage figures/maps would suggest otherwise.

me-skywalker

MYOB wrote: »

Er. No. Congratulations at the worst failure at twisting someones words ever.

Ah its grand I dont be at home much to watch TV anyway as I said only thing that it really gets used for is the xbox.

Notorious

MYOB wrote: »

...And computers are intended to be included as "televisions" in the next few years anyway.

According to the link Sharpshooter posted above, if you watch tv on your laptop (even if you watch from college) you should have a licence. Is that some kind of joke?

Cosine

My situation first, if you don't care skip to the quotes

: I have a TV, it came with the apartment. I use it for Playstation2 (movies) and Wii (Friends over) only. I do not have it hooked up to recieve any channels as the management company charge €20 for the privilage or Smart would charge another €40 on top of what they charge me for the internet (the €75 triple play package since its the only way I can get internet and tv off them) for a slightly better privilage. Neither of these are particularly appealing since no one in the apartment watches much TV so we are also not interested in hooking up any sort of aerial. We do have a license however.

Taken from the Boadcast Act 2009 Found here

142.—(1) Subject to the exceptions mentioned in subsection (3), 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.

“television set” means 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

These two state that you can't have a TV without a TV license even if you're not using it for the purpose of watching channels, fair nuff. But there is no previso for someone who does not wish to watch the channels but requires a TV for use with other entertainment equipment ie: Wii or PS.

There should be such a previso which is where the unfairness comes in. I am essentialy paying motor tax but do not own a car (this analogy falls down in that I would still cross a road or use a footpath but I think you get the idea). I am getting no benefit from owning the license expcept that I don't recieve warnings in the post. It should be possible to manufacture a TV without a tuner (so a glorofied monitor) and people who use these should not have to pay this €160 license. While this would be harder to police it would also be much more 'fair' to people who are paying for, essentialy, nothing. Which is what pisses me off and I imagine alot of the other people who are arguing with you MYOB.

Oh and there is no radio in my aparment so its not like I'm benefiting by recieving RTE's radio transmissions etc.

Also worth noting is this website

mikemac

Cosine wrote: »

I am essentialy paying road tax but do not own a car

Nobody pays road tax

Cosine

mikemac wrote: »

Nobody pays road tax

I commend your diligence and have changed my post.

Terry

I can confirm that they do issue summonses to people without a tv licence.
My court date is the 8th of January 2010.

Overature

yeah, but they might have a xbox or play station hooked up to it

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If you don't watch TV well get rid of the TV, no need for a licence then.
I don't believe someone who says they watch no RTE at all.
I mean it isn't that expensive, 77cent each a week. If you can't afford to pay it all up front use the direct debit feature of paying monthly or weekly.

L1011

Cosine wrote: »

It should be possible to manufacture a TV without a tuner (so a glorofied monitor)

Its called a monitor. Recent PC monitors often accept HDMI, recent DVD players and consoles can output HDMI. No tuner required.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Lived in the Republic for many years. Still have family/friends living there. But apparently being resident in another country means Im no longer allowed have an opinion on Irish affairs now ? Perhaps I shouldnt even be allowed on Boards.ie at all. But Ill l leave that one up to the mods.

If you can't see the irony in arguing against a licence fee you're not liable for and the hypocrisy in arguing against one when you pay another, thas your problem.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

There is no good reason why RTE cant broadcast FTA (or with encryption for foreign programmes and FTA for the home produced stuff if rights holders insist on it) on 28 East. As long as they arent on any EPG's outside of Ireland most people (other than Irish expats and the odd satellite anorak) would even notice their presence.

RTE buy in much of their "home produced" content. Sports, dramas, etc. Realistically they'd be able to unencrypt for the news, Prime Time and Fair City... and anyway, their contract with Sky for free carriage does not allow this. So they'd need to spend hundreds of thousands on a second set of bandwidth. Which would result in people moaning about where their licence fee was sent... once again, RTE are in a no-win situation with satellite carriage.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

RTE (NL)'s own coverage figures/maps would suggest otherwise.

If you're in an area which gets no RTE coverage, you contact RTENL with a view to getting a self-help relay in.
If you get no TV3, welcome to 20% of the country - commercial TV stations aren't interested in serving small amounts of population; yet another reason a PSB is required.

Overature

TVs are not luxuries, you can pick a decent one up for free from a friend or someone, its all right for someone in full time work to not mind paying the tv licence, and why should you pay for a licence when you dont even watch the free view channels, rte is crap anyway

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not a licence inspector; I'm just someone who resents paying a higher licence fee due to those who avoid paying something they're oblidged to. You can justify it as "its a €40 TV" and "The xbox was a present" but you're able to afford DVDs and games to watch/play on said xbox.

You're also in a shared house so it wouldn't be €160 per person.

You can bang on all you want about living on a budget, but a TV is a luxury and its a luxury with running costs - electricity and the licence fee. Don't have one if you can't afford them.

Also, advocating criminal damage/assault against licence inspectors isn't a particularly sensible idea.

L1011

Overature wrote: »

TVs are not luxuries, you can pick a decent one up for free from a friend or someone, its all right for someone in full time work to not mind paying the tv licence, and why should you pay for a licence when you dont even watch the free view channels, rte is crap anyway

A TV is a luxury, whether or not you can get a second hand one for free.

You pay a licence for the right to have a TV tuner, end of. Its irrelevant what you watch using it.

mikom

MYOB wrote: »

A TV is a luxury,

What's a public service broadcaster then?

Lollymcd

Couldn't people who want to play xbox etc just get a projector?