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

TV licence and analogue signal

13

Comments

  • #62
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    If I removed the decoder from a tv and removed model numbers it would be indistinguishable from a PC monitor. Is it now a TV or a PC monitor?


  • #63
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Guys, (I skipped ahead from p1 so apologies if this was brought up) isn't a TV and Radio licence? wouldn't you have to prove you have nothing capable of revieving a radio signal too?
    Also, you can watch RTE on your PC.


  • #64
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Yeah but a deactivated tv would be capable of being repaired, there's no way to get a certification of deactivation for a tv. Other than that I think the analogy holds up quite well, in that its a licence you pay for possession of a device, regardless of whether it gets used or not.

    Regards linking to those other bits, the SI doesn't go into all that detail, it broadly refers to a device capable of receiving and displaying a television broadcast. Anyone with experience in electronics and tv would probably agree (and have so done in the past in the many threads here on the topic) that the above would be a general description.

    An analogue TV is not capable of receiving a TV broadcast because such broadcasts no longer exist. How would they test it? Turn back on the analogue signal?


  • #65
    lounakin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 699 ✭✭✭lounakin


    By the way, to the person who posted that the inspectors have no authority, they do! Eventually they can get a search warrant and come with the Gardai.
    And about the clarity of the statute, it's clear from this conversation that it isn't that clear. Clear?


  • #66
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    An analogue TV is not capable of receiving a TV broadcast because such broadcasts no longer exist. How would they test it? Turn back on the analogue signal?

    You could broadcast an analogue TV signal and go "hey , look! The TV can receive TV signals!"
    What is the difference if both can't receive an analogue signal but both have hdmi as the only option for input?

    One is called a television, one is not. Ergo you need a television license for the former.

    If PC monitors and tellys were as interchangeable as this thread would have you believe, then they would require a license for PC monitors, but they didn't, yet,


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    The thing to remember is that it is the TV set itself that needs the lisence.
    Use it or not, if you have one it needs a licence. Similar to a gun in many respects.
    You need a licence just to have one in the house.


  • #68
    Anyone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Anyone


    Some people will be asking how to make their dog look like a cat so they can avoid paying that licence next......


  • #69
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    syklops wrote: »
    You could broadcast an analogue TV signal and go "hey , look! The TV can receive TV signals!"

    How could they? the spectrum that was the old analogue tv spectrum has been sold off to the mobile phone operators.


  • #70
    kneemos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,609 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    bbam wrote: »
    The thing to remember is that it is the TV set itself that needs the lisence.
    Use it or not, if you have one it needs a licence. Similar to a gun in many respects.
    You need a licence just to have one in the house.

    It's actually the house that needs the licence...more than one tv in a house.


  • #71
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    eyeball kid wrote: »
    Just on this. I think this is what the government will try to bring it and it would probably be at point of sale. No more licence per household, more likely a licence per device with a variable price depending on the device (phone, tablet, laptop, pc monitor or tv)


    This is what I fear aswell. What about the person buying a laptop solely as a tool for starting a business. Like a developer or something.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    How could they? the spectrum that was the old analogue tv spectrum has been sold off to the mobile phone operators.

    Oh christ alive, im fed up of this thread. You can buy a transmitter on ebay for about 50 quid which could transmit the right frequency(and you could buld one for less). They shut down the signal, they are not actively blocking it.


  • #73
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    This is what I fear aswell. What about the person buying a laptop solely as a tool for starting a business. Like a developer or something.

    Theres already a laptop tax, its called the Microsoft license.


  • #74
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,568 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »

    How could they? the spectrum that was the old analogue tv spectrum has been sold off to the mobile phone operators.
    It's nothing do do with any conditions other than you owning a tv. You look at your tv and ask, is that capable of receiving a broadcast, regardless of any external factors such the required signal being there or not. If the law referred to just a 'digital' signal then it would specify DVB-T. It doesn't though, it refers to ANY tv broadcast, which would include PAL-I/A/G/J, NTSC etc... All of these are tv broadcasts, the law doesn't refer to whether they're available in your area or not.

    Before the switchover would you argue that someone living in a valley who couldn't receive a signal would not need a licence as a result?


  • #75
    Zab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Regards linking to those other bits, the SI doesn't go into all that detail, it broadly refers to a device capable of receiving and displaying a television broadcast. Anyone with experience in electronics and tv would probably agree (and have so done in the past in the many threads here on the topic) that the above would be a general description.

    Yeah, I'm not accepting that as of yet. The SI is not the basis here, as I previously mentioned. In fact this SI is pretty clear that isn't excluding TVs with analogue tuners. Previous threads (well, those I'm aware of) haven't dealt with a change of technology such as this. The question is whether when the bill says " television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception" it's talking about actual or theoretic ones. You're saying it's any theoretic broadcast but you haven't given a reason for that.

    I do think the government currently intends licences to be required for analogue-only sets. The testing argument being mentioned is more practical than the rest of the thread, we aren't discussing how to evade paying the licence but rather whether it's due in the first place or not.


  • #76
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Before the switchover would you argue that someone living in a valley who couldn't receive a signal would not need a licence as a result?

    It was successfully challenged in court before, and they won.


  • #77
    mconigol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    Anyone wrote: »
    Some people will be asking how to make their dog look like a cat so they can avoid paying that licence next......

    Don't be ridiculous, a cat trapped in a dogs body is a totally legitimate thing ;)


  • #78
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,568 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »

    It was successfully challenged in court before, and they won.
    Really? Interesting!


  • #79
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    It was successfully challenged in court before, and they won.

    Link please.


  • #80
    whitesands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 326 ✭✭whitesands


    syklops wrote: »
    They have enough authority to have you have a summons in your door. Meaning a day off work, maybe more to visit the Doctors, and possibly a loss of income.
    If you don't answer your door to them in the first place they can't give you a summons.

    I'm not paying it, some idiot who I assume is the TV licence inspector was calling around every couple of weeks, I used to look in the camera & just laugh. I think he has given up now, haven't seen him in months LOL

    I got caught years ago answering the door & had to buy the license, not happening again. €160 odd quid a year to watch garbage & line pat kenny's pockets, I don't think so.


  • #81
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    syklops wrote: »
    Theres already a laptop tax, its called the Microsoft license.


    Not if you use Linux


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    eyeball kid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,824 ✭✭✭eyeball kid


    syklops wrote: »
    Oh christ alive, im fed up of this thread. You can buy a transmitter on ebay for about 50 quid which could transmit the right frequency(and you could buld one for less). They shut down the signal, they are not actively blocking it.

    That part of the spectrum is licenced by Comreg. The licences for the old analogue spectrum has gone to the mobile operators. No else can use these spectrums for 15 years unless Comreg revoke the licences.


  • #83
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Not if you use Linux

    This is off topic but if you want to replace windows with linux on a new laptop how do you get the cost of the OS refunded?


  • #84
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,568 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    eyeball kid wrote: »

    That part of the spectrum is licenced by Comreg. The licences for the old analogue spectrum has gone to the mobile operators. No else can use these spectrums for 15 years unless Comreg revoke the licences.
    You could still broadcast illegally, the law doesn't make reference to a legal or illegal broadcast, just any broadcast.


  • #85
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    tuxy wrote: »
    This is off topic but if you want to replace windows with linux on a new laptop how do you get the cost of the OS refunded?

    Build your own PC or buy laptop from dealer who supplies without OS.


  • #86
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,980 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Build your own PC or buy laptop from dealer who supplies without OS.

    I always build my own desktop. Limiting yourself to laptops with no OS installed will actually increase your cost most of the time.


  • #87
    Zab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    TheChizler wrote: »
    You could still broadcast illegally, the law doesn't make reference to a legal or illegal broadcast, just any broadcast.

    It doesn't say any broadcast, it says those "broadcast for general reception". I'm not too sure what your point is anyway.


  • #88
    animaal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 815 ✭✭✭animaal


    This has to be the funniest thread I've seen in a long while.

    If you have something that had the word "television" on the box, or on the shelf, or on the receipt when you bought it, get a bloody license. If you decide not to, that's grand, you probably won't get caught. Just don't go all Matlock on us, thinking you've uncovered a subtle flaw in the ancient legal texts.


  • #89
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,568 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Zab wrote: »

    It doesn't say any broadcast, it says those "broadcast for general reception". I'm not too sure what your point is anyway.
    Does it make a difference? Barring encrypted services maybe, the definition of a tv broadcast would be a signal that is intended to be received by the general public.

    It was implied that it would not be possible to broadcast some signal just because the frequency band was licensed to a private operator. Someone could still illegally broadcast a tv signal without a licence. You still need a licence whether or not the broadcast you could receive is official/legal or not.


  • #90
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Not if you use Linux

    Try and buy a laptop with out a Microsoft license included in the price.

    Not so easy.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Zab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Does it make a difference? Barring encrypted services maybe, the definition of a tv broadcast would be a signal that is intended to be received by the general public.

    It was implied that it would not be possible to broadcast some signal just because the frequency band was licensed to a private operator. Someone could still illegally broadcast a tv signal without a licence. You still need a licence whether or not the broadcast you could receive is official/legal or not.

    That line of conversation started with somebody saying they couldn't test to see if your TV would receive analogue signals, and therefore they couldn't prove it could as they can't broadcast in the old analogue spectrum. I'm not buying any of that as even a broken TV needs a licence and they're just going to go by whether it can technically receive the signal.

    The only out I'm seeing is if the act's text is interpreted as meaning the signal has to exist. I definitely think it's possible to interpret it that way, but I'm not a lawyer. It also fits the general ethos that the licence fee contributes to the running of RTE and should therefore cover devices that RTE are transmitting to.

    Anyway, this thread hasn't really moved anywhere in the past while and given that I have at least six digital tuners in the house at the moment I'm kind of losing interest :)


Advertisement
Advertisement