Public Service Broadcasting Charge update

By nature this should be an indirect rather than direct tax. The ideal solution would be to introduce a levy/tax on the following:

- mobile phones
- tablets
- Laptops/desktop
- TV's
- settop boxes/sat receivers
- broadband
- UPC/SKY services
- radios
- etc etc

All the above devices contribute or allow you to avail of PSB. All of the above are not compulsary items and as such if you don't buy them you are choosing to not pay the tax.

Given the high volume of sales of these items I'd guess that this would actually bring in more money. The downside being that it could adversely affect retailers here in ireland.

El Gato wrote: »

It is clear that this is a revenue making exercise plain and simple. Will the quality of RTE improve? Doubtful. Will Pat Kenny, Joe Duffy, Ryan Tubrity and the rest of the half-witted presenters and 'broadcasters' continue to get disproportionately large and unwarranted salaries? Definitely

And this is one of the key problems for me in paying this tax.

BAI employed an external firm (Crowe Horwarth) to give recommendations. They proposed:

1) that the current level of tax (including the fact that there is a lot of evasion) is sufficient to fund PSB over the next 5 years.

2) that instead of cutting services that they reduce operating costs and become more efficient (i.e. cut high wages and reduce number of employees).

3) that commerical revenue could be increased (i.e. advertising)

Despite these recommendations the BAI have decided to disregard them and increase revenue from the public while not committing to cutting costs in the near future (2 years) at RTE.

In addition they have employed another state body (NewEra) to look at cost cutting in RTE rather than an impartial external body.

It makes you wonder why they employed Crowe Horwarth at all! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

El Gato wrote: »

So, they have employed a specialist to perform an evaluation, were presented with recommendations, refused said recommendations and used public money to do so.

On top of that, they have created a new quango to 'look at' cost cutting - so costing more to the tax payer....

And there are people on here defending this gov't and their methods? The mind boggles

Make it subscription only. The tech is there. Those who want to perpetuate this BS can then pay for it.

old_aussie wrote: »

Got rid of radio and TV license's in 1974 in Australia. A step forward for the community.

Is that the reason Aussie TV is so dire?

El Gato wrote: »

Public service broadcasting is not a necessity. We are being charged to pay overinflated presenter salaries etc.

I agree that inflated salaries need to be cut - but any society worthy of the name does need a public service broadcaster.

If this really is about the public broadcasting why do most of the programs have sponsors and 20 minutes of advertising each hour? Look at the BBC - no advertising.

Look at the UK - population of 65 million.
You can't realistically expect RTE to produce programming at 1/15th the cost per hour that the BBC do.
Most if not all smaller countries have advertising on their public service broadcasters. They just can't afford not to.

It is clear that this is a revenue making exercise plain and simple.

If you mean making a surplus and giving it to the goverment, no. RTE is making large cuts but is still losing money at the moment (commercial income is slashed compared to a few years back).

Sure RTE is dysfunctional in a lot of ways but getting rid of it and replacing it with TV3/3e type junk isn't the answer.

7upfree wrote: »

Make it subscription only. The tech is there. Those who want to perpetuate this BS can then pay for it.

This has been discussed to death. Basically if you want encryption on satellite you have to pay Sky tons of money. RTE did a deal with Sky where they would get onto the Sky platform for free but only Sky subscribers can receive it.

There's just been a rollout of Saorview, saor as in free. It's unfair to expect viewers to replace the box or TV they've just bought so that RTE can go scrambled. Anyway, if they did, the viewership would fall off and then the advertising income would reduce, so the subscription would have to become higher and higher to cover this (And fund new encryption-capable boxes that all viewers would need.) It wouldn't be sustainable in a country of this size.

Like I said, there are things that a society needs to be funded by the population generally, that just don't work if all the cost is borne by the user.

Really??

FF set up TE (as it then was) and packed the board for years - but have always been convinced RTE is out to get it.
I don't detect any great love for it from FG.
Labour - I doubt they'd say they're getting an easy time of it from RTE since they got into govt.
SF hate RTE.
The independents that appear on RTE generally look like idiots, but that's their own fault :pac:

If most, if not all, of the political parties are wary of you then you must be pretty close to impartial.

So, anyway, please give us instances of political bias on RTE?

If there is a detectable bias on RTE, I'd say that it's still too deferential to the catholic church, in spite of the documentaries about abuse they still have the angelus, and the hierarchy can still pick up a phone and get a bishop or cardinal on TV to spout out whatever irrational nonsense on the news they want, no hard questions asked.

El Gato wrote: »

Seriously?

When you look at the Six One news or the Nine O'Clock news you cannot see governmental influence?

Do explain.

<MOD EDIT: DELETED>

Yes, yes I am, but I still have no idea what you're on about.

In fairness, with honesty one cannot believe that RTE is impartial and unbiased.

Why not? Provide specific examples.

If you think news cycles are not totally influenced by the political spin doctors, it is an naive belief.

ALL news media are influenced by political spin doctors. This doesn't indicate bias, just the reality of getting the job done to a deadline while not queering the pitch too much so you (and perhaps your whole organisation) don't get blocked from access to them in the future.

El Gato wrote: »

If you really and honestly need me to point out the above points to you, you are either a) intentionally trying to thwart my contribution b)regard the Joe Duffy show with very little regard compounding the fact the the charge is without merit 3)in relation to Tubrity - he is a reason (one of the main contributing factors (from a salary standpoint) for this charge along with the other over inflated salaries)

I'm not trying to thwart your contribution, just asking you to back it up with specifics, which you haven't so far.

<MOD EDIT: DELETED>

If this is so obvious to you then you should have no difficulty in providing evidence of this.

5)If you need specific examples you are not open minded and cannot see them for yourself

Well, at least you didn't accuse me of being counter-revolutionary :rolleyes:

6)ALL NEWS MEDIA should NOT include public broadcast media as the ethos IS impartiality.

Is that sentence in English?

How many times have we seen/heard ministers presented with a question on RTE television/radio, not answering the question directly, making it out to be about a totally unrelated topic (or just not answering at all) and not being pushed on it? Prime time, Front Line, Drive time
<MOD EDIT: DELETED>

Politicians are evasive. They are evasive on RTE and on commercial stations. This does not mean that RTE or the commercial stations are biased.
<MOD EDIT: DELETED>

Does anyone know if this will apply to houses or households, the press releases seem to flip between the two?
- How will holiday homes and holiday lets be treated – many of those have neither a TV nor internet.
- Will paying the charge in a rented house be the responsibility of the landlord or tenants?

ninja900 wrote: »

This has been discussed to death. Basically if you want encryption on satellite you have to pay Sky tons of money. RTE did a deal with Sky where they would get onto the Sky platform for free but only Sky subscribers can receive it.

There's just been a rollout of Saorview, saor as in free. It's unfair to expect viewers to replace the box or TV they've just bought so that RTE can go scrambled. Anyway, if they did, the viewership would fall off and then the advertising income would reduce, so the subscription would have to become higher and higher to cover this (And fund new encryption-capable boxes that all viewers would need.) It wouldn't be sustainable in a country of this size.

Like I said, there are things that a society needs to be funded by the population generally, that just don't work if all the cost is borne by the user.

TBH there are far more important things that society needs. Pampering a bunch of overpaid disc jockeys and paying them obscene salaries isn't one of them.

Regarding subscription, why should everyone else pay for it? It is unadulterated rubbish for 85% of the time. Give people a choice. Hey - here's a radical proposal. Why not have a referendum on its abolition?

El Gato does raise some very strong points albeit in a over ethuiastic manner

RTE news and other programmes on RTE do not tend to persue issues with FG/Lab government ministers in the same way as they do other political parties (SF, independent and now FF). When FF were in power the parties were reversed slightly.

Its a case of not biting the hand that feeds you. The presidential election debate was the most evident recent example of this. The treatment of Martin McGuinness and Sean Gallagher was disgusting by one of the highest paid presenters in the country.

Another point raised was the tax avoidance by many of the main presenters such as Tubridy and Kenny. These guys get paid too much as it is without setting up companies to avail of tax breaks.

A radical idea is that whatever money we as a nation put into PSB we should have a say in what that money goes to and how it is spent. Currently I feel, as I am sure many others do, that wages are way too high in RTE and the programmes of fairly poor quality to justify a fee that is almost in line with the BBC/UK.

It wont make a blind bit of difference but don't give rabbitte a chance to say 'well only 10 people bothered to comment on the consultation doc' etc.

For what ever it was worth i gave my 2c.

to broadcast@dcenr.gov.ie

Dear Sir,

I am writing to give feedback on the proposed PSBC, in particular to the issue ‘Basis for charge’ as detailed on the consultation document. I cannot stress strongly enough how enraged the proposed implementation of this new charge makes me. The additional charge which is in effect yet another tax, is anything but ‘equitable’. As I understand it, this charge is being sold to us as a necessity to fund public service broadcasting. I can honestly say that I do not consume, not do I care to consume any of the services provided under the RTE umbrella and I do not see it as fair or reasonable that I should be expected to pay for a service I do not use.



I have no antenna or aerial for terrestrial or satellite TV and I do not consume any OTA broadcast service, RTE or otherwise. I do not access ANY RTE services on the internet. <MOD EDIT: Deleted> extend a personal invitation to minister Rabbitte to come visit me and inspect my home at any time to verify my claims!



There is no doubt that one this so called ‘consultation’ process is complete, then this additional tax will be shoved down our throats in more or less its currently proposed form. Personally I doubt this feedback will make any difference whatsoever, but I am sending it anyway. If for no other reason than to say enough is enough. RTE is an inefficient lumbering government mouthpiece and needs to face up to the commercial realities that the citizens of this state cannot take any more. I for one will not be paying and I know there are many more like me.



Regards