Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Minister wants An Post to be allowed access Sky and UPC subscription data

2

Comments

  • #32
    dublinman1990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,886 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    This to me sounds like an unforeseeable and complicated PR stunt to be managed properly by this shower of a government.

    Tell me, how would An Post know that if there are multiple 'evaders' not paying for a TV Licence in the house they currently reside in?

    Would An Post do with the other 'occupants' of these homes rather than homeowners? Will they be asked to pay for an additional TV licence as well the homeowners already paying for or having a valid licence?

    In my own situation, I was thinking of going back to UPC Analogue because I had switched to Saorview and didn't realise that I can still keep the ones from UPC. I will still keep Saorview but will my own personal data be infringed by going back to UPC after all that trouble and be asked to pay for the Licence Fee again?

    I myself live with my mum. In legal terms that would make me an occupier of her home as she is the homeowner.

    I also recently paid for the TV Licence on behalf of my mum because I paid for it for her on my behalf over the phone as she couldn't get it paid in the post office. It will be received in the post by either tomorrow or in the next few days. It will be a disgrace though to be asked to pay for another licence after getting one already.


  • #33
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The licence is per property/address, so no you will not have to pay twice. If it works that UPC/Sky hand over addresses of those with TV service, it will be cross checked with the TV Licence database. No data protection issues there as the data will only be used for checking if there is a licence in force for that address, and that is the reason the data was passed over, in conformance with the proposed legislation.

    The alternative method would be for UPC/Sky to get sight of the licence before providing service, as insurance companies do for car insurance and driving licences.

    I only question why this has taken so long to even consider. Most countries did this many years ago. Why bring this up now when there is a broadcasting charge in the pipeline? Sounds like grandstanding to me.


  • #34
    dublinman1990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,886 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The licence is per property/address, so no you will not have to pay twice. If it works that UPC/Sky hand over addresses of those with TV service, it will be cross checked with the TV Licence database. No data protection issues there as the data will only be used for checking if there is a licence in force for that address, and that is the reason the data was passed over, in conformance with the proposed legislation.

    Why bring this up now when there is a broadcasting charge in the pipeline? Sounds like grandstanding to me.

    Another question to consider though is that when either An Post, UPC or Sky carry out this exercise on behalf of the government, it could cost them money to do this, Am I right in saying this if the government even receive half of the money back they were originally targeting for licence evasion?

    Would Sky or UPC reflect this further loss in their customer's household bills when this PR exercise is implemented from the government?

    I suppose that An Post might increase the broadcasting charge to have it higher than current the Licence fee for next year if they doing the same thing?


  • #35
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    dublinman1990 wrote: »
    Another question to consider though is that when either An Post, UPC or Sky carry out this exercise on behalf of the government, it could cost them money to do this, Am I right in saying this if the government even receive half of the money back they were originally targeting for licence evasion?

    Would Sky or UPC reflect this further loss in their customer's household bills when this PR exercise is implemented from the government?

    I suppose that An Post might increase the broadcasting charge to have it higher than current the Licence fee for next year if they doing the same thing?

    As with all these tax collection things, it is part of the cost of doing business. The benefit of the extra money goes to the fund, of which RTE get most and some goes to the Sound and Vision Fund. The Government do not get any of it (directly).


  • #36
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,596 ✭✭✭cerastes


    icdg wrote: »
    I don't know about Finland, but I do know about Australia and New Zealand...

    In Australia the licence fee was abolished and the ABC and SBS are funded directly by the Exchequer. As a result this leaves the ABC in particular at the direct whim of the government of the day who can grant or cut funding on an annual basis. They don't know what they're getting from year to year so they have to play nice with the government 100% of the time.


    As for NZ, the licence fee was taken off the BCNZ in 1989 and transferred to a government body called NZ On Air which doled it out (essentially it would be the same as giving 100% of the licence fee here to Sound and Vision). It has since been abolished and NZOA now gets Exchequer funding instead. What this means for TVNZ though is that they are effectively a fully commercial broadcaster and in recent years have even been required to pay the State a dividend.

    Not the best of atmospheres for public service broadcasting in either case and I'd hold neither up as a model (though doubtless TV3 would love to see us go down the NZ route).

    It's not much different here then really, is it? thats whats effectively happening. Is it why RTe are independant and not subject to the whims of the govt here?? because that just isnt the case really.If anything thats an argument against keeping the licence fee, because RTE does play nice with the govt anyway and we are still paying for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    lertsnim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,916 ✭✭✭lertsnim


    Arthur Beesley wrote: »
    So even more complicated than now...

    Let's make it simple. Put it on energy bills. If you don't have a TV prove it. Job done and everyone pays.


  • #38
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    Or just encrypt the signal and charge people the equivalent of the tv license to decrypt it; like Sky and UPC do; problem solved.


  • #39
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    Or just encrypt the signal and charge people the equivalent of the tv license to decrypt it; like Sky and UPC do; problem solved.
    No - encrypting costs a lot of money to do and undo.

    It shou;d be on the energy biil. It shou;ld be charged monthly. It shou;d be required UPC and ky check to see if residents have a licence.

    Make it easier to pay the evade. Simples.


  • #40
    Scoobydoo 2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 68 ✭✭Scoobydoo 2


    Harry Palmr wrote: »
    I thought we were having a household charge for data?
    I thought we had a household charge for fine gael & labour muppets to have a a party


  • #41
    icdg
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,312 Mod ✭✭✭✭icdg


    Report in today's Irish Times that the broadcasting charge will not now happen next year, which is why this interim legislation is proposed. That makes me cynical as to whether it will happen at all because the general election can happen no later than March 2016 and I cannot see the government bringing in something that potentially unpopular literally weeks before the election.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    dublinman1990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,886 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    ^^

    Here is the link to it if anyone is interested.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/media-and-marketing/proposed-broadcasting-charge-set-for-deferral-1.1872503

    The question I would ask from is that article is how much of the, small but growing, percentage of people are there accessing RTE and TG4 on other devices rather than through a linear television set?

    It might tell us a story into how the estimated evasion rates for TV licences will be lower of people watching TV shows online.


  • #43
    Onthe3rdDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭Onthe3rdDay


    icdg wrote: »
    Report in today's Irish Times that the broadcasting charge will not now happen next year, which is why this interim legislation is proposed. That makes me cynical as to whether it will happen at all because the general election can happen no later than March 2016 and I cannot see the government bringing in something that potentially unpopular literally weeks before the election.

    It was pretty obvious two weeks ago when they announced they wanted UPC and SKY lists of subscribers that the broadcasting charge wasn't going ahead in this Dail term. While water charges and property taxes are imposed the government can say that you're using local services or drinking water.

    On the other hand there are many people out there that never use RTE/TG4 services what so ever plus there are individuals in Ireland that live in houses without TV sets and have no interest in TV at all.

    What about those houses that have a freesat dish, can't get saorview and have their radio permanently on the likes of Radio Kerry?

    Some sort of broadcast charge will have to come in over the next few years but it will have to be shaped differently. I think the fairest would be a charge on Electricity like in other countries. If you don't use broadcast services you'd be able to opt out. Those with computers that used RTE player could be given a password linked to their electrical supply account number.

    What really gets on my nerves are those awful ads for the TV licence saying the quality has gone through the roof in recent years, and most of them appear to be watching on Laptops and phones, the very devices that don't need a licence at this time.


  • #44
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #45
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Not so, the EU has rules about that, and anyway, they are registered for VAT here and will have to charge Irish VAT at some point.


  • #46
    Onthe3rdDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭Onthe3rdDay


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Not so, the EU has rules about that, and anyway, they are registered for VAT here and will have to charge Irish VAT at some point.

    Are they paying Irish VAT yet? I think they'll just ignore any demands for as long as possible, they might just go away. Knowing the Irish Government, it might just happen. It's quite possible the legislation won't get passed before the next election and then all the clocks are reset again.


  • #47
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #48
    icdg
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,312 Mod ✭✭✭✭icdg


    Being registered outside the jurisdiction does not give one cart blanche to ignore the law - if one simply needed to do that to avoid all Irish laws every business would be at it! That said Sky will probably take legal advice on the matter and its quite possible such advice may advise that if the UK Data Protection Act 1998 doesn't allow the disclosure of that data then they cannot disclose it.

    Worth nothing however that BSkyB's own contract has a clause stating that contracts with customers in the Republic of Ireland are governed by Irish law.


  • #49
    mikeym
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,988 ✭✭✭mikeym


    How if you have a Sky Ireland sub and your living abroad?

    I thought the Tv Licensing crowd would be raking in the cash already.

    Im sure theres probably one or two that slipped through the net.


  • #50
    Mondo 088
    Closed Accounts Posts: 28 ✭Mondo 088


    Was it ever the law in this country that shops had to take the names and address of people who bought television sets ?


  • #51
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mondo 088 wrote: »
    Was it ever the law in this country that shops had to take the names and address of people who bought television sets ?
    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    ... and France .... plus probably half of Europe that has a licence.

    Sky and UPC have to charge VAT. They could also be required to collect the licence fee, all it needs is a few lines in the Finance Bill.


  • #53
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #54
    The Cush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,055 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    This will change from Jan 2015 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89618027#post89618027


  • #55
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Whether Sky pay VAT or not is not relevant. If the Finance Act says they are required to collect the TV licence, they will.


  • #56
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #57
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    They have operations here and are subject to Irish law, pay taxes here. They choose to pay UK VAT on the TV operations, but are liable for VAT on their broadband operations.

    Being a UK company (if that is what they are) no more absolves them from Irish law than it does Tesco or M&S or any other company.


  • #58
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #59
    Onthe3rdDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭Onthe3rdDay


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    They have operations here and are subject to Irish law, pay taxes here. They choose to pay UK VAT on the TV operations, but are liable for VAT on their broadband operations.

    Being a UK company (if that is what they are) no more absolves them from Irish law than it does Tesco or M&S or any other company.

    I agree with the principle of this...However, this is the same company that started out as an operation that danced around the rules. I don't think they've changed. They'll do what suits them and that's unlikely to change.

    Anyway If both UPC and SKY object, it could take a while for this law to come into effect. The next election will clear this all away and everything starts again. Remember a Press release or event doesn't actually mean anything is going to happen in Irish Government. In fact the opposite regularly occurs.


  • #60
    tinz18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 329 ✭✭tinz18


    What happens in the scenarios where the name(s) on the Sky account has left their rented accommodation and moved elsewhere? I've seen cases where I've moved into the house and the UPC/Sky account is in someones name that hasn't lived there for years as they were still in contract when moving out and couldn't switch the account name to some of the other tenants who remained?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement