Can TV Licence inspectors check your bedroom?

djimi · 17-07-2013 10:58am

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

HDMI, DVI-D and Displayport are effectively interchangeable.

By your definition a laptop screen, tablet screen or phone screen are also capable of receiving a TV signal since they have the ability to receive video inputs.

Except it specifies that a computer and phone (and I presume by extension a tablet) are currently exempt from requiring a TV license.

A 24" "computer monitor" with HDMI input and a 42" TV with HDMI input are the same device and can both be used for either purpose. Just because you choose to plug it into a PC does not change the fact that it is still a device that is capable of receiving a TV signal and can be used for that purpose.

We can debate the finer points of it all we like; to me the law as it is written is pretty black and white on the matter. If you have a device that is capable of receiving a TV broadcast signal (be it direct or via decoding equipment) then you must pay a TV license, even if the device is not being used for that purpose. I dont see how you could argue that any device that has HDMI or SCART input would not fall into this.

djimi · 17-07-2013 11:01am

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

But you need a device capable of decoding and sending the TV signal. So you need a second device to make a monitor capable of showing video, which is effectively modifying it.

From the statue book:

“ 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)

Its not modifying the device to plug it into a signal decoder such as a cable or satellite receiver, and if the device is capable of being plugged into such a receiver in its current state which allows it to broadcast the signal then by definition it is a television.

srsly78 · 17-07-2013 11:03am

djimi wrote: »

Except it specifies that a computer and phone (and I presume by extension a tablet) are currently exempt from requiring a TV license.

A 24" "computer monitor" with HDMI input and a 42" TV with HDMI input are the same device and can both be used for either purpose. Just because you choose to plug it into a PC does not change the fact that it is still a device that is capable of receiving a TV signal and can be used for that purpose.

We can debate the finer points of it all we like; to me the law as it is written is pretty black and white on the matter. If you have a device that is capable of receiving a TV broadcast signal (be it direct or via decoding equipment) then you must pay a TV license, even if the device is not being used for that purpose. I dont see how you could argue that any device that has HDMI or SCART input would not fall into this.

You clearly have no clue how monitors work.

The difference between monitor and tv: monitor does not have the electronics to decode the tv signal.

Now, things may be more complicated these days with the analogue turn off - but most tvs have the signal receiving and decoding bits built in. The monitor just shows a picture, it can only receive a pre-decoded signal from an outside source (usually a pc or other box).

This is pretty funny because nowadays that means that many tvs themselves can't receive signal (analog is gone). The tv licence properly applies to your saorview box.

djimi · 17-07-2013 11:10am

srsly78 wrote: »

You clearly have no clue how monitors work.

The difference between monitor and tv: monitor does not have the electronics to decode the tv signal.

Now, things may be more complicated these days with the analogue turn off - but most tvs have the signal receiving and decoding bits built in. The monitor just shows a picture, it can only receive a pre-decoded signal from an outside source (usually a pc or other box).

This is pretty funny because nowadays that means that many tvs themselves can't receive signal (analog is gone). The tv licence properly applies to your saorview box.

The monitor doesnt have to be able to decode the TV signal; it only has to be able to display the signal that is coming from the cable/satellite decoder box.

srsly78 · 17-07-2013 11:24am

djimi wrote: »

The monitor doesnt have to be able to decode the TV signal; it only has to be able to display the signal that is coming from the cable/satellite decoder box.

The law does not say that - a video signal is not a television broadcast. This is why they are changing the law to cover everything.

Consider a bunch of monitors hooked up to closed circuit tv cameras. You think these need a tv licence? NO!

You can watch RTE over the internet via official methods on your pc, but whether this constitutes a "broadcast" is unclarified right now. This is the excuse they will use to change the law and make all internet capable devices subject to the new "broadcast licence".

R P McMurphy · 17-07-2013 11:26am

Just dont engage in conversation with them at all and close the door. In fact dont open the door at all. Nothing good ever comes from an unexpected knock on the door

djimi · 17-07-2013 12:15pm

srsly78 wrote: »

The law does not say that - a video signal is not a television broadcast. This is why they are changing the law to cover everything.

Consider a bunch of monitors hooked up to closed circuit tv cameras. You think these need a tv licence? NO!

You can watch RTE over the internet via official methods on your pc, but whether this constitutes a "broadcast" is unclarified right now. This is the excuse they will use to change the law and make all internet capable devices subject to the new "broadcast licence".

Look at the quote that I posted from the statute book about four posts up.

srsly78 · 17-07-2013 12:20pm

djimi wrote: »

Look at the quote that I posted from the statute book about four posts up.

Your interpretation of the law is different from that of the inspectors themselves, they have been fine with monitors for years.

ted1 · 17-07-2013 12:21pm

djimi wrote: »

Look at the quote that I posted from the statute book about four posts up.

Your fighting a losing battle, a monitor can not receive a broadcast signal ( most can't even do sound)
This is why they are changing the system.

djimi · 17-07-2013 12:41pm

srsly78 wrote: »

Your interpretation of the law is different from that of the inspectors themselves, they have been fine with monitors for years.

ted1 wrote: »

Your fighting a losing battle, a monitor can not receive a broadcast signal ( most can't even do sound)
This is why they are changing the system.

There is a difference between a more old school computer monitor (which typically only has a VGA/DVI connection on it) and the type of monitor that is more commonly in use nowadays which is basically a small TV complete with HDMI and often SCART. If inspectors see a monitor connected to a PC and ignore it then well and good, but essentially there is no difference between the 24" monitor that is plugged into your PC via HDMI and the 42" monitor in your living room that is connected via HDMI/SCART to the PS3 and the Sky box, and an inspector who knows what they are looking may see the 24" monitor with its HDMI connection and realise that it is fully capable of broadcasting a TV signal from a Sky/UPC box.

I should clarify (or backtrack if you will) and say I am referring to monitors that are capable of carrying sound as well as picture. A monitor that is not capable of carrying sound cant really be considered to be a television.

Pawwed Rig · 17-07-2013 12:45pm

I think we can agree that the current law is completely outdated and does not reflect the reality of modern broadcasting.

This, I would assume, is the main reason for the new charge which everyone will need to pay rather than arguing over what is and isn't covered under the legislation.

foggy_lad · 17-07-2013 12:52pm

Basically the old law is still in effect where you needed a tv with a tuner which was the part which required the licence. That is why even if you had no actual tv but only had a video recorder you still needed a licence as the vcr contained a tuner. So today if you have only a monitor you dont need a licence but if you have a cable or satellite decoder like sky box or upc microwave decoder that is the tuner and requires a licence.

Henry Ford III · 17-07-2013 6:06pm

This will change things I suspect...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/every-single-home-to-be-hit-with-new-broadcasting-charge-29428338.html

Pawwed Rig · 17-07-2013 6:26pm

Henry Ford III wrote: »

This will change things I suspect...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/every-single-home-to-be-hit-with-new-broadcasting-charge-29428338.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/rabbitte-lured-by-the-one-liner-1.1316682

He does what he says he will do anyway:D

carpejugulum · 17-07-2013 9:21pm

foggy_lad wrote: »

They ask to be allowed in to search for any tv and if you refuse they just call the guards who will uphold the inspectors right to enter your property.

They don't have a right to enter the property without your permission or a court warrant.

Deliverance XXV · 17-07-2013 11:53pm

If you have any bit of a lane before your house, place a 'Beware of Dog' and 'No Trespassing Signs' and see if he crosses the garden threshold then. Maybe a Rifle Association Membership sign and old Republican US flags on the fence...

With regards to the analogue monitor debate - what if someone uses a digital-analogue (DVI-D to VGA) converter with an analogue monitor? Should they then not be technically able to receive digital TV signals?

Cienciano · 18-07-2013 12:11pm

UDP wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0018/sec0146.html#sec146

Broadcasting Act 2009
146.— (1) An issuing agent may appoint persons to be officers of the issuing agent for the purposes of this Part.

(2) A person appointed under subsection (1) shall, on his or her appointment be furnished by the issuing agent with a certificate of his or her appointment and when exercising a power conferred by subsection (3) shall, if requested by any person thereby affected, produce such certificate to that person for inspection.

(3) An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place.

(4) An officer of an issuing agent may request any person on the premises or at the place where he or she finds a television set or evidence of such to produce the television licence for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place for inspection by the officer.

reads to me that they can.

It seems to me that there's a couple of ways around it. First one is, don't open the door unless you're expecting someone. Second one is when he says "can I come into your house to check for a tv", say "no" and close the door.

Smashius_Clay · 18-07-2013 9:29pm

UDP wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0018/sec0146.html#sec146
reads to me that they can.

If I simply did not return their letter to them, what would happen then?

cameraman21 · 31-07-2013 11:19pm

What if I am away for 4 months, I will not receive or send back the letter? How can they fine me - how can they prove I got the letter if it is not registered post?

Minier81 · 01-08-2013 8:54am

Faith wrote: »

What happens if they knock on the door and you just admit to not having a licence? Do they just tell you to buy one or what?

This did happen to me! I just admitted I didn't have one, and the inspector just told me to get one within 10 days. A few days alter I got a letter to that effect.

F35 · 01-08-2013 8:57am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think we can agree that the current law is completely outdated and does not reflect the reality of modern broadcasting.

This, I would assume, is the main reason for the new charge which everyone will need to pay rather than arguing over what is and isn't covered under the legislation.

Yep, agreed, especially when people can get rte player for free.

MugMugs · 01-08-2013 9:59am

They had my name and kept issuing letters to me. Returned to sender the whole time. They now address them to the occupant.

If he doesn't have my name, then he doesn't have a chance of taking me to court.

And if he finds my name somehow, I'll be wanting to know how and what the DPA has to say about it.

D3PO · 01-08-2013 10:06am

MugMugs wrote: »

And if he finds my name somehow, I'll be wanting to know how and what the DPA has to say about it.

Yeah because its so hard to find somebodies name without breaching data protection laws :rolleyes::rolleyes:

MugMugs · 01-08-2013 10:10am

D3PO wrote: »

Yeah because its so hard to find somebodies name without breaching data protection laws :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well if you had my address, how would you go about obtaining my name?

OldNotWIse · 01-08-2013 10:11am

Smashius_Clay wrote: »

I received a letter recently saying that a TV licence was not registered for the apartment in which I live. I share an apartment with two other people.

We have no television in our living room, nor are we set up for Saorview, Sky or any of those things.

However, I am wondering, if a TV licence inspector calls around, are they allowed to check your bedroom?

Leaving aside whether or not any of us have a television any of our rooms, it does seem to be rather an invasion of privacy to ask to see someone's bedroom.

If a TV licence inspector called round, would I have the right to refuse him/her access to my bedroom?

I assumed you could refuse them access to the house?

D3PO · 01-08-2013 10:33am

MugMugs wrote: »

Well if you had my address, how would you go about obtaining my name?

Electoral Register
Asking a neighbour
Phone book

etc etc etc.

Its not hard to find somebodies name without breaking data protection laws and with minimal enough effort.

MugMugs · 01-08-2013 10:34am

D3PO wrote: »

Electoral Register
Asking a neighbour
Phone book

etc etc etc.

Its not hard to find somebodies name without breaking data protection laws and with minimal enough effort.

I am not registered on the Electoral Register

My neighbours do not know my name with the exception of one who has since left the area.

My phone number is ex directory and furthermore, how does one find a name from an address in a phone book?

Grandpa Hassan · 01-08-2013 10:54am

geez.....will you all not just pay the bleedin' licence! Its not that much

Pawwed Rig · 01-08-2013 11:29am

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

geez.....will you all not just pay the bleedin' licence! Its not that much

It is €160 a year. That is alot.

MarkR · 01-08-2013 11:38am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is €160 a year. That is alot.

Could be less if everyone paid it.

Pawwed Rig · 01-08-2013 11:39am

MarkR wrote: »

Could be less if everyone paid it.

You honestly believe that?
So the new universal charge will be less than €160 then?

shruikan2553 · 01-08-2013 11:44am

MarkR wrote: »

Could be less if everyone paid it.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Why would everyone pay it? Plenty of people dont have a TV. No reason for them to subsidise you getting bored in the evenings

Pawwed Rig · 01-08-2013 11:52am

With Kenny off the payroll there must be some scope for reducing the current charge?

R P McMurphy · 01-08-2013 12:48pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think we can agree that the current law is completely outdated and does not reflect the reality of modern broadcasting.

This, I would assume, is the main reason for the new charge which everyone will need to pay rather than arguing over what is and isn't covered under the legislation.

I would agree t o ba point but if a person does not have tv and lives in an area with rubbish broadband service that would be incapable of streaming programming then there is still an issue

srsly78 · 01-08-2013 12:50pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I would agree t o ba point but if a person does not have tv and lives in an area with rubbish broadband service that would be incapable of streaming programming then there is still an issue

Even rubbish broadband can stream low-res rte player and radio. You only need good broadband if you want to stream hi-def, which rte doesn't even offer I think.

shruikan2553 · 01-08-2013 1:47pm

srsly78 wrote: »

Even rubbish broadband can stream low-res rte player and radio. You only need good broadband if you want to stream hi-def, which rte doesn't even offer I think.

Have you ever tried using RTE iplayer? Unless it has improved in the past few months having broadband still makes it crap and slow.

srsly78 · 01-08-2013 2:44pm

Yep works fine even on lousy eircom 3mbit broadband.

If you were talking about 56k modem you might have a point.

MarkR · 01-08-2013 4:31pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You honestly believe that?
So the new universal charge will be less than €160 then?

Basic math. Say for example 1 million people paid the tv licence. State gets 160,000,000 euro.

Everyone pays next year. State gets 179,200,000 (12% of people estimated not to have paid in 2010). Following year the state has 19,200,000 more than expected to budget with. Tv licence may not go down, but we might get f*cked in the ass more gently that budget.

It's like tesco. Every little bit helps. Or hinders. People always think that their tax avoidance doesn't matter. But crib when the roads have potholes, the waiting lists get longer in the hospital, and another levy gets thrown in on top of us next year.

Pawwed Rig · 01-08-2013 4:34pm

I understand the maths but I think it would be very optimistic to think that they will lower this fee for any reason. RTE will find some way to waste use the money wisely.

djimi · 01-08-2013 4:35pm

MarkR wrote: »

Basic math. Say for example 1 million people paid the tv licence. State gets 160,000,000 euro.

Everyone pays next year. State gets 179,200,000 (12% of people estimated not to have paid in 2010). Following year the state has 19,200,000 more than expected to budget with. Tv licence may not go down, but we might get f*cked in the ass more gently that budget.

It's like tesco. Every little bit helps. Or hinders. People always think that their tax avoidance doesn't matter. But crib when the roads have potholes, the waiting lists get longer in the hospital, and another levy gets thrown in on top of us next year.

In an ideal world it would work like that, but the chance of that happening in reality are slim to virtually none.

Pawwed Rig · 01-08-2013 6:11pm

A timely article on why rates will not be lowered

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0801/465861-rabbitte-rte/

styo · 25-11-2020 7:51pm

djimi wrote: »

Does it have SCART or HDMI input? If so then it is capable of receiving a TV signal and you would be liable to pay for a TV license.

nope. that's wrong. the act is specific on the equipment being capable of receipt of the signal.

ie. the set top box is the thing that must be licensed, or the tv given that it has a broadcast signal decoder.

a monitor, which has a hdmi input, does not have to be licensed.

styo · 25-11-2020 8:17pm

djimi wrote: »

There is a difference between a more old school computer monitor (which typically only has a VGA/DVI connection on it) and the type of monitor that is more commonly in use nowadays which is basically a small TV complete with HDMI and often SCART. If inspectors see a monitor connected to a PC and ignore it then well and good, but essentially there is no difference between the 24" monitor that is plugged into your PC via HDMI and the 42" monitor in your living room that is connected via HDMI/SCART to the PS3 and the Sky box, and an inspector who knows what they are looking may see the 24" monitor with its HDMI connection and realise that it is fully capable of broadcasting a TV signal from a Sky/UPC box.

I should clarify (or backtrack if you will) and say I am referring to monitors that are capable of carrying sound as well as picture. A monitor that is not capable of carrying sound cant really be considered to be a television.

HDMI and/or SCART connections do not need licensing.
nor is sound the issue.

the act is very clear - the device that must be licensed is the device capable of decoding the transmission. ie. its the tv card in the TV set, not the screen.

styo · 25-11-2020 8:20pm

F35 wrote: »

Yep, agreed, especially when people can get rte player for free.

I've no need to pay for RTE thanks.

I'd probably subscribe (and pay) for a news feed from RTE, but no interest in wha is not public interest broadcasting thanks.

StevenToast · 25-11-2020 8:23pm

I have no interest in paying towards Ryan Turdidys salary

styo · 25-11-2020 8:24pm

Lemming wrote: »

Simply saying "Oh your TV has a Scart connector therefore it is capable" is not good enough, and it's lazy, cynical painting of the regulations that makes people think that is the case. Technically - using the interpretation you are applying djimi, every man, woman, and child in possession of a smart phone needs a TV license.

If you have a TV (or other device) that is - at the moment in time we are discussing - not able to receive a broadcast signal then the argument falls flat on its face. You do not receive a broadcast signal via any sort of cable; cables are nothing but a medium. You receive a broadcast signal by another piece of equipment. If you are lacking that equipment (or the cables to connect it all up for that matter) to receive a broadcast signal, well then again, the argument again falls flat on its face.

The important words are "broadcast signal". That means live TV, now.

Granted, the above does not apply to a TV that has built in capability to receive broadcast signals. Same for having your tv/video/pctv-card plugged into an active, working wall socket of some sort, as again you are able to receive a broadcast signal because you are physically able (i.e. you are in possession of the physical cable needed) to do so.

The TV licensing people are a law unto themselves and will tell you fib after fib to paint themselves as an imposing authority figure. Some of the tactics & letter content they use here in the UK is outrageous and they are notorious for being highly selective with the truth and aggressive & intimidating in the contents of their letters in an effort to simply scare people into submission. It's very much a case of assumed guilt, prove innocence.

Bottom line, it's not about owning x, y, or z; it's about whether or not x, y, or z is able (not designed, but able) to receive a broadcast (as in "live") signal. If you can receive that signal, get yourself a license because otherwise you're taking the p1ss.

nothing to do with whether you use the equipment. it's all about whether the equipment, broken or not, used or not, is on the premises.

The equipment in question is equipment capable of decoding TV broadcast signals.

that's what the act covers.

A scart socket is not capable of decoding said signal, nor is a HDMI socket. end of.

James 007 · 25-11-2020 8:57pm

StevenToast wrote: »

I have no interest in paying towards Ryan Turdidys salary

Neither do I, I still find this funny:rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu6d0ns-JJU

TheChizler · 25-11-2020 8:57pm

styo wrote: »

...

Are you going to reply to every post from 7 years ago?

Graham · 25-11-2020 9:05pm

Mod Note

styo, please don't resurrect zombie threads.

Thread closed.

Can TV Licence inspectors check your bedroom?

Comments