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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Dee Forbes banging the RTE TV licence drum again 60m uncollected fee *poll not working - pl ignore*

Options
1…230231233235236…418

Comments

  • Options
    #6962
    Floppybits
    Registered Users Posts: 7,531 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    biko wrote: »
    Won't take cuts? Fine, lay off a third of the "talent" and use the extra money to lower the licence fee.

    Sure the presenters are so in demand by other stations world wide that they would have no problem getting a new job right away.


  • Options
    #6963
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,664 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I agree. It's too costly to collect, and there's about 20% of the population who don't pay it. Just implement the broadcasting tax, and deduct it at source. Increase the fee as well, and increase funding for local radio, independent productions, and TG4.

    Eh no.. How about they let RTE survive or fall on its own merits or implement a subscription service so those who DO want to fund it can pay for it.

    Probably because RTE wouldn't survive unless they can force people to pay.

    I pay the licence but the only way I'd be happy is if they scrapped RTE 2 and most of the radio stations and stopped trying to compete with the BBC and Sky in the entertainment stakes for things we've all probably seen elsewhere anyway.

    Limit it to news, current affairs, cultural programming (not including stupid home makeover shows or Irish versions of UK/US talent shows) and domestic sports or sports featuring Irish international teams.

    Do that at half the current license fee and I don't think anyone would have an issue and compliance would be a lot higher.


  • Options
    #6964
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Floppybits wrote: »
    Sure the presenters are so in demand by other stations world wide that they would have no problem getting a new job right away.

    I live for the day we get to test that theory.


  • Options
    #6965
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    elperello wrote: »
    Just on the off chance that anyone thinks there is a loophole here I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter who owns the TV or what it is used for if it is in your house you need a licence.

    Does landlord have to pay the license fee for his tenants television?


  • Options
    #6966
    Guffy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,033 ✭✭✭Guffy


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    1). The top earners being mentioned are usually contractors, and hence had no vote.
    2). The presenters bring in multiples of what they earn in advertising.
    3). This was in the main about staff who you don't see on TV or hear on radio. Semi-state employees who earn an average of just under €49k per year.
    4). The 'top earners' contribute less than 3% to the overall cost base of the company.
    5). Most of the people who complain so voraciously about RTE are the people who don't pay their TV Licence anyway, and hence should have no opinions on the matter.

    I have no opinion on this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6967
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,742 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    If it can “receive” a tv signal it requires a licence.

    Transmissionphobe.


  • Options
    #6968
    wonderboysam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭wonderboysam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    2). The presenters bring in multiples of what they earn in advertising.

    tenor.gif


  • Options
    #6969
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,742 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    Eh no.. How about they let RTE survive or fall on its own merits or implement a subscription service so those who DO want to fund it can pay for it.

    Probably because RTE wouldn't survive unless they can force people to pay.

    I pay the licence but the only way I'd be happy is if they scrapped RTE 2 and most of the radio stations and stopped trying to compete with the BBC and Sky in the entertainment stakes for things we've all probably seen elsewhere anyway.

    Limit it to news, current affairs, cultural programming (not including stupid home makeover shows or Irish versions of UK/US talent shows) and domestic sports or sports featuring Irish international teams.

    Do that at half the current license fee and I don't think anyone would have an issue and compliance would be a lot higher.

    Agree.
    RTE is a dated nepotistic monolith resistant to change still presenting repeats and piss poor copies of other networks' formats.
    The LLS has had its day. People only watch it now for the cringe factor of how bad it can be.

    They should stick to what they are good at, strip it down to current affairs and cultural things people want to watch, not those RTE *thinks* people like to watch just because someone's connected relative presents it.


  • Options
    #6970
    Shane12
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Shane12


    whisky_galore wrote: »
    My tv identifies as a radio.

    Finally an excuse for the inspector, assuming he, she, they or it is woke.:)


  • Options
    #6971
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,546 ✭✭✭dubrov


    Deleted User wrote: »
    1). The top earners being mentioned are usually contractors, and hence had no vote.
    2). The presenters bring in multiples of what they earn in advertising.
    3). This was in the main about staff who you don't see on TV or hear on radio. Semi-state employees who earn an average of just under €49k per year.
    4). The 'top earners' contribute less than 3% to the overall cost base of the company.
    5). Most of the people who complain so voraciously about RTE are the people who don't pay their TV Licence anyway, and hence should have no opinions on the matter.

    1) True but the fact they are contractors means they can be hit most easily
    2) RTE always claim that the foreign programming is profitable but you seem to say the RTE presenters bring in a multiple of their salaries. So how are they losing money?
    3/4) I see average salary was 60k in 2019. That top 3% would need to be on an average of 500k to bring the rest down to an average of 49k. For an organisation that size, these are scandalous numbers
    5) I doubt that is true given the numbers paying and the numbers complaining on boards.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6972
    Feisar
    Registered Users Posts: 6,597 ✭✭✭Feisar


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It's always funny how some of the least heard voices in a society are so in favour of getting rid of a vital tenet of democracy like a public service broadcaster. The marginalised, the eccentric, the deluded.

    I’m all for a public service broadcaster, not the bloated blimp that is RTE.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Options
    #6973
    arctictree
    Registered Users Posts: 4,284 ✭✭✭arctictree


    yabadabado wrote: »
    Is there a reason why all the top earners who seem to be contractors rather than employees can't just be offered a much lower contract when it comes around for renegotiations ?

    If the top earners are contractors, can they not just do jobs for other stations at the same time? Isn't there some revenue rule that you can't work exclusively for one company as a contractor?


  • Options
    #6974
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,245 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Does landlord have to pay the license fee for his tenants television?

    No, it is the occupier who must pay.


  • Options
    #6975
    skimpydoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,840 ✭✭✭skimpydoo


    Floppybits wrote: »
    Sure the presenters are so in demand by other stations world wide that they would have no problem getting a new job right away.
    :D It's time this was tested.


  • Options
    #6976
    buried
    Registered Users Posts: 9,675 ✭✭✭buried


    Was always surprised that the troika never called a halt to this nepotistic money sucking organisation. Did none of them look at the books and ask any of the various ministers of communications why some lads that are only qualified to pull balls out of a lotto machine are in receipt of a near 500,000 euro yearly wage?

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Options
    #6977
    Odyssey 2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭Odyssey 2005


    yabadabado wrote: »
    Is there a reason why all the top earners who seem to be contractors rather than employees can't just be offered a much lower contract when it comes around for renegotiations ?

    No .


  • Options
    #6978
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,245 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Feisar wrote: »
    I’m all for a public service broadcaster, not the bloated blimp that is RTE.

    Really all we need to do is decide what sort of public service broadcasting service we want and how we want to pay for it.

    Can't be that difficult, can it?


  • Options
    #6979
    dhaughton99
    Registered Users Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭dhaughton99


    Id say the pension costs are astronomical.


  • Options
    #6980
    shtpEdthePlum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭shtpEdthePlum


    wonderboysam wrote: »
    tenor.gif
    Joe Duffy cost the taxpayer 150k today because he slandered Donnacha O'Laoighre on air. RTÉ paid.


  • Options
    #6981
    Odyssey 2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭Odyssey 2005


    shtpEdthePlum wrote: »
    Joe Duffy cost the taxpayer 150k today because he slandered Donnacha O'Laoighre on air. RTÉ paid.

    No they didn't
    We did !


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6982
    buried
    Registered Users Posts: 9,675 ✭✭✭buried


    elperello wrote: »
    Really all we need to do is decide what sort of public service broadcasting service we want and how we want to pay for it.

    Can't be that difficult, can it?

    Well, it is difficult when nobody even bothers to genuinely ask the citizens what sort of service we are willing to pay for. All we are told is 'pay the licence or end up in court'

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Options
    #6983
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,245 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    buried wrote: »
    Well, it is difficult when nobody even bothers to genuinely ask the citizens what sort of service we are willing to pay for. All we are told is 'pay the licence or end up in court'

    Doesn't have to be that way.

    A proper process to decide on the shape of PBS we want and pay for it from direct taxation is my solution.

    We end up with a sustainable PBS free at point of use just like radio is today.

    What's not to like?


  • Options
    #6984
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    elperello wrote: »
    No, it is the occupier who must pay.

    I thought what you posted sounded kind of unbelievable, and I'm not having a go, just couldn't understand how landlords would be expected to pay TV licenses for the televisions their tenants brought to the landlords house.

    We pay the license here, (the wife insists) not entirely sure why as it's not something we avail of a lot (RTE) and streaming is definitely about 99% of what's on here anyway, and TV's most definitely aren't required to stream it. I'm talking Netflix, Disney Plus, Hulu, Plex, Emby and IPTV.

    The TV license business model is doomed I think.


  • Options
    #6985
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RTE should be modelled based on the opinions of men in their 30’s and 40’s.


  • Options
    #6986
    buried
    Registered Users Posts: 9,675 ✭✭✭buried


    elperello wrote: »
    A proper process to decide on the shape of PBS we want and pay for it from direct taxation is my solution.

    Yeah I like it and I'm all for it too, but lets be realistic, do you see any minister of communications push for this sort of agenda? I mean, this sort of thing is so simple to organise, the government can and more importantly have set up this sort of public debate for plenty of other agenda's, so why haven't they done it for this?

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Options
    #6987
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,527 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    dubrov wrote: »
    5) I doubt that is true given the numbers paying and the numbers complaining on boards.

    Ah now, if boards reflected “real life” then Peter Casey would be president and Michael O’Leary would be running every public service.

    The tide is turning…



  • Options
    #6988
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,245 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    McMurphy wrote: »
    I thought what you posted sounded kind of unbelievable, and I'm not having a go, just couldn't understand how landlords would be expected to pay TV licenses for the televisions their tenants brought to the landlords house.

    We pay the license here, (the wife insists) not entirely sure why as it's not something we avail of a lot (RTE) and streaming is definitely about 99% of what's on here anyway, and TV's most definitely aren't required to stream it. I'm talking Netflix, Disney Plus, Hulu, Plex, Emby and IPTV.

    The TV license business model is doomed I think.

    Yes, it's the landlord who owns the property but it's the tenant's home.

    In years to come people will look back on the TV licence as something like the window tax in the 19th century.

    It's a complete anachronism which is long past it's sell by date.


  • Options
    #6989
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    buried wrote: »
    Yeah I like it and I'm all for it too, but lets be realistic, do you see any minister of communications push for this sort of agenda? I mean, this sort of thing is so simple to organise, the government can and more importantly have set up this sort of public debate for plenty of other agenda's, so why haven't they done it for this?

    Eh, we have a broadcasting authority, dude. They are always having public consultations. Check out their website. You can write a philosophical essay on RTE if you like and they’ll read it.

    And this. This closed a fortnight ago.

    https://www.rte.ie/eile/2021/0209/1196058-have-your-say-about-rte/


    RTÉ is preparing a new Public Service Statement – this will be our commitment to you, the audience. We want to understand what you think about RTÉ and what you want from it. Your views will guide what we will do over the years ahead.

    All opinions are welcome, whether you regularly consume RTÉ's television, radio or online services, or whether you don't. The survey will remain open for five weeks, until Sunday 21st March 2021.



    Still, giving out on the internet seems to be more effective.


  • Options
    #6990
    French Toast
    Registered Users Posts: 722 ✭✭✭French Toast


    Writing's on the wall for RTE. A dinosaur of an organisation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6991
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    Ah now, if boards reflected “real life” then Peter Casey would be president and Michael O’Leary would be running every public service.

    Lot of ‘common sense’ and anti ‘woke’ content. The voice of the white man in his 30’s is in danger of getting drowned out otherwise.


Advertisement