TV Licence - ALL TV licence discussion/queries in this thread.

Johnboy1951 · 21-06-2012 2:28pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the thinking in the court would be that the TV only needs a STB to become a TV again and so the case aganst the accused would succeed. It would be very easy to hide a STB but not so easy to hide a CRT TV in the corner of the room. Also, evidence of the arrangement of the room would be telling.

The easiest thing to do is to pay the licence fee.:D

If the court thought and acted on that basis, then all monitors would need to be licensed too.

IMO, the court would have no basis for such a determination.

Sam Russell · 21-06-2012 2:34pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If the court thought and acted on that basis, then all monitors would need to be licensed too.

IMO, the court would have no basis for such a determination.

No, monitors do not have a tuner, so are not liable on their own. An out of service TV is liable for the licence, but the defendant would be claiming relief because the transmissions it can receive have ceased. However, it could display a TV broadcast, and would need only a STB to display a current programme.

Where do you stop? An MPEG2 set?

Johnboy1951 · 21-06-2012 2:45pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, monitors do not have a tuner, so are not liable on their own. An out of service TV is liable for the licence, but the defendant would be claiming relief because the transmissions it can receive have ceased. However, it could display a TV broadcast, and would need only a STB to display a current programme.

Where do you stop? An MPEG2 set?

I did mention taking out the tuner circuitry

All a monitor needs to display broadcast TV is an STB ...... so on that basis monitors too should need a licence

Sam Russell · 21-06-2012 6:35pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I did mention taking out the tuner circuitry

All a monitor needs to display broadcast TV is an STB ...... so on that basis monitors too should need a licence

A monitor plus a STB needs a licence, but a monitor on its own does not. A defunct TV needs a licence - working or not. If you are prepared to lie, then you may fool an inspector, but you still need a licence. If you are caught out, you could face stiff penalties - your call.

I have long supported the idea that the TV licence should be paid together with the electricity bill in installments in line with that bill. It could also be assumed that all houses with electricity have a TV unless they declare otherwise. In other words, the bill payer opts out of the TV licence, making the failure to have a TV without a licence a double penalty by including making a false declaration a second offence. Most people would not be willing to make a false declaration but may omit to licence their TV.

Also the cost of the licence would be easier if it was automatically paid in installments, just like the Sky bill which is at least twice as much per month. Funny how people appear to accept paying them at least €25 per month but resent paing €13 per month for the licence (which is for the privilege of owning a TV, and not for watching RTE).

Johnny Johnson · 21-06-2012 7:00pm

UPC will still have tv broadcasting via analogue so it's not true to say analogue tv will be gone completely

Johnboy1951 · 22-06-2012 2:27am

Sam Russell wrote: »

A monitor plus a STB needs a licence, but a monitor on its own does not. A defunct TV needs a licence - working or not. If you are prepared to lie, then you may fool an inspector, but you still need a licence. If you are caught out, you could face stiff penalties - your call.

Yes a monitor plus STB requires a licence, I know.
A monitor on its own does not. Already stated.

A 'former' TV which has its tuner circuitry removed, is a monitor and not a receiver, so would not require a licence.

I still have doubts that a TV with no working receiver would require a licence.

In fact I feel fairly sure it would not .... as the device has to be capable of receiving broadcast signals, as I understand it.

I have long supported the idea that the TV licence should be paid together with the electricity bill in installments in line with that bill. It could also be assumed that all houses with electricity have a TV unless they declare otherwise. In other words, the bill payer opts out of the TV licence, making the failure to have a TV without a licence a double penalty by including making a false declaration a second offence. Most people would not be willing to make a false declaration but may omit to licence their TV.

Also the cost of the licence would be easier if it was automatically paid in installments, just like the Sky bill which is at least twice as much per month. Funny how people appear to accept paying them at least €25 per month but resent paing €13 per month for the licence (which is for the privilege of owning a TV, and not for watching RTE).

Sam Russell · 22-06-2012 11:36am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Yes a monitor plus STB requires a licence, I know.
A monitor on its own does not. Already stated.

A 'former' TV which has its tuner circuitry removed, is a monitor and not a receiver, so would not require a licence.

I still have doubts that a TV with no working receiver would require a licence.

In fact I feel fairly sure it would not .... as the device has to be capable of receiving broadcast signals, as I understand it.

As I say, tell it to the judge. The risk is yours.

Johnboy1951 · 22-06-2012 3:16pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I say, tell it to the judge. The risk is yours.

Dunno what gives you that impression

Johnny Johnson · 22-06-2012 3:49pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I say, tell it to the judge. The risk is yours.

If the tuner has been removed then what risk is there?

Sam Russell · 22-06-2012 5:25pm

If you are prosecuted for no road tax and you turn up in court and say there is no engine so it does not need road tax, I would think the judge would look with a jaundiced eye and convict anyway. They have heard all these stories before.

A TV remains a TV even minus the tuner. However, I am not a lawyer and I think you should take some serious legal advice if you find yourself in that position. That is all I am saying.

Stark · 22-06-2012 5:41pm

Friend of mine had an incident before where the TV license inspector called to the door and wrote down "saw TV through window" even though all the guy had was a PC/monitor setup. Being his word against the TV license inspector's, he had no choice but to pay for a license. Would imagine you'd have even less luck claiming it was a TV without a tuner.

Johnboy1951 · 23-06-2012 12:22am

Stark wrote: »

Friend of mine had an incident before where the TV license inspector called to the door and wrote down "saw TV through window" even though all the guy had was a PC/monitor setup. Being his word against the TV license inspector's, he had no choice but to pay for a license. Would imagine you'd have even less luck claiming it was a TV without a tuner.

I would suggest he had a choice.

A very clear choice ...... but if he wished to pay a licence fee for a device he did not own, that is his choice ..... it most certainly would not be mine.

I do wonder if he also pays road tax and insurance for a vehicle he doesn't own, because someone saw one parked in his driveway?

Fuzzy Clam · 23-06-2012 2:40am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I do wonder if he also pays road tax and insurance for a vehicle he doesn't own, because someone saw one parked in his driveway?

Parked in the driveway? No insurance or road tax required!

If those here who are so convinced that they can get away without a licence for a TV are prepared to go to court to prove it, then let them.
I just hope they are prepared to inform us of the outcome.

Fuzzy Clam · 23-06-2012 2:42am

Johnny Johnson wrote: »

If the tuner has been removed then what risk is there?

The tuner can be replaced.

thenightrider · 23-06-2012 3:09am

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

The tuner can be replaced.

A TV can be bought or a TV set top box with tuner for a monitor.

Stark · 23-06-2012 9:05am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I would suggest he had a choice.

A very clear choice ...... but if he wished to pay a licence fee for a device he did not own, that is his choice ..... it most certainly would not be mine.

Which would be? "Your honor, I hope you take the word of this scruffy student over this inspector"?

Johnboy1951 · 23-06-2012 12:59pm

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Parked in the driveway? No insurance or road tax required!

Exactly the point!

Someone sees a display device through a window and declares it is a TV, without any evidence to prove it.

Vs

Someone sees a road vehicle in a driveway, without any evidence it has been driven on the road.

If the first is not a TV it does not require licencing.
If the vehicle is not driven on the road it does not require road tax.

Johnboy1951 · 23-06-2012 1:03pm

Stark wrote: »

Which would be? "Your honor, I hope you take the word of this scruffy student over this inspector"?

I suppose that would be one approach ..... but not mine, I must admit.

Stark · 23-06-2012 7:11pm

What would be your approach?

Johnboy1951 · 23-06-2012 10:00pm

Stark wrote: »

What would be your approach?

I would think it obvious ..... bring evidence to the court that the display was not a TV; point out to the court that the "inspector" did not inspect the device and so could have no idea if it was a TV or not.

Would that not be logical?

If I felt in the mood I might even complain about being in court where there was no basis for it.

Of course if your friend had not communicated the facts on receipt of invoice/whatever for the TV licence, then he would be partially responsible for the case being in court, and could expect some repercussions for his omission.

On the other hand, I am more inclined to believe that he had a TV on the premises if he paid the fine ...... even if the inspector did not see the actual TV ..... otherwise I cannot understand why anyone would pay a licence for something they did not have.

Johnboy1951 · 24-06-2012 2:15am

Johnny Johnson wrote: »

If the tuner has been removed then what risk is there?

I did a little digging, and it appears even if the tuner is removed and the TV is incapable of receiving broadcast signals, a licence may still be required

The definition of "Television Set" defines it as a device which has be designed for reception of broadcast signals .... apparently even if it never met its design criteria, or has been altered or adapted at a later stage.

I do not know if this definition has been amended since, but here is the definition from the 1972 broadcast act:-

“television set” means any apparatus for wireless telegraphy designed primarily for the purpose of receiving and exhibiting television programmes broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.

BigGeorge · 13-07-2012 7:55am

We dont have a TV aerial but use a TV screen connected to a media drive & DVD player . I've damaged the TV cable point on the TV unit beyond repair & do not have any sort of saorview / satellite box or receiver.

I received a 'statutory declaration' from An Post & need some advice / previous experience on it, text verbatim is below. By disabling the TV as I have , have I met the requirement of the statutory declaration?

(1) is there a 'television set' at this address?

'Television Set' means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving & 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) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus

The Cush · 13-07-2012 8:37am

BigGeorge wrote: »

We dont have a TV aerial but use a TV screen connected to a media drive & DVD player . I've damaged the TV cable point on the TV unit beyond repair & do not have any sort of saorview / satellite box or receiver.

How are the media drive and DVD player connected to the TV, scart/hdmi? A Saorview STB/indoor aerial used in conjunction with the TV i.e. connected to the TV via scart/HDMI, is capable of receiving & exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception.

BigGeorge · 13-07-2012 9:08am

They are connected via Scart & RGB Ports. But the point is we dont have a set top saorview type box or even an aerial connected for one we we dont have the equipment to receive signals

Using that argument a PC monitor would need a licence because it could be connected via a set top box.......but it doesnt

Sam Kade · 13-07-2012 9:13am

In all ads about paying your tv licence why do they make people out to be such idiots?

The Cush · 13-07-2012 9:14am

BigGeorge wrote: »

They are connected via Scart & RGB Ports. But the point is we dont have a set top saorview type box or even an aerial connected for one we we dont have the equipment to receive signals

For about €60 and a quick trip to Argos the TV could be up and running with Saorview.

BigGeorge wrote: »

Using that argument a PC monitor would need a licence because it could be connected via a set top box.......but it doesnt

A new household broadcasting charge isn't too far away that will cover all methods of reception.

Johnboy1951 · 13-07-2012 9:17am

The Cush wrote: »

How are the media drive and DVD player connected to the TV, scart/hdmi? A Saorview STB/indoor aerial used in conjunction with the TV i.e. connected to the TV via scart/HDMI, is capable of receiving & exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception.

So are most displays devices ....... are you implying that a TV licence is needed for monitors?

It appears that the definition of a TV might have been changed if the wording of the letter is correct ...... in which case it is dependent on the capability of the device and not its original designed purpose.

I have no personal experience of this, but simply declaring that you have no device capable of receiving broadcast signal would be correct and in a situation such as yours I would have no hesitation in doing so.

Under the 1972 definition I could not make a similar declaration as I would have a TV designed for reception, but under the definition you quoted I would not have a device capable of reception.

Just a personal opinion

The Cush · 13-07-2012 9:44am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So are most displays devices ....... are you implying that a TV licence is needed for monitors?

No doubt this has already been discussed here in the thread after 22 pages of posts on the subject, if not the Dept of Comms should provide clarification.

Sam Russell · 13-07-2012 10:34pm

If it was ever a TV, it still is. Broken is not enough as the law considers it could be repaired. I would think it is likely a monitor could be cosidered as requiring a licence if it is used in conjuction with other devices.

I would not like to try to convince a court of the difference.

Johnboy1951 · 13-07-2012 11:36pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it was ever a TV, it still is. Broken is not enough as the law considers it could be repaired. I would think it is likely a monitor could be cosidered as requiring a licence if it is used in conjuction with other devices.

I would not like to try to convince a court of the difference.

The declaration as quoted above demands that a device is capable ...... a broken TV is no longer capable of receiving the broadcast signals.

TV Licence - ALL TV licence discussion/queries in this thread.

Comments