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

Bob24

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If you have a dish that is receiving equipment and you need a licence.

Yes the law is dumb

Even if he doesn't have a tuner / satellite receiver in the house?

The law says a TV is a device or combination of devices that are able the receive and display TV broadcast. Individually or combined, a monitor and a dish clearly can't display any TV broadcast (and both are not specifically designed to receive TV signal but could individually be used for something else: computer monitor and satellite broadband).

Just asking ... I am not sure how the law is applied, but if I read it and from a technical perspective, without some kind of receiver connected to the monitor I don't see how the equipment he's got can be included in the legal definition of a TV.

ps200306

Bob24 wrote: »

I did the same thing a few years ago - so it might be different now - but at the time I called the TV license office to tell them I had no more TV. They sent out a form to fill and sign where you declare there is no TV in your house. Never heard of them again after returning the form, so I guess they marked me as "no TV".
I assume they might still come and check whether you are telling the truth, but given that they have a signed declaration with your name they shouldn't send you any letter requiring you to pay.

Ta. I'll give that a shot.

ps200306

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If you have a dish that is receiving equipment and you need a licence.

No, it isn't, and no, you don't. If that was true you'd need a license to have coat hangers, which are a time-honoured way of picking up a signal.

There should probably be a sticky about the basics of the TV license -- this same point's been made a dozen times on this thread.

Pawwed Rig

ps200306 wrote: »

No, it isn't, and no, you don't. If that was true you'd need a license to have coat hangers, which are a time-honoured way of picking up a signal.

There should probably be a sticky about the basics of the TV license -- this same point's been made a dozen times on this thread.

I was thinking about this after I wrote it. It is something that I heard years ago. Maybe it was part of the previous act or someones interpretation.
I did find this though on http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/media/tv_licences.html

Every household, business or institution in Ireland with a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal (using an aerial, satellite dish, cable or other means) must have a television licence.

Elmo

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Every household, business or institution in Ireland with a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal (using an aerial, satellite dish, cable or other means) must have a television licence.

The equipment that they refer to is the TV tuner in VCRs, DVD Recorders, PVRs, TVs, STBs etc not the Aerial, Satellite Dish or cable. E.g. if you have a PC TV Tuner you require a TV licence.

zg3409

In terms of evidence against you, they could use the fact you have a dish as evidence you have at least some of the equipment needed. I think this is used when the householder does not let people into the house to inspect (they have no right to enter). If you have a dish and an aerial, or a UPC connection then that's mighty suspicious.

Why leave the dish up if you don't intend to use it now or in the future?

I would have thought if going to all the expense of dumping TVs and buying monitors to replace them then unbolting the dish would not be a big extra.

You should also consider there has been mention for years that the licence may be combined into some sort of household charge, that you would pay even if you did not have a TV. If that comes in the next few years, which it may not, the extra expense might be wasted.

ps200306

zg3409 wrote: »

In terms of evidence against you, they could use the fact you have a dish as evidence you have at least some of the equipment needed.

They need more than evidence that I have some of the equipment. I'm perfectly entitled to have a dish on my house without a TV licence.

zg3409 wrote: »

Why leave the dish up if you don't intend to use it now or in the future?

Who says I don't intend to use it in the future? I might decide at the drop of a hat to reinstate it. That's my prerogative.

zg3409 wrote: »

I would have thought if going to all the expense of dumping TVs and buying monitors to replace them then unbolting the dish would not be a big extra.

I paid a man a hundred quid to put it up. Why should I take it down? Even if it cost me nothing, why should I take it down? There isn't the slightest requirement on me to do so.

zg3409 wrote: »

You should also consider there has been mention for years that the licence may be combined into some sort of household charge, that you would pay even if you did not have a TV. If that comes in the next few years, which it may not, the extra expense might be wasted.

I'm not really going to extra expense. The TVs are being redeployed elsewhere. I need a new monitor anyway. I'll consider it an outrage if there's a new broadcasting charge that it is impossible to opt out of, but obviously I'll have to suck it up.

In the meantime, I don't feel remotely obliged to take down my dish in order to give the right impression. I've never cheated on my TV licence in my life. When I built the house I went straight down to the post office to by a licence. The guy in the post office told me with a wink that "once I signed up I'd have to keep renewing" ... as if to say "nobody in their right mind in your position would sign up voluntarily". I can see why they'd be suspicious if their own employees are that dodgy, but they can stick their suspicions where the sun don't shine.

Johnboy1951

ps200306,
in your position I would be inclined to leave the dish and aerial (if present) in position, if, for nothing else than to thumb my nose at them!

ps200306

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

ps200306,
in your position I would be inclined to leave the dish and aerial (if present) in position, if, for nothing else than to thumb my nose at them!

Kinda what I was thinking

ps200306

Got a friendly call from the TV licence office to say they'd be sending out a Statutory Declaration form. So far so good.

sesswhat

The Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte has said everyone will have to pay a new broadcasting charge to replace the TV licence, regardless of whether or not they own a television.

Irish Examiner

Might as well bring it out of the cupboard now;)

Johnboy1951

sesswhat wrote: »

Irish Examiner

Might as well bring it out of the cupboard now;)

..... and then there are homes without smart phones or internet connection or TV ...... I would not be happy with this were I in such a situation ......

Bob24

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

..... and then there are homes without smart phones or internet connection or TV ...... I would not be happy with this were I in such a situation ......

I agree, but I would be curious to know how many such houses there are :-)

wolfpawnat

Bob24 wrote: »

I agree, but I would be curious to know how many such houses there are :-)

Very few, but I would imagine they would be the older community. I can't imagine them having a smart phone if they don't even have a tv.

Johnboy1951

Bob24 wrote: »

I agree, but I would be curious to know how many such houses there are :-)

I have no idea how many ..... but am aware of a few in my locality.

As far as I can judge these would be the same people on social service payments such as disability, who have had their household support (for telephone, fuel, electricity, & TV licence) seriously cut recently.

Given that recent cut to (probably) the most vulnerable, I cannot see this new scheme being equitable when it comes to the minority such as those I mentioned.

Elmo

AFAIK A free TV licence is only provided to old age pensioners.

Those aged 66 to 70 are means tested, while those aged over 70 get it automatically. It comes as part of a wider package that includes Telephone, Gas and Electricity.

You do not get the money directly.

Others get a €20 top up on Jobseekers for Fuel, depending on their circumstance.

Johnboy1951

Elmo wrote: »

AFAIK A free TV licence is only provided to old age pensioners.

No, there are other categories who are entitled to it as well, as part of the household package.

leeroybrown

Elmo wrote: »

AFAIK A free TV licence is only provided to old age pensioners.

Anyone who qualifies for the Household Benefits Package gets a free TV license. The criteria are wider than just pensioners although pensioners are definitely the largest group of recipients.

nacho66

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Very few, but I would imagine they would be the older community. I can't imagine them having a smart phone if they don't even have a tv.

Look, having or not having a TV is not even a point here. The point is that paying license or broadcast charge or however the hell they call it, it's a simple extortion. There is no explanation why person who's already paying subscription with Netflix, Lovefilm, Sky or any other tv service (or is listening to independent online radio stations) would have to pay an additional racket to the government that does not take part, neither active nor passive, in any of these services?
Why not go further then, impose reading charge, gaming charge or owning-a-fecking-music-instrument charge?

wolfpawnat

nacho66 wrote: »

Look, having or not having a TV is not even a point here. The point is that paying license or broadcast charge or however the hell they call it, it's a simple extortion. There is no explanation why person who's already paying subscription with Netflix, Lovefilm, Sky or any other tv service (or is listening to independent online radio stations) would have to pay an additional racket to the government that does not take part, neither active nor passive, in any of these services?
Why not go further then, impose reading charge, gaming charge or owning-a-fecking-music-instrument charge?

Shhh! you'll give them ideas. :pac:

I pay my licence and Sky, and I pay VAT on my internet. Enough is enough. I know Sky is an elective service, but damn it, I pay enough. This way I will still have to pay Sky and VAT and you know for a fact they will hike the new licence to 200 or more! I don't even watch TV online ffs.

ps200306

I would happily pay a broadcasting charge for Irish news, current affairs, and culture, e.g Lyric FM and some Irish language programming. I reckon €25 per year or so would be reasonable. What I object to is paying for a loss-making commercial outfit masquerading as a public service. I don't want soaps (especially not imported ones), I don't want drama or movies, and I certainly don't want ads. (Or rather, if I want any of those I'd like to make my own choices about what I pay for, thank you very much). RTE should be mercilessly carved up into a public broadcasting unit with a modest publicly funded budget, and everything else should be left to sink or swim as a commercial concern.

Elmo

I haven't argued for the TV licence in a while. I got bored with such arguments and the same old posters either for or against the "FEE"/"TAX" (I include myself in that statement).

I have problems with Irish TV as do many people weather its PSB or Commercial. PayTV does little to progress the production of Irish TV. Sky dip their toe in every now and then, with the fob called "Sky News Ireland" and a more substantial programming like "Moone Boy" and lets all bow to Sky's mighty pound with another Irish Call centre that does little to provide - EXPERIENCE. (AFAIK only the installation of SKY TV do you pay Irish VAT, monthly bills are British VAT).

I agree RTÉ needs to be radically overhauled, but I also believe that Irish TV has to be radically overhauled. I'd even go further and say Radio needs much change.

TV3's proposition is not a satisfactory one. Their view is that RTÉ should drop RTÉ TWO and that RTÉ ONE should drop advertising. This would leave viewers with just RTÉ ONE, TV3, TG4 and 3e (we won't mention the zombie of Setanta). TV3 would become the main advertiser, this would see the service flooded with cash in the first year, cash that would only be used to get rid of their large Anglo Irish Debt, which only a few weeks ago became part of NAMA's loan book with the demise of IRBC. This would not provide choice or do justice to Irish TV. Later more and more British opt-outs would be seen and TV3 would be left with little income but without burden of a large dept.

What TV3 don't want, and what will not be consider by any of the people in power is the sale of RTÉ Two and 2fm along with some RTÉ Digital Radio stations or even the suggestion that such service should initially become a Channel 4 type service and then sold when appropriate. This would not help cash flow at TV3, and it is also an awful lot of work.

IMO RTÉ and TG4 need have their programming schedule define under a two new organisations.

RTÉ Nua = RTÉ One, RTÉ Gold, RTÉ News Now, Radio 1, 1 extra, Lyric FM and Choice.
TG4 Nua = TG4, The Irish Film Board Channel, Oireachtas TV, RTÉjr, Cula4, RnaG, RTÉRadioJr, Radio RíRá and a youth TV service.

The Orchastras need to be free from RTÉ, but who pays for them? IMO part of the new broadcast levy will still have to pay for such cultural organisations.

We often forget that RTÉ have to support these organisations and that both the BAI and TG4 take a nice portion of the licence fee. All this means is that less money is pumped into content on the RTÉ service. The BAI's use of the Sound and Vision has come under fire from the Comptroller and Auditor General, it fails to have an Annual Report, transparent it is not. The fact that Zombie TV Setanta can get licence fee money from the BAI is just infuriating.

Politican's will take the easy populist view. Already some of "The Healy Rae Party" and the FFer's have lined up with the IBI to promote local and independent radio, which is largely owned by UTV and Communicorp. Communicorp Radio stations have a bigger presence in Dublin than RTÉ.

My issue is content. Something that is expensive to make. €25 euros per household would equal about €45million euro, this would pay for very little content and RTÉ would end up having to spend much of it on imports to gain viewers, unless you decide that 3 hours of TV is enough each night.

I don't want to describe RTÉ in relation to the BBC, but remember the BBC are highly commercial and some of its programmes are highly commercial, save for BBC FOUR the BBC has many critics of its so called Public Service remit.

ps200306

Elmo wrote: »

My issue is content. Something that is expensive to make. €25 euros per household would equal about €45million euro, this would pay for very little content and RTÉ would end up having to spend much of it on imports to gain viewers, unless you decide that 3 hours of TV is enough each night.

Three hours is definitely enough each night. It's more than they currently do if you only count useful/quality stuff. Move the rest to a commercial channel and let me decide myself if I want to pay for it through a Sky entertainment pack or somesuch.

Elmo

ps200306 wrote: »

Three hours is definitely enough each night. It's more than they currently do if you only count useful/quality stuff. Move the rest to a commercial channel and let me decide myself if I want to pay for it through a Sky entertainment pack or somesuch.

I never said it would be a good 3 hours. I don't have pay tv, while sky has upped its game it still doesn't provide enough to this country.

dominicbond

I have just moved in to a new rented property which has an analogue TV which no longer functions due to the changeover to Saorview. I dont want to spend 50 euro on a Saorview box as I will move in two months. As part of the terms of rental I have to buy a TV licence, but I begrudge paying for a licence for a TV that I cannot use.
Any suggestions.

zg3409

Bring the licence with you to the new address. This is perfectly normal

dominicbond

I appreciate your response, but my argument is that it isnt my TV anyhow (I can take and leave having a TV as I didnt have one for ten years in the past). If it worked then (in balance) I would accept it and pay for it. I could pay for a Saorview box but when my new property it ready it will probably have cable.

dominicbond

I just thought of a great idea! I will store the TV in the home of a friend who already has a TV and is licensed!

Bob24

Yes that will work :-)

And of course it is you choice to accept his conditions and there is nothing obliging him to do so ... but the landlord really should either buy the soarview box or remove the TV. I know it can still be used for DVDs but an analog TV on its own has limited usage these days, and the price of the licence compared to the TV itself is just too much.

Kat B

Hi All,

Just wondering if anyone can tell me for definite the procedure with regard to rentees and tv licence.

Basically my brother is living in rented accommodation where they do have a tv but no licence.

The inspector has been around a few times,they have never spoken to him but have gotten some letters/notifications in the letterbox to say he had visited and noticed evidence of a television (sky cable)
Now they have gotten a letter from anpost in the post to say the same but says that if they do not purchase a licence immediately further action will be taken.
The trouble is,all correspondence is addressed to "the occupier"
Does this matter with regard to being summoned etc?
Surely the licence inspector/anpost would need a name?

So what I ask is are they at a stage where they need to purchase immediately or is that when it is addressed by name?
When addressed by name do they then have ten days to purchase before being fined/summoned?

Just wondering if anyone knows the actual procedure and when they should worry?

Many Many thanks in advance!