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

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

Options
1…3233353738…55

Comments

  • Options
    #1022
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,482 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    SARCHER wrote: »
    ... I own a television set, but it is not connected to any service and does not receive any channels, it's basically a monitor at this point....there has to be some other legal recourse as I don't use Public Broadcasting and should not have to pay for it...Does anyone know the best way to go about fighting this?

    If you have no need for a television set then get rid of it and buy a monitor. As long as you have a television set (whether working or not or whether connected to any broadcast service or not) you have to have a television license.

    The only way to avoid the legal requirement to have a television license is to not have a television.


  • Options
    #1023
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,482 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    Kintarō Hattori wrote: »
    Yes you can but the delayed broadcasting charge will render that loophole null and void when it eventually comes in.
    A license would also currently be required for any combination of equipment (e.g. monitor and satellite / cable / saorview box, PC tuner card or USB tuner stick with a PC or laptop) capable of receiving a 'television' broadcast. So if you do get a monitor you would need to ensure there was no broadcast receiving equipment in the house in order to stay on the right side of the law.

    As already posted, ownership or not of a television or broadcast receiving equipment may be moot if the proposed broadcasting charge is brought in to replace the current television license.

    Your guess is as good as mine as to whether it is worth ditching the TV and buying a monitor in the hope that the proposed broadcasting charge is a long time (if ever) being introduced or whether it is better to pay for a TV license in the meantime. 160 might not get much of a monitor, 160 X ? years might get a good one, 1000 fine + court costs for not having a TV license would have bought a nice monitor.


  • Options
    #1024
    cml387
    Registered Users Posts: 8,444 ✭✭✭cml387


    I suggest you hire a lawyer.

    At a cost of 160 euro (the cost of a license) you should at least afford to get him to write a stiff letter.


  • Options
    #1025
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,288 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    SARCHER wrote: »
    I don't consider it waffling Dodge. It's hard to fathom that people are forced to pay for a service they don't use. I am not prepared to do that and thus have sought feedback on ways around it.
    .

    No you haven't. You've sought advice on not paying for something you're obliged to do

    You have your own idea of what the licence is for but that doesn't really matter. You're wrong and you have to pay. I'm sorry it's not what you wanted to hear


  • Options
    #1026
    Nomis21
    Registered Users Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭Nomis21


    About three years ago I cut the wire which goes from my TV Ariel to inside my house.

    I wrote and told the licensing authority that I did not have a TV set.

    They sent a guy to my address who looked like the Irish equivalent of Mike Tyson to investigate the case.

    I showed him the cut Ariel wire dangling from my roof and he said...

    "Well I don't mind coming here, it gives me a job."

    He then walked away, never to be seen again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1027
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    SARCHER wrote: »
    It is my understanding that the fees collected from the TV Licence are to go to the funding of Public Broadcasting. I own a television set, but it is not connected to any service and does not receive any channels, it's basically a monitor at this point.

    I am having a difficult time paying a fee for a service that I don't use. I've written the communications division and am told that regardless of whether I use the service or not I have to pay the fee and that there is no appeal process.

    I feel like there has to be some other legal recourse as I don't use Public Broadcasting and should not have to pay for it. Additionally I believe that a station should be funded by it's advertisers and not the public purse but that is a different kettle of fish.

    Does anyone know the best way to go about fighting this?

    Once it has a tuner in it, it is capable of receiving a broadcast. If you seel so strongly then get a monitor not a TV.

    It doesn't matter whether you watch the TV or not, the legislation is written that way. Public Service Broadcasting cannot survive on advertising money alone.

    Finally there is a big humongous thread for whinging about the TV licence mechanism. Infact its a sticky at the top.


  • Options
    #1028
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Nomis21 wrote: »
    About three years ago I cut the wire which goes from my TV Ariel to inside my house.

    I wrote and told the licensing authority that I did not have a TV set.

    They sent a guy to my address who looked like the Irish equivalent of Mike Tyson to investigate the case.

    I showed him the cut Ariel wire dangling from my roof and he said...

    "Well I don't mind coming here, it gives me a job."

    He then walked away, never to be seen again.


    So what, you got lucky. The aerial is not the licensable item, the television is.


  • Options
    #1029
    icdg
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 11,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭icdg


    STB. wrote: »

    Finally there is a big humongous thread for whinging about the TV licence mechanism. Infact its a sticky at the top.

    Indeed there is. Threads merged.


  • Options
    #1030
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,726 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    If you have a gun, you need a licence for it. Saying you are not going to shoot anyone with it does not remove your requirement for a gun licence. Same with a TV. You do not even need to have the TV working to need a licence.

    People appear to be happy paying Sky up to €160 a month for their TV service but do not like paying €160 a year to An Post to cover the public broadcasting service that appears on Sky. That is some double think.


  • Options
    #1031
    tharmor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,201 ✭✭✭tharmor


    SARCHER wrote:
    I think you have made your point, let's let others who may have more positive responses reply at this juncture as I am seeking suggestions/solutions which is why I wrote the post in the first place.

    eeguy wrote:
    Can I buy a large monitor and claim it's not a TV since it has no capacity to receive a signal without additional hardware?

    yes


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1032
    Joo0
    Registered Users Posts: 417 ✭✭Joo0


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    appear to be happy paying Sky up to €160 a month for their TV service but do not like paying €160 a year to An Post to cover the public broadcasting service that appears on Sky. That is some double think.

    Paying Sky is a choice paying a TV licence is a legal requirement if you own a TV.


  • Options
    #1033
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,726 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Joo0 wrote: »
    Paying Sky is a choice paying a TV licence is a legal requirement if you own a TV.

    But are the people, who willingly pay Sky as much as €160 per month, the same people who do not pay €160 a year for their TV licence?


  • Options
    #1034
    Quandary
    Registered Users Posts: 5,321 ✭✭✭Quandary


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    But are the people, who willingly pay Sky as much as €160 per month, the same people who do not pay €160 a year for their TV licence?

    Sky don't force people to pay for their service just because they own a television.


  • Options
    #1035
    brightspark
    Registered Users Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    Quandary wrote: »
    Sky don't force people to pay for their service just because they own a television.

    I think the point is if you can afford €160 a month for Sky, there is no reason why you can't afford to pay for a TV license.


  • Options
    #1036
    Quandary
    Registered Users Posts: 5,321 ✭✭✭Quandary


    brightspark wrote: »
    I think the point is if you can afford €160 a month for Sky, there is no reason why you can't afford to pay for a TV license.

    Oh I get that point. I personally just don't feel the need to pay €160 just because I own a TV. I have sky, I pay them for their service because I want to watch their to channels. I can easily afford to pay a TV licence but I refuse to pay it because I do not use any of the state broadcasting services. If RTE was shutdown in the morning and Sky Ireland took their place it would not bother me, or a lot of other people I'm guessing.

    I'm lucky that I live in a 2nd floor apartment with security gates, fob access block doors etc.... so I don't have to deal with any surprise knocks on my door.


  • Options
    #1037
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,726 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Quandary wrote: »
    I'm lucky that I live in a 2nd floor apartment with security gates, fob access block doors etc.... so I don't have to deal with any surprise knocks on my door.

    It is for that reason that the broadcasting charge was proposed to be paid by all premises - whether they were liable for the Licence or not.

    Also, I am surprised that An Post do not have access to a list of subscribers of pay TV companies, and purchasers of TVs. Most other countries approach enforcement this way - I was asked for my address when I purchased a TV product in the North.


  • Options
    #1038
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,507 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Also, I am surprised that An Post do not have access to a list of subscribers of pay TV companies, and purchasers of TVs. Most other countries approach enforcement this way - I was asked for my address when I purchased a TV product in the North.

    Data protection commissioner went mental when this was proposed.


  • Options
    #1039
    brightspark
    Registered Users Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    It is for that reason that the broadcasting charge was proposed to be paid by all premises - whether they were liable for the Licence or not.

    Also, I am surprised that An Post do not have access to a list of subscribers of pay TV companies, and purchasers of TVs. Most other countries approach enforcement this way - I was asked for my address when I purchased a TV product in the North.


    They should add €160 to the property tax (now efficiently being collected by revenue) and abolish the TV licence completely.

    No need then to pay AnPost and less costs involved in administration.

    (No doubt after a few years of it being included in the property tax, some one will say we are the only country without a TV licence and reintroduce it at a much higher rate :eek: )


  • Options
    #1040
    Joo0
    Registered Users Posts: 417 ✭✭Joo0


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    But are the people, who willingly pay Sky as much as €160 per month, the same people who do not pay €160 a year for their TV licence?

    Seems to be that way. It's unfair on us who pay the TV licence yet do not use the Rte services frequently. I don't think k it is possible to say you don't ever access any rte services.


  • Options
    #1041
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    brightspark wrote: »
    They should add €160 to the property tax (now efficiently being collected by revenue) and abolish the TV licence completely.

    No need then to pay AnPost and less costs involved in administration.
    Income from the TV licence amounts to some €220 million a year. Eircode lists 2.2 million premises so €100 per address.

    The opt-outs and premises without TV's should be covered by Collection Costs from An Post/Communications and Social Protection Departments – €9.62

    At present those of us who pay €160 per year are subsidising An Post and the freeloaders. TV ownership was 98% in 2006 but has dropped to 95% presumably because more people consume media using laptops and stuff so there shouldn't be all that many opt-outs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1042
    Rynox45
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Rynox45


    Sorry if this has been addressed in this thread before, if so it appears it hasn't been for a least a year.

    I got a statutory declaration form from the TV Licence Record Office stating there's no record of a TV licence at my address. I've lived here for about 10 years with my parents (I'm 20) and they don't pay their TV licence. I'm not sure why I'm getting this letter now or at what point I became a "customer" of the TV licence.

    As far as I can tell this is their way of trying to get money out of this household by coming after me. I phoned the local Licence Record Office to ask about it and without asking for my name or address I was told that it doesn't matter who owns the house, I live there so I have to fill in the form and return it. I was also helpfully told that there was no need to ask the homeowner for the TV licence details. Okay...

    If I fill out the form truthfully I'll be admitting there's a TV here and no licence. The thing is, it isn't my house and I don't own any of the TVs. If I fill out this form truthfully am I going to end up being fined for not having a TV licence? I've done enough research to know that I've never purchased or owned anything that requires a TV licence - I just don't want to have a criminal record because of something someone else did.

    Has anyone else been in this situation?


  • Options
    #1043
    icdg
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 11,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭icdg


    You are going into legal advice territory here, and we can't give legal advice on Boards - you need to consult a solicitor.


  • Options
    #1044
    Rynox45
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Rynox45


    Thanks icdg, I'll post this over on legal discussion with some more specific questions.


  • Options
    #1045
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 14,019 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Rynox45 wrote: »
    Thanks icdg, I'll post this over on legal discussion with some more specific questions.

    I would ask if there is any truth in what you were told
    I phoned the local Licence Record Office to ask about it and without asking for my name or address I was told that it doesn't matter who owns the house, I live there so I have to fill in the form and return it.

    The charter prevents legal advice being given ..... but someone might know whether this is, in fact, true or not.


  • Options
    #1046
    reboot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭reboot


    Some story last week re a "Closing of the loophole", that allows people to access TV on mobile devices in the UK?


  • Options
    #1047
    icdg
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 11,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭icdg


    As i understand it - and details of the legislation haven't been published - it will involve placing an obligation on those who watch BBC programmes via catch up to pay.

    However if that's the case it breaks the principle that you pay whether you watch the BBC or not, which is a very dangrous road to go down. That way lies a BBC subscription charge.


  • Options
    #1048
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    reboot wrote: »
    Some story last week re a "Closing of the loophole", that allows people to access TV on mobile devices in the UK?
    IIRC the UK "loophole" only applies to screens of 7" or less and even then only when battery powered, it being a mobile device n' all.

    It ain't mobile while connected to a charger.


  • Options
    #1049
    icdg
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 11,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭icdg


    As I understand it's nothing to with screen size - rather it's a distinguishment between live TV and catchup. Licence needed for live, not for catchup. This is slightly different to here where as I understand a licence isn't needed for streaming online.


  • Options
    #1050
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1051
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    icdg wrote: »
    However if that's the case it breaks the principle that you pay whether you watch the BBC or not, which is a very dangrous road to go down. That way lies a BBC subscription charge.
    Considering what they've done to BBC3 and the way they are expecting the BBC to become less populist* so as to allow the commercial stations to make £115 million extra, this is not good news.

    *One reason the stuff is popular is because it's good. I'll admit it, I watch Horrible Histories


Advertisement