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
Comments
-
What have the national gallery got to do with things, people are voicing a justifiable complaint about being obligated to pay for a tv licence, or why is tv3 being raised? How much of the licence fee do they receive?0
-
Sam Russell wrote: »I referred to 'avoiders' not 'evaders'.
RTE need to improve their management performance and they need to deflate the bubble they live in. However, they have a significant effect on Irish culture, mostly to the good.
Do you visit the National Gallery, or the
National Museum? Thy are free entry and worth visiting. You taxes pay for them.[/
quote]
same thing
like i said i don't use their services so i should have a choice whether or not to purchase them
I wouldn't mind contributing to a national cultural fund annually0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »I referred to 'avoiders' not 'evaders'.
RTE need to improve their management performance and they need to deflate the bubble they live in. However, they have a significant effect on Irish culture, mostly to the good.
Do you visit the National Gallery, or the
National Museum? Thy are free entry and worth visiting. You taxes pay for them.[/
quote]
same thing
like i said i don't use their services so i should have a choice whether or not to purchase them
I wouldn't mind contributing to a national cultural fund annually0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »I referred to 'avoiders' not 'evaders'.
RTE need to improve their management performance and they need to deflate the bubble they live in. However, they have a significant effect on Irish culture, mostly to the good.
Do you visit the National Gallery, or the
National Museum? Thy are free entry and worth visiting. You taxes pay for them.[/
quote]
same thing
like i said i don't use their services so i should have a choice whether or not to purchase them
I wouldn't mind contributing to a national cultural fund annually0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »
Put it on the Lecky bill, no-one can dodge that. Even €12 or €13 a month would cover it when you remove the avoiders and An Post from the total.
You know it makes sense.
No, it doesn't. If I don't have any interest in owning a TV, but want to run, say, a fridge, or have heating, I should pay for everyone else's TV bill?0 -
Advertisement
-
Just a general warning about conduct on this thread. While the subject of the TV licence is a legitimate topic of debate, posters must do so in such away that there is no advocacy of anything illegal.
For example, you can complain all you like about having to pay a TV license.
The minute you start telling people not to pay the TV license, you have crossed the line. Warnings or bans may issue.
0 -
No, it doesn't. If I don't have any interest in owning a TV, but want to run, say, a fridge, or have heating, I should pay for everyone else's TV bill?
News just in you are paying for the Army, Navy and Air Corp, you are playing for trains and buses, you are paying for the public works to stop flooding across the country. None of the above may be of any importance to you but paying for them is part of the deal.
If the levy on the electric offends it could go on property tax or out of the general tax fund, whatever but one way or another almost all "family units" will end up paying.0 -
Why do people keep giving examples of useful services, and then compare them to the wasteful luvvy fest that is RTE?Harry Palmr wrote: »News just in you are paying for the Army, Navy and Air Corp, you are playing for trains and buses, you are paying for the public works to stop flooding across the country. None of the above may be of any importance to you but paying for them is part of the deal.
If the levy on the electric offends it could go on property tax or out of the general tax fund, whatever but one way or another almost all "family units" will end up paying.
How many hours of "teleshopping" do RTE indulge in? How about programmes that were crap in the eighties, being repeated ad nauseum. RTE are so inwardly focused and insulated from their audience that they have wandered a long way off course.
I'm sure that people would be prepared to fund a broadcaster that was fit for purpose. Produce something that people want and they will consume it. Force crap on people and they will resist. Human nature 101.0 -
Why do people insist on equating the TV licence with receiving broadcasts from RTE?
Surely it must have been explained many times in this thread that the licence is to support public service broadcasting in Ireland.
Like it or not you are expected to contribute to that if you have specified equipment.
Hopefully in the future it will be changed and all households will have to contribute regardless the presence of specific equipment.
While they are at it, they should announce the abolition of the "TV Licence" and introduce something like a "Public Service Contribution".
I wonder would that stop people deliberately misrepresenting what the 'tv licence' is for?0 -
I have just got out all the channels and I am going to get a 40 inch monitor to game/ watch netflix on. Will I still get hassled to pay for a license with just a monitor?0
-
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »I have just got out all the channels and I am going to get a 40 inch monitor to game/ watch netflix on. Will I still get hassled to pay for a license with just a monitor?
Do you have a monitor connected to an STB from any TV provider?0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »I have no tv provider at all. I have virgin broadband in and thats all. The whole family watches netflix on the ps4, so we watch no tv at all.
Then you should be good, as long as you have no TVs or STBs, in the house.0 -
Then you should be good, as long as you have no TVs or STBs, in the house.
Cool, I never watch TV in the traditional sense and dont fancy paying money for something I dont watch. They better not bring in that new idea I heard floating around about anyone with a device that can connect to the Internet will have to pay for a TV license.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I have just got out all the channels and I am going to get a 40 inch monitor to game/ watch netflix on. Will I still get hassled to pay for a license with just a monitor?
so the law says that you must have a tv license if you have equipment capable or receiving a terrestrial tv signal, whether used for this or not.
this means if you have a screen sold as a monitor, and not as a tv, you are fine as regards that screen. The key test is whether the set was sold/advertised as a TV. What this boils down to is does it have a tv tuner built in. this is what the authority told me when i asked.
if your monitor is genuinely just that (rather than being for example a 4k tv being used as a monitor) then you do not have to have a tv license for the screen. but if you have a sky box for example, then you would have to have a license for it.
There was a case where someone disabled a tv tuner and thereby got away in court without having to pay the license, but its impossible to find any detail on that. it may be urban myth.
It is not possible in this country to buy a so-called tunerless tv set of the kind manufactured by vizio.com. This would be the ideal solution.0 -
Tried to pay this today. Site won't take payments. Keep getting an error.0
-
Do you have a monitor connected to an STB from any TV provider?Then you should be good, as long as you have no TVs or STBs, in the house.
A television licence is required for a television set, for the purposes of the act, a television set is something capable of receiving and exhibiting a tv signal.
The definition of exhibit is to manifest clearly, or to be able to view. You cannot view anything from a STB so this is clearly wrong, despite what I have been told myself by an An Post tv licence inspector when I said I don't have a tv (which I didnt at the time), you do NOT need a licence for a STB. There is no mention of STB in the act. I was also told as there was an existing satellite dish that I had to have one, another pile of manure.
To try and suggest as much is like saying if you have an aerial to receive saorview then you are obliged to have a tv licence, which would also be incorrect. An Post inspectors know this and are just trying to pull a fast one on people, based on the usual, we know everyone has a tv, which just isnt the case anymore.so the law says that you must have a tv license if you have equipment capable or receiving a terrestrial tv signal, whether used for this or not.
this means if you have a screen sold as a monitor, and not as a tv, you are fine as regards that screen. The key test is whether the set was sold/advertised as a TV. What this boils down to is does it have a tv tuner built in. this is what the authority told me when i asked.
if your monitor is genuinely just that (rather than being for example a 4k tv being used as a monitor) then you do not have to have a tv license for the screen. but if you have a sky box for example, then you would have to have a license for it.
There was a case where someone disabled a tv tuner and thereby got away in court without having to pay the license, but its impossible to find any detail on that. it may be urban myth.
It is not possible in this country to buy a so-called tunerless tv set of the kind manufactured by vizio.com. This would be the ideal solution.
Can this fallacy be put to rest, both incorrect, the law says, if you have a "TV set" you must have a "TV licence"
142.—(1) Subject to the exceptions mentioned in subsection (3), a
person shall not keep or have in his or her possession anywhere in
the territory of the State a television set save in so far as such keeping
or possession is authorised by a television licence for the time being
in force.
“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) and any software or
assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;
A sky box nor any other STB does not fulfill this requirement, unless it is one Ive not come across which includes a built in monitor, maybe such a device exists, but Ive never heard of it and usually they do not. The act specifies that the apparatus must be able to receive AND exhibit television broadcasting signals.
regardless of the definition you interpret as the meaning of "apparatus". Eitheras a single complex piece of equipment (digital tv) or an assembly of items (analogue tv+STB+aerial) combined that fulfill the task. You cannot fulfill that requirement unless you can RECEIVE AND EXHIBIT a tv broadcasting signal.
I would go so far as to say that since the digital switchover, if you have an analogue tv and no digital tuner (STB) or even a TV and a STB but no aerial, then the apparatus you have can no longer carry out that task and the requirements to have a tv licence no longer exist.
I would love to be well off enough to take a test case on that basis, not being wealthy and as I suspect the ignorance is strong, they wont want to be undermined.
The stupid thing is, I would actually be happy to pay a tv licence for cultural and essential public services, but for a lot less than the extortionate fee currently. If there was an option for PPV services, people could avail of that by choice, but we are obligated by RTE for services that exceeds public necessity or benefit, programming of no value and programming that is just paid for from abroad, old repeats and cults of personality that would put north Korea to shame, (all that and the nepotistic hangers on).
Pare that away, the second unnecessary tv channel, and the appallingly biased news.
RTE receives the lions share of the fee, in an effort to suggest they would reduce costs, they say they would get rid of the Orchestra,which is a benefit, it would be much better to keep a full Orchestra and get rid of the overpaid nobody's!
When they hint or suggest at a broadcasting charge, there is nothing to reduce the cost given that there would be an enforced 100% compliance, which is in effect the same as a percent increase equivalent to the current recovery costs of 9-10%.
It would simply be better RTE and their proponents be honest (a laugh) about it, let everyone be in the net for a significantly less cost (€100), have large cutbacks in the overpaid cults of celebrity presenters and services that are of no public value or that are clearly competing commercially (let people choose to pay for additional programming-pay per view if they want) AND have less excuse for people to be reluctant to pay.
160 euro is a lot of money for people, it is an expensive rip off to be shoved down your throat.0 -
“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) and any software or
assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;
A monitor, being dependent on some other apparatus (tuner/stb), if such is present, then requires a TV Licence ...
because it is capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services when combined with the tuner/STB.0 -
the relevant act refers to equipment capable of receiving a signal, which covers tv sets and set top boxes and the like.0
-
Johnboy1951 wrote: »A monitor, being dependent on some other apparatus (tuner/stb), if such is present, then requires a TV Licence ...
because it is capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services when combined with the tuner/STB.
no. that is not the case. a monitor does not have to be licensed.
i asked this question of the relevant licensing authority.
it really is quite simple. if the screen has equipment on board to receive signal, then it must be licensed. If it doesn't then it doesn't require a license.
A good example is a laptop. It has a screen. one could add a tv card, in which case it requires a license, but does not if it does not have a card added.
its the receiving equipment and not the screen that is the issue. If you have equipment in a house that is capable of receiving a terrestrial tv signal, even analog signals which rte no longer broadcast, then it must be licensed under the act.0 -
Advertisement
-
A television licence is required for a television set, for the purposes of the act, a television set is something capable of receiving and exhibiting a tv signal.
I would go so far as to say that since the digital switchover, if you have an analogue tv and no digital tuner (STB) or even a TV and a STB but no aerial, then the apparatus you have can no longer carry out that task and the requirements to have a tv licence no longer exist.
well then you'd be wrong. the law is an ass, but there it is. If you have equipment capable of receiving the signal, even if no longer broadcast, or even if the tv is broken it turns out, then you must pay the license fee.0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »A monitor, being dependent on some other apparatus (tuner/stb), if such is present, then requires a TV Licence ...
because it is capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services when combined with the tuner/STB.no. that is not the case. a monitor does not have to be licensed.
I think you should read what I wrote.
If there is a monitor and other apparatus present such as tuner/stb, then a licence is required.
I did NOT say a monitor requires a licence without the other enabling apparatus.0 -
the relevant act refers to equipment capable of receiving a signal, which covers tv sets and set top boxes and the like.
No it doesn'tno. that is not the case. a monitor does not have to be licensed.
i asked this question of the relevant licensing authority.
it really is quite simple. if the screen has equipment on board to receive signal, then it must be licensed. If it doesn't then it doesn't require a license.
A good example is a laptop. It has a screen. one could add a tv card, in which case it requires a license, but does not if it does not have a card added.
its the receiving equipment and not the screen that is the issue. If you have equipment in a house that is capable of receiving a terrestrial tv signal, even analog signals which rte no longer broadcast, then it must be licensed under the act.
Who did you ask?
The body charged with collecting the fee? not exactly impartial.
Ive spoken to them myslef, very rude and unwilling to deal with anything the act says specifically, and thats what counts, not what someone said, it matters whats in the Act.well then you'd be wrong. the law is an ass, but there it is. If you have equipment capable of receiving the signal, even if no longer broadcast, or even if the tv is broken it turns out, then you must pay the license fee.
NOT CORRECT, in black and white. I'll reserve judgement on the italicized part in red because seemingly all manner of excuses could be made and added to an act to make it all encompassing by those foisting it upon us, nor was I looking for that part, perhaps you can show us in the Act where it says what you have stated?
that its relevant only to a device that is capable of receiving a signal,
anything about STBs
anything about signals no longer broadcast,
I knew that old chesnut (at least I recal it always being used) about a broken tv was in force, but a quick search as an example in the current act throws up no results.
The relevant Act says as below, the electronic apparatus has to be capable of receiving AND exhibiting tv broadcast services. First and foremost it has to be able to receive and exhibit a tv broadcasting service, how is a STB capable of that?
any electronic apparatus capable of receiving
and exhibiting television broadcasting services
The section that comes after that, doesn't refer to individual components of an apparatus because they already stated the "apparatus" has to be capable of receiving and exhibiting tv broadcast signals, it looks very much like an attempt by the following mention of software (which the bracketed section interrupts) to a TV tuner card for a PC.
And the bracketed section itself even looks like an after thought to include everything they have not said, even when it contradicts things they already have said in the Act.
They may as well just come out with a broadcasting charge, because we know its what they want and they will force it down peoples throats regardless, but no doubt they will still manage to fcuk that up.
A licence inspector told me I had to have a licence for a satellite dish, although he appeared to be referring to the LNB.
As I said myself, Id actually support a tv licence for services of public benefit, which are of no advantage to me, if they made it a reasonable flat rate price, with the reduction made possible by reasonable cuts to non public service broadcasting that competes with commercial broadcasting, ridiculous wages for high profile nobody's that could easily be replaced by someone on a reasonable wage, and a pay per view component for those that want other/further services.
That seems reasonable to me! is it going to happen, no.0 -
I don't know where to complain, so I write my store here.
In the first month I moved to cork, the TV license inspector visited our flat. We met down to the building and she didn't come to see I have a TV or not. When we met, I was saying, I have only a screen and I am Chinese my husband is Italian, we watch Chinese and Italian channel thorough internet. And she left me a number to call to see whether my screen count as a TV or not. BTW, I said we don't receive any signal in that apartment. So I called that number, and knew that I need to declear my monitor is not a TV. I didn't it.
But, days later I got a letter to say if I don't pay within 7 days, then I need to pay the fine! I called and sent email to complain. Days later I got an email:
"In your email you state that no one visited your home, however the inspector states that she clearly recalls visiting your home on 16/11/17.
As I am the inspector’s line manager I requested and received a report from her and she states that you told her that you had a TV and that you only used it to watch Chinese TV Channels. The inspector is adamant that you did not tell her that you had a Monitor with no signal reception capability."
What! Met down to the building called as visit my house! She never saw my TV and I don't have one! And she just cut out the words she wanna listen!
Next time, I will just ignore them. I tried to be kind, and they are just so****!!!!0 -
Please don't ignore them, that won't help to sort this out.
Write another email to the line manager explaining the situation.
Make it clear that you don't have a TV, never had a TV and have no cable or satellite connection.
Say again that you only watch on the internet.
Suggest in a friendly way that there was a misunderstanding between you and the inspector.
Above all stay calm and stick to the facts.
Good luck.0 -
Re: stb surely a TV if connected to a monitor?
Anyway the radio ads are completely wrong? Anyone have a link to them?0 -
I don't know where to complain, so I write my store here.
In the first month I moved to cork, the TV license inspector visited our flat. We met down to the building and she didn't come to see I have a TV or not. When we met, I was saying, I have only a screen and I am Chinese my husband is Italian, we watch Chinese and Italian channel thorough internet. And she left me a number to call to see whether my screen count as a TV or not. BTW, I said we don't receive any signal in that apartment. So I called that number, and knew that I need to declear my monitor is not a TV. I didn't it.
But, days later I got a letter to say if I don't pay within 7 days, then I need to pay the fine! I called and sent email to complain. Days later I got an email:
"In your email you state that no one visited your home, however the inspector states that she clearly recalls visiting your home on 16/11/17.
As I am the inspector’s line manager I requested and received a report from her and she states that you told her that you had a TV and that you only used it to watch Chinese TV Channels. The inspector is adamant that you did not tell her that you had a Monitor with no signal reception capability."
What! Met down to the building called as visit my house! She never saw my TV and I don't have one! And she just cut out the words she wanna listen!
Next time, I will just ignore them. I tried to be kind, and they are just so****!!!!
Did you give them your name? if not ignore them, you dont have a tv, so ignore them.
They will only ever say they visited the property and saw a tv,0 -
Did you give them your name? if not ignore them, you dont have a tv, so ignore them.
They will only ever say they visited the property and saw a tv,
worst possible advice to ignore them.
the thing to note up front, and you do in your post, is that you are at fault for failing to establish that the monitor you own is not classified as a TV that must be licensed. They have taken the perfectly reasonable action, given your failure to act, of presuming that you are in possession of a TV. Peo[ple fob them off all the time, so this is entirely reasonable - the onus is on you to prove you do not have a TV.
This can be rectified, and no you will not need to pay for a license or pay a fine, but you do need to act.
the law is very simple. First, it doesn't matter if you subscribe to a service like sky or not. That is not relevant as regards licensing.
Second, the law states that any device capable of receiving terrestrial tv signals, whether it is set up to do so or not, whether it is fully working or broken, must be licensed.
This includes TV sets and set top boxes of various kinds.
It DOES NOT include monitors that do not have built into them the capability of receipt of terrestrial signals.
The rule of thumb is ask yourself honestly did you buy a device advertised as a TV. I for example, use large 40"+ 4k TVs as computer monitors. I do not have them plugged in to a TV cable. I do not watch TV on them, but I must still have a license for them.
So, if you have a TV in your house, whether connected to a TV service like sky or not, whether plugged in to an arial or not, then you must have a license. If what you have is a computer monitor, then you do not.
Either way, you need to deal with these people. I never understand people who say don't deal with them, run and hide. It's a crappy way to go through life (and apologies to the previous poster if I misunderstood the advice but that's what I got from it). Just get it sorted.
If you do not need a license, then just make contact with them, give them the details of your monitor (model number), that the device is not classified as a TV, state clearly that as far as you are aware, you do not have a device in your home that requires licensing under the relevant legislation, that the inspector is mistaken, and invite her to return to verify this.
I note your place of origin and what appears to be a misunderstanding in communications with the licensing authority in your post, so I hope you will forgive me for suggesting that you use the wording of my previous paragraph pretty much exactly. It will be understood.
A terrestrial signal means a signal broadcast in the region by RTE or an equivalent broadcaster. It DOES NOT mean streamed TV. So if you are streaming chinese TV to a computer and viewing on a monitor, then you do not need a license. Indeed, if you are streaming RTE to a laptop, so far as I am aware, you do not need a license. The legislation covers old fashioned analogue signals and digital signals. So even if RTE and others no longer broadcast analogue signals, if your TV can receive hypothetical signals in this bandwidth, then it must be licensed.
You most certainly do not, as license authority adverts would have it recently, need a TV license to watch box set DVDs. The point they are perhaps trying to make is that if you are doing so on a TV, even one not used to watch TV channels, then you would, but only because it is a TV, capable of receiving terrestrial signals.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I have no tv provider at all. I have virgin broadband in and thats all. The whole family watches netflix on the ps4, so we watch no tv at all.
this is not at all relevant as regards the licensing of TV sets.
Basically, if what you have is a TV set, capable of receiving TV signals, even if not used for that purpose, even if deliberately broken so the it cannot, and even if actually broken (eg. broken screen) and unused, then it still must be licensed.
The license is for possession of the equipment, not for its use.
Same applies to set top boxes incidentally. I'm not clear at all what the legal position is of satellite boxes, perhaps someone can offer definitive advice on that, but I would presume there has been a modification of the relevant legislation to include the sky box and equivalents as requiring a license - one of the ways inspectors spot houses with TVs is to spot satellite dishes, and that would be of no use as a method as it does not establish that a legally classified TV is on the premises, as one could plug a monitor into a sky box.0 -
Advertisement
-
this is not at all relevant as regards the licensing of TV sets.
Basically, if what you have is a TV set, capable of receiving TV signals, even if not used for that purpose, even if deliberately broken so the it cannot, and even if actually broken (eg. broken screen) and unused, then it still must be licensed.
The license is for possession of the equipment, not for its use.
Same applies to set top boxes incidentally. I'm not clear at all what the legal position is of satellite boxes, perhaps someone can offer definitive advice on that, but I would presume there has been a modification of the relevant legislation to include the sky box and equivalents as requiring a license - one of the ways inspectors spot houses with TVs is to spot satellite dishes, and that would be of no use as a method as it does not establish that a legally classified TV is on the premises, as one could plug a monitor into a sky box.Second, the law states that any device capable of receiving terrestrial tv signals, whether it is set up to do so or not, whether it is fully working or broken, must be licensed.
As I understand it presently, it is
any device or a combination of devices, that is capable of receiving and displaying broadcast TV signals.
So a set top box (with tuner) in combination with a monitor would require a licence.
An internet streaming STB, without tuner, in combination with a monitor would not require a licence.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement