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

styo

1874 wrote: »

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.


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.

this is wrong. the law covers devices potentially capable of decoding tv signals. viewing is not relevant. you are confusing the definition of a tv under the legislation with what devices require licensing.

here is the full legal paragraph.


“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;

It comes down to interpretation. I will grant you that it is highly unlikely that a licensing authority would attempt to impose a license on a STB in the attic, but it is the decoding card in the TV that make it a licensable device. Take the decoding card out, ie. have a monitor, and you do not need a license. If you were to build a box that decoded TV signals and then streamed it to laptops in the house, that would need a license.

This is the interpretation of the licensing authority and that is what matters.

Likewise a laptop does not need a license, unless you install a tv card, in which case it does.

Any decoding device, broken or unbroken, connected in the chain of equipment needed to actually view the decoded signal (eg. electricity, monitor) must be licensed.

This is what the licensing authority told me when I requested information from them.

Of course all of this is a moot point. The radio license is roughly the same and who doesn't have a radio in the house?

I likewise have no real issue paying for a TV license, but I would rather it was a public service broadcast tax, and restricted to programming of genuine public interest. The latest who lost the most weigh rubbish is not public interest broadcasting. I would prefer most of that rubbish were funded entirely privately.

styo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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.

yep. that's it.

the relevant legal sentence is "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"

That covers any signal decoder for use with general tv broadcasting services.

styo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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.

YES. agreed. its the presence of any device in the chain that is capable of receiving so called terrestrial signals broadcast by licensed broadcasters such as RTE.

The key thing is that the legislation covers the licensing of both broadcasters and receivers. The consumer device that must be licensed is that capable of tuning/decoding signals broadcast OTA (over the air).

The term Set top box, or STB is too vague really, as it covers both tuner based and internet streaming devices as you suggest.

The legislation does not cover digital streaming, but does cover reception of OTA signals, both analogue and digital.

so, an internet streaming STB, without tuner, in combination with a TV, capable of recieving OTA signals, would require a licence.

This is the typical case. People watching netflix via a ps4 plugged into a TV that is just used as a monitor, but which must nevertheless be licensed because it could pick up RTE digital broadcasts.

I'm waiting for vizio.com to start selling to Ireland. Tunerless TVs, marketed as Displays, do not need a license. Perfect for cavemen.

c montgomery

I'm getting letters addressed to "the occupier" from an post about a tv licence staging that I will be summoned in 5 days unless I buy one.

Who are they going to summon?? They don't have the name of anybody in the house.

They also say that a licence inspector saw a tv in the house which did not happen.

Edit. It's a new house which we moved into about 9 months ago

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

elperello

c montgomery wrote: »

I'm getting letters addressed to "the occupier" from an post about a tv licence staging that I will be summoned in 5 days unless I buy one.

Who are they going to summon?? They don't have the name of anybody in the house.

They also say that a licence inspector saw a tv in the house which did not happen.

Edit. It's a new house which we moved into about 9 months ago

Are you saying that there was never a TV or large monitor in the house?

c montgomery

elperello wrote: »

Are you saying that there was never a TV or large monitor in the house?

I'm saying that when the inspector called a painter answered the door who was working in our hallway. He told them we would be back in 20 minutes and to call back. He asked for our names, the painter said he didn't feel comfortable giving them and to call back when the blue car was in the drive.
There was no tv in the house for them to see.

We arrived back about 30 minutes later, no inspector has called back since.

elperello

So you could write to them and tell them you don't have and never had a TV and in the real world that should be the end of it.
Or you could ignore the letters.
I don't know what they will do next.
They can't summonses "occupier" but they could get your name from the electoral register.

c montgomery

elperello wrote: »

So you could write to them and tell them you don't have and never had a TV and in the real world that should be the end of it.
Or you could ignore the letters.
I don't know what they will do next.
They can't summonses "occupier" but they could get your name from the electoral register.

Thanks
I'll go to the post office and find out what the process is for informing them that we don't have a tv.

It's the threatening nature of the letters and the inaccuracy contained in them which has wound me up a bit. I'd nearly leave it go the distance to waste some of their time rather than mine

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

elperello

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd say you are right but in the meantime they are winding him up.
Maybe better to nip it in the bud.

elperello

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/radical-overhaul-of-tv-licences-likely-465104.html

Non device dependent.
If this goes through you will pay whether you have a TV or not.

Johnboy1951

elperello wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/radical-overhaul-of-tv-licences-likely-465104.html

Non device dependent.
If this goes through you will pay whether you have a TV or not.

Hopefully it will go through this time.

styo

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

if you don't have a tv, then you have no need for a license, so how exactly can they extort anything from you?

styo

c montgomery wrote: »

I'm getting letters addressed to "the occupier" from an post about a tv licence staging that I will be summoned in 5 days unless I buy one.

Who are they going to summon?? They don't have the name of anybody in the house.

They also say that a licence inspector saw a tv in the house which did not happen.

Edit. It's a new house which we moved into about 9 months ago

if you are the occupier, then you are legally being addressed when they address the occupier.

just deal with it. if you have no tv, then tell then so and its all done and dusted. if you do have a tv, then just pay up, they have you.

A quick phone call to the licensing authority and its sorted.

STB.

styo wrote: »

if you are the occupier, then you are legally being addressed when they address the occupier.

just deal with it. if you have no tv, then tell then so and its all done and dusted. if you do have a tv, then just pay up, they have you.

A quick phone call to the licensing authority and its sorted.

The occupier cannot be summonsed to court.

I am all for cutting back on evasion, but dont talk nonsense.

1874

styo wrote: »

if you are the occupier, then you are legally being addressed when they address the occupier.

just deal with it. if you have no tv, then tell then so and its all done and dusted. if you do have a tv, then just pay up, they have you.

A quick phone call to the licensing authority and its sorted.

not true, I made a quick call to them in the past when it was a case at the time that I did not have a tv, it ended going around in circles, they outright said I had one as the inspector said I had a tv and that he had seen it, it isn't possible to see through the net curtains with the reflection but there was never a tv in the first place, they were adamant I needed to supply my name so they could send me out something to say it had been dealt with but I declined as I didnt avail of the services nor had the equipment to avail of it. total racket, especially when they can harrass and pester people and demand their details when they have no dealings with them nor want to.

McHardcore

McHardcore wrote: »

McHardcore wrote: »

So the TV licence inspector called around yesterday evening at 8pm.

I answered the door to a man in trekkies and was first shown an ID, was told who they were, and was asked "Do you have a TV at this address"?
I said no, and he went back to looking down at his papers. Meanwhile Netflix is blaring out of the sitting room. He said that he saw that we didn't have a licence registered for this address. While he was still looking down, he asked me what my name was. I said "no" and proceeded to close the door.


Anybody know what their next move after that typically is?

So I have an update for you guys. Last week I received a letter from An Post in an post titled to "The Occupier".

It is titled "SEARCH WARRANT NOTICE".  

"Dear Sir/Madam A Television Licence Inspector visited the above address in order to ascertain if there was a Television Set on the premises under Section 146 (4) of the Broadcasting Act 2009*. The Inspector received no co-operation when visiting the premises. In such circumstances such as those where an Inspector has grounds to believe that there is an unlicensed television set / apparatus on the premises he/she is authorised to obtain a Search Warrant to assist his/her enquiries under Schedule 2 Section 8-1 of the Broadcasting Act 2009*........"



I guess this is a continuation of scare tactics?

Just to give an update, after about two months from this post, we received the first letter from the TV licence inspectors again: "Our records show that you do not have a licence at this residence.....etc"

So it would appear that it has gone full circle, in that they have started from the start again after a year cycle when they did not get a name at the residence.

alanhiggyno1

guys i have a question if i buy a license now (up in court on the 18th lol for non payment)will i be ok to not turn up to court.i hate having to pay this shyte even tho i dont watch Really Terrible Entertainment (RTE)

Johnboy1951

alanhiggyno1 wrote: »

guys i have a question if i buy a license now (up in court on the 18th lol for non payment)will i be ok to not turn up to court.i hate having to pay this shyte even tho i dont watch Really Terrible Entertainment (RTE)

The court is likely to take a dim view of non-attendance.
I would not advise it.

The licence has nothing at all to do with your use of the TV, as you well know by now.

The sooner the collection of this charge is arranged so that all households must pay, the better for everyone.

alanhiggyno1

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The court is likely to take a dim view of non-attendance.
I would not advise it.

The licence has nothing at all to do with your use of the TV, as you well know by now.

The sooner the collection of this charge is arranged so that all households must pay, the better for everyone.

so ill just get it now and forget all about it.up in court on the 18th so will be working so if cops come to get me lol ill just show them

alanhiggyno1

any advice on this would be great thanks

elperello

If you have been summoned to court best bet is to buy a licence and attend at court with a solicitor.
Second best bet buy a licence and turn up yourself.
Do not ignore the summonses.

alanhiggyno1

elperello wrote: »

If you have been summoned to court best bet is to buy a licence and attend at court with a solicitor.
Second best bet buy a licence and turn up yourself.
Do not ignore the summonses.

just bought the licence.what will happen now if i turn up.licence is in missus name now

elperello

alanhiggyno1 wrote: »

just bought the licence.what will happen now if i turn up.licence is in missus name now

If your name is on the summons you must go not your wife.
If she has the same surname as you and the licence is for the address where they detected you it should be ok. If not bring proof that she is your wife and old utility bills to confirm the address.

You may be fined.

alanhiggyno1

elperello wrote: »

If your name is on the summons you must go not your wife.
If she has the same surname as you and the licence is for the address where they detected you it should be ok. If not bring proof that she is your wife and old utility bills to confirm the address.

You may be fined.

Ah changed my mind and put it in my name instead. 1st offence ever so I'll be fine.ill make up a sob story that he will believe lol😢😢

elperello

alanhiggyno1 wrote: »

Ah changed my mind and put it in my name instead. 1st offence ever so I'll be fine.ill make up a sob story that he will believe lol����

Good idea.
Best of luck.

1874

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The court is likely to take a dim view of non-attendance.
I would not advise it.

The licence has nothing at all to do with your use of the TV, as you well know by now.

The sooner the collection of this charge is arranged so that all households must pay, the better for everyone.

Why? and who will they charge? and on what basis now? that this has ever supported by people like you wanting people to pay for it because they have a tv or the facility to avail of broadcast signals, but whats the excuse to be now that you'd be so delighted?
That someone is the owner of a house?? a house cant receive a broadcast signal. The more they push, the more of a racket it makes it look like and yet I hear nothing to reduce costs? or focus on actual public services? as someone else said, I dont care for programmes about how much weight some no name rte appointed personality has lost or other such utter $hite.

Sam Russell

1874 wrote: »

Why? and who will they charge? and on what basis now? that this has ever supported by people like you wanting people to pay for it because they have a tv or the facility to avail of broadcast signals, but whats the excuse to be now that you'd be so delighted?
That someone is the owner of a house?? a house cant receive a broadcast signal. The more they push, the more of a racket it makes it look like and yet I hear nothing to reduce costs? or focus on actual public services? as someone else said, I dont care for programmes about how much weight some no name rte appointed personality has lost or other such utter $hite.

Well, lets start with Public Broadcasting as understood throughout the EU.

The National Broadcaster is given responsibility for cultural broadcasts, national news coverage that is unbiased, and general broadcasting that sustains and promotes national culture, including minority cultures.

The National Orchestras in member states would usually be supported by licence fees, and many concerts, and other cultural events are supported by the national broadcaster. The St Patrick's Day parade and Eurovision Song Contest could be considered examples.

In our case, the terrestrial broadcasting network has been set up by RTE and most of the funding comes from RTE's resources. Both TV3 and TG4 refuse to go HD to reduce their liability for transmission charges.

We expect RTE to be free of political interference, but the current system has them beholden to the Gov because the licence fee is inadequate to fund a quality service and any cutbacks are usually the low hanging fruit - production values and home produced productions.

RTE are operating four channels but only allowed advertising on one and a half. RTE News Now is not allowed paid advertising, and RTE Jr carries no advertising, and the time shared part, RTE 1+1, carries the same adverts as RTE 1 and so gets no additional fees. RTE 2 shows children's programmes for much of the day and is not allowed advertising during those hours. RTE are also restricted on the number of minutes/hour of advertising outside of these hours.

These restrictions do not apply to TV3.

If a broadcasting charge were to be introduced, it could be aimed at the owner, which would be fought by the landlord class, or it could be attached to the electricity bill, which would target occupiers whether they had a TV or not.

Other options would be to make payTV platforms make a payment for re-transmission. They could also be made to collect the licence fee from subscribers.

A charge could be made for use of broadband or broadband bandwidth. Or even a small levy on text messages.

Lots of options, but politically, I would see a can kicking exercise in play.

At the end of the day, if we want a first class domestic TV service, it has to be paid for, and it is not cheap. Imported rubbish is cheap, quality Irish production is expensive if done well.

As regards high salaries for 'stars', if 100 stars are paid an average of €100 k too much, that is only €10 million out of a deficit of €270 million. They have a lot of more serious problems. If TV3 and TG4 paid a fair price for HD, RTE would save at least €2 million. If they had a free rein on RTE2 regarding children's programmes, they could sell advertising in the afternoon and raise much needed funds. If RTE NN were allowed to carry adverts, they could run a good quality news channel.

Look, we could put the TV licence under general taxation which would allow the Gov of the day to control RTE. Why not sell all the painting in the National Gallery, and the treasures in the National Museum, and the Book of Kells while we are at it - sure no one would miss them. I am sure the majority of the Irish population have never visited any of them.

The user should pay, but the user is every member of the state, not just those who watch particular programmes.

Bob24

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Hopefully it will go through this time.

I hope not, it would essentially turn it into a tax rather than a licence.

I don’t have a TV so I legally don’t pay a licence, and I know I would be pissed off if I was forced to. I would see it as the government forcing me to pay because it can’t be bothered chasing illegal evaders so it’s just deciding to make everyone pay.