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

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Johnboy1951

Bob24 wrote: »

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.

The 'licence' is to support public broadcasting, whether one accesses it or not .....

So it is not unreasonable for every household to pay it, just as we pay for other services one way or the other.

It is not a matter of not being bothered to chase illegal evaders, it is (as can be seen in many posts in this thread) the difficulty in doing so and the associated costs.
Great attempts are made to catch those evaders, but it is not very successful, and the substantial costs of doing so come out of the money paid by the compliant. That is money wasted.

A reduced fee (waste saved) levied on each household; or each electricity connection; or something similar, would be much less wasteful and at the same time equitable.

Bob24

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The 'licence' is to support public broadcasting, whether one accesses it or not .....

So it is not unreasonable for every household to pay it, just as we pay for other services one way or the other.

As you are putting the word licence inside quotation marks, you know you are departing from what it is meant to be. If everybody has to pay it no matter what, it is not a licence anymore. The people who originally introduced it were not stupid and didn’t use that word by mistake. What you are suggesting is to replace the licence by a universal tax which can be discussed but it is incorrect to assume this is what the licence was ever meant to be.

Bob24

And while we will agree decent ressources are being spent to chase evaders, I won’t agree “great attempts are made”. The current legal framework just doesn’t give the government (and AnPost) the means to collect the licence properly, but if great attempts were indeed made that framework could be amended. One exemple amongst others: if someone is refusing access to their home form inspection, allow the TV licence inspector to assume their is a TV in th property. As someone who doesn’t have a TV I’d have no problem with that and will gladly grant access for inspection, and this would sort out quite a few people (not all but there are many other things which could be done).

Johnboy1951

Bob24 wrote: »

And while we will agree decent ressources are being spent to chase evaders, I won’t agree “great attempts are made”. The current legal framework just doesn’t give the government (and AnPost) the means to collect the licence properly, but if great attempts were indeed made that framework could be amended. One exemple amongst others: if someone is refusing access to their home form inspection, allow the TV licence inspector to assume their is a TV in th property. As someone who doesn’t have a TV I’d have no problem with that and will gladly grant access for inspection, and this would sort out quite a few people (not all but there are many other things which could be done).

There are privacy and security issues relating to providing information to third parties and their collectors.
Cannot do it.

I most certainly will never give access to my home, to someone who is employed by some collection agency except accompanied by a garda or other suitably qualified person.
I think anyone who does is acting foolishly and potentially dangerously.

As you are putting the word licence inside quotation marks, you know you are departing from what it is meant to be. If everybody has to pay it no matter what, it is not a licence anymore. The people who originally introduced it were not stupid and didn’t use that word by mistake. What you are suggesting is to replace the licence by a universal tax which can be discussed but it is incorrect to assume this is what the licence in its current form is meant to be.

The reason for the collection of monies has not changed.
At the time it was deemed prudent to associate it with receiving equipment and to call it a licence.
So regardless what you wish to call it, the reason for the collection remains the same.
The methods of collection can change - as I suggested.

Bob24

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The reason for the collection of monies has not changed.
At the time it was deemed prudent to associate it with receiving equipment and to call it a licence.
So regardless what you wish to call it, the reason for the collection remains the same.

You know the rational you have for justifying the change you would like to see is different for the original rational. This is why you put licence in quotation marks because you know what you describe is not a licence.

The scope was always that only those who have equipment capable of receiving TV broadcasts should require a licence and thus subsidise public broadcasting. You are of course entitled to thing think should change, but saying this was always the idea behind TV licences is clearly incorrect.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The methods of collection can change - as I suggested.

Sure there’s no problem with changing the collection methods. *but* this is absolutely not the only thing you are suggesting here. What you want is changing the scope of who should pay. This is very different.

Johnboy1951

Bob24 wrote: »

You know the rational you have for justifying the change you would like to see is different for the original rational. This is why you put licence in quotation marks because you know what you describe is not a licence.

The scope was always that only those who have equipment capable of receiving TV broadcasts should require a licence and thus subsidise public broadcasting. You are of course entitled to thing think should change, but saying this was always the idea behind TV licences is clearly incorrect.




Sure there’s no problem with changing the collection methods. *but* this is absolutely not the only thing you are suggesting here. What you want is changing the scope of who should pay. This is very different.

It was always the case that the monies collected were for the support of public broadcasting.

Not "only those who have equipment" but premises in which that equipment is used. So if you have a holiday home and bring the equipment to that premises, even temporarily, you need to make a second payment.

Applying the charge directly to all premises would be a much more efficient means of collection.

A provision for those who wish to 'opt-out' of the collection could easily be provided, based on their lack of 'receiving equipment' or other criteria.
As the percentage of such premises would be very small they would cost little to verify, and of course those opting out would be required to provide access to their premises for the 'inspector' and possibly some form of regular confirmation.

Such a scheme would surely eliminate the widespread avoidance of the 'licence' under the present scheme.

Bob24

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Applying the charge directly to all premises would be a much more efficient means of collection.

A provision for those who wish to 'opt-out' of the collection could easily be provided, based on their lack of 'receiving equipment' or other criteria.
As the percentage of such premises would be very small they would cost little to verify, and of course those opting out would be required to provide access to their premises for the 'inspector' and possibly some form of regular confirmation.

Such a scheme would surely eliminate the widespread avoidance of the 'licence' under the present scheme.

Yes that’s pretty much what I was saying before: currently the governement can’t be bothered collecting the money and they could change the legal framework (as you described plus with what I mentioned) to make collection much more efficient while giving those with no equipment the option to opt-out if they accept an inspection. Then no more need for those quotation marks, it still is a licence with the exact same scope and purpose.

BUT this should not be used as an excuse to change the scope of the law and make all households liable as your previous posts were implying (but you now seem agree is not the right way forward?)

brightspark

Bob24 wrote: »

BUT this should not be used as an excuse to change the scope of the law and make all households liable

Laws have changed following technology changes before.

Times change up from 1904 to 1972 you needed a licence for a radio receiver (1926 under Irish law being pedantic), I'm sure many argued they only listened to foreign stations back then too.

In 1962 TV licences were introduced, and from recollection, For some years you had a choice between Black&White or Colour TV licences. (Those with a TV licence from 1962-1972 didn't need a separate radio licence)

It's possible at some point very few will have a traditional TV, already many people are using "catch up" services so no longer watch or even record programming live. If you have a PC and watch the RTE Player a licence probably isn't needed, but use a TV and aerial you do?

So it probably is time to abolish the TV licence and replace it with something else.

Ultimately the state will always collect money to be used on various services and when one revenue stream decreases they either have to increase that tax or introduce new ones.

Given Revenue's effective collection of the property tax, I think the best option is to add a fixed charge to the current amount. It's already in their systems to allow different counties charge an extra percentage so the cost of collection will be almost nothing.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Johnboy1951

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes that’s pretty much what I was saying before: currently the governement can’t be bothered collecting the money and they could change the legal framework (as you described plus with what I mentioned) to make collection much more efficient while giving those with no equipment the option to opt-out if they accept an inspection. Then no more need for those quotation marks, it still is a licence with the exact same scope and purpose.

You seem terribly hung up on my use of single quotes on the word licence.

The 'licence' was a means of collecting money to support public broadcast.
It was a tax by a different name, which presumably was deemed to be more acceptable to the populace at that time.

"the governement can’t be bothered collecting the money" ..... that is nonsense as I already posted. It would require very specific legal intervention which probably would not be able to be implemented due to privacy and data issues.
A different form of collection is the easiest way from a legal and implementation point of view.

BUT this should not be used as an excuse to change the scope of the law and make all households liable as your previous posts were implying (but you now seem agree is not the right way forward?)

As I said, all households should be made liable by default. I continue to have that opinion!

To seek an exemption the occupier would have to apply for it and comply with whatever terms were applied. Possibly have to apply annually and be subject to an annual inspection.

brightspark

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm sure I typed receiver 😴

Bob24

brightspark wrote: »

Laws have changed following technology changes before.

Times change up from 1904 to 1972 you needed a licence for a radio receiver (1926 under Irish law being pedantic), I'm sure many argued they only listened to foreign stations back then too.

In 1962 TV licences were introduced, and from recollection, For some years you had a choice between Black&White or Colour TV licences. (Those with a TV licence from 1962-1972 didn't need a separate radio licence)

It's possible at some point very few will have a traditional TV, already many people are using "catch up" services so no longer watch or even record programming live. If you have a PC and watch the RTE Player a licence probably isn't needed, but use a TV and aerial you do?

So it probably is time to abolish the TV licence and replace it with something else.

Ultimately the state will always collect money to be used on various services and when one revenue stream decreases they either have to increase that tax or introduce new ones.

Given Revenue's effective collection of the property tax, I think the best option is to add a fixed charge to the current amount. It's already in their systems to allow different counties charge an extra percentage so the cost of collection will be almost nothing.

Sure the list of devices can evolve depending on how people consume the content, but you will note that in the evolution you describe there is never a mention of making everyone pay. It was always for all those premises at which there is a qualifying device.

Bob24

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

As I said, all households should be made liable by default. I continue to have that opinion!

To seek an exemption the occupier would have to apply for it and comply with whatever terms were applied. Possibly have to apply annually and be subject to an annual inspection.

This is not quite what you originally stated. You said "it is not unreasonable for every household to pay it", full stop. Stopping at that point is a departure from the original spirit of the licence.

The opt-out cause you are now adding is what brings things back on track.

brightspark

Bob24 wrote: »

Sure the list of devices can evolve depending on how people consume the content, but you will note that in the evolution you describe there is never a mention of making everyone pay. It was always for all those premises at which there is a qualifying device.

What if they made the qualifying device a PC or a table or even a smart phone?

Bob24

brightspark wrote: »

What if they made the qualifying device a PC or a table or even a smart phone?

Of course that could be done and would significantly extend the pool of people who are required to pay, although not necessarily covering 100% of premises in the country (but there was an attempt to do it in the past few years and it pretty much failed).

Also it is important to keep in mind that "they" is the Irish government i.e. the representatives of the people. So doing it would probably mean having some kind of public debate about it and getting a minimum level of public support for the change.

That might possibly be a risky move for a government as it could also trigger related debates about the relevance of publicly funded broadcasting today (as much as the law can evolve with the way people consume content, it can also evolve with the media landscape and what relevance and mission statement people see in a public broadcaster).

I personaly think a publicly funded broadcaster still makes sense today but I have to say RTE doesn't meet what I would see as the mission statement for it. I don't think I am alone thinking that way, and you will also find many people who don't see the relevance of public broadcasting at all anymore. So amending TV licence rules could potentially be opening an annoying can of worms for the government and RTE with people starting to discuss these complicated questions.

Johnboy1951

So lets make the qualifying device an electricity meter.

That should sort it all out! :-)

This is not quite what you originally stated. You said "it is not unreasonable for every household to pay it", full stop. Stopping at that point is a departure from the original spirit of the licence.

The opt-out cause you are now adding is what brings things back on track.

You are just nit-picking for the sake of arguing.

I'm not playing anymore.

If you cannot understand that there have always been exclusions to the 'licence' even for people who hold qualifying devices then you really should not be commenting at all.

Bye!

Bob24

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So lets make the qualifying device an electricity meter.

That should sort it all out!

If you were a politician and wanted to make sure you policy will never be adopted and you will lose your next election, you could try pushing legislation forward which enforces that change. But somehow I don't think any of our politicians will consider that ;-)

But while that obviously makes zero sense, it is actually a good introduction on why changing the legislation is hard. A politician who wants to change it will be questioned not only on how relevant or not the list of devices they want to qualify is valid, but also on other questions around public broadcasting which might be hard to answer.

And I am not playing. You know you changed you stance (in the right direction in my view) and I think that difference is critical compared to your original post I quoted.

Worrybug85

Hey guys. I posted this in the AH thread but got no reply. I’m sure everyone’s sick of this topic but hope you can help.

Last month I moved out of my house for work up the country. A couple moved in with a year long lease.

Long story short the tenant told me he got a visit from the tv licence inspector. He told the inspector he didn’t have a licence as he just moved in. The inspector asked for his name but he didn’t write it down. That set off alarm bells as the tenant also told me was examining the bins before he spoke with him. Those bins have tags with my name on them as it’s included in rent.

I’m warey that if he was looking at the bins he’d have taken my name from them. I’ve told the tenant to get a licence but now I’m worried as I don’t want a summons to court if the tenant decides not to get it ASAP.

Has anyone been in this predicament? If I contact the tv licence office will they update those details? Are they grand with that approach as I have proof I’m no longer there.

Also - as they already visited will they post out anything to the address before a prosecution or is it the case that once you’re visited all bets are off? As it’s a new build property I never got a letter there from tv licence inspectors before.

Anything that’s posted to my name is normally forwarded to me so I might be kept in the loop that way.

Thanks

styo

why don't you phone the license authority and explain the situation and ask them who should pay a tv license.

you have paid a license before, so you are not trying to avoid a tv license. if there is a tv on the premise then there must be a tv license.

i guess you have either offered the tenants coverage of bills like a tv license or you haven't.

If you haven't, and if the TV authority say that you are liable as the owner of the property (and i suspect that this is the case) then you pay the license and charge the tenants. I'm sure they will be fine with that if its all communicated clearly.

If on the other hand, you are told that it is the resident who is liable, then you are in the clear.

either way, i think just phoning them and asking is the best thing to do. I'm sure this is an entirely normal case.

runawaybishop

Worrybug85 wrote: »

Hey guys. I posted this in the AH thread but got no reply. I’m sure everyone’s sick of this topic but hope you can help.

Last month I moved out of my house for work up the country. A couple moved in with a year long lease.

Long story short the tenant told me he got a visit from the tv licence inspector. He told the inspector he didn’t have a licence as he just moved in. The inspector asked for his name but he didn’t write it down. That set off alarm bells as the tenant also told me was examining the bins before he spoke with him. Those bins have tags with my name on them as it’s included in rent.

I’m warey that if he was looking at the bins he’d have taken my name from them. I’ve told the tenant to get a licence but now I’m worried as I don’t want a summons to court if the tenant decides not to get it ASAP.

Has anyone been in this predicament? If I contact the tv licence office will they update those details? Are they grand with that approach as I have proof I’m no longer there.

Also - as they already visited will they post out anything to the address before a prosecution or is it the case that once you’re visited all bets are off? As it’s a new build property I never got a letter there from tv licence inspectors before.

Anything that’s posted to my name is normally forwarded to me so I might be kept in the loop that way.

Thanks

Resident is liable.

Worrybug85

runawaybishop wrote: »

Resident is liable.

I was thinking that was the case. The only bill I agreed to cover was the bins - but I’m hoping that if I phone the office they’ll understand the situation and deal with the tenant if he doesn’t pay.

I don’t want a summons when I haven’t been living there.

Bob24

Worrybug85 wrote: »

I was thinking that was the case. The only bill I agreed to cover was the bins - but I’m hoping that if I phone the office they’ll understand the situation and deal with the tenant if he doesn’t pay.

I don’t want a summons when I haven’t been living there.

If it is clear you are not residing in the property, you are not liable.

Should really be as simple as that so from what you are saying I don’t think you have any reason to be worried.

Did you have at TV (and a licence?) before moving out. If you can demonstrate at what date you moved out and that you were compliant before then, I really don’t think you need to worry.

carveone

I notice that the online TV licence renewal is looking for "contact details". Phone numbers/mobile number/email address. Given that they didn't need this last year, how is this suddenly reasonable to ask for it this year?

Their reason (which they have to give under the GDPR) is "This allows An Post Licence Services to deal with any queries in a timely manner.". That sound roughly equivalent to "because" and doesn't sound like a proper basis for data processing to me.

Just saying...

aqotis

Hi everyone, was looking online for some answers about tv license and found this thread, don't know if the question was asked before because I see that this discussion is a 110 pages long haha. Anyways to make it short, I've recently bought TV and ps4, I don't watch any live Irish tv, I'm not Irish my self, tv is connected only to ps4 and nothing else, I have no aerial or satellite in my house, do i still need to get tv license? Thanks

Sam Russell

aqotis wrote: »

Hi everyone, was looking online for some answers about tv license and found this thread, don't know if the question was asked before because I see that this discussion is a 110 pages long haha. Anyways to make it short, I've recently bought TV and ps4, I don't watch any live Irish tv, I'm not Irish my self, tv is connected only to ps4 and nothing else, I have no aerial or satellite in my house, do i still need to get tv license? Thanks

If it is a TV with a tuner - then YES you do need a licence. If it doers not have a tuner, it is a monitor.

aqotis

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it is a TV with a tuner - then YES you do need a licence. If it doers not have a tuner, it is a monitor.

Just went trough manual and it says
TV tuner:
- Freesat HD
- TVPlus

It seems silly to pay 160€ just because I own a t.v... but thanks for the info.

brightspark

aqotis wrote: »

Just went trough manual and it says
TV tuner:
- Freesat HD
- TVPlus

It seems silly to pay 160€ just because I own a t.v... but thanks for the info.

Why is it silly to pay a tv licence when you own a tv??

Fuzzy Clam

aqotis wrote: »

Just went trough manual and it says
TV tuner:
- Freesat HD
- TVPlus

It seems silly to pay 160€ just because I own a t.v... but thanks for the info.

Might be cheaper to get rid of the TV and buy yourself a monitor.

However, if you watch any live TV over broadband, they may still insist on you having a license.

Bob24

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Might be cheaper to get rid of the TV and buy yourself a monitor.

Yep. I have a 43in 4K monitor with 2 HDMI ports which works very well as a tuner free TV alternative, and with the savings on TV licence it will pay for itself in less than 3 years.

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

However, if you watch any live TV over broadband, they may still insist on you having a license.

As long as no device at home is capable of tuning terrestrial, satellite, or cable TV signal no licence is required.