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

elperello

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

No legal expert but in that situation it goes to court as it does now and it should be up to the agency running this for the government to prove the person has such a device in their possession rather than the occupier of the house proving they don’t.

The best legal brains in the Attorney General's office will deliver a result for their paymasters.

At this stage the Government should just give up the pretense that it is a licence and just fund Public Broadcasting out of general taxation. That way everyone pays to fund a common good. The question of reform at RTE is another story.

Stop moaning ffs

elperello wrote: »

The best legal brains in the Attorney General's office will deliver a result for their paymasters.

At this stage the Government should just give up the pretense that it is a licence and just fund Public Broadcasting out of general taxation. That way everyone pays to fund a common good. The question of reform at RTE is another story.

It’s Ireland though. It’ll go backwards and make no sense practically or legally and somehow end up as legislation

Buteo Buteo

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I live in a rented house. We don’t have a tv. There’s a rusted satellite stuck on the chimney (see pic attached). The Wire is clearly cut out front. I’m still getting search warrant threats about a licence.

When and however this new legislation forms, they need to take a new approach rather than threatening people over devices they don’t actually own or have in their homes

Did they ask you to sign the statutory declaration stating that you don't have a tv at that address?

It seems that a tv licence inspector can enter any premises at will:

An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/enacted/en/print.html

Stop moaning ffs

Buteo Buteo wrote: »

Did they ask you to sign the statutory declaration stating that you don't have a tv at that address?

It seems that a tv licence inspector can enter any premises at will:

An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/enacted/en/print.html

I got that declaration.

My response. Which I sent to all local TDs and read what follows


Dear Sir/Ma’am/gender neutral or fluid entity,

I received and read your correspondence today with great interest and want to thank you for the mirth and outright laughter it provided.

I do not own a television. I am aware of such apparatus but I have never personally found any value in owning one, not to mention the utter bull**** that is broadcast through the medium.

Your letter was pathetic in attempting to be threatening and intimidating and yet I found it hysterically funny. Probably not as funny for any elderly, or impoverished person hearing their home is being threatened with an illegal search. But to be told by such an insipid and legally baseless manner, pure comedy. Thank you for the laugh.

I will welcome yourself or any of your intrepid agents into my home at any time of your choosing. In fact, I look forward to meeting you, and or them, and presenting you with a big dish of go absolutely **** yourselves muffins upon the fruitless completion of your search of my home. I have included my address below, for your no doubt incompetent but insistent perusal.

I look forward to meeting you and do hope you’re having a fabulous day.
Yours,
**** all the way off




All local TDs got involved.
One got a response

Dear Ms Desmond,

Thank you for your e-mail.

While we appreciate that there are people who make a lifestyle choice not to use television sets we are required to make occasional enquiries at all addresses in order to keep our database up to date. (Our records indicate that Mr Xxx previously held a television licence). To this end we rely very much on the cooperation of members of the public.

I have been advised by one of our inspectors who called to Mr Xxx address last month that cooperation was refused. The letter which Mr xxx subsequently received is a standard one that is issued in such circumstances.

I have noted the current position and sent Mr Xxx a statutory declaration to complete for our records.

Kind Regards
Jim O’Reilly
TV Licence Records Office Dublin.

Johnboy1951

Buteo Buteo wrote: »

Did they ask you to sign the statutory declaration stating that you don't have a tv at that address?

It seems that a tv licence inspector can enter any premises at will:

An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/enacted/en/print.html

As far as I can recall a tv licence inspector must have a warrant and be accompanied by a garda to serve that warrant, in order to gain unwelcome access to a home.

So if you please provide the full reference that shows me my recollection is incorrect I would appreciate it, thanks.

Sam Russell

elperello wrote: »

The best legal brains in the Attorney General's office will deliver a result for their paymasters.

At this stage the Government should just give up the pretense that it is a licence and just fund Public Broadcasting out of general taxation. That way everyone pays to fund a common good. The question of reform at RTE is another story.

The reason it is not, nor should it be, funded from general taxation is to prevent a Gov from reducing, or threatening to reduce, funding in the event of unfavourable coverage on the TV broadcasting. The licence fund is ring fenced to prevent such interference.

The simplest and cheapest way of collecting the fund is to add it to a utility bill, namely the ESB Networks one, and them make having such a bill all that is required to be liable for it. ESB is a consumption charge, and TV (and mobiles) generally require an ESB connection. Putting it onto the RPT would cause problems with landlords who could argue it should be the tenant that is liable.

To make the charge fairer, it could be limited to the current yield (or perhaps the yield that there should be if all who are liable actually paid).

A different argument concerns RTE spending and the efficient control of their funding. The issue might centre on the high salaries paid to some of their 'stars', but also the long shutdown of RTE for the three months of June, July and August, when almost every programme is a repeat (or another opportunity to see ....).

Remember, RTE are carrying more than their fair share of Saorview, despite having funded entirely.

Buteo Buteo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

As far as I can recall a tv licence inspector must have a warrant and be accompanied by a garda to serve that warrant, in order to gain unwelcome access to a home.

So if you please provide the full reference that shows me my recollection is incorrect I would appreciate it, thanks.

You could be right. I'm not a lawyer. I'm only going on what the act says. (Section 146(3)).

dulpit

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I got that declaration.

My response. Which I sent to all local TDs and read what follows


Dear Sir/Ma’am/gender neutral or fluid entity,

I received and read your correspondence today with great interest and want to thank you for the mirth and outright laughter it provided.

I do not own a television. I am aware of such apparatus but I have never personally found any value in owning one, not to mention the utter bull**** that is broadcast through the medium.

Your letter was pathetic in attempting to be threatening and intimidating and yet I found it hysterically funny. Probably not as funny for any elderly, or impoverished person hearing their home is being threatened with an illegal search. But to be told by such an insipid and legally baseless manner, pure comedy. Thank you for the laugh.

I will welcome yourself or any of your intrepid agents into my home at any time of your choosing. In fact, I look forward to meeting you, and or them, and presenting you with a big dish of go absolutely **** yourselves muffins upon the fruitless completion of your search of my home. I have included my address below, for your no doubt incompetent but insistent perusal.

I look forward to meeting you and do hope you’re having a fabulous day.
Yours,
**** all the way off




All local TDs got involved.
One got a response

Dear Ms Desmond,

Thank you for your e-mail.

While we appreciate that there are people who make a lifestyle choice not to use television sets we are required to make occasional enquiries at all addresses in order to keep our database up to date. (Our records indicate that Mr Xxx previously held a television licence). To this end we rely very much on the cooperation of members of the public.

I have been advised by one of our inspectors who called to Mr Xxx address last month that cooperation was refused. The letter which Mr xxx subsequently received is a standard one that is issued in such circumstances.

I have noted the current position and sent Mr Xxx a statutory declaration to complete for our records.

Kind Regards
Jim O’Reilly
TV Licence Records Office Dublin.

Charming response

elperello

Sam Russell wrote: »

The reason it is not, nor should it be, funded from general taxation is to prevent a Gov from reducing, or threatening to reduce, funding in the event of unfavourable coverage on the TV broadcasting. The licence fund is ring fenced to prevent such interference.

The simplest and cheapest way of collecting the fund is to add it to a utility bill, namely the ESB Networks one, and them make having such a bill all that is required to be liable for it. ESB is a consumption charge, and TV (and mobiles) generally require an ESB connection. Putting it onto the RPT would cause problems with landlords who could argue it should be the tenant that is liable.

To make the charge fairer, it could be limited to the current yield (or perhaps the yield that there should be if all who are liable actually paid).

A different argument concerns RTE spending and the efficient control of their funding. The issue might centre on the high salaries paid to some of their 'stars', but also the long shutdown of RTE for the three months of June, July and August, when almost every programme is a repeat (or another opportunity to see ....).

Remember, RTE are carrying more than their fair share of Saorview, despite having funded entirely.

I think that if robust well drafted legislation was introduced we could ensure that Public Broadcasting was protected from Government interference.

Once we have decided what we want from Public Broadcasting the general public might consider the expense a good use of their tax euro. For instance the All Ireland coverage and the Fleadh Ceoil programmes this week are examples of PB at its best.

Your idea of adding the cost to ESB is interesting.

I agree that RTE while an important part of any debate on Public Broadcasting is in need of reform .

Johnboy1951

Buteo Buteo wrote: »

You could be right. I'm not a lawyer. I'm only going on what the act says. (Section 146(3)).

It does indeed state what you posted, and my interpretation of that section is as you posted. I also am not a lawyer.

Of course if the householder refuses access then the agent has no further powers, and must revert to the gardai for help in gaining access I guess.

I most definitely did not (when they called), and would not, allow a stranger who called to my door access to my home.

Noobsaibot21

I got one of those "tried to call but no answer" pamphlets too at the place I rent. I don't have any television sets - Have a work/gaming PC with two monitors (No TV tuner card), a Sony PVM CRT monitor for use with retro game consoles (No TV Tuner), a chromebook for light web browsing (No TV tuner) and a 46" NEC display monitor with a PC hooked up to it used for watching stuff on Netflix or baby's videos on Youtube (No TV tuner in this display monitor and no TV card in the PC). No Saorview/Saorsat equipment, no satellite dish and no subscriptions to Sky/NowTV/Virgin/EirTV/VodafoneTV or any other TV services.

Based on the wording on their own site, the TV licence is not applicable in any of these scenarios and thus, I'll duly not be getting one. However, I do not plan to respond to them until they use my actual name in correspondence or until a search warrant (in the presence of a Garda) is issued. They just sound like a pain in the arse to deal with (even when one does "play ball"), so while I am exempt according to the usage definitions on their site, I'd prefer to delay talking to them until absolutely necessary.

I am definitely not going to pay them to go away as that is literally ALL I would be paying for. I am also hopeful he doesn't confuse the display as an actual TV - it very much is not and requires external stuff like speakers and control over serial cable (It is designed for public signage really).


As for upcoming legislation, well.... there's no analog TV anymore so the TV tuner is just confusing these days. Why don't they just do it the smart (and fair) way? You are liable to have the TV licence if you have:

* A saorview antenna
* A satellite dish (For those who could potentially access Saorsat)
* A subscription to a TV service provider (ie: Sky, Virgin, Eir, VirginTV etc...)

With that last one, they could simply work with the TV providers directly to determine who has a TV subscription alongside their Broadband/phone subscription rather than blanket hassling people directly. And they avoid having to dodge awkward questions about smartphone-only owners and how they can determine if they do or do not have one. The only real thing they have to try and determine is if someone is using an internal antenna for saorview and I'm sure such a group (who have an internal Saorview antenna and are also not paying) would be a tiny amount of people.

Is this too sensible a proposal or something?

Sam Russell

Noobsaibot21 wrote: »

As for upcoming legislation, well.... there's no analog TV anymore so the TV tuner is just confusing these days. Why don't they just do it the smart (and fair) way? You are liable to have the TV licence if you have:

* A saorview antenna
* A satellite dish (For those who could potentially access Saorsat)
* A subscription to a TV service provider (ie: Sky, Virgin, Eir, VirginTV etc...)

With that last one, they could simply work with the TV providers directly to determine who has a TV subscription alongside their Broadband/phone subscription rather than blanket hassling people directly. And they avoid having to dodge awkward questions about smartphone-only owners and how they can determine if they do or do not have one. The only real thing they have to try and determine is if someone is using an internal antenna for saorview and I'm sure such a group (who have an internal Saorview antenna and are also not paying) would be a tiny amount of people.

Is this too sensible a proposal or something?

That is obviously what they should do, and I cannot understand why that is not the way they work.

As for a Saorview antenna, I have 100% signal and quality from a home made antenna (from a wire coat hanger) sitting beside my TV, so not detectable away from my TV. Saorview is a very strong signal in my area, and I suspect, for 50% of people.

[I also have a Sat dish so I am caught there anyway.]

Johnboy1951

As for upcoming legislation, well.... there's no analog TV anymore so the TV tuner is just confusing these days. Why don't they just do it the smart (and fair) way? You are liable to have the TV licence if you have:

* A saorview antenna
* A satellite dish (For those who could potentially access Saorsat)

This to me is not workable.
First I might move home and my new location might well have either or both those and yet I might not be receiving anything.
They are after all only bits of metal arranged in a specific fashion.

* A subscription to a TV service provider (ie: Sky, Virgin, Eir, VirginTV etc...)

.... and what happens if I have a subscription to a different provider that does not 'play ball' with this proposal?

Unworkable IMO.
Just make it an inhabitable premises PSB contribution for all, and then allow those who qualify to get approval to opt out. That would require positive action by persons who thought they should not pay.

Nobody slips through the cracks, and the terms for opting out can be managed easily by the relevant minister and adjusted as the gov decides in the future.

Definitely it needs to be a separate collection, and ring-fenced for the purpose.
If possible the yearly rate should be reduced per household, to reflect the greater number of contributions.

Noobsaibot21

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

This to me is not workable.
First I might move home and my new location might well have either or both those and yet I might not be receiving anything.
They are after all only bits of metal arranged in a specific fashion.

You could still make declarations like you can now and have said declarations verified. As for "home made" antennas.... well, they are still not invisible (and would need a cable going in to the house).

I'll concede that Internal/discrete antennas would be tougher to police but at least it'd be a bit better than the current system. I'm surprised Saorview approved TVs and set top boxes have not got any talk back software by default as I'm sure there is a solution to that . Seems they dropped the ball to help themselves there.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

.... and what happens if I have a subscription to a different provider that does not 'play ball' with this proposal?
...

No different to the Netflix situation. Such service providers could be denied permission to provide RTE/Irish TV services which effectively gives them a status similar to Netflix/Youtube. I would suspect they would need to adhere to broadcasting rules to broadcast/offer television services here anyway, right?

Johnboy1951

What you describe is a similar scheme as presently in force with all its drawbacks and cost of implementation and monitoring, as well as the problems with avoidance.
The number of declarations would be considerably reduced by making it a necessary requirement to avoid the charge. Presently no action is required, unless forced by a court appearance.

BTW, you do realise that a lot of OEM aerials are fitted in attics? A lot more sit near the TV.
No point in depending on such visual indicators.
It costs too much .... which must come out of the 'licence' payments made.

With a blanket charge - you need to apply deliberately to not pay, and then only in specified circumstances.

No different to the Netflix situation. Such service providers could be denied permission to provide RTE/Irish TV services which effectively gives them a status similar to Netflix/Youtube. I would suspect they would need to adhere to broadcasting rules to broadcast/offer television services here anyway, right?

Completely different.
Just about anyone can provide the channels over broadband from anywhere so near impossible to monitor and doing so costs. More costs added if some action is required.

With a household charge there is no concern what people are watching or how delivered ..... they all pay except they have a successful application not to.

Make the new scheme as simple to implement, monitor and administer as possible, thus keeping costs down, with the maximum numbers contributing.

In addition, make the collection as simple and low cost as possible ... maybe adding the charge to some pre-existing bill like Electricity bill.
The benefit of adding it to the Elec bill is that all the premises that should pay will have an Elec supply.

Harry Palmr

Has anyone failed to receive the TV licence reminder? Mine is about a week past the sell by date

brightspark

Johnboy1951 wrote:

In addition, make the collection as simple and low cost as possible ... maybe adding the charge to some pre-existing bill like Electricity bill. The benefit of adding it to the Elec bill is that all the premises that should pay will have an Elec supply.

Adding it to the property tax would work too, with the added benefit of it eventually having to be paid, even after years of non payment, when the house is sold

Sam Russell

brightspark wrote: »

Adding it to the property tax would work too, with the added benefit of it eventually having to be paid, even after years of non payment, when the house is sold

No, the LPT is only paid by property owners, not tenants. It is better if it is added to a consumption utility like ESB - that way the user pays. [Local Authority tenants do not pay LPT.]

Some figures - Licence fee is €160 or €13.33 per month. Currently it is estimated that 15% of those liable do not pay, and An Post get about 7% for collecting it. Assuming ESB charge a lot less to add it to their bill (like nothing), the collection of €12.50 per ESB customer would raise 18.6% more for RTE and others that get a share of it, despite a reduction in the actual amount per household collected.

Now who would complain about that?

runawaybishop

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, the LPT is only paid by property owners, not tenants. It is better if it is added to a consumption utility like ESB - that way the user pays. [Local Authority tenants do not pay LPT.]

Some figures - Licence fee is €160 or €13.33 per month. Currently it is estimated that 15% of those liable do not pay, and An Post get about 7% for collecting it. Assuming ESB charge a lot less to add it to their bill (like nothing), the collection of €12.50 per ESB customer would raise 18.6% more for RTE and others that get a share of it, despite a reduction in the actual amount per household collected.

Now who would complain about that?

Lots of people? Rte is bloated and way overpriced

elperello

runawaybishop wrote: »

Lots of people? Rte is bloated and way overpriced

Well if there was an element of reform built into the deal would you consider it?

A difficulty I would foresee is the number of connections that are to business premises where there is no TV. Also farmers often have connections to out farms where there are only sheds. A bit of ingenuity could probably deal with these cases which are only a small proportion of the total.

Sam Russell

runawaybishop wrote: »

Lots of people? Rte is bloated and way overpriced

Lots of people are on a boil water regime in N Dublin and surrounds, and many of those people protested against water charges. Now if only we had enough money to put our crumbling water infrastructure to rights!

If RTE do not have enough money to run a complete service, we will end up with a rubbish service that suits no-one. Just look at TV3 and the rebroadcast of UK ITV programmes - wall to wall.

By the way, all TV licence money does not go to RTE, and the high pay to RTE 'STARS' is not a significant part of their expenses. The Gov sold of the spectrum and pocketed the cash grab, but forced RTE to fund from their own resources the roll out of Saorview (DTV) that has improved the TV video quality beyond belief.

Most Governments have been trying to do down RTE since RTE refused to be bullied by the Gov of the day since 1962. And thank goodness they are still refusing to be bullied.

runawaybishop

Sam Russell wrote: »

Lots of people are on a boil water regime in N Dublin and surrounds, and many of those people protested against water charges. Now if only we had enough money to put our crumbling water infrastructure to rights!

If RTE do not have enough money to run a complete service, we will end up with a rubbish service that suits no-one. Just look at TV3 and the rebroadcast of UK ITV programmes - wall to wall.

By the way, all TV licence money does not go to RTE, and the high pay to RTE 'STARS' is not a significant part of their expenses. The Gov sold of the spectrum and pocketed the cash grab, but forced RTE to fund from their own resources the roll out of Saorview (DTV) that has improved the TV video quality beyond belief.

Most Governments have been trying to do down RTE since RTE refused to be bullied by the Gov of the day since 1962. And thank goodness they are still refusing to be bullied.

I don't really care if rte is shut down completely. I consume all my 'tv' online from a service that costs less than the TV license fee. That is what Rte are competing with. If they went 100% PSB, dropped down to rte 1, radio 1 and cut the daft fees they pay presenters then I would have no issue with it.

Demanding more money is pumped into a broken business is never going to fly with the general public.

Also, with respect, I don't care about Dublin's boil water notice. My work colleagues have had one for 2 years and I personally had to fork out 7k for a septic tank system and 1709 euro to be connected to the mains so I couldn't give a **** about Dublin's minor inconvenience.

brightspark

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, the LPT is only paid by property owners, not tenants. It is better if it is added to a consumption utility like ESB - that way the user pays. [Local Authority tenants do not pay LPT.]

Some figures - Licence fee is €160 or €13.33 per month. Currently it is estimated that 15% of those liable do not pay, and An Post get about 7% for collecting it. Assuming ESB charge a lot less to add it to their bill (like nothing), the collection of €12.50 per ESB customer would raise 18.6% more for RTE and others that get a share of it, despite a reduction in the actual amount per household collected.

Now who would complain about that?

I am certain that landlords factor in LPT when deciding how much they charge for rent, any increase would be passed onto the tenants.

The only difficulty would be providing an exemption to certain tenants, but perhaps an increase to pensions would be an option. (Similar to how the electricity and telephone benefits are paid)

Tenants in local authority houses could have a reduction in social welfare payments? They could then, on proof of no TV or that another household member was paying the fee, have the reduction removed.

Why would the ESB do it for nothing? And if they "should" do it for nothing what is the reason for currently paying AnPost 7%?

Adding it to the ESB bill would also be irrelevant to those who have their own generators and aren't connected to the grid.
While not practical for main residences it would lead to an increase in generator usage for holiday homes, caravans etc. Not good from a "green" perspective if that generator is powered with fossil fuel.

Sam Russell

brightspark wrote: »

I am certain that landlords factor in LPT when deciding how much they charge for rent, any increase would be passed onto the tenants.

The only difficulty would be providing an exemption to certain tenants, but perhaps an increase to pensions would be an option. (Similar to how the electricity and telephone benefits are paid)

Tenants in local authority houses could have a reduction in social welfare payments? They could then, on proof of no TV or that another household member was paying the fee, have the reduction removed.

Why would the ESB do it for nothing? And if they "should" do it for nothing what is the reason for currently paying AnPost 7%?

Adding it to the ESB bill would also be irrelevant to those who have their own generators and aren't connected to the grid.
While not practical for main residences it would lead to an increase in generator usage for holiday homes, caravans etc. Not good from a "green" perspective if that generator is powered with fossil fuel.

I think you are missing the basis of the suggestion.

Why would the ESB do it for nothing? Because for a small software change, it would cost nothing - they do it for other levies. An Post only got the gig because RTE came out of Post and Telegraphs Gov Dept. They also have real cost as those inspectors have to be paid.

If you have ESB Networks supply, you pay, otherwise you do not. For farmers etc who have supplies for remote water pumps etc then these exceptions can be coped with easily.

Anyone who runs a generator to avoid a TV licence probably does not pay Motor Tax, NCT, Ins, and a few other 'avoidable' costs. By the way, it would cost less to get ESB than a generator with all the levies. But here are always people who avoid paying their way in life.

Johnboy1951

By the time there will be any significant number of people 'off grid' for their power requirements, they will be using solar power and most likely a set up that will allow them to sell their spare capacity back to the grid ........ and will have an ESB account.

Even if the ESB were to charge as much as An POST (highly unlikely) the return would be much greater as the vast majority who presently avoid paying the licence fee would be paying the ESB with their elec bill.

The only way to manage the collection equitably is that every household pays, except where they have applied for and received approval not to contribute.

Bob24

Sam Russell wrote: »

Currently it is estimated that 15% of those liable do not pay,

This figure has been given by RTÉ but I don’t believe there is anything to back it up and it is more a PR exercise than a fact.

It is impossible to know which of the non-paying households have a TV (i.e. are liable) or don’t (i.e. aren’t liable). To at least give substance to the figures, whoever estimated the proportion of legal/illegal non-payers should say which figure they came-up with and how. But it is always kept very vague.

Johnboy1951

Another consideration might be why, in the present times, this should be tied to premises rather than people?

There are many ways to receive the broadcast content, a number of them mobile.
Why should a one person household pay more per person than say 5 people sharing a house?

Would it not be more equitable to add say €5 per month to an individual's income tax bill?

At least each person in employment would pay a similar amount ....... or is this not considered because it makes the licence too much of a "TAX"?

It was understandable in the past to have the licence associated with a fixed premises.
The devices were bulky, heavy and not suited to carrying about. Rooftop aerials and such were required.

It seems we are well past that now, and so this licence should be looked at from its very basics, including how it is allocated .... premises or persons.

Harry Palmr

Just put the cost on VAT, it'll be spread out so far and wide no one will even release they are paying for it.

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Another consideration might be why, in the present times, this should be tied to premises rather than people?

There are many ways to receive the broadcast content, a number of them mobile.
Why should a one person household pay more per person than say 5 people sharing a house?

Would it not be more equitable to add say €5 per month to an individual's income tax bill?

At least each person in employment would pay a similar amount ....... or is this not considered because it makes the licence too much of a "TAX"?

It was understandable in the past to have the licence associated with a fixed premises.
The devices were bulky, heavy and not suited to carrying about. Rooftop aerials and such were required.

It seems we are well past that now, and so this licence should be looked at from its very basics, including how it is allocated .... premises or persons.

If it tax, like income tax, then how would it be ring fenced to be only used for broadcasting? It is too much of a temptation for a Gov, getting (deservedly) bad press, to put the squeeze onto the broadcaster (as I believe is happening now)?

A consumption charge, as is the current licence, is a good way to ring fence it, but that is not what has happened. First, RTE had to support TG4, without any increase in funding. Then some of the licence fee was diverted to commercial broadcasters, and independent producers, and even some programmes that were not available on Irish TV. All without any increase in funding.

Gov refused to bring in a requirement that Sky and other TV service providers pass the names of subscribers to An Post so that evasion could be tackled - why was that not done?

Now, how do you not have it as a per property charge? One TV has more than one viewer so must pay extra - seriously? Start with a per property charge based on access to ESB, and put it on the ESB bill - simples. Now when that works, as it will, then charge for re-transmission charges to subscriber services like Sky - which will help with a bit extra funding. Then tackle the streaming services, and other mobile phone services. (The BBC gets paid by Sky for retransmission).

In general, currently people appear to be quite happy to pay Sky, Virgin, etc, sums in the region of €100 per month, but see paying a licence fee of €13.33 per month an outrage. They complain of outrageous salaries to RTE 'Stars, but are happy to watch footballers that get paid per week what these top RTE Stars get paid per week. Smacks of double standards.

If the top 10 RTE Stars worked for nothing, RTE would not save €5 million - not even half that. RTE need at least an extra €100 million a year. Why are RTE not allowed to have adverts on News Now or their Digital Radio channels? Why are TV3 allowed extra advert mins per hour than RTE? Why does RTE have to fund Saorview, yet allow TV3 to broadcast a below standard low definition video signal?

If we do not pay enough for a good service, we end up with a crap one.

By the way, I have no connection with RTE, nor with broadcasting, nor with politics, nor with journalism.

elperello

The "take it from general taxation" option is so blindingly obvious and logical that it hasn't a hope of being adopted.

Can't be evaded, no collection cost just a cheque once a year from finance linked to inflation.

If there are fears over Government interfering with RTE income just write it into a new Broadcasting Finance Act.

Of course there would be an element of reform required in RTE.