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

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote:

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)?

The import of your post is that because you do not trust the Gov. to adhere to ringfencing the 'take' for the 'licence' through payments to Revenue, then you think it should not be done, although you appear to think it might be a better system.

If Revenue were obliged to pass the collected monies to a specified account/whatever for the purpose of distribution to RTÉ and others who get benefit from the licence, then it would be applied to what it was collected for and no other.

Revenue have their systems set up now so that everyone (with internet access) can easily manage their dealings with Revenue, and so could easily arrange for this to be not collected if they were approved to not pay it ..... on grounds of age, disability, low earnings or whatever other criteria a gov decides.

When compared to the present scheme:-
More equitable ... everybody pays for Public Service Broadcasting
No/low cost of collection ..... just another entry on an existing tax form
No worries about avoidance
Many more contributing than presently so cost per person reduced hugely a possibility.

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The import of your post is that because you do not trust the Gov. to adhere to ringfencing the 'take' for the 'licence' through payments to Revenue, then you think it should not be done, although you appear to think it might be a better system.

If Revenue were obliged to pass the collected monies to a specified account/whatever for the purpose of distribution to RTÉ and others who get benefit from the licence, then it would be applied to what it was collected for and no other.

Revenue have their systems set up now so that everyone (with internet access) can easily manage their dealings with Revenue, and so could easily arrange for this to be not collected if they were approved to not pay it ..... on grounds of age, disability, low earnings or whatever other criteria a gov decides.

When compared to the present scheme:-
More equitable ... everybody pays for Public Service Broadcasting
No/low cost of collection ..... just another entry on an existing tax form
No worries about avoidance
Many more contributing than presently so cost per person reduced hugely a possibility.

Yes I accept your point. However, you are right - I could not trust some future Gov to not put their pinkies on the monies due to the broadcasters. Look at what happened to the money collected to try and save poor Brian Lennihan from liver disease - it disappeared into a black hole in North County Dublin.

There are many tax payers who pay no tax (well make no tax return) but still watch TV. General taxation is a dreadful catch all (in many senses) but a more focused approach, like fuel tax on cars, or tolls on roads, tends to link consumption with cost.

How can we complain about waste when it is just 'general taxation'. Look at the waste and poor financial performance of the HSE that is funded from general taxation. No level of protest makes any difference.

Focus the cost on the consumption.

Johnboy1951

Focus the cost on the consumption.

Certainly sounds good ...... how to measure this in relation to TV?

The suggestion was not to add the 'licence' fee to general taxation, but for Revenue to allocate the 'take' to some specific entity for the purposes of distribution.

Of course any governement in the future can change how things are at any time, if they have the support for it.
That is not exclusive to this.

BUT, if it is set up correctly in the first place then it seems the most equitable to me ...... and that set up should be a special bill to be passed by the legislative to change how it is managed.
No ministerial order sufficient!

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Certainly sounds good ...... how to measure this in relation to TV?

The suggestion was not to add the 'licence' fee to general taxation, but for Revenue to allocate the 'take' to some specific entity for the purposes of distribution.

Of course any governement in the future can change how things are at any time, if they have the support for it.
That is not exclusive to this.

BUT, if it is set up correctly in the first place then it seems the most equitable to me ...... and that set up should be a special bill to be passed by the legislative to change how it is managed.
No ministerial order sufficient!

The point I was making was to suggest that 'consumption' means using a related commodity. It has been suggested adding the charge to LPT but local authority houses do not pay it , and private landlords do.

It is too easy for a Gov to raid the piggy bank,

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

The point I was making was to suggest that 'consumption' means using a related commodity. It has been suggested adding the charge to LPT but local authority houses do not pay it , and private landlords do.

It is too easy for a Gov to raid the piggy bank,

Sure it is ....... so how is that prevented now for the licence money collected?

babelfish1990

Is the new Eir/Apple 4k TV service currently licence exempt?

To date, TV streaming services have been licence exempt in Ireland. Hence if you only watch Netflix or RTE player on a computer monitor (with no TV tuner) you dont need a licence.

Since the new Eir/Apple 4k TV service is also a streaming service, does this mean that it is also licence exempt if watched on a computer monitor? (Clearly you would need to have no other TV receivers is the house to comply)

elperello

babelfish1990 wrote: »

Is the new Eir/Apple 4k TV service currently licence exempt?

To date, TV streaming services have been licence exempt in Ireland. Hence if you only watch Netflix or RTE player on a computer monitor (with no TV tuner) you dont need a licence.

Since the new Eir/Apple 4k TV service is also a streaming service, does this mean that it is also licence exempt if watched on a computer monitor? (Clearly you would need to have no other TV receivers is the house to comply)

Short answer is yes.
The licence is focused on the device.
No TV no requirement for a licence.

babelfish1990

elperello wrote: »

Short answer is yes.
The licence is focused on the device.
No TV no requirement for a licence.

Thanks Elperello - that was my own opinion also. Interested in other views. It seems like a major benefit for the Eir TV service vs their competitors, especially since the Govt appear to have kicked the media licencing can down the road for at least 5 years.

I think the Govt and RTE need to be given a clear signal that many of us have no interest in paying for state sponsored light entertainment services that currently fill the RTE schedules.

Personally, I would have no problem paying a smaller license fee for locally produced content of a cultural/educational nature, but the Govt should have no role in pure entertainment services in the 21st century.

Bob24

babelfish1990 wrote: »

Is the new Eir/Apple 4k TV service currently licence exempt?

To date, TV streaming services have been licence exempt in Ireland. Hence if you only watch Netflix or RTE player on a computer monitor (with no TV tuner) you dont need a licence.

Since the new Eir/Apple 4k TV service is also a streaming service, does this mean that it is also licence exempt if watched on a computer monitor? (Clearly you would need to have no other TV receivers is the house to comply)

I think it might depend on how the video signal is broadcasted. If it is regular internet streaming such as the RTE player or Netflix, no licence required. But there is a proprietary app installed which supports some type of non-Internet IPTV technology purely going through Eir's network, then it might be considered a "conventional television broadcasting network" and a licence might be required (essentially, with this the Apple TV would be turned into the same thing as a Virgin Media digital TV box).


Edit: and it does say here that "Viewing any TV Programmes broadcast for general reception over broadband (e.g. Eir TV/Vodafone TV) on your monitor requires a TV Licence".

Bob24

babelfish1990 wrote: »

I think the Govt and RTE need to be given a clear signal that many of us have no interest in paying for state sponsored light entertainment services that currently fill the RTE schedules.

Personally, I would have no problem paying a smaller license fee for locally produced content of a cultural/educational nature, but the Govt should have no role in pure entertainment services in the 21st century.

Certainly agree with that! But as per my previous post I don't think Eir TV is the way to do it (unless you just want the Apple TV with no interest for the Eir TV service, and there is nothing forcing you to have the Eir App installed on the Apple TV: if you don't have the App installed I don't see why the simple fact of having an Apple TV and a monitor would make you liable for a licence).

elperello

Bob24 wrote: »

I think it might depend on how the video signal is broadcasted. If it is regular internet streaming such has the RTE player or Netflix, no licence required. But there is a proprietary app installed which supports some type of non-Internet IPTV technology purely going through Eir's network, then it might be considered a "conventional television broadcasting network" and a licence might be required (essentially, with this the Apple TV would be turned into the same thing as as Virgin Media digital TV box).


Edit: and it does say here that "Viewing any TV Programmes broadcast for general reception over broadband (e.g. Eir TV/Vodafone TV) on your monitor requires a TV Licence".

Thanks for the link and clarification.
I didn't realise that.

Sam Russell

babelfish1990 wrote: »

Thanks Elperello - that was my own opinion also. Interested in other views. It seems like a major benefit for the Eir TV service vs their competitors, especially since the Govt appear to have kicked the media licencing can down the road for at least 5 years.

I think the Govt and RTE need to be given a clear signal that many of us have no interest in paying for state sponsored light entertainment services that currently fill the RTE schedules.

Personally, I would have no problem paying a smaller license fee for locally produced content of a cultural/educational nature, but the Govt should have no role in pure entertainment services in the 21st century.

Well The Late Late Show was a light entertainment show but was a huge influence on many political issues over the years. (Recently since the current twit has taken over it has become the lightest of light fluff - 'What is the name of the book you are plugging?') However, it would be dreadful to reduce RTE to being a News Now service. Only news nerds would watch the type of channel you are proposing.


Public broadcasting should 'Inform, Educate, and Entertain'.

elperello

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well The Late Late Show was a light entertainment show but was a huge influence on many political issues over the years. (Recently since the current twit has taken over it has become the lightest of light fluff - 'What is the name of the book you are plugging?') However, it would be dreadful to reduce RTE to being a News Now service. Only news nerds would watch the type of channel you are proposing.


Public broadcasting should 'Inform, Educate, and Entertain'.

Yes it's interesting to discuss where the lines should be draw for a PSB remit.

For a small country we punch way above our weight in the areas of music, literature and sport for instance. Would we reduce say the likes of the genius of Joyce to some dry academic topic or celebrate it in some form of entertainment?

Then there is the huge audience abroad who claim Irish ancestry. Do we use our asset in RTE to it's best advantage to cover their interest in these areas of culture or let it become a sterile backwater?

Sam Russell

elperello wrote: »

Yes it's interesting to discuss where the lines should be draw for a PSB remit.

For a small country we punch way above our weight in the areas of music, literature and sport for instance. Would we reduce say the likes of the genius of Joyce to some dry academic topic or celebrate it in some form of entertainment?

Then there is the huge audience abroad who claim Irish ancestry. Do we use our asset in RTE to it's best advantage to cover their interest in these areas of culture or let it become a sterile backwater?

Starve it of money and sterility is what you get. 'You don't know what you've got till it's gone - put up a parking lot!'

holyhead

If you have a radio do you need a TV License?

holyhead

Is their any logic for RTE showing content which can be viewed on other channels i.e. TV series. I can understand showing movies.

Sam Russell

holyhead wrote: »

If you have a radio do you need a TV License?

No not since a long time ago. You did need a separate one for a car radio as well, but also not for a long time.

elperello

holyhead wrote: »

If you have a radio do you need a TV License?

No.
You can have as many as you like, all free.

elperello

Sam Russell wrote: »

Starve it of money and sterility is what you get. 'You don't know what you've got till it's gone - put up a parking lot!'

I'm telling you the more I think of it we have a potential goldmine out there in Montrose all we need is the right crew of miners.

Sam Russell

holyhead wrote: »

Is their any logic for RTE showing content which can be viewed on other channels i.e. TV series. I can understand showing movies.

Of course there is. There are at least 14 hours of broadcasting time to fill with stuff people watch. To do it even with just talking heads would be prohibitively expensive.

holyhead

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course there is. There are at least 14 hours of broadcasting time to fill with stuff people watch. To do it even with just talking heads would be prohibitively expensive.

I appreciate they have a 24 hour schedule to fill. I'm just wondering would the money be better spent on TV series be spent on domestically produced TV?

elperello

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course there is. There are at least 14 hours of broadcasting time to fill with stuff people watch. To do it even with just talking heads would be prohibitively expensive.

I don't know the figures but if you buy in say Eastenders and RTE attract enough people to their platform to watch it you can sell the ads and everyone is happy.

Sam Russell

holyhead wrote: »

I appreciate they have a 24 hour schedule to fill. I'm just wondering would the money be better spent on TV series be spent on domestically produced TV?

No, they choose to broadcast 24 ours, but they need at least 14 hours, and could repeat a lot of that to fill a bit more.

Johnboy1951

All TV stations are driven by ratings, due to their reliance on advert revenue.

If RTE was fully supported, and advert free, then maybe they could change the content of one of their channels to be end to end documentary type programs and items of current interest, instead of the soaps and imported drivel they presently show.

A full Public Broadcast channel to inform and educate and make commentary on current and cultural interests would be more in line with what one would think it should be.

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

All TV stations are driven by ratings, due to their reliance on advert revenue.

If RTE was fully supported, and advert free, then maybe they could change the content of one of their channels to be end to end documentary type programs and items of current interest, instead of the soaps and imported drivel they presently show.

A full Public Broadcast channel to inform and educate and make commentary on current and cultural interests would be more in line with what one would think it should be.

Even The Beeb does not have that model. They have a commercial wing that they plug continuously. They even show 'Mrs Brown's Boys' which is very much a cultural show - but it is Finglas culture.

babelfish1990

Bob24 wrote: »

I think it might depend on how the video signal is broadcasted. If it is regular internet streaming such as the RTE player or Netflix, no licence required. But there is a proprietary app installed which supports some type of non-Internet IPTV technology purely going through Eir's network, then it might be considered a "conventional television broadcasting network" and a licence might be required (essentially, with this the Apple TV would be turned into the same thing as a Virgin Media digital TV box).


Edit: and it does say here that "Viewing any TV Programmes broadcast for general reception over broadband (e.g. Eir TV/Vodafone TV) on your monitor requires a TV Licence".

This is a useful link - but I wonder if it is based on a genuine legal interpretation based on the current Eir/Apple 4k TV service, or on the previous Eir-Vision or Vodafone hardware? I suspect it is based on the previous hardware, and may just a simplification for FAQ purposes rather than a proper legal analysis? If the Apple TV 4k box doesn't require a licence when used for streaming movies or RTE player content, then it is difficult to see why the same box should require a licence to view the same content in real time over the same network? Perhaps the current legislation failed to forecast developments such the Eir/Apple 4k live streaming scenario, and any interpretation looks highly ambiguous? Furthermore, the Govt have acknowledged that the legislation needs to be updated to reflect technological change, so it would appear that they recognize that the current legislation does not adequately deal with all these scenarios.

The discussion on what content should be on a public service channel is interesting. I think there is an obsession with filling 24 hour schedules - this is a dated concept - because most viewers view content in their own time, rather than being confined to broadcast schedules as they were in the last century. A state funded public service channel should seek to provide as much content as they can reasonably afford rather than feel the need to "broadcast" 24/7. If that means they revert to a smaller number of hours of quality content, then so be it. At the moment, they seem intent on filling all the hours of the day just for the sake of putting in time. I can't understand why the commercial channels haven't succeeded in challenging the current use of state-aid to subsidize light-entertainment and news services on RTE? Perhaps the heavy-weights such as Netflix, Apple & Amazon will start to challenge this in the EU resulting either in the licence fee being taken away from RTE or evenly distributed across other content providers?

Sam Russell

babelfish1990 wrote: »

This is a useful link - but I wonder if it is based on a genuine legal interpretation based on the current Eir/Apple 4k TV service, or on the previous Eir-Vision or Vodafone hardware? I suspect it is based on the previous hardware, and may just a simplification for FAQ purposes rather than a proper legal analysis? If the Apple TV 4k box doesn't require a licence when used for streaming movies or RTE player content, then it is difficult to see why the same box should require a licence to view the same content in real time over the same network? Perhaps the current legislation failed to forecast developments such the Eir/Apple 4k live streaming scenario, and any interpretation looks highly ambiguous? Furthermore, the Govt have acknowledged that the legislation needs to be updated to reflect technological change, so it would appear that they recognize that the current legislation does not adequately deal with all these scenarios.

The discussion on what content should be on a public service channel is interesting. I think there is an obsession with filling 24 hour schedules - this is a dated concept - because most viewers view content in their own time, rather than being confined to broadcast schedules as they were in the last century. A state funded public service channel should seek to provide as much content as they can reasonably afford rather than feel the need to "broadcast" 24/7. If that means they revert to a smaller number of hours of quality content, then so be it. At the moment, they seem intent on filling all the hours of the day just for the sake of putting in time. I can't understand why the commercial channels haven't succeeded in challenging the current use of state-aid to subsidize light-entertainment and news services on RTE? Perhaps the heavy-weights such as Netflix, Apple & Amazon will start to challenge this in the EU resulting either in the licence fee being taken away from RTE or evenly distributed across other content providers?

It is clear to me that a streaming service that provides live broadcast channels should require a licence. Until that is challenged in a court case, it is a moot point.

On the provision of content:

The notion that RTE puts out low grade USA TV programmes at off peak times as a way of filling a schedule is somehow a good use of licence fee money is beyond any defence. However, they tend to be used as place holders to keep viewers watching.

Maybe the judge of it should be: 'Does the advertising revenue gained during the transmission pay for the royalty fees for the particular programme?' If it does, then OK. Is it better to have home grown low grade programmes produced at much higher cost than to get foreign cheap filler programmes?

A good example is how TG4 prefers to show filler programmes rather than turn off the transmitter. Is that a bit counter to their reason to exist?

Sleepy

I think you might be chasing a red herring with the 24 hours broadcasting stuff tbh. Once the content is cheap enough (e.g. old movie and tv series packages acquired cheaply or re-runs of their own back catalogue etc.) it shouldn't be difficult to make a profit out of early hours broadcasting. Cheap content and cheaply sold adverts turn a profit for a huge array of FTA satellite providers, why shouldn't it for RTE?

Sam Russell

Sleepy wrote: »

I think you might be chasing a red herring with the 24 hours broadcasting stuff tbh. Once the content is cheap enough (e.g. old movie and tv series packages acquired cheaply or re-runs of their own back catalogue etc.) it shouldn't be difficult to make a profit out of early hours broadcasting. Cheap content and cheaply sold adverts turn a profit for a huge array of FTA satellite providers, why shouldn't it for RTE?

The point being made by some posters was that such broadcasting should not appear on a channel funded by the licence fee. If it is cheap as chips TV, and it is paid for by in vision ads, then it is not an issue.

It might be an issue from a cultural point of view.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

The point being made by some posters was that such broadcasting should not appear on a channel funded by the licence fee. If it is cheap as chips TV, and it is paid for by in vision ads, then it is not an issue.

It might be an issue from a cultural point of view.

I guess it is what one would expect from a Public Service broadcaster that makes the difference.
If education and culture and such like are not top priorities then of course fillers of any old rubbish is acceptable