Broadcasting charge

alastair

spank_inferno wrote: »

Still waiting for an example.

That was just a rant.

By my count I listed four there - but knock yourself out with the dissembling.

spank_inferno

alastair wrote: »

By my count I listed four there - but knock yourself out with the dissembling.

Take the news:
RTE vs TV3

Where is the difference?

The content is the same.
Their reporters will be both at the same press conferences etc.

What is it about us all paying a €160 annual poll tax that makes RTE news so much better than TV3 news?

When there is little difference in content & delivery?

alastair

spank_inferno wrote: »

Take the news:
RTE vs TV3

Where is the difference?

The content is the same.

Seriously?

Sorry - you're too far gone there friend.

spank_inferno

alastair wrote: »

Seriously?

Sorry - you're too far gone there friend.

prove me wrong.

that's the thing Ali.

I've read for several pages you flying the flag for the State broadcaster.
But you have yet to show how not having this poll tax is detrimental to Ireland.
(Many of us here think there is no negative implication from householders not paying this tax).

again.... you say you have given examples.
Saying "BBC vs ITV.... RTE vs TV3" is not an example.... that is just your opinion.


So once again.... please provide an example of where media funded through a poll tax must be superior and necessary compared to content paid for by those who wish to consume it?

alastair

spank_inferno wrote: »

prove me wrong.

that's the thing Ali.

How exactly would you expect TV3 News to be anywhere near as comprehensive (ignoring all the obvious issues of regional and foreign correspondents, budget allocation, resources etc) given that it's less than half the duration - nearer a third of time allocated to all stories. Surely it's self-evident? News coverage is expensive, and there's no commercial motivation for TV3 to do more than the minimum they do. Vincent Browne might be affordable gold-dust for them - but it doesn't cover the cracks.

alastair

spank_inferno wrote: »

again.... you say you have given examples.
Saying "BBC vs ITV.... RTE vs TV3" is not an example.... that is just your opinion.

A subjective opinion shared by audience share, critical awards, and pretty much any objective criteria.

carpejugulum

alastair wrote: »

A subjective opinion shared by audience share, critical awards, and pretty much any objective criteria.

Why is it not paid by the audience only, i.e. the way every other medium is paid?

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

Why is it not paid by the audience only, i.e. the way every other medium is paid?

You've never watched or listened to public-funded broadcasts then? I can think of very few people who could make that claim. None in fact.

Cody Pomeray

So what's your point alastair, once you've over heard Derek Mooney squawking on the airwaves, you're morally obliged to pay the broadcasting charge for life?

I can understand there being a legal obligation, but you seem to be establishing or implying some use-dependent construction there yourself alastair.

alastair

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

So what's your point alastair, once you've over heard Derek Mooney squawking on the airwaves, you're morally obliged to pay the broadcasting charge for life?

I can understand there being a legal obligation, but you seem to be establishing or implying some use-dependent construction there yourself alastair.

I think the move away from the TV tuner licence mechanism is a more honest approach - that's the point. The levy is to subsidise public broadcasting, and the degree of state support that the nominally independent broadcasters also receive. Given that pretty much everyone is the audience for this broadcasting, even if only for radio/kids programmes/opera/whatever, then a household-based charge for the same makes quite a bit of sense. My only problem would be on exemptions - I see no reason why the same exemptions that apply to the licence fee, shouldn't continue under a broadcast tax.

Cody Pomeray

alastair wrote: »

Given that pretty much everyone is the audience for this broadcasting

ah so you are leaning on a universal irish audience.

I think that argument is rapidly bleeding relevance.

I frequently encounter university students who wouldn't have a clue who Miriam o'callaghan or Pat kenny are. It's a rapidly developing phenomenon brought on by the pervasiveness of the internet. The universal usage argument is one that was relevant in 1963, but it falls away with every year.

"The Media" (big M) that today's politicians perceive is not the same media that a lot of people use in society.

The latter is often the purest form of media and, for all its trivia, often the most important.

Like with most public services, either what the public is paying for needs to improve, or we must revise the necessity of retaining it.

carpejugulum

alastair wrote: »

I think the move away from the TV tuner licence mechanism is a more honest approach - that's the point. The levy is to subsidise public broadcasting, and the degree of state support that the nominally independent broadcasters also receive. Given that pretty much everyone is the audience for this broadcasting, even if only for radio/kids programmes/opera/whatever, then a household-based charge for the same makes quite a bit of sense. My only problem would be on exemptions - I see no reason why the same exemptions that apply to the licence fee, shouldn't continue under a broadcast tax.

And again, if that is the point, it should be paid from general taxation. Having a separate regressive tax is unfair and unnecessary.

Damien360

alastair wrote: »

I think the move away from the TV tuner licence mechanism is a more honest approach - that's the point. The levy is to subsidise public broadcasting, and the degree of state support that the nominally independent broadcasters also receive. Given that pretty much everyone is the audience for this broadcasting, even if only for radio/kids programmes/opera/whatever, then a household-based charge for the same makes quite a bit of sense. My only problem would be on exemptions - I see no reason why the same exemptions that apply to the licence fee, shouldn't continue under a broadcast tax.

The issue with the tax is we are funding an organisation that is run as an old public service monster with no accountability. Especially when it comes to pay and conditions. The competition does not pay even remotely the same. We are funding monster salaries for very little decent content with no reason for the monster salary.

Comparisons to UK should be thrown out as we have the population of Manchester. I would look at radio manchester (non BBC to have advertising income as comparison) salaries as a good comparison.

The charge should be shared equally to other organisations but until the issue of salaries and runaway spending is under full control it will never happen.

For example, TodayFM has public service content equal to RTE Radio 1. It should get a fair share. RTE pulse and 2FM has no public service content and should be run on it's profit from advertising. Salaries would have to be in line with income from advertising. TV3 has same public service content as RTE1 but gets nothing. Their salaries are representative of their income from advertising. Even those salaries should be used as a benchmark for RTE salaries in TV.

The broadcasting charge should not be a license to print money for RTE "Z-listers".

alastair

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I frequently encounter university students who wouldn't have a clue who Miriam o'callaghan or Pat kenny are. It's a rapidly developing phenomenon brought on by the pervasiveness of the internet. The universal usage argument is one that was relevant in 1963, but it falls away with every year.

Hold your horses. Maybe they don't know Pat, but they would more likely know John Giles, or Barry Murphy, or David McSavage, or a bunch of figures more likely to appeal to their generation. Media fragmentation is a reality, but there's still a significant chunk of both the TV and radio programming that's dominated by an RTE audience - and it isn't all 'oul ones fixated on Fair City and the Late Late.

alastair

Damien360 wrote: »

For example, TodayFM has public service content equal to RTE Radio 1.

Honestly? You really believe that? How does their programme of, say, radio plays compare? Oh... they don't produce any... How about religious programming then? Oh...

Damien360 wrote: »

TV3 has same public service content as RTE1 but gets nothing.

TV3 has got millions from the TV licence too, don't forget. It has nowhere near the same public service content as RTE, it doesn't even have anywhere near the same ratio of original commissioned programming - despite RTE doing increasingly badly on this front themselves since the boom years. Maybe they need more Psychics Live?

thebman

alastair wrote: »

How exactly would you expect TV3 News to be anywhere near as comprehensive (ignoring all the obvious issues of regional and foreign correspondents, budget allocation, resources etc) given that it's less than half the duration - nearer a third of time allocated to all stories. Surely it's self-evident? News coverage is expensive, and there's no commercial motivation for TV3 to do more than the minimum they do. Vincent Browne might be affordable gold-dust for them - but it doesn't cover the cracks.

TV3 and many of the private operators cover plenty of stories RTE doesn't cover because they fall too close to government who have to approve their public broadcaster funding....

If RTE was actually a public broadcaster then the government would have no say in how much funding they get.

As it stands, it is a government propaganda mouth piece.

Phoebas

thebman wrote: »

If RTE was actually a public broadcaster then the government would have no say in how much funding they get.

Interesting idea.
What kind of funding mechanism would you envisage for public service broadcasting that wouldn't involve the government having any say whatsoever in the level of funding?

wolf99

If they were a public broadcaster they would have public content only - no advertising every two bloody minutes. Then there would be much more of a case for being publicly funded, even by those that dont avail of the service.

As it is they are actually a partly publicly-funded broadcaster. They are funded in other manners and have no real accountability to either the ratings or the government.

To mention a point on the discussion a few posts ago - I recently graduated from third level education and know who Miriam et al are but have, for the last 5 years or so, owned neither a TV or radio, nor wanted to. I find that 99.9% of the content is just mindless, irrelevant, drivel. I really would have more fun banging my head against a wall.

The only time I have been exposed to any of this stuff in that time is in public, where not only do the broadcasters have to pay TV license they also have to pay fees to IRMA and PPI (or if it's not public media then extra fees to the service provider, such as Sky's bar sports packages). Its still drivel though.

The point being that this service is so poor I have purposefully taken pro-active steps in preventing it from "infecting" my poor little noggin. Yet I still have to pay for it. Whats more in paying for it I would be paying for other people to be spoon-fed something that I see as being bad for them!

maninasia

thebman wrote: »

I don't have an issue with the charge but I do think the TV station RTE, should be privatized.

This is why they can actually get this charge into Ireland, in most countries they'd be told to f' off straight away.

How about charging for the air you breath?

alastair

maninasia wrote: »

This is why they can actually get this charge into Ireland, in most countries they'd be told to f' off straight away.

A view slightly undermined by the fact that most states fund public broadcasting through a similar model.

maninasia

Really, that's news to me. It also doesn't make it right. They'll put this in and there'll be hardly a whimper out of the public.

Cody Pomeray

alastair wrote: »

Hold your horses. Maybe they don't know Pat, but they would more likely know John Giles, or Barry Murphy, or David McSavage, or a bunch of figures more likely to appeal to their generation. Media fragmentation is a reality, but there's still a significant chunk of both the TV and radio programming that's dominated by an RTE audience - and it isn't all 'oul ones fixated on Fair City and the Late Late.

No, in mentioning those two presenters, I wasn't suggesting it was only them that these students do not know.

The people I have encountered are completely disconnected from the state broadcaster, They just don't have any awareness of RTE 'stars'. They download TV series online, download whatever music they want, and get their news from online sources. The days of a family sitting down in front of the 9 o'clock news are long gone. The state 'broadcaster', like many traditional media, needs to face up to the changes or go extinct.

Mr.Micro

maninasia wrote: »

Really, that's news to me. It also doesn't make it right. They'll put this in and there'll be hardly a whimper out of the public.

In fairness, what can the public do, once it is launched? What I would be unhappy with, is, if RTE was to continue with the lions share of the advertizing allowance and state funding as well. Other independent broadcasters should be given more as well, either in the amount of adverts or some funding as well. There needs to be a shake up at RTE and not be like a kept mistress that thinks she is entitled and thats that.

alastair

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No, in mentioning those two presenters, I wasn't suggesting it was only them that these students do not know.

The people I have encountered are completely disconnected from the state broadcaster, They just don't have any awareness of RTE 'stars'. They download TV series online, download whatever music they want, and get their news from online sources. The days of a family sitting down in front of the 9 o'clock news are long gone. The state 'broadcaster', like many traditional media, needs to face up to the changes or go extinct.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that families all sat down to watch the 9'o clock news, but I wouldn't make any judgements from one niche of students. RTE has an ongoing broadcast market penetration that's very healthy, and that's in the face of long-standing competition and market fragmentation. Third level students would never have been a particularly active TV audience, even in the days of entire families sitting down to watch the news. For obvious reasons.

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

In fairness, what can the public do, once it is launched? What I would be unhappy with, is, if RTE was to continue with the lions share of the advertizing allowance and state funding as well. Other independent broadcasters should be given more as well, either in the amount of adverts or some funding as well. There needs to be a shake up at RTE and not be like a kept mistress that thinks she is entitled and thats that.

You've got things backwards a bit. There's a heavier cap on advertising on RTE than there is on independent broadcasters. The 'lion's share' of advertising therefore is outside RTE.

Mr.Micro

alastair wrote: »

You've got things backwards a bit. There's a heavier cap on advertising on RTE than there is on independent broadcasters. The 'lion's share' of advertising therefore is outside RTE.

My apologies. The independents do not have any other funding but from adverts etc. Whilst RTE has both.

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

My apologies. The independents do not have any other funding but from adverts etc. Whilst RTE has both.

Yes, and it has much higher overheads than the independents - given it's public broadcasting commitment. Most other European public broadcasters also require a mix of levy and advertising-led funding too.

http://www.joe.ie/entertainment/television/rte-spent-e45000-a-day-on-orchestras-over-six-year-period/

RTE spent €45,000 A DAY on orchestras over six-year-period

RTE runs five orchestras and choirs ( The National Symphony Orchestra, the National Concert Orchestra, The Philharmonic Choir, The Vanburgh Quartet and Cor na nOg) and combined they cost just shy of €100million to run from the years 2006 to 2011. These are the most recent figures the paper could obtain through a Freedom of Information request.

That works out at €1.4m a month, or €45,185 a day, a huge amount in anyone’s language.

No oversight, nobody ever batted an eyelid as it went on and on. Is it still going on? Is this what our taxes are paying for?

If you ask me they have been making fools out of tax payers

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.joe.ie/entertainment/television/rte-spent-e45000-a-day-on-orc

No oversight, nobody ever batted an eyelid as it went on and on. Is it still going on? Is this what our taxes are paying for?

If you ask me they have been making fools out of tax payers

You've been paying €3 a week (assuming you have a TV licence) in taxes to support the orchestras, as well as the rest of activities from RTE, TG4, and whatever supports the independent broadcasters get from that fund. So, yeah, it's part of what your taxes are paying for. It's a lot of money, for sure, but national orchestras don't come cheap. Is it over the odds? Dunno. The Scottish government spends £27 million per annum on a roughly similar set of Arts provision, but they have an Opera in the mix, and there's additional Arts Council and Lottery funding on top of that. Swings and roundabouts. The six BBC orchestras and choral groups cost £32.3 million per annum to run - and they pull in £3.2 million a year.

Keep in mind also, that the RTE orchestras brought back in €15 million over those years, and there's a couple of hundred jobs supported by the expenditure.

jman0war

Not a great return on investment.
Plus you'd have to wonder did they include the running costs of the National Concert Hall?
I'm suspecting that comes out a different taxpayer pool.

alastair

jman0war wrote: »

Not a great return on investment.
Plus you'd have to wonder did they include the running costs of the National Concert Hall?
I'm suspecting that comes out a different taxpayer pool.

It's a better return on investment than the BBC orchestras though (€15 million back on €100 million spent versus £16 million back on £161 million spent). Their (The BBC orchestras) venue overheads aren't included in their figures either.

That isn`t an investment. It is a clear loss. You get your money back from an investment plus what you made.
We don`t get that 100 million back.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

That isn`t an investment. It is a clear loss. You get your money back from an investment plus what you made.
We don`t get that 100 million back.

It isn't meant to be a profitable (or even break-even) financial investment. It still results in a better financial return for expenditure than the BBC example.

jman0war

alastair wrote: »

It's a better return on investment than the BBC orchestras though (€15 million back on €100 million spent versus £16 million back on £161 million spent). Their (The BBC orchestras) venue overheads aren't included in their figures either.

Who cares what the BBC do?

alastair

jman0war wrote: »

Who cares what the BBC do?

The Irish TV license payer presumably has some interest in establishing if their money is being wasted. The BBC orchestras offer a handy comparison. Would you rather just vent without any context?

alastair

alastair wrote: »

It isn't meant to be a profitable (or even break-even) financial investment. It still results in a better financial return for expenditure than the BBC example.

Yes it is a total loss. Yet you claim it is an investment.

jman0war

alastair wrote: »

The Irish TV license payer presumably has some interest in establishing if their money is being wasted. The BBC orchestras offer a handy comparison. Would you rather just vent without any context?

The comment about RTE not representing a good return on investment was said in the context of real world marketplace economics.

Whereas your deflection saying "oh look, the BBC is even worse!", seems a little irrelevant.

I know I`d rather cut the orchestra than cut cancer services if we are going to be paying for this through taxes.
Unnecessary splendor for a bankrupt state

alastair

jman0war wrote: »

The comment about RTE not representing a good return on investment was said in the context of real world marketplace economics.

Whereas your deflection saying "oh look, the BBC is even worse!", seems a little irrelevant.

Eh, how exactly is a public broadcaster supposed to be operating in 'real world marketplace economics'? It's inherently operating on a subsidised basis. RTE's orchestra return on expenditure appears to be better than the BBC's. Where you're missing the point escapes me.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

I know I`d rather cut the orchestra than cut cancer services if we are going to be paying for this through taxes.
Unnecessary splendor for a bankrupt state

How much of your TV licence fee currently goes towards cancer services?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes it is a total loss. Yet you claim it is an investment.

Every aspect of public broadcasting is a total loss - it's not a profitable venture. It's a cultural investment, and on the basis of purely financial expenditure/income the orchestral side of things seems to do better than the BBC.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

How much of your TV licence fee currently goes towards cancer services?

It is all taxation isn`t it. Ireland is broke. Hasn`t been able to borrow on the market for years. Everything is being cut back.

Good sense would have RTE cut from public funding 100% and the money collected in tax diverted to essential services.
Have RTE survive on advertisements and the Orchestra nonsense go on their earnings from concerts. Comparisons to the BBC is ridiculous. There are 60 million+ people in the UK and they aren`t a bankrupt state. And also the UK can do whatever it wants, Irish taxpayers don`t pay for it.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

It is all taxation isn`t it. Ireland is broke. Hasn`t been able to borrow on the market for years. Everything is being cut back.

Good sense would have RTE cut from public funding 100% and the money collected in tax diverted to essential services.
Have RTE survive on advertisements and the Orchestra nonsense go on their earnings from concerts. Comparisons to the BBC is ridiculous. There are 60 million+ people in the UK and they aren`t a bankrupt state. And also the UK can do whatever it wants, Irish taxpayers don`t pay for it.

The population of the UK is something of a red herring - they pay more for their TV licence than we do, and they (on a financial basis only) seem to get a worse deal for their national broadcaster's orchestra funding than we do. So - we're paying less, getting more, and all within the terms of a smaller tax base to support it.

If we have a direct taxation provision for public broadcasting - which we do, it doesn't really impact on any cancer services, or anything outside the scope of the TV licence. It's always been a separate entity from general taxation - same as commercial rates or whatever.

jman0war

alastair wrote: »

The population of the UK is something of a red herring - they pay more for their TV licence than we do, and they (on a financial basis only) seem to get a worse deal for their national broadcaster's orchestra funding than we do. So - we're paying less, getting more, and all within the terms of a smaller tax base to support it.

Actually, they can afford their public service broadcaster much more than we can.
We infact, are in an imf bailout regime because we cannot afford our public services.

OMD

alastair wrote: »

The population of the UK is something of a red herring - they pay more for their TV licence than we do, and they (on a financial basis only) seem to get a worse deal for their national broadcaster's orchestra funding than we do. So - we're paying less, getting more, and all within the terms of a smaller tax base to support it.

Where are you getting this from?
Where are your figures?
How many free concerts does RTE do compared to BBC orchestras?
What is cost of seeing a BBC orchestra compared to RTE?
How does the quality of the orchestras compare?
Otherwise you are simply talking nonsense.

alastair

jman0war wrote: »

Actually, they can afford their public service broadcaster much more than we can.
We infact, are in an imf bailout regime because we cannot afford our public services.

And yet people still keep paying for their TV licences. Leaving aside the whole broadcast tax issue, this would suggest that people are choosing to retain their telly service - and support public broadcasting. Not one cent went to RTE that wasn't paid for by someone who felt they couldn't do without their telly licence - they felt they could afford the €160.

alastair

OMD wrote: »

Where are you getting this from?
Where are your figures?
How many free concerts does RTE do compared to BBC orchestras?
What is cost of seeing a BBC orchestra compared to RTE?
How does the quality of the orchestras compare?
Otherwise you are simply talking nonsense.

The figures are publically available. I've made no claim as to the quality of the performances (surely a subjective area anyway?) - just the subsidy costs.

dlouth15

alastair wrote: »

And yet people still keep paying for their TV licences. Leaving aside the whole broadcast tax issue, this would suggest that people are choosing to retain their telly service - and support public broadcasting. Not one cent went to RTE that wasn't paid for by someone who felt they couldn't do without their telly licence - they felt they could afford the €160.

I think you may be confusing wanting to watch TV with wanting to watch RTE.

alastair

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think you may be confusing wanting to watch TV with wanting to watch RTE.

It doesn't really matter. It's currently open to everyone to remove that €160 tax from their outgoings. Not many do. Therefore they're making a decision that they can afford the €3 a week per household to watch the gogglebox.

dlouth15

alastair wrote: »

It doesn't really matter. It's currently open to everyone to remove that €160 tax from their outgoings. Not many do. Therefore they're making a decision that they can afford the €3 a week per household to watch the gogglebox.

According the the article quoted in the opening post, 1 in 5 households don't pay the RTE tax. This means that 1 in 5 either have no television (i.e. foregoing all television, not merely RTE) or have a TV and are risking prosecution. That's quite a high proportion.