Broadcasting charge

View

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's like in Greece where they included your TV licence in your electricity bill so you couldn't avoid paying.

In Switzerland they include it in your cable TV or satellite TV bill. It's kinda of hard to claim you don't have a TV if you have cable TV or satellite TV services. :-)

View

Waestrel wrote: »

Can yo illustrate how society is served by Fade Street, partial news broadcasting and overpaid, moderately talented Celebrities?

It's an economic stimulus package for Dublin 4. :-)

nice_guy80

When is this charge being introduced?

There will be civil unrest with all the charges and taxes being brought in.

ardmacha

Now that Irish water know how many live in each they should make it €50 a skull.

Godge

nice_guy80 wrote: »

When is this charge being introduced?

There will be civil unrest with all the charges and taxes being brought in.

It is just a change in name of the TV licence, it will only affect a small number of people who do not have a TV licence.

Rightwing

nice_guy80 wrote: »

When is this charge being introduced?

There will be civil unrest with all the charges and taxes being brought in.

Rabbitte thought he was smart with this charge......alas... he's still sulking.

Chuckle chuckle.

BarryM

Rightwing wrote: »

Rabbitte thought he was smart with this charge......alas... he's still sulking.

Chuckle chuckle.

Well now, we might get lucky here. Even a bunch as incompetent as the present **** won't try it just now.

After the GE?? but that depends on who forms the gove then.... so, we might be spared. OTOH, they need the money, even if the number of tellys is going down and less people are watching tele, they'll want to keep RTE, or the like. Cannot be relying on broadcasting outfits ye don't own.

BarryM

Rightwing wrote: »

Rabbitte thought he was smart with this charge......alas... he's still sulking.

Chuckle chuckle.

Well now, we might get lucky here. Even a bunch as incompetent as the present **** won't try it just now.

After the GE?? but that depends on who forms the gove then.... so, we might be spared. OTOH, they need the money, even if the number of tellys is going down and less people are watching tele, they'll want to keep RTE, or the like. Cannot be relying on broadcasting outfits ye don't own.

BarryM

Rightwing wrote: »

Rabbitte thought he was smart with this charge......alas... he's still sulking.

Chuckle chuckle.

Well now, we might get lucky here. Even a bunch as incompetent as the present **** won't try it just now.

After the GE?? but that depends on who forms the gove then.... so, we might be spared. OTOH, they need the money, even if the number of tellys is going down and less people are watching tele, they'll want to keep RTE, or the like. Cannot be relying on broadcasting outfits ye don't own.

BoJack Horseman

nice_guy80 wrote: »

There will be civil unrest with all the charges and taxes being brought in.

It already is in.

Its been 'in' for decades.

There wasn't any civil unrest for far higher tax increases, & the communist fringe parties don't seem to care.

I doubt there will be a peep.

mistermouse

The tax (and it is a tax) certainly should not be to prop up RTE. RTE is an organisation in decline, one way or another. I'd imagine online news and viewing content will grow as people medium of choice

RTE couldn't really be seen as a public broadcaster in the real sense, further more in its current guise should be made stand on its own two feet commercially.

The Fall and Love Hate are as I understand them, funded partly by RTE but produced by independent companies. Love Hate is probably hailed as an RTE success, but its not exactly RTE doing much

The BBC model, whom also fund quite alot of what are deemed Irish programming or made on the Island is a much better model.

No matter how they name it, the broadcasting charge will end up being a RTE subsidy for a service not fit for purpose or indeed as relevant as it once was.

Godge

mistermouse wrote: »

The tax (and it is a tax) certainly should not be to prop up RTE. RTE is an organisation in decline, one way or another. I'd imagine online news and viewing content will grow as people medium of choice

RTE couldn't really be seen as a public broadcaster in the real sense, further more in its current guise should be made stand on its own two feet commercially.

The Fall and Love Hate are as I understand them, funded partly by RTE but produced by independent companies. Love Hate is probably hailed as an RTE success, but its not exactly RTE doing much

The BBC model, whom also fund quite alot of what are deemed Irish programming or made on the Island is a much better model.

No matter how they name it, the broadcasting charge will end up being a RTE subsidy for a service not fit for purpose or indeed as relevant as it once was.

It is the TV licence by another name, you already pay it.

ardmacha

mistermouse wrote: »

The BBC model, whom also fund quite alot of what are deemed Irish programming or made on the Island is a much better model.

No matter how they name it, the broadcasting charge will end up being a RTE subsidy for a service not fit for purpose or indeed as relevant as it once was.

I don't get this. The BBC mode is a payment by householders, exactly what is proposed.

dlouth15

ardmacha wrote: »

I don't get this. The BBC mode is a payment by householders, exactly what is proposed.

Payment by TV owning households as opposed to all households.

W1ll1s

mistermouse wrote: »

The BBC model, whom also fund quite alot of what are deemed Irish programming or made on the Island is a much better model.

Defiantly better in lots of ways... not least their News Video Streaming.
RTE's is sooo unreliable in comparison.

dlouth15

My problem with the broadcasting charge is that things are moving away from the scheduled programming a fixed number of channels. I can see why the broadcasting charge is popular in RTE. What happens, RTE might worry, if over the course of five to ten years, people start moving towards on-demand web streaming. Sooner or later they would wonder why they need a TV. Large TV sized monitors would begin to be sold that had no receiver in them, but allowed web streaming and DVD and blu-ray playing. What need, from the consumer point of view, of the conventional TV channels and associated licence fee. How then would RTE pay it's salary and pensions? It would have to act like a normal company and provide what people want?

Much better the household broadcasting charge. Then people can do whatever the hell they want. They can ditch the TV for streaming services, but the great thing from RTE's point of view is they are still forced to pay RTE regardless. Pensions and salaries are guaranteed!

Right. Here's what should really be done. RTE should be split into a) a public service programme maker and commissioner of programming, and b) a commercial broadcaster and content distributor.

The a) part would be a relatively small operation mainly concerned with commissioning programmes with a public service remit. They would be subsidised with general taxation but would also make money by selling this subsidised output to commercial distributers. I use the word distributor rather than broadcaster because I believe that broadcasting will just be one of the means of distributing content in the future. Content would also be sold to other countries.

The b) part would be a purely private entity and would compete with TV3 as well as foreign commerical outfits. They would be free purchase the output of a) along with whatever else they might want to show. They could use the traditional broadcasting advertising model but would also have the incentive to make use of subscription or pay-to-view web services as they see fit. If they failed commercially they would fold like any other company. The state would have no obligation towards them.

Rightwing

dlouth15 wrote: »

My problem with the broadcasting charge is that things are moving away from the scheduled programming a fixed number of channels. I can see why the broadcasting charge is popular in RTE. What happens, RTE might worry, if over the course of five to ten years, people start moving towards on-demand web streaming. Sooner or later they would wonder why they need a TV. Large TV sized monitors would begin to be sold that had no receiver in them, but allowed web streaming and DVD and blu-ray playing. What need, from the consumer point of view, of the conventional TV channels and associated licence fee. How then would RTE pay it's salary and pensions? It would have to act like a normal company and provide what people want?

Much better the household broadcasting charge. Then people can do whatever the hell they want. They can ditch the TV for streaming services, but the great thing from RTE's point of view is they are still forced to pay RTE regardless. Pensions and salaries are guaranteed!

Right. Here's what should really be done. RTE should be split into a) a public service programme maker and commissioner of programming, and b) a commercial broadcaster and content distributor.

The a) part would be a relatively small operation mainly concerned with commissioning programmes with a public service remit. They would be subsidised with general taxation but would also make money by selling this subsidised output to commercial distributers. I use the word distributor rather than broadcaster because I believe that broadcasting will just be one of the means of distributing content in the future. Content would also be sold to other countries.

The b) part would be a purely private entity and would compete with TV3 as well as foreign commerical outfits. They would be free purchase the output of a) along with whatever else they might want to show. They could use the traditional broadcasting advertising model but would also have the incentive to make use of subscription or pay-to-view web services as they see fit. If they failed commercially they would fold like any other company. The state would have no obligation towards them.

Your first paragraph has succinctly hit the nail on the nail. Only a fool would believe it is to trap non payers of the license.

robp

dlouth15 wrote: »

Payment by TV owning households as opposed to all households.

The BBC approach is unworkable. As far as I can recall you pay if watch live programmes on the BBC site but if you watch old shows on the BBC site you don't have to pay. Relying on honestly to that extent is asking for trouble. It is far better to tax everyone like Germany and avoid the hassle of policing. One in ten UK court cases relate to to non payment of TV license.

dlouth15

robp wrote: »

The BBC approach is unworkable. As far as I can recall you pay if watch live programmes on the BBC site but if you watch old shows on the BBC site you don't have to pay. Relying on honestly to that extent is asking for trouble. It is far better to tax everyone like Germany and avoid the hassle of policing. One in ten UK court cases relate to to non payment of TV license.

Well, it would be fairly easy to have it so that web content like archived TV programmes are available only to those with a valid licence or others with no licence but on a paid subscription basis. That way those who wanted RTE content could pay for it and those who didn't wouldn't have to pay. Not strictly the BBC approach but one that might suit Ireland.

Of course not as easy as simply charging everyone regardless of whether they wanted RTE content, but in my view it is not fair to extract money from the entire population when the desire for RTE content varies so much among people.

Sheldons Brain

dlouth15 wrote: »

Of course not as easy as simply charging everyone regardless of whether they wanted RTE content, but in my view it is not fair to extract money from the entire population when the desire for RTE content varies so much among people.

There is value in public service broadcasting and this has to be paid for. Some people may value this more than others, but many taxes are levied for things where people's demand for the service varies. Indeed people are out marching to ensure that this is the case.

The public service aspect of broadcasting might be more tightly defined and other broadcasters should be able to apply for support for particular activities.

dlouth15

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

There is value in public service broadcasting and this has to be paid for. Some people may value this more than others, but many taxes are levied for things where people's demand for the service varies. Indeed people are out marching to ensure that this is the case.

The public service aspect of broadcasting might be more tightly defined and other broadcasters should be able to apply for support for particular activities.

Whilst I'm not against charging for water I think difference is that water is a commodity product. You only get to choose the amount of it you consume.

People do already voluntarily pay for TV services. Look at the amount of people with Sky or UPC. The thing is they have the choice whether or not to pay for Sky.

RTE is like Rupert Murdoch's wet dream. You have to pay for it whether or not you like it and in future whether or not you even have a TV.

I agree with your second paragraph about tightening up the public service aspect of it and making it available to other broadcasters (and I would add non-broadcasting distributers). But if something is genuinely for the public good then we have general taxation for that.

JTMan

Alex White says the broadcasting charge is the next governments problem ...http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/broadcasting-charge-will-go-ahead-alex-white-30879222.html

Rightwing

JTMan wrote: »

Alex White says the broadcasting charge is the next governments problem ...http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/broadcasting-charge-will-go-ahead-alex-white-30879222.html

This Government has failed on the minor things, honours in the big things.

However, someone forgot to tell them that the minor things count just as much to the man on the street. Good riddance to them.

BoJack Horseman

I doubt the next government will want to pick up that can either.