RTE, soarview and tv license

DonkeyStyle \o/

The new levy is being considered in a bid to ensure people who view public service broadcasting online will not be able to avoid paying.

And for the people who don't view public service broadcasting online, but still need the equipment? Will every office in the country need a TV licence now because they have computers?
This really underlines the whole problem, it's not the 1960's any more, there are reasons to own a TV or computer other than to watch drivel from RTE.
Maybe they could encrypt saorview and make it a subscription service, let the people who use it pay for it. They don't seem to have a problem doing this for water.

PickledLime

robbie7730 wrote: »

Its not the same thing really. You need a licence for a television set.

A tv set under the current licence definition will not be a tv set after aso if it is not a saorview capable one. It will be nothing more than a monitor under the licence definition. And a tv licence is not needed for a monitor.

So if someone has just a tv (non saorview) now for a ps3, they should not need a licence, just like they wouldn`t if using a projector with a ps3. Someone with a skybox and analogue tv will, as that will be a tv set under the licence definition.

But like I said a couple of years ago that if everyone used projectors overnight instead of tv`s, the tv licence name would change, amd so it will likely change to accommodate this and every other possible way of availing of the service.

The reality is, they simply want everyone to pay, regardless of whether they avail of the service or not. Tv licences really have little to do with tv`s.

Bang on the money. When the analogue signal is switched off, my ability to receive television signals goes with it. My TV is used to play games on, watch the very occasional dvd and used as a computer monitor, but yet i'm expected to subsidise the production costs of Fair City and the like?

If i'm not receiving TV signals, then it should work one of two ways:
1. No TV signal, no money from my wallet gets paid out, as i'm not availing of their service.
2. If i'm forced to pay, then i should be supplied (at no extra cost) with the required equipment for me to receive and display a TV signal.

Makes my blood boil really. But we're not learning anything new here, we know the government are crooks anyway.

Bruthal

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If you brought it back to the shop and tried to tell them it is not a TV set I wonder how you would get on. It will receive and display TV images if you connect it to the proper equipment. This from the link I gave earlier.

So will a projector. Does that need a licence now, if the owner has no other equipment?
A shops definition of what a tv set is, is not the same as what the licencing definition is. If I bring the projector back to a shop along with a sky box, they will not see it as a tv set. The licencing definition will though.

The position is that once a television set is capable of displaying conventional television broadcasting services e.g. RTÉ One, TV3 and BBC One then the licensing requirement applies.

A non analogue television is a television set today by the licencing definition.

It will not be a television set after oct 24th unless it has other equipment with it. It will simply be a monitor.

Bruthal

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you have a satellite dish or satellite receiver or any saorview box, or a TV tuner card that has a raw feed.

I would be truly shocked if there was a loop hole for cable TV. So I'd guess that it's considered broadcast and any type of set top box is a receiver


IIRC because of a change in the law you can now watch TV on a screen smaller than 7" without a license (portable)

Yea once you have any other item such as a set top box or sky box, there is no doubt about being liable.

If however, a person only has a tv for dvd player, ps3 etc, and its a non saorview tv, they are not in posession of a tv set capabale of receiving a television signal. It is simply a monitor.

gobnaitolunacy

robbie7730 wrote: »

It will not be a television set after oct 24th unless it has other equipment with it. It will simply be a monitor.

....which you are still liable for a licence fee even after the switchoff!

Bruthal

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

....which you are still liable for a licence fee even after the switchoff!

They will likely tell us we do, as they have fooled many into thinking it really is a licence to own the item you are buying in the shop. What it really is, is a tax by association. And they will try associate everything that plugs into a 13 amp socket with being capable of receiving a signal if they can.

gobnaitolunacy

They will, eventually, with a broadcasting charge.

Bruthal

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

They will, eventually, with a broadcasting charge.

Exactly. Thats the idea. So someone with a laptop and nothing else, will be expected to pay. Like I always said, they simply want everyone to pay, and up till recently, association with a tv was good enough for their needs.

SouthTippBass

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You could attach it to a satellite dish and box and then it would receive them.

And with the right equipment, I can connect my microwave to a saorview box and have it display the signal. Does that mean I need a license for my microwave?

Fact is, after the 24th of this month, the tax is outdated and needs to be revised. I'm not paying currently as I only use the set for PS3, and I'l be dammed if RTE are getting a cent from me.

The_B_Man

Is the wording "capable of receiving" or "capable of displaying" a signal?
If its the latter, then any TV will be capable of "displaying" a signal with extra equipment.

If you don't have the extra equipment, it means you dont receive a signal, but its still possible you can receive a signal.

saiint

why do we need a licence for a tele? its not like were going to drive it....

Dravokivich

ilovesleep wrote: »

Without the extra equipment you will not be able to watch television. You'll be watching a fuzzy, dotty screan.

Still a better love story than twillight.

Anyhow, back to the thread. No amount of sensible thinking anyone here can apply, will take away their need to purchase one. If you feel so righteous about not doing it, go you!

I however don't like how it sets an expectation that all people with pc's will have an internet connection, or that people without a tv, will have a PC to use instead. There can be many cases when this is true, but there can also be many where it is not. But it seems to be worded as posted by someone earlier with the impression everyone has it.

Bruthal

Dravokivich wrote: »

Still a better love story than twillight.

Anyhow, back to the thread. No amount of sensible thinking anyone here can apply, will take away their need to purchase one. If you feel so righteous about not doing it, go you!

I think the word righteous would more apply to people paying because the law appears to require one, even though the definition of requirement appears to say otherwise, for tv`s not capable of tuning a signal in the country next week.

I however don't like how it sets an expectation that all people with pc's will have an internet connection, or that people without a tv, will have a PC to use instead. There can be many cases when this is true, but there can also be many where it is not. But it seems to be worded as posted by someone earlier with the impression everyone has it.

Well it sets an expectation that all people with tv`s that become monitors next week, will have other devices to tune broadcast signals. And you seem to say that anyone not paying because they in effect only have a monitor next week, is being righteous.

J Mysterio

Stinicker wrote: »

Basically if you can't receive Saorview you should not pay a TV licence end of question. I know the law states otherwise but if you cannot even get reception why should you pay? It would be like paying a flat charge water rate even if you provide your own water or have no supply.

Basically no service = no payment from me. I object to the TV licence because of the waste it funds.

There was a guy who had no signal as he lived in between two mountains. Refused to pay his licence twice, had to go to court, fined e5000. Flucking disgrace.

Also, e160! WTF!

Also, I presume the 'broadcasting tax' will replace the tv licence?

J Mysterio

Geuze wrote: »

ilovesleep wrote: »

With RTE going ditigal and requiring a saorview box to get a siginal for television, would the tv license law become old and outdated? I mean you could have a television or buy a new one but it won't work without a saorview box.

You can use a new TV capable of decoding the DTT signal, so then no need for a set-top box.

Explain...

gobnaitolunacy

J Mysterio wrote: »

There was a guy who had no signal as he lived in between two mountains. Refused to pay his licence twice, had to go to court, fined e5000. Flucking disgrace.

Also, e160! WTF!

Also, I presume the 'broadcasting tax' will replace the tv licence?

Why did he bother keeping a telly then?

That's what's being put out. Knowing that lot in govt it will be a blanket charge for all, anyone thinking they're not liable will be made jump thru hoops to prove otherwise.

J Mysterio

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Why did he bother keeping a telly then?

That's what's being put out. Knowing that lot in govt it will be a blanket charge for all, anyone thinking they're not liable will be made jump thru hoops to prove otherwise.

DVDs etc.

Capt'n Midnight

saiint wrote: »

why do we need a licence for a tele? its not like were going to drive it....

Ask your dog.

ilovesleep

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Ask your dog.

This is so funny.

Dog license - maddening stuff.

chasm

J Mysterio wrote: »

Geuze wrote: »

ilovesleep wrote: »

With RTE going ditigal and requiring a saorview box to get a siginal for television, would the tv license law become old and outdated? I mean you could have a television or buy a new one but it won't work without a saorview box.

Explain...

If you have an iDTV and an aerial you do not need a saorview box.

ilovesleep

chasm wrote: »

J Mysterio wrote: »

Geuze wrote: »

If you have an iDTV and an aerial you do not need a saorview box.

But I do not have an iDTV. Remember the craze of widescreen tvs from 6,5,4, years ago? Well I have no attention of getting rid of my good tv and replacing it with an iDTV. Its fantastic for dvds and movies and game playing. There is an aerial on the house but it won't work on it's own when the switchover happens.

TheChizler

Would you need a firearms licence if the act of hunting was banned? I suspect so. You're paying for the right to possess the equipment, what you can do with it is irrelevant.

dxhound2005

Faced with a visit from a TV licence inspector all a person would have to do is unplug the aerial/satellite dish/decoder thus rendering the TV set into a monitor and not liable to be licenced. That is what I am reading from the tenet of some contributions here. But if that was tested in court I think it would not stand up.

chasm

ilovesleep wrote: »

With RTE going ditigal and requiring a saorview box to get a siginal for television, would the tv license law become old and outdated? I mean you could have a television or buy a new one but it won't work without a saorview box. It will work for dvds and game playing but not for a tv signal without a saorview box.

chasm wrote: »

If you have an iDTV and an aerial you do not need a saorview box.

You stated originally that if you bought a new TV it wouldn't work without a saorview box but that is incorrect.

gobnaitolunacy

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Faced with a visit from a TV licence inspector all a person would have to do is unplug the aerial/satellite dish/decoder thus rendering the TV set into a monitor and not liable to be licenced. That is what I am reading from the tenet of some contributions here. But if that was tested in court I think it would not stand up.

Er, no. It wouldn't.

Much simpler just not to open the door and let them in.

bbam

ilovesleep wrote: »

With RTE going ditigal and requiring a saorview box to get a siginal for television, would the tv license law become old and outdated? I mean you could have a television or buy a new one but it won't work without a saorview box. It will work for dvds and game playing but not for a tv signal without a saorview box.

You need to start thinking of a TV licence like a gun licence. You
Need the licence if you own an appliance capable of watching programmes on, whether you use the damn thing or not is your own business.

“ television set ” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus

The broadcast services which are broadcast for general reception will now be digital so your old TV is not capable of receiving them. And it can't exhibit them if it can't receive them.

So if you just have an old TV then it no longer requires a TV licence.

If you have an old TV + soarview box then the two of them combined are capable of receiving and exhibiting so they do require the licence.

Its pretty straightforward. You can't enforce laws based on your opinion or interpretation of their meaning. They are written down and clarified for a reason and going by the letter of the law you don't need a licence for an old TV any more.

DavyD_83

Can you live with the shame?

gobnaitolunacy

Deleted User wrote: »

The broadcast services which are broadcast for general reception will now be digital so your old TV is not capable of receiving them. And it can't exhibit them if it can't receive them.

So if you just have an old TV then it no longer requires a TV licence.

QUOTE]

Bollocks.
Stop perpetrating an urban legend.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/media/tv_licences.html

SouthTippBass

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

The broadcast services which are broadcast for general reception will now be digital so your old TV is not capable of receiving them. And it can't exhibit them if it can't receive them.

So if you just have an old TV then it no longer requires a TV licence.

QUOTE]

Bollocks.
Stop perpetrating an urban legend.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/media/tv_licences.html

Bollocks yourself. Just because its the law now, dosent mean its right. Once the 24th rolls around, these laws will be outdated and need to be revised. With a clear definition of what a television is, and what a monitor is. And good excuse for why I would need a license when I cant receive a signal.

gobnaitolunacy

The law may be an ass, but it is still the law.
And it will remain the law until such a time as it is changed.

I don't see them changing the definition of anything to suit gamers who want an oul telly to play PS or whatever.

chasm

Deleted User wrote: »

The broadcast services which are broadcast for general reception will now be digital so your old TV is not capable of receiving them. And it can't exhibit them if it can't receive them.

So if you just have an old TV then it no longer requires a TV licence.

If you have an old TV + soarview box then the two of them combined are capable of receiving and exhibiting so they do require the licence.

Its pretty straightforward. You can't enforce laws based on your opinion or interpretation of their meaning. They are written down and clarified for a reason and going by the letter of the law you don't need a licence for an old TV any more.

“ television set ” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus

I think the bolded part is where they get you. There's nothing in the law that states it has to be an rte broadcast, your old tv can still be used by means other than an aerial to pick up programmes.

Bruthal

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

The law may be an ass, but it is still the law.
And it will remain the law until such a time as it is changed.

I don't see them changing the definition of anything to suit gamers who want an oul telly to play PS or whatever.

They dont have to change anything. The analogue tv will not be a tv set next week by the licencing definition.

robbie7730

robbie7730 wrote: »

They dont have to change anything. The analogue tv will not be a tv set next week by the licencing definition.

Not really, as long as UPC continue their analogue services then a television with an analogue tuner is capable of receiving television channels.

Bruthal

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Faced with a visit from a TV licence inspector all a person would have to do is unplug the aerial/satellite dish/decoder thus rendering the TV set into a monitor and not liable to be licenced. That is what I am reading from the tenet of some contributions here.

A tv set would comprise of aparatus capable of displaying a tv picture from broadcast tv signals. This can be a projector with a sky box, a monitor with a sky box, projector/monitor with set top box etc. Disconnecting them from each other and they are still a tv set.

An analogue tv with aerial is also a tv set. Unplug the aerial and its still a tv set.

Next week, the analogue tv set will become incapable of tuning in a tv signal with the aerial. If the owner now only has a tv and aerial, this will no longer be a tv set, as in it is not aparatus now capable of tuning in a tv signal. The owner must now go and buy other items to again have a tv set capable of tuning a tv signal and displaying it.

An owner who only had the tv itself to use as a monitor all along, was liable for a licence because the tv contained all the aparatus to qualify as a tv set according to the licencing definition. Next week they no longer have a tv set as the device they have can not tune in the broadcast tv signals and display them.

But if that was tested in court I think it would not stand up.

If it did not, then the court would be saying a tv incapable of tuning tv signals is still a tv set, even though according to the licencing definition, it no longer would be.

As I said a few times before, they could not care less of a person has no tv, they still want them to pay for the services if they can get them to. They want everyone to pay, and so they will say that even if you now have a device that used to be able to tune tv signals, you are still liable, even though that device is not a tv by the licencing definition after 10am 24th oct 2012.

The licence definition will be changed anyway, to encompass all, more or less to make liable anyone that has electricity.

TheChizler

robbie7730 wrote: »

A tv set would comprise of aparatus capable of displaying a tv picture from broadcast tv signals. This can be a projector with a sky box, a monitor with a sky box, projector/monitor with set top box etc. Disconnecting them from each other and they are still a tv set.

An analogue tv with aerial is also a tv set. Unplug the aerial and its still a tv set.

Next week, the analogue tv set will become incapable of tuning in a tv signal with the aerial. If the owner now only has a tv and aerial, this will no longer be a tv set, as in it is not aparatus now capable of tuning in a tv signal. The owner must now go and buy other items to again have a tv set capable of tuning a tv signal and displaying it.

An owner who only had the tv itself to use as a monitor all along, was liable for a licence because the tv contained all the aparatus to qualify as a tv set according to the licencing definition. Next week they no longer have a tv set as the device they have can not tune in the broadcast tv signals and display them.



If it did not, then the court would be saying a tv incapable of tuning tv signals is still a tv set, even though according to the licencing definition, it no longer would be.

You seem to be assuming that the act states that a broadcast only counts as the tv signal that is distributed by RTE Networks, and as the new scheme is DVB-T, the old PAL-I service does not count as a broadcast. I hate to post the act's definition of TV set again, but:

" television set ” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;

and:

“ broadcast ” means the transmission, relaying or distribution by electronic communications network of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not;

Broadcast in the context of the act clearly encompasses all kinds of public television service schemes, be it DVB-T, DVB-T2, PAL-B/D/G/H/I/J/K/N, ATSC, DTMB, radio stations etc. This means that if you had a set that would only work in the US (ATSC) you would still have to have a licence for it according to the act. Even if there is no way for your set to receive the signal of choice, if it can receive any kind of television broadcast you still need a licence.

Karsini

Karsini wrote: »

Not really, as long as UPC continue their analogue services then a television with an analogue tuner is capable of receiving television channels.

“ broadcast ” means the transmission, relaying or distribution by electronic communications network of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not;

According to this a broadcast is something intended for reception by the general public. The likes of UPC certainly arent intended for the general public. Its a private broadcast intended only for subscribers.

Bruthal

TheChizler wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that the act states that a broadcast only counts as the tv signal that is distributed by RTE Networks, and as the new scheme is DVB-T, the old PAL-I service does not count as a broadcast.

broadcast ” means the transmission, relaying or distribution by electronic communications network of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not

Yes, I would assume the general public mentioned in the broadcast definition, would be the general public of Ireland. And as such, the broadcast definition would mean the tv broadcasts in Ireland. Not the tv broadcasts in the US. I know where you are coming from with the tv that works in the US but not here still being liable. My point is, it shouldn`t be if its the only device in a premises.

But either way, our great leaders couldnt care less if people think they need a licence for a microwave oven. All they want is peoples money, and will keep changing the definition to ensure everyone is caught, likley including broadband users, but we will still see people advocating this rte tax no matter what items are associated with liability.

chasm

" “ broadcast ” means the transmission, relaying or distribution by electronic communications network of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not; "

Deleted User wrote: »

According to this a broadcast is something intended for reception by the general public. The likes of UPC certainly arent intended for the general public. Its a private broadcast intended only for subscribers.

The two things that caught my eye in that definition are "electronic communications network of communications" and "......whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not; "

“ electronic communications network ” means transmission systems including, where applicable—


(a) switching equipment,


(b) routing equipment, or


(c) other resources,


which permit the conveyance of signals by wire, by radio, by optical or by other electromagnetic means, and such conveyance includes the use of—


(i) satellite networks,


(ii) electricity cable systems, to the extent that they are used for the purposes of transmitting signals,


(iii) fixed terrestrial networks (both circuit-switched and packet-switched, including the Internet),


(iv) mobile terrestrial networks,


(v) networks used for either or both sound and television broadcasting, and


(vi) cable television and internet protocol television networks,


irrespective of the type of information conveyed;

Bruthal

chasm wrote: »

" “ broadcast ” means the transmission, relaying or distribution by electronic communications network of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not; "



The two things that caught my eye in that definition are "electronic communications network of communications" and "......whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals are actually received or not; "

“ electronic communications network ” means transmission systems including, where applicable—


(a) switching equipment,


(b) routing equipment, or


(c) other resources,


which permit the conveyance of signals by wire, by radio, by optical or by other electromagnetic means, and such conveyance includes the use of—


(i) satellite networks,


(ii) electricity cable systems, to the extent that they are used for the purposes of transmitting signals,


(iii) fixed terrestrial networks (both circuit-switched and packet-switched, including the Internet),


(iv) mobile terrestrial networks,


(v) networks used for either or both sound and television broadcasting, and


(vi) cable television and internet protocol television networks,


irrespective of the type of information conveyed;

Or to simplify, everyone will pay to keep rte and its wastage going, once you have a house.

chasm

robbie7730 wrote: »

Or to simplify, everyone will pay to keep rte and its wastage going, once you have a house.

Lol yeah they have it all sown up by the looks of it. Pity they didn't just write up the regulations etc that clearly- it would save a lot of time and money

Bruthal

chasm wrote: »

Lol yeah they have it all sown up by the looks of it. Pity they didn't just write up the regulations etc that clearly- it would save a lot of time and money

Clearly they dont need to save money, judging by the wages our licence fee`s pay. Their way to save money is increase the fee.

dxhound2005

robbie7730 wrote: »

Or to simplify, everyone will pay to keep rte and its wastage going, once you have a house.

robbie7730 wrote: »

Clearly they dont need to save money, judging by the wages our licence fee`s pay. Their way to save money is increase the fee.

The licence has gone up by €10 in the last ten years and I am not aware of any planned increases. If the 15% evaders paid up it could be €25 cheaper for everyone.

The original question was a legal one and that has been answered at least to my satisfaction. But of course it would be open to anyone brought to court for licence evasion post Oct 24 to use the various arguments put forward in this thread and let the judge decide.

areyawell

You need a television license if you have a TV in your house or any equipment such as a projector as previously stated. From citizens informations website http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/media/tv_licences.html

When the analogue television service is switched off your analogue television set will need a set-top box to receive digital television. Your analogue television set, with or without a set-top box, will still require a television licence.

TheChizler

chasm wrote: »

Lol yeah they have it all sown up by the looks of it. Pity they didn't just write up the regulations etc that clearly- it would save a lot of time and money

They do say direct reception by the general public, so I can't imagine that private communications via Internet would bone under it. Internet protocols have sole recipients, and are not broadcasts by definition.

Bruthal

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The licence has gone up by €10 in the last ten years and I am not aware of any planned increases

It was €107 in 2002, and jumped to €150 in 2003. A 40 percent increase in a single go.

If the 15% evaders paid up it could be €25 cheaper for everyone.

I doubt you really believe that.

The original question was a legal one and that has been answered at least to my satisfaction. But of course it would be open to anyone brought to court for licence evasion post Oct 24 to use the various arguments put forward in this thread and let the judge decide.

Satisfied with the perceived result rather than the clarification Id say.

ilovesleep

robbie7730 wrote: »

It was €107 in 2002, and jumped to €150 in 2003. A 40 percent increase in a single go.


I doubt you really believe that.


Satisfied with the perceived result rather than the clarification Id say.

I remember when the tv license was 60 pounds.

Out of interest how old is the tv license law? I read that that it came about in the 60s when many households were getting a tv. So about 50 years old I'm guessing.

ilovesleep

areyawell wrote: »

You need a television license if you have a TV in your house or any equipment such as a projector as previously stated. From citizens informations website http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/media/tv_licences.html

When the analogue television service is switched off your analogue television set will need a set-top box to receive digital television. Your analogue television set, with or without a set-top box, will still require a television licence.

It's like demanding a license fee to buy a newspaper with the newspaper license fee going to the newspapers.

Bruthal

areyawell wrote: »

You need a television license if you have a TV in your house or any equipment such as a projector as previously stated. From citizens informations website http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/media/tv_licences.html

When the analogue television service is switched off your analogue television set will need a set-top box to receive digital television. Your analogue television set, with or without a set-top box, will still require a television licence.

You dont need a tv licence for a projector unless you have tuning equipment. Yet you will need it for a tv that also needs tuning equipment after aso.

Bruthal

ilovesleep wrote: »

I remember when the tv license was 60 pounds.

Out of interest how old is the tv license law? I read that that it came about in the 60s when many households were getting a tv. So about 50 years old I'm guessing.

Yes 50 years this year. It was a radio licence before that.