TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

Chancer3001

Swat team

Capt'n Midnight

I'd like to buy a €300 satellite receiver, but I'm looking at one half the price

The reason ?

€33.62 of my license fee goes to cover An Post fees and evasion.

Over the last 10 years this has cost me more than my TV and satellite receiver.





TV licence is €160
Of that €9.62 is an post's fee and the 15% evasion rate is another €24 I have to pay to get absolutely NOTHING :mad:





I also resent the proportion of the BCI of €10.53 that goes to Setanta because they aren't free to air.




To my mind the solution is simple. Have an opt out system and drop the fee to €127 and let the ESB or revenue collect it. If you opt out then you don't pay a licence but if you are caught with a TV you are fast-tracked to the existing €1,000 fine.

Chancer3001

Yes cap'n, great idea, but, but, how are you going to catch anybody with a tv who doesn't have a license?

conorh91

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Yes cap'n, great idea, but, but, how are you going to catch anybody with a tv who doesn't have a license?

The same way they already do?

According to the Dept of Communications, 18,000 summonses were issued to householders without a televison licence in 2012, 11,000 of which were prosecuted (i.e. about 7,000 prosecutions were withdrawn because they were presumably resolved before the hearing date)

youngblood

so is there a set number of times you are contacted before penalties etc are added on to your license bill?

Jake The Fat Ma

My license goes from may to may. There was a gap when I had none from November until may. so they keep sending me letters saying I have no valid license.
Where do I stand. Thanks.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

youngblood

So can I take it, from time of first inspection,
you've already gathered arrears before you purchase your first licence?

Cheers

Chancer3001

conorh91 wrote: »

The same way they already do?

According to the Dept of Communications, 18,000 summonses were issued to householders without a televison licence in 2012, 11,000 of which were prosecuted (i.e. about 7,000 prosecutions were withdrawn because they were presumably resolved before the hearing date)

The same way they already do is a pile of ****

conorh91

Chancer3001 wrote: »

The same way they already do is a pile of ****

18,000 summonses is substantial, I would think.

Chancer3001

I wouldn't believe that.

I think they raise the number to act as a deterrent

xander5

Does anyone know how much the tv licence stamps cost?Have looked on the an post website but of course they do not inform you how much they are!

Bruthal

€4 each.

xander5

Bruthal wrote: »

€4 each.

And once they start being bought does it mean licence is valid from then?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

xander5

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah ok,cheers for that.

Bruthal

xander5 wrote: »

And once they start being bought does it mean licence is valid from then?

They are simply a way of paying for a license in increments. The license they are used to pay for is valid from the date its bought if its a first licence, OR from the date it should have been renewed.

Each stamp is just a €4 euro token. You could use 40 to get/renew license, or a combination of cash and stamps, to keep rte talent in their deserved positions....

Scriptiee

Was any one in a situation that they had an american make TV which is not capable of receiving the analog nor digital signal that is/was broadcasted in Ireland (only ATSC/NTSC/Clear QAM Tuner, no PAL) and I do not have Cable not Satellite dish. Only use that for Console gaming and Movies. Would that argument stand? or should I start looking for a large monitor or get a projector?

Bruthal

Scriptiee wrote: »

Was any one in a situation that they had an american make TV which is not capable of receiving the analog nor digital signal that is/was broadcasted in Ireland (only ATSC/NTSC/Clear QAM Tuner, no PAL) and I do not have Cable not Satellite dish. Only use that for Console gaming and Movies. Would that argument stand? or should I start looking for a large monitor or get a projector?

It won't stand. People make a direct association between the actual terlevision and the tax liability.

The simple reality us that they want every premises to pay. So they describe anything with a tuner and screen as a TV set, regardless of ability to tune local signals, or what the television is used for. A monitor with no tuner is outside the net at present, once no tuning equipment such as a sky box renders the monitor into a TV set as per the legal description.

The proposed broadcasting charge was the next step to encompass all within the net.

Scriptiee

Bruthal wrote: »

It won't stand. People make a direct association between the actual terlevision and the tax liability.

The simple reality us that they want every premises to pay. So they describe anything with a tuner and screen as a TV set, regardless of ability to tune local signals.

The proposed broadcasting charge was the next step to encompass all within the net.

yeah bit of a bull**** to be perfectly honest, time to start looking for a big ass monitor or a projector so, or a tv with no tuner

Thanks for the reply

Bruthal

Scriptiee wrote: »

yeah bit of a bull**** to be perfectly honest, time to start looking for a big ass monitor or a projector so, or a tv with no tuner

Thanks for the reply

Yes total rubbish. People with an analogue set should not be liable if they have no other equipment, but they don't want to know, they simply want everyone liable even if have no TV at all.

FreudianSlippers

Scriptiee wrote: »

yeah bit of a bull**** to be perfectly honest, time to start looking for a big ass monitor or a projector so, or a tv with no tuner

Thanks for the reply

I couldn't see the monitor argument holding up for much longer. It used to be arguable that monitors didn't have SCART, but now with HDMI being the norm, it'd be easy to have a hidden freeview box wouldn't it?

(obviously not condoning such an action)

Bruthal

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I couldn't see the monitor argument holding up for much longer. It used to be arguable that monitors didn't have SCART, but now with HDMI being the norm, it'd be easy to have a hidden freeview box wouldn't it?

(obviously not condoning such an action)

Its irrelevant really. The goal is to have every premises liable. The TV definition changes over time to maximize this. Scarts etc mean little.

I said long before the broadcast charge was mentioned, that in time they will change the name of the TV licence to something different so all premised are liable. A TV license is really a property tax.

Scriptiee

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I couldn't see the monitor argument holding up for much longer. It used to be arguable that monitors didn't have SCART, but now with HDMI being the norm, it'd be easy to have a hidden freeview box wouldn't it?

(obviously not condoning such an action)

Yeah, but for those that genuinely do not have any TV/Cable apparatus at home, a TV without a Tuner (I actually found one ) should do the trick. I mean, I'm not trying to dodge the license, when I had a cable TV I was paying the license. I have no cable now neither do I have Saorview and not looking to watch RTE "illegaly", never watched that rubbish to begin with.

Last statement from Alex White regarding this was that there is no changes planned to the license in the near future, I'd say that multimedia bullcrap was all Pat Rabbitte idea. He's a fecking dinosaur, glad he's out.

tendjose

The definition of a Television set (Section 140 (1) of the Broadcasting Act 2009)
"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.

1. By this definition any pc monitor, is capable of receveing TV signal, broadcasted through the Internet. So why the pc monitors don't have to pay it?

2. Is there any way to disable the TV receiver for the old analog signal, so I don't have to pay the license?

3, The TV licence price is the same for 1 or 4 TV's in the house? I heard it's 160 for one TV and 180 for the household...

Carawaystick

1. TV is not broadcast over the internet, it is served up as a request from the user. Each connection is unique to the viewer.

2. Break the coax antenna connection. Either remove it from the tv, or solder a short circuit from the centre to the outside.

3. As I understand it its 160 for a home. There might be higher rates for commercial premises.

the world wonders

tendjose wrote: »

broadcasted through the Internet

This is an oxymoron.

Losty Dublin

There was a thread some time ago where a poster said that he was summonsed and used the defence of making his TV unable to be capable of receiving signals and that he was found not guilty on the day. Have a search on the forum here for it. Bear in mind that it is just somebody on the internet saying that's what he did so don't take it to be legally sound

hullaballoo

tendjose wrote: »

The definition of a Television set (Section 140 (1) of the Broadcasting Act 2009)
"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.

1. By this definition any pc monitor, is capable of receveing TV signal, broadcasted through the Internet. So why the pc monitors don't have to pay it?

2. Is there any way to disable the TV receiver for the old analog signal, so I don't have to pay the license?

3, The TV licence price is the same for 1 or 4 TV's in the house? I heard it's 160 for one TV and 180 for the household...

Moderator: thread merged with megathread.

Please keep all TV licence discussion to the TV licence megathread.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I recently got a letter, again addressed to 'The Occupier' threatening a search warrant. Slight escalation after 3 years :pac:

Still no sign of the search warrant 4 months later.

Do you think they were bluffing?