TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

mikom

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Still no sign of the search warrant 4 months later.

Do you think they were bluffing?

Yes.

tendjose

Carawaystick wrote: »

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.

For point 2 do you think I would legally get away with that? Please note that I don't subscribe any TV channels package.

Thanks

tendjose

the world wonders wrote: »

This is an oxymoron.

Well TV packages from upc for example are also broadcasted through the Internet using the Udp protocol like in an Internet broadcast.

By your logic, I destroy the antenna receiver, subscribe to TV over IP, and technally im not receiving any broadcast

carq

Just got called by the license inspector after avoiding for 2 Years.

Do I need a license if I do not receive terrestrial Irish Tv stations ?
I do not have a saor view box or a satellite subscription

fxotoole

carq wrote: »

Just got called by the license inspector after avoiding for 2 Years.

Do I need a license if I do not receive terrestrial Irish Tv stations ?
I do not have a saor view box or a satellite subscription

Yes. Once your equipment is capable of receiving a signal, you are liable. Doesn't matter if that signal is terrestrial Irish or otherwise.

Bruthal

carq wrote: »

Just got called by the license inspector after avoiding for 2 Years.

Do I need a license if I do not receive terrestrial Irish Tv stations ?
I do not have a saor view box or a satellite subscription

Yes is the answer to that.

In reality, they couldnt care less if you have a tv, or what you watch etc, they simply want every premises/household to pay.

So they spread the net to cover as much as possible,, as in, if you have a tv, no matter whether it has terrestrial channels connected or not, or if its only capable of receiving Australian channels etc, and/or its stored in the attic, you need a licence. They assume just about everyone has a TV of some sort, so that definition makes most liable, regardless of whether you use it as a TV or not.

I have a tv upstairs not capable of tuning saorview, but it is still liable even though its tuner cant tune any tv broadcasts. Again, its just to ensure just about every premises is in their net. If I remove the tuner, it would then not be liable on its own.

In keeping with wanting all premises liable, they were considering changing the tv licence to a broadcast charge at one stage.

carq

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes is the answer to that.

In reality, they couldnt care less if you have a tv, or what you watch etc, they simply want every premises/household to pay.

So they spread the net to cover as much as possible,, as in, if you have a tv, no matter whether it has terrestrial channels connected or not, or if its only capable of receiving Australian channels etc, and/or its stored in the attic, you need a licence. They assume just about everyone has a TV of some sort, so that definition makes most liable, regardless of whether you use it as a TV or not.

I have a tv upstairs not capable of tuning saorview, but it is still liable even though its tuner cant tune any tv broadcasts. Again, its just to ensure just about every premises is in their net. If I remove the tuner, it would then not be liable on its own.

In keeping with wanting all premises liable, they were considering changing the tv licence to a broadcast charge at one stage.

b*stards came on snow day when they knew people would be in

Bruthal

carq wrote: »

b*stards came on snow day when they knew people would be in

Yes that`s what they do alright.

Chancer3001

I don't get why they're bastards or why people care if they call

You don't HAVE to talk to them. Just close the door if you don't feel like a chat

Bruthal

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I don't get why they're bastards or why people care if they call

You don't HAVE to talk to them. Just close the door if you don't feel like a chat

So many different ones knock at doors these days that they are all annoying bastards

Pawwed Rig

carq wrote: »

b*stards came on snow day when they knew people would be in

Calling when people are likely to be in seems like a good strategy to me

brian_t

carq wrote: »

b*stards came on snow day when they knew people would be in

If they catch more "b*stards" who don't pay their licence then good for them.

Bruthal

brian_t wrote: »

If they catch more "b*stards" who don't pay their licence then good for them.

Could you live with the shame:pac:

Scriptiee

Bruthal wrote: »

If I remove the tuner, it would then not be liable on its own.

In keeping with wanting all premises liable, they were considering changing the tv licence to a broadcast charge at one stage.

if you remove the tuner you still have to pay the license, as it is considered a capable device to receive broadcasts. Maybe not now, but at any stage later you can put the tuner back and therefore you need a license.

It's a guilty until proven innocent.

Re the broadcasting charge, think there are still talks about getting that implemented. However, RTE got told they cannot have cake and eat it at the same time, so they have to choose either money from license or advertising, but not both.

I got rid of my TV three years ago, got a projector instead.

Bruthal

Scriptiee wrote: »

if you remove the tuner you still have to pay the license, as it is considered a capable device to receive broadcasts. Maybe not now, but at any stage later you can put the tuner back and therefore you need a license.

It is now a monitor, not a TV. It is now unable to receive and tune any broadcasts. Therefore it needs no tv licence at that time.

Re the broadcasting charge, think there are still talks about getting that implemented. However, RTE got told they cannot have cake and eat it at the same time

They seem to have an endless supply of cake in there.

I got rid of my TV three years ago, got a projector instead.

Well if we go by your earlier post, that a TV modified into a monitor still needs a licence, well then so does your projector, as it would be much easier to get a sky box for it, "maybe not now, but at a later stage"

Scriptiee

Nah it does not work that way, your TV by design is capable of receiving signal therefore it liable for the TV license. If it was removed it can be as easily inserted back, if it's broken it can be as easily fixed.

This does not matter, it can be not capable of receiving Irish wireless broadcast, but it can receive broadcasts in Madeupistan, you are still required to have license. For the latter you could go and argue in court that you deserve exemption, however, that would cost you more than actually paying the license.

Even if you have an analogue TV, which since October 2012 is not capable of receiving broadcast signal, you are still required to have TV license.

If you manage to find a TV that has no built in tuner, there are few and far between, you are not required to license it on it's own. If you had a SkyBox with it, then yes you would be required to do so. However, thanks to data protection legislation Sky cannot share their customer data with AnPost, therefore avoiding paying it in this situation is somewhat easier.

My projector is not capable of receiving signals on it's own, never was, and there is nothing I can fix to make it capable of doing so. So yes I could get a Sky, but who the **** watches TV in the age of Amazon Prime and Netflix?


Edit: This covers your excuse of "it's a monitor now"

“ 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;

carq

brian_t wrote: »

If they catch more "b*stards" who don't pay their licence then good for them.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of a TV licence propping up a defunct organisation like RTE.
If they scrapped advertisements like BBC then I would gladly pay.
But they are taking from both ends and have grown incompetent as a result.


RTE in its current quality of output would struggle to survive without taxpayers money which says a lot

brian_t

carq wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of a TV licence propping up a defunct organisation like RTE.
If they scrapped advertisements like BBC then I would gladly pay.
But they are taking from both ends and have grown incompetent as a result.

OK but how come TV Licence inspectors are "b*stards".

Bruthal

Scriptiee wrote: »

Edit: This covers your excuse of "it's a monitor now"

But it is a monitor.....

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;

That clearly means it must be able to receive and exhibit television broadcasts on its own, with no additional items with it.


But the tv with tuner removed and beyond use, is now dependent on a tuner, or other device to be connected to it.

The definition clearly says that a television set means any apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasts whether or not it depends on the use of anything else with it.

So, with nothing else with it, it must be capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasts. A tv with tuner removed is not capable of receiving any television broadcasts. So by definition, it is not a tv.

If you can demonstrate how a tv with no tuner, can receive broadcasts, without depending on additional items, as per the definition above, then I will agree that a monitor needs a licence.

Now there will always be opinions one way or another even on obvious things in life, and even at legal level. How many bizare decisions do we see in courts. But to have a tv with tuner removed in one room, and a monitor in another, both now with exact same capability, and say one needs a licence because it used to be a tv.... Yea, maybe people are better of being mindless sheep alright.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Scriptiee

Bruthal wrote: »

But the tv with tuner removed and beyond use, is now dependent on a tuner, or other device to be connected to it.

If you can demonstrate how a tv with no tuner, can receive broadcasts, without depending on additional items, as per the definition above, then I will agree that a monitor needs a licence.

Due to the nature of guilty until proven innocent when it come to tv licence you would need to argue that in court. However I see you losing that battle as tuner was an integral part of a TV where it is not of a monitor.

say one needs a licence because it used to be a tv.... Yea, maybe people are better of being mindless sheep alright.

It didn't used to be a TV it still is just with capability removed temporarily.


If you are so certain of your convictions I'm happy to follow your case in court, as if this would be ruled in your favor it would set a great precedence.

Scriptiee

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

hmm, got any link to info on that?

Scriptiee

brian_t wrote: »

OK but how come TV Licence inspectors are "b*stards".

think we found ourselves a TV Licence inspector

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Bruthal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hard to believe such an "unprecedented" event went unreported.

Bruthal

Scriptiee wrote: »

It didn't used to be a TV it still is just with capability removed temporarily

O right, now its a TV with no capability to be a TV. I see.

And yet, it is now incapable of receiving broadcast signals. Interesting. The TV that`s not a TV according to the definition you linked to yourself.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Scriptiee

Bruthal wrote: »

O right, now its a TV with no capability to be a TV. I see.

And yet, it is now incapable of receiving broadcast signals. Interesting. The TV that`s not a TV according to the definition you linked to yourself.

Dude, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying you might have a hard time defending this when time comes. And would prefer that people consider this or even actually get a legal advice before using that as an excuse, and finding it does not stand.

If you are so adamant that this would stand why not try it yourself? You can then report back with all the legal papers and prove yourself right. Especially since according to Fred, there is already a precedence for this that would rule in your favor. Even though it wasn't reported it would be recorded in court records so you'll be grand.

Put your money where your mouth is, till then you're just a keyboard faceless lawyer on a random internet website.

Losty Dublin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have a recollection of a poster on here claiming that they did just that, and that they avoided a conviction. It seemed like a lot of effort to go to avoid paying a licence fee but there you go, that what they said they did.