Pat Rabbitte to force sky/upc to give data to catch licence dodgers.

120_Minutes

Pat effing Rabbitte will soon force sky/upc to hand over customer data in an effort to catch TV licence evaders. Its estimated 1 in 8 subscribers avoid paying a TV licence. If it works it will recoup an estimated €35 million for rte.

I would like to get the legality of this confirmed. Is this not a breach of data protection laws?

I don't pay my licence on point of principle. I neither need nor want any rte services. They are sub par and don't provide me any entertainment. I will not pay for something I don't use. I pay for sky, that's enough.

Grayson

120_Minutes wrote: »

Pat effing Rabbitte will soon force sky/upc to hand over customer data in an effort to catch TV licence evaders. Its estimated 1 in 8 subscribers avoid paying a TV licence. If it works it will recoup an estimated €35 million for rte.

I would like to get the legality of this confirmed. Is this not a breach of data protection laws?

I don't pay my licence on point of principle. I neither need nor want any rte services. They are sub par and don't provide me any entertainment. I will not pay for something I don't use. I pay for sky, that's enough.

I don't own a TV or have a TV subscription service (like sly, UPC) but i do have a UPC broadband subscription. Wonder if they'll send over my name.

Ten of Swords

This is exactly the same concept as forcing utility companies to hand over data to revenue for the property tax, it's wrong but legal.

Victor

120_Minutes wrote: »

I would like to get the legality of this confirmed. Is this not a breach of data protection laws?

No, the Data Protection Act doesn't apply to the collection of taxes and duties.

The Backwards Man

7 out of 8 subcribers who pay their taxes welcome this move.

Peregrine

120_Minutes wrote: »

1) I would like to get the legality of this confirmed. Is this not a breach of data protection laws?

2) I don't pay my licence on point of principle.

1) Legal

2) Illegal

shruikan2553

This is what I said about it in another thread:

dont they offer online streaming for subscribers? Or you got a better offer for a package like with UPC it was cheaper to get phone and broadband even though I wouldnt connect the phone so just because they think I have something doesnt mean I do. They would still have to prove I have a TV. Sky have an app for the xbox so I could subscribe to sky while my xbox is connected to my monitor

wonderfulname

Link? I've been waiting for this to happen, it always amazed me that there are concrete records of licence dodgers that are never used. It also amazes me that there's a monthly billing system in place for tv owners and instead of taxing that for those that have it there's an opt in system?

Czarcasm

120_Minutes wrote: »

I don't pay my licence on point of principle. I neither need nor want any rte services. They are sub par and don't provide me any entertainment. I will not pay for something I don't use. I pay for sky, that's enough.

"I ignore laws that don't suit me". Grow up.

120_Minutes

Well then, looks like I'm cancelling sky, and I'll tell them why they're losing my monthly revenue.

Cody Pomeray

You would have to cite a constitutional right to privacy, not a data protection right.

And even then... it seems impossible to think of an argument.

I'm not in favour of the new broadcasting charge, I think it's ridiculous considering the involvement of provate firms in providing these services but seems the Govt are determined on this one.

Czarcasm wrote: »

"I ignore laws that don't suit me". Grow up.

Ignoring the laws that don't suit us can be an important aspect of protest, e.g. civil disobedience.

leggo

The Backwards Man wrote: »

7 out of 8 subcribers who pay their taxes welcome this move.

I'm all for paying TV licences, but I hate how all discussions surrounding tax end up like this. Either people buy the whole line of, "Non-payers force payers to pay more," (when poor governing of the country leading to high unemployment costs the average taxpayer a lot more) or they're just looking for an excuse to judge people.

Methinks Mr Rabbitte should be more concerned with providing people with value for their licence fee and selling that to us. People are more reasonable when they're being given value for money than when they're being told that they'll be chased and caught.

120_Minutes

Czarcasm wrote: »

"I ignore laws that don't suit me". Grow up.

I ignore bad laws. Its outdated if you're with sky or UPC, incorporate it into the fee. If you're not and use saorview then pay the licence. Or allow me to opt out of rte and pay a portion of the BBC licence for their (far superior) services. They are all acceptable alternative that sadly don't exist .

I will not pay Joe Duffy and tubs wages when I neither need nor want what they offer.

The Backwards Man

leggo wrote: »

I'm all for paying TV licences, but I hate how all discussions surrounding tax end up like this. Either people buy the whole line of, "Non-payers force payers to pay more," (when poor governing of the country leading to high unemployment costs the average taxpayer a lot more) or they're just looking for an excuse to judge people.

Neither. I hate paying tax but I have to. I don't like seeing others getting away with something I can't. It's not fair.

clairefontaine

There is no justification for state tv in this day and age. RTE is a waste of money and I'm surprised anyone pays their licence.

Pappa Charlie

Sure everyone with a smart phone is also eligible, wait until he gets records of Vodafone etc. it's a pity he wouldn't try and update our third world broadband network out side of the pale. He's one useless waste if taxpayers money!

joi99

Link please OP ????

HurtLocker

What percentage of the 7/8 who have one get it for free?

Czarcasm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Ignoring the laws that don't suit us can be an important aspect of protest, e.g. civil disobedience.

Organised civil disobedience though Cody is far more legitimate than an individual breaking the law because it doesn't suit them, then using the excuse that they're doing it "on principle".

It's three months sky subscription, and the person is paying a licence for having a television on the property, not just for receiving RTE broadcasts.

Of course, that poster is more than welcome to cut off their nose to spite their face, it's no skin off mine, they should be aware of this though -


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/50-surge-in-those-jailed-over-tv-licence-fines-231261.html

Phoebas

120_Minutes wrote: »

I would like to get the legality of this confirmed. Is this not a breach of data protection laws?

I don't pay my licence on point of principle.

Its a bit rich to be questioning the legality of getting data from the service providers and admitting to your own illegality in the very next sentence.

Cody Pomeray

Czarcasm wrote: »

Organised civil disobedience though Cody is far more legitimate than an individual breaking the law because it doesn't suit them, then using the excuse that they're doing it "on principle".

Individuals can only act on an individual basis, I presume there will be a protest to with-hold tax by some group or other.

Don't get me wrong, I will personally pay the charge.

However, our laws are supposed to be codes that suit ourselves, as a group. Individuals are perfectly entitled to approach 'the group' and say "this law doesn't suit us" if their overall interests are not felt to be met, and "lets not do it". It's important that people have that right; a natural right of rebellion is one of the most important human rights.

Admittedly, this is just a broadcasting charge.

dirtyden

clairefontaine wrote: »

There is no justification for state tv in this day and age. RTE is a waste of money and I'm surprised anyone pays their licence.

I cant 100% agree with that. I think some of what RTE does is a waste of money, well maybe even a lot but a state broadcaster allowed run independently can be a valuable resource for any country. Id much rather that than Fox or Sky giving me my news (although RTE have tended to allow itself to be influenced more often than not by whatever was the government at the time). RTE does some things well, but it does waste a lot of tax payers money on drivel.

120_Minutes

Czarcasm wrote: »

the person is paying a licence for having a television on the property, not just for receiving RTE broadcasts

This is what I disagree with, charge me for services I want and will use.

I don't want them so I don't pay.

And, the licence fee is the same as six months sky sub for me

Change the law to suit modern times and the people. Not the ailing state broadcasters coffers

hfallada

I have no problem with it. They are tax evading which is illegal. Would you be ok if some one was evading income tax and therefore the government has to cut services

Czarcasm

120_Minutes wrote: »

I ignore bad laws.

I think the smoking ban laws are a pain in the hole, but that's my opinion as an individual and I have to respect the law, much as I might disagree with it. Hence why I rarely bother with the pub any more, I have that choice, the same as you do to get rid of your tv if you don't want to pay the licence for it.

Its outdated if you're with sky or UPC, incorporate it into the fee.

Sky and UPC don't care if you never paid your TV licence, but they'll cut your service if you don't want to pay them "on principle". Sky are a load of ****e repeats, but the odd time there's something of interest on, I don't bother with sports, but some people think the extra €15 per month is worth it.

If you're not and use saorview then pay the licence. Or allow me to opt out of rte and pay a portion of the BBC licence for their (far superior) services. They are all acceptable alternative that sadly don't exist .

Because they're unworkable.

I will not pay Joe Duffy and tubs wages when I neither need nor want what they offer.

Their wages are paid by the advertising revenue they bring in. The income collected from the TV licence fee doesn't cover the cleaners wages! :pac:

Weevil

clairefontaine wrote: »

There is no justification for state tv in this day and age. RTE is a waste of money and I'm surprised anyone pays their licence.

I think RTE, in it's current form, is not only a burden on the state, but also a dis-incentive to any potential native TV broadcaster. If anyone wonders why TV3 is so awful they need look no further than Montrose.

Phoebas

120_Minutes wrote: »

I don't want them so I don't pay.

Does this only work for the taxes and charges that are easy to evade?
If I don't want the social welfare services or the health service can I withhold income tax?

Specialun

RTE is an absolute joke of a service.Its beyond confusing how some of the heads that are there are still employed.Its outdated,unentertaining and still completely out of touch.its garbage and used constantly to enforce government propaganda and bull

120_Minutes

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think the smoking ban laws are a pain in the hole, but that's my opinion as an individual and I have to respect the law, much as I might disagree with it. Hence why I rarely bother with the pub any more, I have that choice, the same as you do to get rid of your tv if you don't want to pay the licence for it.

the smoking ban has health benifits for people who dont smoke, and people who dont smoke can choose to socialise with smokers in the smoking area.

They have a choice

Sky and UPC don't care if you never paid your TV licence, but they'll cut your service if you don't want to pay them "on principle". Sky are a load of ****e repeats, but the odd time there's something of interest on, I don't bother with sports, but some people think the extra €15 per month is worth it.

I'm paying for sky because i want their services. they also provide me with rte which i do not want. either absorb the licence fee into sky fees for those who want rte, or allow an opt-out for those (like me) who dont. relating to first point i want the choice smokers have but with my tv.

Because they're unworkable.

the bbc theory, possibly. the saorview one? very workable. update the current model of collection, or absorb the fee into every saorview box sold.

Their wages are paid by the advertising revenue they bring in. The income collected from the TV licence fee doesn't cover the cleaners wages! :pac:

then let everyone in RTE be paid for by ad revenue. realistic salaries for everyone employed there based on quality of service. you think i want to contribute to Linda Martin murdering daft punk on the saturday show? (thanks youtube for showing me that one)

mikehammer67

thought they were bringing in a broadcasting tax for every household like....


not just the ones watching tv

Patrick2010

If RTE disappeared half the threads on the Television and Radio forum here would disappear also.
Do people not think its important for a country to have its own national broadcaster?, do you want Rupert Murdoch to supply us with our news?.

Czarcasm

120_Minutes wrote: »

the smoking ban has health benifits for people who dont smoke, and people who dont smoke can choose to socialise with smokers in the smoking area.

They have a choice





I'm paying for sky because i want their services. they also provide me with rte which i do not want. either absorb the licence fee into sky fees for those who want rte, or allow an opt-out for those (like me) who dont. relating to first point i want the choice smokers have but with my tv.




the bbc theory, possibly. the saorview one? very workable. update the current model of collection, or absorb the fee into every saorview box sold.






then let everyone in RTE be paid for by ad revenue. realistic salaries for everyone employed there based on quality of service. you think i want to contribute to Linda Martin murdering daft punk on the saturday show? (thanks youtube for showing me that one)

It's like trying to have an adult conversation with an eight year old. Fair enough, "I don't wanna..." works for you. See how your principles stand up in court when you get hauled up and fined for not having one. That is of course again- your choice.

120_Minutes

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's like trying to have an adult conversation with an eight year old. Fair enough, "I don't wanna..." works for you. See how your principles stand up in court when you get hauled up and fined for not having one. That is of course again- your choice.

dont patronise me. i responded to your arguments with reasonable rebuttals without restoring to name calling.

I have stated that i dont pay it because i disagree with the law and method, offering reasonable alternatives that could be introduced. I suspect though, that they wouldnt be introduced as the government know what will happen if we were given a choice, we would choose to vote with our wallets against RTE. judging by some of the other comments here, many agree with me.

mikom

Czarcasm wrote: »

"I ignore laws that don't suit me". Grow up.

*Said the Nigerian prison guard to the imprisoned man having been found in a sexual embrace with another man.

Before you start I am not equating homosexuality to watching TV, simply the refusal to follow laws.

Kristopherus

120_Minutes wrote: »

Pat effing Rabbitte will soon force sky/upc to hand over customer data in an effort to catch TV licence evaders. Its estimated 1 in 8 subscribers avoid paying a TV licence. If it works it will recoup an estimated €35 million for rte.

I would like to get the legality of this confirmed. Is this not a breach of data protection laws?

I don't pay my licence on point of principle. I neither need nor want any rte services. They are sub par and don't provide me any entertainment. I will not pay for something I don't use. I pay for sky, that's enough.

The bould Pat effing Rabbitte would be far better employed getting $ky to pay the VAT they collect from Irish customers to the Irish exchequer.That would amount to way more than €35m. But of course when did logic apply to politicians?:rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

What privacy issue ?

Your name and address are already in the phone book , on the voters register , and in Thomms directory and most importantly your name and address doesn't contain any personal information about you

Back in the day RTV rentals / cablelink / TV shops were obliged to report the details of those buying or renting TV's or cable

Bubonic

I had heard a proposal that was put about near the election by someone or other.

Basically it was that we should stop funding RTE but that the state would have a contract for National News and Public Interest
programming.

This could be broken up in blocks and broadcasters would tender for it. So other stations would compete to offer the state
funded news.

What really annoys me is seeing RTE buying in American shows which are available elsewhere. Anyway, broadcasters are
finished soon enough anyway, other than for a few programming types. It will all go the way of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and
so on soon enough.

120_Minutes

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What privacy issue ?

Your name and address are already in the phone book , on the voters register , and in Thomms directory and most importantly your name and address doesn't contain any personal information about you

Back in the day RTV rentals / cablelink / TV shops were obliged to report the details of those buying or renting TV's or cable

I'm ex-directory, and i'm not registered to vote where i live. I admit i'm not familiar with the thomms directory, but if it's to do with house ownership then i'm not in that as i'm dont own a house.

but apart from that "my name and address dont contain any personal information"? isnt that the definition of personal info? can i have your name and address then? it's ok because it's not personal info.

jesus wept.

Sin City

Really it should be incorporated into whatever subscriber a customer is with
eg UPC/SKY add it to their monthly billing and you pay your licence when you pay your bill. Or seeing as its going to be a media licence soon not just a TV licence they could charge your boradband supplier.

Either way the Irish system both TV and broadband needs a major overhaul

Citycap

clairefontaine wrote: »

There is no justification for state tv in this day and age. RTE is a waste of money and I'm surprised anyone pays their licence.

Greece had the right idea. Close down the national broadcaster.
We should do the same with the added use of military firing squads taking out the ones with their heads deepest in the R.T.E. trough and then progress towards Leinster House with a shoot on sight policy

120_Minutes

Sin City wrote: »

Either way the Irish system both TV and broadband needs a major overhaul

Thank you!

apologies to those looking for links to this story, i got sidetracked defending my position. i couldnt find any online but its on the front page of that bastion of journalism, the daily star.

Nemeses

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What privacy issue ?

Your name and address are already in the phone book , on the voters register , and in Thomms directory and most importantly your name and address doesn't contain any personal information about you

- I'm not listed in any phone book
- Im not registered to vote
- Not in the Thomms directory

Sorted.

smileyj1987

Pat Kenny and Ryan Tubridy must want a raise .

Cody Pomeray

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What privacy issue ?

Your name and address are already in the phone book , on the voters register , and in Thomms directory and most importantly your name and address doesn't contain any personal information about you

A phone company cannot unilaterally decide to publish their clients' private data - private data includes their telephone number, and address; you need to 'opt in' to directory services.

There are different reasons why data protection does not arise in respect of Revenue.

msg11

RTE is 90% of the time awful, I mean awful in the sense of content. The network they have is excellent IE the transmission network. I'm in my 20's and there is nothing that appeals to me on any of the RTE services. About the only thing I use is the, rte.ie/news .

My understanding looking at things from the outside is the organization as a whole is seriously over spending, I mean they are paying some host serious amounts of money when in my eyes they are past there sell by date and are hogging the stage for a younger, cheaper more entertaining person. It's like RTE is afraid of change.

2FM is a disaster, the name is outdated, I don't know about outside of Dublin but the radio market in Dublin hammers the **** out of it. So local stations are getting one up on a national broadcaster in the biggest market in Ireland. They are consistently changing all sorts of managers at 2FM when what is needed is change in the format. I can't for the life of me understand why program directors cannot see that there is too much talk on every single radio station in Ireland. Look at Capital FM in the UK, they are attracting me a person from another country they are that good at what they do. Then the BCI and there stupid 10% news and current affairs quota per day. Why is this needed when they licensed a news station called NewsTalk.

That's just one of RTE's services, the people that are not paying the license fee are to blame, but not for the failure of RTE that's down to the people in there, they are not attracting the masses how that is the fault of the people not paying the fee is ridiculous. Typical Irish solution, if it's not working tax the life out of the people that will make it work.

The BCI are a disgrace of a regulator they are letting failing stations run riot, look at 4FM they are a licensed station for 40+ and they are entering the markets of other licensed stations playing chart music. Then again the 10% news and current affairs quota then ads ads and more ads.

So who do I blame for RTE's failure, I blame the awful management and the BCI for not enforcing regulations on RTE and other operators.

andy125

Good to see alot of boardies are such law abiding citzens that would never dream of breaking a minor law, bless

emo72

Haven't paid for the last 2 years. As for getting pulled up in front of a judge. So what. They can fine me 10000 for all I care. Non payment, garda will call to you tell you sorry but you have to go in. Turn up at the prison, get processed and out by lunchtime. Not so scary is it?

Cody Pomeray

emo72 wrote: »

Haven't paid for the last 2 years. As for getting pulled up in front of a judge. So what. They can fine me 10000 for all I care. Non payment, garda will call to you tell you sorry but you have to go in. Turn up at the prison, get processed and out by lunchtime. Not so scary is it?

Yeah but you'll be paying the fine... you don't just expect to get processed by the prison authorities and then released, the fine must ordinarily be paid

MadYaker

emo72 wrote: »

Haven't paid for the last 2 years. As for getting pulled up in front of a judge. So what. They can fine me 10000 for all I care. Non payment, garda will call to you tell you sorry but you have to go in. Turn up at the prison, get processed and out by lunchtime. Not so scary is it?

I think most people would rather not get a criminal record. Especially not for something as ridiculous as refusing to pay your TV license. Its easy enough not to get caught. The place I lived in last year we never had a TV license. We had a TV but it didn't have any channels, it was just used for xbox by my other housemates. An inspector called around once but my friend didn't let him in and just told him we didn't have a TV. Sorted. BUT if we did get caught out we'd have paid up straight away. No way am I getting a record for something as stupid as that.

emo72

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yeah but you'll be paying the fine... you don't just expect to get processed by the prison authorities and then released, the fine must ordinarily be paid

Yes of course it must be paid. But I'm going to prison for non payment of the fine. A fine can't be paid if you don't have a pot to urinate in.

Chancer3001

theyre scrapping the tv licencse.

Bringing in a universal "entertainment" fee that EVERYONE has to pay regardless of whether you have internet or tv or whatever.

Suppose theyll just charge it to each house that registers for property tax

Soz if this has already been mentioned.