A compulsory 'Broadcast tax' next on the list for homes in Ireland

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

With regards to the broadcast tax, my concern is that RTE will continue to be funded from this tax. RTE, IMO in its present structure is not up to scratch and its output costs too much for the actual service the public receives. Its not able to manage on 2 huge sources of income, just not good enough. The public should expect better quality output and a slimmer RTE, with a new management structure could do that in time. It needs a big overhaul like several other organizations in Ireland, state and semi state bodies alike. Is that going to happen anytime soon.... no is my guess.

Well - it was able to manage on two huge sources of income (Their range of services don't come cheap) until the arse fell out of advertising revenue - impacting all media providers, and the government reduced their subvention by €20 million. And maybe you don't think they're up to scratch, but they remain, by far, the most watched and listened to media in the country, so others seem to disagree.

As regards overhauling the organisation - it's been going through possibly the most radical changes of any semi-state body in the last few years. Perhaps you've missed that fact.?

VinLieger

alastair wrote: »

Nothing unfair about it at all - do you begrudge paying taxes for every other service you don't take advantage of?

The vast majority of them arent inefficient luxuries like RTE is and are simply neccessary for society to work

Mr.Micro

alastair wrote: »

Well - it was able to manage on two huge sources of income (Their range of services don't come cheap) until the arse fell out of advertising revenue - impacting all media providers, and the government reduced their subvention by €20 million. And maybe you don't think they're up to scratch, but they remain, by far, the most watched and listened to media in the country, so others seem to disagree.

As regards overhauling the organisation - it's been going through possibly the most radical changes of any semi-state body in the last few years. Perhaps you've missed that fact.?

No I have not missed that fact. It still owes €65 million. What is going to give with regards to quality to service that debt? With revenue lower from advertizing etc, where is the money to come from? It costs too much for what we get, hence my notion of a slimmer RTE. If next year it has even more debt.....just carry on as the public will pay?

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

No I have not missed that fact. It still owes €65 million. What is going to give with regards to quality to service that debt? With revenue lower from advertizing etc, where is the money to come from? It costs too much for what we get, hence my notion of a slimmer RTE. If next year it has even more debt.....just carry on as the public will pay?

It costs you 3 euro a week - which is pretty much typical of European public broadcast subvention - and, for all its faults, it's better than many of them.

RTE have planned to break even next year - a serious chunk of that debt they're carrying is down to paying redundancy to 270 staff. Losing 270 staff sounds kinda like a radical slimming exercise to me (staff numbers 20% down from 2008).

Mr.Micro

alastair wrote: »

It costs you 3 euro a week - which is pretty much typical of European public broadcast subvention - and, for all its faults, it's better than many of them.

RTE have planned to break even next year - a serious chunk of that debt they're carrying is down to paying redundancy to 270 staff. Losing 270 staff sounds kinda like a radical slimming exercise to me (staff numbers 20% down from 2008).

I was not talking about the nominal €3 a week per licence, but the cost of the service overall for what we get. I very much doubt RTE will break even next year, less revenue , more competition, and if it does, at what cost to programming?

I would guess that an independent agency would need to examine RTE to see where it could improve and how much more staff and contracts should be terminated? RTE is there to serve the public and not just to keep jobs and contracts for those employed there.

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I was not talking about the nominal €3 a week per licence, but the cost of the service overall for what we get.

That's what the service costs you.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I very much doubt RTE will break even next year, less revenue , more competition, and if it does, at what cost to programming?

They believe they will. And they've always been operating in a very competitive market. We've been able to receive what's possibly the best quality TV in the world for years. A few more Netflix accounts doesn't really make much of a difference there.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I would guess that an independent agency would need to examine RTE to see where it could improve and how much more staff and contracts should be terminated? RTE is there to serve the public and not just to keep jobs and contracts for those employed there.

The BAI are an independent body, tasked with regulating RTE activities (amongst others). They've made their recommendation - which involves removing some advertising time from RTE, upping subvention, and earmarking a greater fund for external commissioning.

Mr.Micro

alastair wrote: »

They believe they will. And they've always been operating in a very competitive market.

Not so competitive in that it gets half its money from the licence. The other competitors have to make all their money from scratch.

alastair wrote: »

We've been able to receive what's possibly the best quality TV in the world for years. A few more Netflix accounts doesn't really make much of a difference there.

Not an opinion many will agree with, including myself. Its ok at times but only so, because many people have other channels, thankfully. RTE will continue as if its the only broadcaster in Ireland, and maybe not as important as it thinks it is. People are stuck with RTE whether they like or want it, as the licence fee is a legal requirement.

alastair wrote: »

The BAI are an independent body, tasked with regulating RTE activities (amongst others). They've made their recommendation - which involves removing some advertising time from RTE, upping subvention, and earmarking a greater fund for external commissioning.

We will see how it does next year and what excuses it drums up if it does not measure up to its privileged task as the national broadcaster. In the meantime many of us will rely on getting important news and information from other sources.

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Not so competitive in that it gets half its money from the licence. The other competitors have to make all their money from scratch.

I was talking about the UK broadcasters - including the BBC - licence funded.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Not an opinion many will agree with, including myself. Its ok at times but only so, because many people have other channels, thankfully.

Again - I was referring to the BBC. But with regard to RTE's popularity - The TAM and Neilsen ratings tell another story. http://www.agbnielsen.net/whereweare/dynPage.asp?lang=english&id=393&country=Ireland

Mr.Micro wrote: »

We will see how it does next year and what excuses it drums up if it does not measure up to its privileged task as the national broadcaster. In the meantime many of us will rely on getting important news and information from other sources.

Best of luck with that. They seem to have let you down on info relating to this particular newsworthy subject to date.

Mr.Micro

alastair wrote: »

I was talking about the UK broadcasters - including the BBC - licence funded.





Again - I was referring to the BBC. But with regard to RTE's popularity - The TAM and Neilsen ratings tell another story. http://www.agbnielsen.net/whereweare/dynPage.asp?lang=english&id=393&country=Ireland

I get it, you love RTE.

There is little point in my saying much more. When it came to the bailout in 2008 RTE had nothing, but the BBC had the story. There is no point in using the BBC as an example of a competitor, it does not run ads on tv like RTE at every chance it gets.

alastair wrote: »

Best of luck with that. They seem to have let you down on info relating to this particular newsworthy subject to date.

I am sure such issues are hardly important or news worthy to other broadcasters outside Ireland.

dlouth15

When is the public consultation on this happening, anyone know?

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I get it, you love RTE.

There is little point in my saying much more. When it came to the bailout in 2008 RTE had nothing, but the BBC had the story. There is no point in using the BBC as an example of a competitor, it does not run ads on tv like RTE at every chance it gets.

I'm highly critical of RTE, but I think taxation for public broadcasting is a good thing, and that RTE, with all their faults offer far more than any Irish commercial broadcaster could.

ardmacha

This thread is indicative of the depressing state of debate on Irish public policy. A lot of fact free ranting and repetition of trivialities, without any sense of a broad objective. The problem with RTÉ and other entities in receipt of public funding (e.g. Dublin Bus) is that there is nothing approaching a clear framework for what they should be doing with to provide value for the subsidy. Those who criticise the present situation in any area of Irish public policy never propose such clear frameworks, they simply propose the replacement of present policies with whatever suits them.

mikom

Loved the world over............ http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057007465

alastair

mikom wrote: »

Loved the world over............ http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057007465

Wow! 20 people on a forum poll don't like RTE!

Well - that's me convinced!

alastair

ardmacha wrote: »

This thread is indicative of the depressing state of debate on Irish public policy. A lot of fact free ranting and repetition of trivialities, without any sense of a broad objective. The problem with RTÉ and other entities in receipt of public funding (e.g. Dublin Bus) is that there is nothing approaching a clear framework for what they should be doing with to provide value for the subsidy. Those who criticise the present situation in any area of Irish public policy never propose such clear frameworks, they simply propose the replacement of present policies with whatever suits them.

Here's a handy framework by which you can judge RTE's offerings: http://www.rte.ie/documents/about/rte-pss-2010v1.pdf

It's a pretty broad remit however - and does nothing to help with the "Fair City/Tubridy/NCO is a useless waste of taxpayer's money - 'cause I don't like them" mantra.

mikom

alastair wrote: »

Wow! 20 people on a forum poll don't like RTE!

Well - that's me convinced!

........ said a lone poster

alastair

mikom wrote: »

........ said a lone poster

Yep. Difference is, I'm not pretending my singular opinion represents anything other than a singular opinion.

20 people.

mikom

alastair wrote: »

20 people.

#singularopinion

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

Wow! 20 people on a forum poll don't like RTE!

Well - that's me convinced!

So you're the solitary soul voted "yes money no option" ?

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

So you're the solitary soul voted "yes money no option" ?

I didn't vote at all. Like most sensible people.

RichardAnd

Sorry to bump a thread but it seems that public consultation has been opened for this new tax.

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Broadcasting/Consultation+on+Public+Service+Broadcasting+Charge/

alastair

It looks like they're proposing that 'current exemptions' would continue to apply. I wonder if this means the free OAP licence would be retained.

Godge

SamHall wrote: »

I know quite a few actually.

Yes, these houses have Internet in them, and devices capable of receiving Irish programming.

That doesn't mean they use them though. And they most probably already pay a cable/Internet provider, subs that will have vat tacked on to it also.

This looks and smells like an Internet tax.

Are there really any people out there with Internet who have never watched a video? Who never use TV? Who don't pay for Netflix or some other streaming provision?

You see, what is happening here is that the state is moving from a situation where it charged for the hardware (TV) to one where it charges for the software (public service content) and that is based on ability to receive it.

This reflects the changes in the commercial world - Amazon subsidises Kindles so it can charge for the content.

You might think that it is a bit unfair if you don't ever watch public service content but that is the nature of a public utility. It can't or won't be provided unless it is part of a universal charge. Think of the health system where someone is born at home, is never sick enough to go to hospital during their life, drops dead suddenly and is brought to a morgue. They have paid taxes all their life (probably way above the TV licence) including the special health levy now part of the USC, and yet they never got any benefit from it. That is how public goods work and are financed.

RichardAnd

alastair wrote: »

It looks like they're proposing that 'current exemptions' would continue to apply. I wonder if this means the free OAP licence would be retained.

I would imagine that they will continue to apply. In this country (and in many others) a new tax should always be accompanied by a group of exemptions. That way, the plebs will spend more time complaining about those who gain an exemption rather than questioning why the said tax exists. Good old disunity, it's so simple!

Godge

alastair wrote: »

It looks like they're proposing that 'current exemptions' would continue to apply. I wonder if this means the free OAP licence would be retained.

RichardAnd wrote: »

I would imagine that they will continue to apply. In this country (and in many others) a new tax should always be accompanied by a group of exemptions. That way, the plebs will spend more time complaining about those who gain an exemption rather than questioning why the said tax exists. Good old disunity, it's so simple!

I don't agree with the culture of exemptions in this country.

The huge number of extras pushes up the value of social welfare well above any of our peer countries and narrows the gap with employment creating a huge disincentive to take up employment.

dlouth15

Godge wrote: »

You see, what is happening here is that the state is moving from a situation where it charged for the hardware (TV) to one where it charges for the software (public service content) and that is based on ability to receive it.

This reflects the changes in the commercial world - Amazon subsidises Kindles so it can charge for the content.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Yes, in the past the TV licence was essentially a tax on TV equipment, but rather than charging for content as you suggest, the new proposals the idea of equipment to phones, computers etc.

alastair

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with that. Yes, in the past the TV licence was essentially a tax on TV equipment, but rather than charging for content as you suggest, the new proposals the idea of equipment to phones, computers etc.

No it doesn't. You don't have to have any device in your household for the charge to be applied. It's a simple levy for funding public broadcasting services - divorced from any technology.

Godge

alastair wrote: »

No it doesn't. You don't have to have any device in your household for the charge to be applied. It's a simple levy for funding public broadcasting services - divorced from any technology.

not necessarily, if you don't own a phone line, mobile phone, internet connection, TV, radio or other device capable of receiving public broadcasting services, you might be able to avoid the tax. Is there someone like that out there who relies only on newspapers? I doubt it.

alastair

Godge wrote: »

not necessarily, if you don't own a phone line, mobile phone, internet connection, TV, radio or other device capable of receiving public broadcasting services, you might be able to avoid the tax.

Not as outlined in the proposed charge.

The introduction of this funding model, by virtue of its independence of devices and the consequential removal of the need to prove the existence of a device, should lend itself to easier enforcement with the potential for less evasion allied to increased revenue and lower enforcement costs.

creedp

Godge wrote: »

not necessarily, if you don't own a phone line, mobile phone, internet connection, TV, radio or other device capable of receiving public broadcasting services, you might be able to avoid the tax. Is there someone like that out there who relies only on newspapers? I doubt it.

Yes but even if theoretically you don't own any of the above today .. what's to stop you acquiring one tomorow? Bottom line this charge has nothing to do with whether someone actually accesses public sector broadcasting services and everything to do with the persons' potential to access the service. No-one can say they don't have the potentiall to access the service.