Why is the broadcasting charge postponed ?

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

Why cann't a discussion dwell on the an issue that is part of the over all aspect of DSO, the digital dividend and the provision of the digital dividend.

Are we even in the same discussion? You keep going on about the "digital dividend". How does that relate to whether there should be a broadcasting tax or not and who should pay for same?

Elmo wrote:

It was just an expense IMO for as you point out a redundant medium.

Hang on..."as I point out"? dvb-t is not a redundant medium for the delivery of television. It's television itself that I said could not be made comparable to broadband which is an essential utility.

Elmo wrote:

We are talking about so called "broadcasting tax" but as I said a badly named tax. Why not call it the "culture tax"?

Why not call it a "TV license" rather than go scrambling for a context on the back of which they intend to make it a mandatory tax on all?

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

Are we even in the same discussion? You keep going on about the "digital dividend". How does that relate to whether there should be a broadcasting tax or not and who should pay for same?


Hang on..."as I point out"? dvb-t is not a redundant medium.

Why not call it a "TV license" rather than go scrambling for a context on the back of which they intend to make it a mandatory tax on all?

Apologies I though you'd said that it was redundant in an earlier post you said:

The tube is outdated and it's largely dumb! It's not essential.

you also said

Notwithstanding that, the network to deliver it is fully developed already - there's no further cost involved in that respect

I'd point out that the infrasturature had to be updated for DSO and should 2RN decided on a better form of DTT then it will have to upgrade at a cost though I doubt it will happen.

The TV License isn't just for TV so its a misnomer. It pays for Radio, TV and Cultural organisations (often under the umbrella of RTÉ).

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

Apologies I though you'd said that it was redundant in an earlier post you said:...

What you quote - the point is made about television generally (in the context of the comparison you were making with broadband) - not the means of delivering it.
As a delivery mechanism for television, dvb-t is not redundant.

Elmo wrote:

I'd point out that the infrasturature had to be updated for DSO and should 2RN decided on a better form of DTT then it will have to upgrade at a cost though I doubt it will happen.

ok, so there are different implementations of what otherwise falls under the umbrella of dvb-t - for which there is an existing network infrastructure in place nationally.

Elmo wrote:

The TV License isn't just for TV so its a misnomer. It pays for Radio, TV and Cultural organisations (often under the umbrella of RTÉ).

ok, I think its relatively safe to assume that pretty much everyone already knows this. However, if you prefer to have it changed from "Television Licence" to "Television, Radio & Culture License", I have no problem with that nomenclature (but I do with its application to everyone).

makeorbrake

The other point to make about DVB-T is that it could be encrypted. Unlocking of same could be charged at a rate of say €160/year. But they won't do that. They won't do it because not everyone would pay for it....presumably because they don't see the value in it or simply don't use it.


Far better to impose a draconian tax on it - and fund the white elephant to pay for inflated salaries up in Montrose...

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

The other point to make about DVB-T is that it could be encrypted. Unlocking of same could be charged at a rate of say €160/year. But they won't do that. They won't do it because not everyone would pay for it....presumably because they don't see the value in it or simply don't use it.


Far better to impose a draconian tax on it - and fund the white elephant to pay for inflated salaries up in Montrose...

They don't encrypt freeview either.

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

They don't encrypt freeview either.

That's correct. However, they can if they so choose. The technology facilitates it.

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's correct. However, they can if they so choose. The technology facilitates it.

True and they once tried it with some channels.

icdg

I think the future of TV argument is maybe one for a different thread. If we can perhaps keep to the broadcasting charge (or lack thereof) .

Elmo

icdg wrote: »

I think the future of TV argument is maybe one for a different thread. If we can perhaps keep to the broadcasting charge (or lack thereof) .

I don't get this, the broadcasting charge is clearly being brought in due to the future of TV or the lack of its future, as more and more people ditch TV for other technologies. That has to be part of the discussion.

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

I don't get this, the broadcasting charge is clearly being brought in due to the future of TV or the lack of its future, as more and more people ditch TV for other technologies. That has to be part of the discussion.

Is that the case? or is it really relevant how it's delivered? We already have 3 established delivery systems in play - dvb-t, dvb-s & dvb-c . Regardless of how it's delivered, as per the current system, then people are expected to have a tv licence.

Why should delivery method matter? of course, if someone doesn't want to avail of TV, then why should they be forced to pay in this draconian way?
If someone's 'viewing' is confined to occasional access of netflix or the like, why should they have to pay for delivery of mainstream television and public broadcasting? It's simply not equitable. Streaming services such as netflix are not comparable with traditional television channels. They don't involve any access of publicly funded broadcasting. Granted, such services overlap with traditional television insofar as they compete for peoples attention potentially....but that's as far as it goes.


The broadcasting tax is a very convenient solution to a couple of problems;

1. It ringfences revenue into the future for the moneypit that is Montrose (as presumably, more people are happy not to access public service broadcasting than ever before..and this trend will continue).
2. It makes collection so very straight forward and simple - if nobody is exempt, then its so much easier to enforce. I don't know if anyone has the stats but I can only imagine the rate of non compliance is quite likely to have gone up the way since the recession first hit.


That it ringfences the salaries of all in rte so easily doesn't make it equitable! It's downright criminal to charge someone for the use of something that they can clearly demonstrate they are not accessing.

wanderer 22

This story in the Irish Times mentions , in passing, that the broadcasting charge will be introduced in January 2015...is this a typo or have I somehow missed this??

“The introduction of the household broadcasting charge in January 2015 may provide the context for abolition – effectively transferring the cost from the state to individuals concerned. So doing should minimise any funding impact on RTÉ”, it said in its commentary on an option put forward by the Department of Social Protection."

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/welfare-cuts-urged-by-howlin-s-department-in-review-1.1970756

icdg

Sure that's a whole article full of stuff that's not going to happen and in many cases was never going to happen. It's common pre budget for Departments to put forward a whole load of politically unpaltable measures - it's saying to Finance "give us more money".

Sam Russell

colm18 wrote: »

This story in the Irish Times mentions , in passing, that the broadcasting charge will be introduced in January 2015...is this a typo or have I somehow missed this??

“The introduction of the household broadcasting charge in January 2015 may provide the context for abolition – effectively transferring the cost from the state to individuals concerned. So doing should minimise any funding impact on RTÉ”, it said in its commentary on an option put forward by the Department of Social Protection."

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/welfare-cuts-urged-by-howlin-s-department-in-review-1.1970756

I think that refers to an option in the Household Benefits Package that is paid to certain groups, like OAPs. Under it, those recipients get a waiver re TV Licence. The former Minister, P. Rabbitte, said that thw waiver would continue into the Broadcast Charge. However, things change.

The Dept of Social Protection pay a fixed subvention in lieu of the Licence Fee to RTE. This has been a fixed amount for some years, despite an increase in the numbers involved. A similar arangement works (or doesn't) for the free travel, where CIE do not get enough to cover the cost of it. This is also under review as it is unsustainable at current rates. I think most schemes are under review.

JTMan

The Irish Mail on Sunday say the broadcasting charge has been scrapped.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-must-come-clean-on-broadcasting-charge-652062.html

According to reports in the Irish Mail on Sunday, Fine Gael Ministers have now said that it has been scrapped.

makeorbrake

JTMan wrote: »

The Irish Mail on Sunday say the broadcasting charge has been scrapped.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-must-come-clean-on-broadcasting-charge-652062.html

In the face of the IW scenario, it's obvious to them now that they can't get this over the line. No doubt will be revisited in the future by the next government that's formed.


It's a shame they couldn't go the other way and shut the damn thing down - so that it doesn't come out of general taxation also.

icdg

At this stage it wasn't going to happen in the lifetime of this Dail anyway. It will probably be revisited at some point though.

18MonthsaSlave

...by which time RTE should be irrelevant. The number of people I know who are getting internet TV boxes is huge and they're not getting the boxes to view state produced content.

makeorbrake

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

...by which time RTE should be irrelevant. The number of people I know who are getting internet TV boxes is huge and they're not getting the boxes to view state produced content.

Personally, i'd like to see the lot wound up. A compromise - trim it back to one channel ...or....make content that's deemed significant available to commercial tv providers - for them to screen.

The argument could be made that it's in the national interest to have a state controlled moutpiece running. However, a counter argument is that state sponsored spin is more likely to be disseminated via a national broadcaster....something that is equally (if not more..!) dangerous.

Sam Russell

makeorbrake wrote: »

Personally, i'd like to see the lot wound up. A compromise - trim it back to one channel ...or....make content that's deemed significant available to commercial tv providers - for them to screen.

The argument could be made that it's in the national interest to have a state controlled mouthpiece running. However, a counter argument is that state sponsored spin is more likely to be disseminated via a national broadcaster....something that is equally (if not more..!) dangerous.

You would think that, but RTE has been quite successful in diverting Gov pressure over the years. There has been pressure and some gets through, but from its start with TV, they have withstood the onslaught of the Church - in the shape of Archbishop McQuaid, and various Ministers and others.

It is generally accepted that having the licence fee outside of Gov control would be ideal, but that is only a preferred option - at the end of the day, the Gov decides the level of funding.

makeorbrake

Sam Russell wrote: »

You would think that, but RTE has been quite successful in diverting Gov pressure over the years. There has been pressure and some gets through, but from its start with TV, they have withstood the onslaught of the Church - in the shape of Archbishop McQuaid, and various Ministers and others.

It is generally accepted that having the licence fee outside of Gov control would be ideal, but that is only a preferred option - at the end of the day, the Gov decides the level of funding.

That may be - but information comes from a multitude of sources these days. It's time to wind up the white elephant in the interest of the taxpayer.

icdg

Write off RTE (or indeed television in general) at your peril. RTE One still has around 40% of all viewing.

As for Internet based services, I mentioned over in another thread the big problems with them. I think they'll eventually hit basic cable big time (and Sky Movies the most)but that is still a few years ahead. While they still do neither news nor sport I think PSBs and premium sports are safe.

the final thing to mention is that any use of these boxes to pirate copyrighted material is predicated on them remaining a minority interest. If everybody did it, there'd be no copyrighted material to pirate as they wouldn't be able to make any money from producing it.

makeorbrake

icdg wrote: »

Write off RTE (or indeed television in general) at your peril. RTE One still has around 40% of all viewing.

Sure - but could be scaled down to one channel.

icdg wrote:

the final thing to mention is that any use of these boxes to pirate copyrighted material is predicated on them remaining a minority interest. If everybody did it, there'd be no copyrighted material to pirate as they wouldn't be able to make any money from producing it.

Sure - and I don't think anyone was suggesting that people move to pirated content. Its just that content other than irish content - current affairs, news, and irish sport - can be adequately provided for by commercial broadcasters - via dvb-t, dvb-s, dvb-c and iptv. There is no value to be had in a public service broadcaster going out and buying such content on our behalf.

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

Sure - and I don't think anyone was suggesting that people move to pirated content. Its just that content other than irish content - current affairs, news, and irish sport - can be adequately provided for by commercial broadcasters - via dvb-t, dvb-s, dvb-c and iptv. There is no value to be had in a public service broadcaster going out and buying such content on our behalf.

I agree but their needs to be a mix of programming. To rely on purely Irish programming is difficult, mainly because you begin to have constant repeats.

Irish content should just be reduce to - current affair, news and sport. There are other genres on TV.

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

I agree but their needs to be a mix of programming. To rely on purely Irish programming is difficult, mainly because you begin to have constant repeats.

Irish content should just be reduce to - current affair, news and sport. There are other genres on TV.

There are other genres - but other broadcasters are capable of delivering same. The very nature of public service broadcasting could be overhauled - to provide for current affairs news and documentaries with an irish angle - on one single channel.

When it comes to irish content that falls within other categories, if this can't be provided commercially by others, the option is there that it could be produced and made available to other broadcasters at a subsidised rate - if deemed necessary/worthwhile.

Sam Russell

The problem RTE have is the fact that they are currently suffering from a number of long standing problems.

They are not allowed to run their own schedules without ministerial interference. Since the dying days of the FF rump government, they have been prevented from running RTE NN or running RTE1+1 properly with an advertising revenue stream. They have also been prevented from moving children's programmes to the RTE Jr channel.

They are short of funds - seriously hampering their operation. They had to fund the DTT programme with no help from Government, despite Government pocketing the Digital Dividend from the sale of spectrum. They should cut their 'star' salaries, but they are trying to get there.

OTV has been withheld from Saorview yet is paid for out of public funds on Sky.

I think that all things considered, they do a good job. Many things could be better, but there you go. They are not being helped by Government interference - the very thing we should be railing against.

endakenny

Sam Russell wrote: »

The problem RTE have is the fact that they are currently suffering from a number of long standing problems.

They are not allowed to run their own schedules without ministerial interference. Since the dying days of the FF rump government, they have been prevented from running RTE NN or running RTE1+1 properly with an advertising revenue stream. They have also been prevented from moving children's programmes to the RTE Jr channel.

They are short of funds - seriously hampering their operation. They had to fund the DTT programme with no help from Government, despite Government pocketing the Digital Dividend from the sale of spectrum. They should cut their 'star' salaries, but they are trying to get there.

OTV has been withheld from Saorview yet is paid for out of public funds on Sky.

I think that all things considered, they do a good job. Many things could be better, but there you go. They are not being helped by Government interference - the very thing we should be railing against.

Why did RTÉ bother with RTÉ One +1? A time-shift channel is not regarded as a feature of a national public service broadcaster. After all, the BBC doesn't have a timeshift channel.

Furthermore, what's the point in making RTÉ News Now available worldwide, given that its blocked outside Ireland during the Olympic Games for rights reasons?

Elmo

endakenny wrote: »

Why did RTÉ bother with RTÉ One +1? A time-shift channel is not regarded as a feature of a national public service broadcaster. After all, the BBC doesn't have a timeshift channel.

Furthermore, what's the point in making RTÉ News Now available worldwide, given that its blocked outside Ireland during the Olympic Games for rights reasons?

RTÉ view RTÉ ONE +1 as a phase 1 which they wanted to replace with RTÉ Plus a mixed genre channel similar to BBC 4 and More 4.

While RTÉ NN is for international consumption it could have two versions an online version and a broadcast version.

icdg

endakenny wrote: »

Why did RTÉ bother with RTÉ One +1? A time-shift channel is not regarded as a feature of a national public service broadcaster. After all, the BBC doesn't have a timeshift channel.

Furthermore, what's the point in making RTÉ News Now available worldwide, given that its blocked outside Ireland during the Olympic Games for rights reasons?

That happens to practically all news programmes worldwide during the Olympics - unfortunately the IOC are super-precious about their rights and the normal arrangements regarding news broadcasters being able to use sports footage with an appropriate credit don't apply. It's only once every four years anyway.

Sam Russell

endakenny wrote: »

Why did RTÉ bother with RTÉ One +1? A time-shift channel is not regarded as a feature of a national public service broadcaster. After all, the BBC doesn't have a timeshift channel.

Furthermore, what's the point in making RTÉ News Now available worldwide, given that its blocked outside Ireland during the Olympic Games for rights reasons?

The provision of RTE NN and RTE 1+1 were as a direct result of a SI signed by Minister Carey on his last day in office in the rump Cowen Government. For some unaccountable (sic) reason, Minister Rabbitte never reviewed that SI, and neither has his successor. As a consequence, RTE pay out nearly €2m per year in transmission charges alone for two channels that have no revenue stream.

For some reason I do not understand, Saorview has been ignored by RTE since it started. Perhaps, RTE staff do not watch it - preferring to watch UPC or Sky.

endakenny

Sam Russell wrote: »

The provision of RTE NN and RTE 1+1 were as a direct result of a SI signed by Minister Carey on his last day in office in the rump Cowen Government. For some unaccountable (sic) reason, Minister Rabbitte never reviewed that SI, and neither has his successor. As a consequence, RTE pay out nearly €2m per year in transmission charges alone for two channels that have no revenue stream.

For some reason I do not understand, Saorview has been ignored by RTE since it started. Perhaps, RTE staff do not watch it - preferring to watch UPC or Sky.

Nobody said that RTÉ had to have a timeshift channel. Ultimately, TV3 is to blame for the failure to give RTÉ permission for extra channels.

Sam Russell

endakenny wrote: »

Nobody said that RTÉ had to have a timeshift channel. Ultimately, TV3 is to blame for the failure to give RTÉ permission for extra channels.

Well - sort of. TV3 made representations - that much is true.

But the SI was signed by the soon to be gone Minister - Carey. It was not modified by Minister Rabitte in the 3 years he was in charge, and it is 'still under consideration' by Minister White. This means it is political, as RTE's preference was to have a RTE 3/Plus channel, and RTE 2 to drop the children's programmes.

Elmo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well - sort of. TV3 made representations - that much is true.

But the SI was signed by the soon to be gone Minister - Carey. It was not modified by Minister Rabitte in the 3 years he was in charge, and it is 'still under consideration' by Minister White. This means it is political, as RTE's preference was to have a RTE 3/Plus channel, and RTE 2 to drop the children's programmes.

Lets face it the issue raised by the public were more considered than those by the lobby groups that requested that RTÉ Plus not go ahead. TV3 didn't want any new channels going as far as to say that RTÉ 2HD was just RTÉ mopping up sporting rights, while both the INN and IBI both were against any new services.

Sam Russell

Of course, but it was the Minister of the day that signed the SI and his successor that did not cancel it, review it, or change it. Even moving children's TV off RTE 2 was not allowed despite having a dedicated children's channel.

Lobby groups get a lot more attention than they should. In some jurisdictions that is called corruption.

Do not forget TV3 had (some of) their debts moved from their parent company and then written off, all at our expense.

endakenny

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do not forget TV3 had (some of) their debts moved from their parent company and then written off, all at our expense.

So why doesn't RTÉ fight back? What has Alex White got to lose by changing the SI that was signed by Pat Carey? Does he think that voters could care less if TV3 goes under?

Sam Russell

endakenny wrote: »

So why doesn't RTÉ fight back? What has Alex White got to lose by changing the SI that was signed by Pat Carey? Does he think that voters could care less if TV3 goes under?

Ask Alex White that, and while you are at it, ask Pat Rabbitte as well why he did nothing. (On second thoughts, Pat Rabbitte always did nothing).

The BAI supports TV3, and Dept of Communications also support TV3, and both are anti RTE, judging by their actions and inactions over the years.

endakenny

Sam Russell wrote: »

Ask Alex White that, and while you are at it, ask Pat Rabbitte as well why he did nothing. (On second thoughts, Pat Rabbitte always did nothing).

The BAI supports TV3, and Dept of Communications also support TV3, and both are anti RTE, judging by their actions and inactions over the years.

I thought that being anti-RTÉ in politics was the preserve of Fianna Fáil.

realistic anorak

There was also pie in the sky talk a couple of years ago that all welfare payments would be paid into a bank account, If that happend 95% of post offices would become as redundant as phone boxes.

Elmo

realistic anorak wrote: »

There was also pie in the sky talk a couple of years ago that all welfare payments would be paid into a bank account, If that happend 95% of post offices would become as redundant as phone boxes.

They did start doing that a few years ago but people started living in spain and why wouldn't you?

lertsnim

endakenny wrote: »

Why did RTÉ bother with RTÉ One +1? A time-shift channel is not regarded as a feature of a national public service broadcaster. After all, the BBC doesn't have a timeshift channel.

I find it interesting that you have used the BBC as an example to show why RTÉ shouldn't have a +1 channel.

Would it be pointless if the BBC had a +1 channel? The reason I ask is because the BBC version is coming very soon. See here

endakenny wrote: »

Furthermore, what's the point in making RTÉ News Now available worldwide, given that its blocked outside Ireland during the Olympic Games for rights reasons?

What's the point in the BBC putting Radio 5 live online worldwide when sporting events get blocked?

Sam Russell

endakenny wrote: »

I thought that being anti-RTÉ in politics was the preserve of Fianna Fáil.

No, ALL Governments object to hard questions from RTE. They like to kick back - usually by refusing an increase in the licence fee. In this case, they put an extra few million euros onto their cost base with no benefit.

If RTE had freedom to arrange their own affairs, they could have a viable News Now, and a viable RTE 3. Both of which would provide a good income from adverts. Without those two channels, we would still have a single mux. Either way, RTE would be better off by a few million euro. Instead RTE are blasting embedded zeros into the ether in the form of test cards.

TireeTerror

Why should I pay for a tv licence when I have Sky TV from the UK. I cannot receive RTE, and I assure you watching any Irish channels is the last thing on my mind.

I will not be paying it regardless of whatever measures they take. They have the technology to encrypt the channel for those without a licence, but rather than embrace new technology and let those that want it pay for it, they try and force people to pay up. This is criminal in my opinion, it is quite simply theft.

Elmo

TireeTerror wrote: »

Why should I pay for a tv licence when I have Sky TV from the UK. I cannot receive RTE, and I assure you watching any Irish channels is the last thing on my mind.

I will not be paying it regardless of whatever measures they take. They have the technology to encrypt the channel for those without a licence, but rather than embrace new technology and let those that want it pay for it, they try and force people to pay up. This is criminal in my opinion, it is quite simply theft.

Maybe to support some jobs in Ireland. I know the next argument over paid presenters. Though you'd wonder what non-Free to air TV channel you need if you are paying sky. And you can receive Irish TV.

Sam Russell

TireeTerror wrote: »

Why should I pay for a tv licence when I have Sky TV from the UK. I cannot receive RTE, and I assure you watching any Irish channels is the last thing on my mind.

I will not be paying it regardless of whatever measures they take. They have the technology to encrypt the channel for those without a licence, but rather than embrace new technology and let those that want it pay for it, they try and force people to pay up. This is criminal in my opinion, it is quite simply theft.

Because it is the law. Do you pay a UK licence?

You also pay for other aspects of Irish life whether you use them or not.

steveon

Sam Russell wrote: »

Because it is the law. Do you pay a UK licence?

You also pay for other aspects of Irish life whether you use them or not.

It shouldn't be the Law, RTE should survive on its advertising alone, collecting a fee from people to overpay its staff and to repeat programs from BBC and ch4 constantly and the rest of the time all rubbish about cooking or hotels...

There are many foreign people now living here who has absolutely no interest in RTE and shouldnt be forced to pay for it just because its a law...that is forced onto people.

In America there is no tv license fee and thousands of tv channels exist for free....

Elmo

steveon wrote: »

It shouldn't be the Law, RTE should survive on its advertising alone, collecting a fee from people to overpay its staff and to repeat programs from BBC and ch4 constantly and the rest of the time all rubbish about cooking or hotels...

There are many foreign people now living here who has absolutely no interest in RTE and shouldnt be forced to pay for it just because its a law...that is forced onto people.

In America there is no tv license fee and thousands of tv channels exist for free....

I agree there are many foreign people living in Ireland and they should be provided with some service on RTÉ on the national services. And dont get us wrong there are many problems with RTÉ. Though comparing RTÉ, TV3 or TG4 to US channels is just daft.

Thurston?

TireeTerror wrote: »

Why should I pay for a tv licence when I have Sky TV from the UK.

Why did you go to the trouble of getting a UK Sky sub. to use in Ireland?

icdg

there is a seperate thread for the licence fee generally

lertsnim

TireeTerror wrote: »

Why should I pay for a tv licence when I have Sky TV from the UK.

And do you pay the UK tv licence like those in the UK do? Of course not.

Sam Russell

steveon wrote: »

It shouldn't be the Law.

In America there is no tv license fee and thousands of tv channels exist for free....

If you do not like the law, you must lobby your public representatives and get them to change it. Good luck with that.

In America you can go down to the local Wal-Mart and buy a gun and ammunition. Try that here.

By the way, have you watched any American TV in America?

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

Maybe to support some jobs in Ireland.

What like the old 'guaranteed irish' campaign? It's an absolute fallacy. It only serves to promote inefficiency.


Any fool can spend public money. Go spend it on something where we get full value for that expenditure - and then, support irish jobs!