Why is the broadcasting charge postponed ?

hfallada

Sam Russell wrote: »

If I were bringing in a broadcasting charge, I would not call it that for a start, perhaps Media and Communication Charge - or something other than broadcasting.

I would structure it so that the cost per household would be €10 per month added to the electricity bill. If you get electricity, then you pay.

A second strand would be to levy broadband users by €2.50 per month.

A third strand would be to place a levy of €0.01 on each text message sent.

The overall charge would be limited to raising the same amount as currently raised by the Licence fee.

So, current licence is €160. New charge is €120, plus (for those with broadband) is €30. This is more than currently raised because 15% do not pay, and An Post get a fair bit as well. The text message bit is a bonus, but would be huge in total but trivial for each message.

ESB Networks collect the €10 per month, and the few broadband providers collect their bit. Mobile operators pay over the text message bit.

I think the Irish Water thing has spooked the politicos.

Your suggestion is basically a tax on younger people, which is the biggest users of broadband and texting. But the least likely to watch/listen to RTE Radio or TV. The text tax is ridiculous as most mobile phone plans have unlimited texts as standard and young people will switch to free Whatsapp if they have to pay for texts.

Why should users of broadband have to pay €30 for a broadcasting charge when are the most likely not to have a TV. Most young people only watch shows(nearly always American produced) on their laptops. I know dozens of young people without TVs in their apartments. €160 for a tv license is basically nearly a years mobile internet.

Macy0161

Radio_Fan_67 wrote: »

As i said in another thread. RTE should shut down RTE News now, Junior and * 1. The licence fee has not increased since 2008 but RTE are broadcasting these services that have no income and tiny ratings. The dab radio network should also be shutdown.

In fairness to RTE, they were blocked from doing what they wanted regarding the extra channels. It's not RTE's fault that News Now doesn't carry adverts so brings no income, and they didn't want a +1 channel either (although with BBC going with BBC +1 instead of BBC3 whether that would've changed I don't know).

Having said that RTE News Now and RTE Junior are watched in our household. And I don't have a problem with a broadcasting charge to be honest. Even taking out evasion, there are a lot of people who do access RTE content online.

Sam Russell

hfallada wrote: »

Your suggestion is basically a tax on younger people, which is the biggest users of broadband and texting. But the least likely to watch/listen to RTE Radio or TV. The text tax is ridiculous as most mobile phone plans have unlimited texts as standard and young people will switch to free Whatsapp if they have to pay for texts.

Why should users of broadband have to pay €30 for a broadcasting charge when are the most likely not to have a TV. Most young people only watch shows(nearly always American produced) on their laptops. I know dozens of young people without TVs in their apartments. €160 for a tv license is basically nearly a years mobile internet.

You are probably right. The proposal for the broadcasting charge is to charge every household €160 per year. I am suggesting, if they go ahead, to charge only €120/year. This reduces the cost per household but because only 85% of households pay the current licence, but more than 95% should pay it, and because An Post get a large slice for collecting it, this would raise much the same amount. By raising some money from broadband, there would be some rationale to call it a broadcasting charge. It could be related to the speed of the broadband, but that is a political question.

It would be a new tax, and in its proposed format perhaps it has been badly thought out, but the TV license should be abolished as it is losing its relevance. I was trying to suggest a more equitable way of raising a similar amount.

Maidhci

Sam Russell wrote: »

It would be a new tax, and in its proposed format perhaps it has been badly thought out, but the TV license should be abolished as it is losing its relevance. I was trying to suggest a more equitable way of raising a similar amount.

How is a TV licence losing its relevance? How is a broadcasting charge on non-tv households more relevant and equitable to the existing licence fee?

Why is necessary to raise a similar amount from a licence or broadcasting fee - to me this is giving a guaranteed subsidy to 2 non-essential public service broadcasters with no attached obligations regarding quality of programming or services delivered.

Also, as raised in a previous post, would it not be more equitable to strengthen the current legislation and pursue the licence fee evaders to ensure more compliance?

Radio_Fan_67

Maidhci wrote: »

2 non-essential public service broadcasters

People who say nobody would miss RTE need their head examined, A huge fuss was caused back in october when RTE tried to switch off a service that a small number of elderly people listen to in another country.

Maidhci

Radio_Fan_67 wrote: »

People who say nobody would miss RTE need their head examined, A huge fuss was caused back in october when RTE tried to switch off a service that a small number of elderly people listen to in another country.

You have selectively quoted from my post - I did not state anywhere that people wouldn't miss RTE, obviously they would and they should pay for that service, as I am sure the vast majority of people who watch it do!

That does not mean however, that if the current licence regime does not generate sufficient funds to deliver those services, that the system should be changed to make it a tax on the Internet, simply to broaden to base.

makeorbrake

Radio_Fan_67 wrote: »

People who say nobody would miss RTE need their head examined, A huge fuss was caused back in october when RTE tried to switch off a service that a small number of elderly people listen to in another country.

I don't think anyone has said that NO ONE would miss rte - clearly thousands would - and there would need to be extended editions of liveline to deal with such a dramatic event


However, some of us won't miss it - and don't want to pay for it - OR - we don't see the value proposition in its current form and funding structure.


I say again....If rte et al is a value proposition, then encrypt it in dvb-t & dvb-s and collect the license fee that way.

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

I say again....If rte et al is a value proposition, then encrypt it in dvb-t & dvb-s and collect the license fee that way.

You may find it passed on to you via Sky and UPC, they would need Irish content. Their unlike to want to invest in Irish content themselves. Unlikely to be preimum channels.

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

You may find it passed on to you via Sky and UPC, they would need Irish content. Their unlike to want to invest in Irish content themselves. Unlikely to be premum channels.

Having irish channels on their EPG is critically important to sky/upc. Therefore, if rte et al told them to make them into their own 'pack' and collect the license fee (or equivalent) for them, I'm sure they would do that.

dvb-t they can encrypt themselves.

Elmo

makeorbrake wrote: »

Having irish channels on their EPG is critically important to sky/upc. Therefore, if rte et al told them to make them into their own 'pack' and collect the license fee (or equivalent) for them, I'm sure they would do that.

dvb-t they can encrypt themselves.

They'd make them part of their basic package. And they'd be part of their basic package.

bluemartin

hfallada wrote: »

Your suggestion is basically a tax on younger people, which is the biggest users of broadband and texting.

don't most young people now use whatapps and viper as its free when they have a data package. Texting is not as popular as it used to be. RTE will never actually start charging people for using the internet will they??

makeorbrake

Elmo wrote: »

They'd make them part of their basic package. And they'd be part of their basic package.

I'm not at all sure where you're going with this. The point is - there is nothing stopping this being structured in a way that sky/upc collect a fee (be that simply incorporated as part of their subscription or otherwise) - and that revenue to be passed on to rte et all - if that is the deal that is arrived at between them.