"Progressive TV Licence system" proposed by FG Senator

BillyBobBS

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

You don’t watch it. That’s fine. I’m not sure you understand the idea of a state broadcaster though. It’s for society in general. So by everyone paying that means auld lads can watch GAA instead of having to pay SKY. Or those who don’t have broadband can still access news and current affairs. If we all just choose to pay for what we wanted then things would be pretty ropey pretty quickly.

I pay taxes and have no problem doing that for the good of the nation. RTE is around for entertainment purposes not for the good of the nation. In fact i'd argue from what iv'e seen and heard on RTE it works against the national interest. Nobody has a divine right to watch GAA or any sport btw.

Thing is i would almost put up with it if they didn't pay their "stars" and staff in general such outrageous wages. How can anyone keep a straight face within RTE knowing they are paying people the ilk of Duffy and Tubrity those types of figures?

Ulysses Gaze

Camille Tasteless Train wrote: »

I would rather get income tax increased by 0.001% than having all of this trouble with the tv licence thingy.

I'd rather RTE is forced to go it alone, cut its cloth and survive on its own merits rather than get another forced cent from the Taxpayers.

jmcc

animaal wrote: »

Or a subscription service.

A subscription based system would be very difficult to protect because there is over the air delivery (Saorview) /broadcast, cable television delivery, satellite delivery (Saorsat) and internet delivery of the service. There would have to be a shared system which would allow subscribers to use it. And there will always be someone who could find a way around the protection. Even Sky was compromised in about five seconds and that was one of the most secure systems at the time. The current licence model is probably the one that will be built upon but the collection of the fee might change. There's talk of having Revenue collect it.

Regards...jmcc

ThisRegard

jmcc wrote: »

You haven't demonstrated any understanding of the broadcast business, licencing, distribution, subscription systems and the conditional access systems on which they depend, ISPs and the absolute cluelessness of the "proposal". Apart from all that, I'm sure your opinion is of value to someone.

Regards...jmcc

Oh, I didn't realise we were required to in order to be critical of the proposal as she currently details it.

For someone who sees my opinion of no value you sure do feel the need to respond to it every time.

jmcc

ThisRegard wrote: »

Oh, I didn't realise we were required to in order to be critical of the proposal as she currently details it.

When you deal with these clueless proposals, it is best to be able to take them apart efficiently. Most of them are by clueless people who don't understand the field/business.

For someone who sees my opinion of no value you sure do feel the need to respond to it every time.

I can be a condescending fecker at times.

Regards...jmcc

animaal

jmcc wrote: »

A subscription based system would be very difficult to protect because there is over the air delivery (Saorview) /broadcast, cable television delivery, satellite delivery (Saorsat) and internet delivery of the service. There would have to be a shared system which would allow subscribers to use it. And there will always be someone who could find a way around the protection.

All true. And I'd add that there would most likely be far fewer "subscribers" than current license payers. Lots of problems to be solved. I just meant that I wouldn't have an objection to the concept.

minikin

I'm totally in agreement with Catherine Noone.

I really think we should pay a contribution to the government for our broadband, phone and tv usage... perhaps an additional 23% on top of the service charge? We could call it 'taxation on added value' or something snappier. Going further - we could even pay this 'T.A.V.' tax on every device we purchase to consume the services and on the electricity that powers them and on the house in which we operate them etc. etc. etc.

Jesus, we seem to be suckers for double taxation in this kip.

[font=Arial, "Times New Roman", Verdana, Garamond]Moreover, this new system makes collection much simpler, as it would be collected by Telecoms companies, thus doing away with the need for the ‘TV Licence Inspector’.[/font]

Oh great and we then get to pay 23% vat on top of the €4 / €8 / €XX* each month, just like the scummy p.s.o. levy on energy bills.
*(god knows what they propose if you've tv/phone/broadband/mobile)

ThisRegard

jmcc wrote: »

When you deal with these clueless proposals, it is best to be able to take them apart efficiently. Most of them are by clueless people who don't understand the field/business.

I can be a condescending fecker at times.

Regards...jmcc

Ha, I'm a bit riled up over other stuff.

My main bone of contention is the charging for having a landline, for reasons which appear to be regardless of having broadband, TV, or even radio. Relative to broadcasting I see no reason as to why this charge would exist, other than revenue collection.

I'm aware that they want every household to pay towards the fee, and that revenue has been suggested as been collectors of the fee.

But if you're going to use the existence of a landline as one of the basis for being charged, why then double up on it if you also have broadband.

Having a landline and broadband doesn't enable you to double up on the media consumed over someone with broadband and no landline. So there's no logic that I can see.

jmcc

ThisRegard wrote: »

Ha, I'm a bit riled up over other stuff.

My main bone of contention is the charging for having a landline, for reasons which appear to be regardless of having broadband, TV, or even radio. Relative to broadcasting I see no reason as to why this charge would exist, other than revenue collection.

Landline charges are already the highest in Europe, from what I remember. (Approximately 23 Euro a month.) The whole proposal is a very poorly conceived brainfart that really doesn't have any basis in reality.

I'm aware that they want every household to pay towards the fee, and that revenue has been suggested as been collectors of the fee.

This is a very dangerous step because it will change a licence fee into effectively being a tax and it will cost politicians votes. There may be some pushback from Revenue over being put in this position.

But if you're going to use the existence of a landline as one of the basis for being charged, why then double up on it if you also have broadband.

Basically, Noone is clueless. There has been a shift away from landlines over the last twenty years as mobile phones became more popular. Virgin (formerly UPC etc) gutted Eircom's dominance of the market and Eircom didn't have the money to compete with higher speed broadband while it was stuck on ADSL. Because Virgin was based in the main cities, it effectively chopped the legs from beneath Eircom in terms of numbers. It also began to offer phone services via cable. Virgin also carries the RTE services on its basic tier so people are already paying for RTE via cable. Now adding an extra fee per month would have people paying approximately 13 Euro extra and it would put the cable TV company in the position of collecting the licence. That arrangement would have to be negotiated with Virgin.

It still leaves the over-the-air problem of Saorsat. That would have to be encrypted and be subscription based. While most TVs would already have a slot for a possible decryption card/conditional access module, it would introduce extra costs for the user unless the device was given away free. And RTE would end up paying for that for a few decades. There would still be no guarantee that the encryption would remain secure.

Having a landline and broadband doesn't enable you to double up on the media consumed over someone with broadband and no landline. So there's no logic that I can see.

It looks like a random politician heard some buzzwords and decided to issue a press release in the hope of getting elected.

Regards...jmcc

Beta Ray Bill

BillyBobBS wrote: »

It's rubbish value. There isn't a single thing i'd watch on RTE or listen to on the RTE radio for entertainment purposes, not one. I pay for broadband and netflix and it works out at about 45 a month over the course of the year. People have moved on and RTE is no longer relevant in the modern age. It's time for them to stand on their own two feet.

In their current state they can't

BillyBobBS wrote: »

And another thing what's the story with Montrose? RTE are millions in a hole and they are sitting on some of the most if not the most valued land in the country. Get the fcuk. Move to a green field site outside of Dublin and get with the times.

Yep, they are based on very expensive land. There is a 4 bed detached house in Nutley Ave around the back of the studio for sale at the moment, asking price is €1,200,000 and it needs a bit of work.

I agree with you, they should sell it and move out to the M50 Ring somewhere.
But I think there's a prestige thing about the place, I can't imagine Dobbo, Tubbs, Shar and crew making their way out to an Industrial estate on the M50 ring to go to work.

Also anyone that moved to sell the Studio would be met with the following:
CEO: "We're moving RTE Studios out to Adamstown. We've a new premises lined up, with loads of new gear, loads of parking and there will be lots of shops/restaurants etc there too"
Staff/Management: "We're not moving out there!"
CEO: "You'll be offered a reasonable once off relocation fee or 2+2 redundancy (same as the banks got in the Foley agreement)"
Staff/Management: "Why do we need to leave Stillorgan!?"
CEO: "We're selling it as it's worth Millions"
Staff/Management: "YOU CAN'T SELL THE LAND!"
CEO: "Why?"
Staff/Management: "BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!"

There'd be so much resistance, that they'd never move.
I've been in Private sector companies that have had to move buildings, people were told move or you've lost your job, it's one of the other. And even then it was an absolute mare.

Can you imagine trying to move the kind of people that work in RTE!?

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Beta Ray Bill

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

touché

Mrs OBumble

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

You don’t watch it. That’s fine. I’m not sure you understand the idea of a state broadcaster though. It’s for society in general. So by everyone paying that means auld lads can watch GAA instead of having to pay SKY. Or those who don’t have broadband can still access news and current affairs. If we all just choose to pay for what we wanted then things would be pretty ropey pretty quickly.

So fund it out of general taxation, instead of having a special tax (which costs a fortune to administer) for it.

VinLieger

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So fund it out of general taxation, instead of having a special tax (which costs a fortune to administer) for it.

The only way this would be a good idea is if we stripped it back completely to do only news and current affairs as well as the odd local stuff like ear to the ground etc, and removed advertising completely. Giving the current bloated bureaucratic mess that is RTE access to the general taxation tap would be a serious mistake

Red_Wake

I listened to 2fm on the drive in to work this morning.

Dire stuff. Listening to the presenters talk about themselves constantly, with no remarks on the outside world. And they expect us to pay for these remedials.

BattleCorp

The figures quoted of €4 per month for broadband or €9 per month for broadband and a landline won't fly.

They will have to be increased substantially because RTE can't make ends meet with the current licence fee as is, so any new charges will have to equal the €160 currently charged at a minimum.

Mrs OBumble

VinLieger wrote: »

The only way this would be a good idea is if we stripped it back completely to do only news and current affairs as well as the odd local stuff like ear to the ground etc, and removed advertising completely. Giving the current bloated bureaucratic mess that is RTE access to the general taxation tap would be a serious mistake

General taxation is not a bottomless pit. RTE would get allocation and has to deliver agreed services from that. Just like every other state agency has to.

And why remove advertising - the very thing which enables them to do more than the allocation would allow?

Manach

There are many names of taxes and one of them being Licence. I've not an interest in a State broadcasting company beyond the fee that is levied to keep this relic running.

Grayson

BillyBobBS wrote: »

It's rubbish value. There isn't a single thing i'd watch on RTE or listen to on the RTE radio for entertainment purposes, not one. I pay for broadband and netflix and it works out at about 45 a month over the course of the year. People have moved on and RTE is no longer relevant in the modern age. It's time for them to stand on their own two feet.

I have no problem paying for both netflix and spotify. I also have a subscription to the Irish times.

I don't have any TV service at all. Everything is streamed.

I'd actually have no problem with a tax on broadband/phone connections if that was used to upgrade services around the country. But the TV licence is a joke. All that money to produce dreadful programming and buy some dreadful programming.

I remember years ago I was living with an american girl. Winning streak was on the TV. I had to explain that you bought a lottery ticket then the rest of the country had to pay to be able to watch you win a prize. I was unable to explain why the production standards were so bad.

suicide_circus

Grayson wrote: »

I remember years ago I was living with an american girl. Winning streak was on the TV. I had to explain that you bought a lottery ticket then the rest of the country had to pay to be able to watch you win a prize. I was unable to explain why the production standards were so bad.

LOL the insanity of that is beyond words

Grayson

jmcc wrote: »

A subscription based system would be very difficult to protect because there is over the air delivery (Saorview) /broadcast, cable television delivery, satellite delivery (Saorsat) and internet delivery of the service. There would have to be a shared system which would allow subscribers to use it. And there will always be someone who could find a way around the protection. Even Sky was compromised in about five seconds and that was one of the most secure systems at the time. The current licence model is probably the one that will be built upon but the collection of the fee might change. There's talk of having Revenue collect it.

Regards...jmcc

I can see RTE being a prime target for the world hackers who need their Late Late fix.

buckwheat

donegaLroad wrote: »

I listen to RTE radio quite a bit, their documentaries are very interesting and very well put together. I also like Drama on One, and also some of the music programs.

But RTE television? Lets just take a quick look at what is on today on RTE1

7am Teleshopping
8:25 Today with Maura and Daithi (I have never seen this so cant comment)
10:25 Dr. Phil
11:20 Shortland Street
11:50 Leaders Questions
12:45 Telly Bingo
13:00 News
13:30 Home and Away
14:00 Neighbours
14:30 Kevin Dundon's Modern Irish Food (this is probably good)
15:00 Fair City
15:30 Today with Maura and Daithi
17:40 Nuacht
18:00 News
19:00 Getaways (travel program)
19:30 Eastenders
20:00 Fair City

There is a current affairs program and a couple of dramas on after this, followed by a film, and of course more news.

Some of the Irish made programs are good, but they are far and few between. Everything else is repeats and fillers.

The absolute ****ing state of that

Grayson

suicide_circus wrote: »

LOL the insanity of that is beyond words

And it's on at primetime!. On our national station. WTF is going on there.

SEPT 23 1989

jmcc wrote: »

Fascinating how there used to be an argument by RTE supporters that the reason that people like Tubridy et al were paid so much was because other broadcasters wanted them. BBC didn't seem to want Tubridy back since his little Alan Partridge effort as a replacement DJ.

Regards...jmcc

The ones with real media talent got out of this country and were paid accordingly

VinLieger

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

General taxation is not a bottomless pit. RTE would get allocation and has to deliver agreed services from that. Just like every other state agency has to.

And why remove advertising - the very thing which enables them to do more than the allocation would allow?

They aren't a state agency.

They have lost literally every sporting event in recent years that they have bid for. Their GAA coverage is being stripped barer every year, they are down to picking up the table scraps of whatever mid week garbage game happens in the premier league and they no longer have the 6 nations, rugby world cup, both lost to tv3 who receive no license fee, or any of the pro14 games. They also will now have to compete for the 2020 olympic license as Eurosport will be sub licensing out coverage for it in Europe and I have zero expectations for them to be successful considering recent history.

So please tell me again what advertising allows them to do?

lawred2

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Have you watched TV3? Anyway apples and oranges comparison, one is mandated to be a full scale general broadcaster in radio and television with orchestras, choirs, Irish language support, cultural odds and sods etc. TV3 is soaps and ITV imports.

I'll see your orchestras and raise you a Ryan Tubridy and Nicky Byrne..

Fann Linn

Referendum on RTE & The Seanad again please.

Far too much waste in the public purse.

Varik

Would pay €96 a year to improve the broadband infrastructure, as an expansion and boost to the current USO.

Not paying a cent to RTE.

Billy86

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Have you watched TV3? Anyway apples and oranges comparison, one is mandated to be a full scale general broadcaster in radio and television with orchestras, choirs, Irish language support, cultural odds and sods etc. TV3 is soaps and ITV imports.

A big, big problem though is when the first one consistently uses public money to muscle the other one out of their own market (and don't forget the US sitcom imports either) rather than put a proper focus into creating their own content and providing true opportunity to budding domestic industry professionals.

CiniO

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

Giving out about RTÉ on the Internet comes as easily to some people as breathing. I’ve lived in countries with no state broadcaster. It’s crap. RTÉ aren’t perfect, but paying 180 a year for public service broadcasting isn’t bad value.

Maybe it isn't bad value, but problem is that currently people who don't avail of this service are still required to pay that €160 a year.
I do have to pay it, even though I never watch Rte.

Fann Linn

CiniO wrote: »

Maybe it isn't bad value, but problem is that currently people who don't avail of this service are still required to pay that €160 a year.
I do have to pay it, even though I never watch Rte.

Two hours of Marian Finucane on a Saturday morning illustrates exactly why the TV licence is a waste of money.

Ubbquittious

By progressive I thinking they mean more money progressing into their pockets

Ubbquittious

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

General taxation is not a bottomless pit.

It certainly is if you're the one trying to fill it.

VinLieger

Fann Linn wrote: »

Two hours of Marian Finucane on a Saturday morning illustrates exactly why the TV licence is a waste of money.

For which she is paid 295k for realistically at most 6-8 hours per week including the 2 hour on air

goose2005

baylah17 wrote: »

orchestras, choirs cultural odds and sods
Surely thats the Job of the Arts Council!!
WTF does the National Broadcaster need with Orchestras and Choirs in the 21st Century??

It is strange, a relic of the time when live orchestras on the radio were a big deal. Of course, remove them and RTE's cultural component starts to look very bare indeed

VinLieger

goose2005 wrote: »

It is strange, a relic of the time when live orchestras on the radio were a big deal. Of course, remove them and RTE's cultural component starts to look very bare indeed

Every aspect of their programming looks bare these days, as i pointed out above they have barely any of the sports programming they did 5-6 years ago, their kids programming is a joke compared to 15-20 years ago. Their homegrown stuff is also pretty garbage, literally the only thing of note they have produced in recent years is love/hate and that started 7 years ago and they haven't had the balls to take a risk like that since then