# T.V. Licence Fee



## NorthDrum (7 Nov 2008)

Anybody got an opinion on the current licence fee we pay.

Am I right in saying all licence monies goto the RTE?

Why are they allowed to air add's when the likes of the BBC are not?   Is this not anti competitive against TV3.

Who regulates them? 

It just seems that its another example of a semi state body (so to speak) riding the pigs back and paying over the odds for sub standard staff. 

Dont get me wrong, Im not up to speed on the "going rate" for radio or tv hosts, but from some of the figures being mentioned it seems that some of the comfortable bigwigs (kenny, ryan, Duffy) in radio and TV are getting very generous pay packages for very few hours work. We are quick to complain about our taoiseachs wage, but some of these clowns are getting more then double that for a fraction of the work.

I resent having to pay €170 for a station I barely ever watch, which overpays its staff and doesnt really appear accountable to anybody.


----------



## Bubbly Scot (7 Nov 2008)

I have to admit, while I grunt about having to pay a tv licence I don't tend to think about it being for just RTE...a station I rarely watch either. It's a nessessary evil and I'm definatly in the "pay up, shut up" brigade.

Now, when it comes to Sky, that's a different ball game. I worked out last night how much we pay a year for that and I can tell you now, that DD will be at least halved next month, once i work out what channels we can live without.

I don't agree with the principle of the tv licence but never felt passionatly enough to do anything about it. I paid the BBC for years in the UK but watched a lot more of that channel than I do RTE, maybe I'm just conditioned now


----------



## Lollix (7 Nov 2008)

We certainly pay too much in fees, but only because the entire fee is sucked up by RTE and not distributed to other broadcasters. The license fee should only be used to fund the public service remit, across all stations, and the rest should be paid for by advertising.
The problem in RTE is that the place is grossly overmanned by people who operate all kinds of restrictive practices. It's a bloated civil service operation that sits on the most expensive bit of parkland in Ireland, instead of being out in an industrial estate like TV3.
We badly need the current government to look at all high cost public services to ensure that we get value for scarce taxes, and the license fee is a tax after all.


----------



## majik (7 Nov 2008)

Well if you don't want to pay your license fee then get rid of your television, simple really. There are many more outlets on the internet these days to watch live and recorded tv content. The Wireless Telegraphy Act doesn't cover computers:



> Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1972
> 
> "television set" means any apparatus for wireless telegraphy designed primarily  for the purpose of receiving and exhibiting television programmes broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.


As you can see it covers wireless, most internet is wired these days. Also an apparatus "primarly" designed for tv watching, a computer is not primarily designed for this. There are no actual definitions in the 1972 act as to what wireless telegraphy actually is because that act took its main lead from the  Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1926. The 1926 act states:


> the expression "wireless telegraphy" means and includes any system of communicating messages, spoken words, music, images, pictures, prints, or other communications, sounds, signs, or signals by means of radiated electro-magnetic waves originating in an apparatus or device constructed for the purpose of originating such communications, sounds, signs, or signals


A very vague description which in this day and age could cover anything from a mobile phone to a GPS unit to the RFID chip on your passport, none of which are licensed at the end-user level. You could also argue that the properties of "ethernet" do not resemble those of of "radiated electro-magnetic waves". However any prosecution trying to argue that "ethernet" does exhibit "radiated electro-magnetic wave" properties would be putting itself on a slippery slope, in effect admitting that all ethernet receiving devices need to be licensed, which I don't think is going to happen. 

If after all of that you could still install an internal or external TV tuner into the machine to get standard aerial/cable tv. 

http://www.hauppauge.co.uk/site/products/data_hvr900.html

I'd go for the USB one if you were worried about getting caught. If the inspector comes and for some bizarre reason you actually allow him into your house (he has no legal right to) then you can just bung it in your back pocket.


----------



## NorthDrum (7 Nov 2008)

Majik, 

As far as I know but if you use a computer to watch any sort of media you are supposed to pay a tv licence (I will stand corrected if wrong).

Im not complaining about having to pay it more what its being used for. 

I resent how its ****ed away at RTE HQ for sub to below standard programmes and even worse presenters!!


----------



## z103 (7 Nov 2008)

> I don't agree with the principle of the tv licence but never felt passionatly enough to do anything about it.


I did.
I got rid of my television 6 or 7 years ago. I don't miss it.


----------



## GarBow (8 Nov 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> Am I right in saying all licence monies goto the RTE?
> .


 
I believe that some monies do go to TV3 (and pehaps others), for their public broadcasting contributions, news etc. Although i think this is a very small percentage of the overall fund.


----------



## GeneralZod (8 Nov 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> As far as I know but if you use a computer to watch any sort of media you are supposed to pay a tv licence (I will stand corrected if wrong).



Provided that the computer isn't connected to a TV tuner (even once) or receiving a relayed IPTV stream from a slingbox then a licence isn't required.

The Sunday Business Post got [broken link removed] from the Department of Communications


----------



## Complainer (9 Nov 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> It just seems that its another example of a semi state body (so to speak) riding the pigs back and paying over the odds for sub standard staff.
> 
> Dont get me wrong, Im not up to speed on the "going rate" for radio or tv hosts, but from some of the figures being mentioned it seems that some of the comfortable bigwigs (kenny, ryan, Duffy) in radio and TV are getting very generous pay packages for very few hours work. We are quick to complain about our taoiseachs wage, but some of these clowns are getting more then double that for a fraction of the work.
> 
> I resent having to pay €170 for a station I barely ever watch, which overpays its staff and doesnt really appear accountable to anybody.



Kenny, Ryan, Duffy and most of the other big names are NOT RTE employees.


----------



## mercman (9 Nov 2008)

One of the reasons the fee is so high is due to the fact that those that do pay are covering those that do not. The best way to collect the Licence fee should be from the property owners and not from those living in the property.

And most commercial properties have a T.V. as well. So if everybody played their part the fee would most likely be reduced somewhat.


----------



## z103 (9 Nov 2008)

> The best way to collect the Licence fee should be from the property owners and not from those living in the property.


So how does this work if the landlord does not want a TV on their premises, but the tenants do?


----------



## mercman (9 Nov 2008)

It should be made the responsibility of the landlord who in turn should recoup it from the tenants. Something similar to other countries.


----------



## purpeller (10 Nov 2008)

Complainer said:


> Kenny, Ryan, Duffy and most of the other big names are NOT RTE employees.



How do you make that out?  Do they work as independent contractors?


----------



## cork (10 Nov 2008)

mercman said:


> It should be made the responsibility of the landlord who in turn should recoup it from the tenants. Something similar to other countries.


 

I agree. I live in a house with 2 others - If I get a licence in my name - I can keep the licence - If I move house.

The licence should be scraped. RTE is dire. Failte Towers, Katherine Lynch, Langerland TV, Podge & Rodge, Tubberdy, Late Late Show, etc.


----------



## tara83 (10 Nov 2008)

Bubbly Scot said:


> I have to admit, while I grunt about having to pay a tv licence I don't tend to think about it being for just RTE...a station I rarely watch either. It's a nessessary evil and I'm definatly in the "pay up, shut up" brigade.
> 
> Now, when it comes to Sky, that's a different ball game. I worked out last night how much we pay a year for that and I can tell you now, that DD will be at least halved next month, once i work out what channels we can live without.
> 
> I don't agree with the principle of the tv licence but never felt passionatly enough to do anything about it. I paid the BBC for years in the UK but watched a lot more of that channel than I do RTE, maybe I'm just conditioned now


 
At least with the BBC you don't have to sit through ads.  Nothing more annoying when watching a film as ad breaks. Why do we pay a Tv licence fee and also have ads, that what annoys me


----------



## mercman (10 Nov 2008)

In case you did not know, it is the law.


----------



## majik (10 Nov 2008)

As the Post article points out



> This being Ireland, the real measure of what counts is in the enforcement. This means that even the fanciest TV-connected computer needs to attract the attention of a working TV inspector. And you’re probably safe watching TV in your car, tent or motor home.


Enforcement is lackadaisal at best and I've never payed a license even after a few notes from the inspector under the door. The funny thing is that we caught him using the postmans key to enter the apartment complex, which is illegal, so that he could knock on each apartments actual front door as opposed to trying to buzz in outside. Recently inspectors went out of their way to find houses/flats/apartments with new immigrants, people unaware of their rights on the matter. If they are going to play sneaky then we have every right to fight back! Its the one law I condone you break.


----------



## Complainer (10 Nov 2008)

purpeller said:


> How do you make that out?  Do they work as independent contractors?


Yep


----------



## shesells (11 Nov 2008)

I do not work for RTE or like paying a tax by another name as the licence fee is (initially established as a radio licence when RTE started from nothing). BUT

The portion of the licence fee that RTE gets (yes the majority) goes to funding RTE 1, RTE 2, RTE Radion 1, 2FM (although I think this is self financing of late), Radio na Gaeltachta, TG4, Concert Orchestra, Concert Choir, Symphony Orchestra & Cor na nOg. Possibly other stuff as well.

Another portion of the licence fee goes to private broadcasters and there is a development fund from which private production companies like Mint (behind most of the political "documentaries") get grants for programmes.

A lot of the big name "celebrities" in RTE bring in enough in advertising to cover their salaries, I think Gerry Ryan is the top at this.

Only learned most of what I've just posted while doing an Irish Media module in college last year.


----------



## csirl (11 Nov 2008)

> The funny thing is that we caught him using the postmans key to enter the apartment complex, which is illegal,


 
TV license inspectors are from An Post - technically they are postmen.


----------



## Pique318 (11 Nov 2008)

csirl said:


> TV license inspectors are from An Post - technically they are postmen.


If I work for An Garda Siochana, does that make me a cop ?
If I work for Aer Lingus, does that make me a pilot ?


----------



## sandrat (11 Nov 2008)

Pique318 said:


> If I work for An Garda Siochana, does that make me a cop ?
> If I work for Aer Lingus, does that make me a pilot ?


 
probably if you are in copper face jacks

apparently it costs 450 a day to get grainne seoige's gruaig done, that's nearly 3 tv licences.


----------



## NorthDrum (11 Nov 2008)

Somebody said that Ryan and Kenny Etc arent employed by RTE ! ! !

Im confused, if they arent employed by rte who employs them. 

And if they pay for their wages through advertisement then why do we need to pay tv licence fee.

I dont know the full ins and outs of how the licence fee (or RTE) allocates its money, but from some of the things that have been suggested, its not always in a cost efficient manner.

And justifying high wages by saying that they make it back in adds, still doesnt justify the wages. If I worked for a privately owned company and just about covered the costs of my wages through my work, I would be quickly let go. Its not enough "to cover your wages".


----------



## Dave Vanian (11 Nov 2008)

Ryan, Kenny & Duffy are effectively contractors.


----------



## Pique318 (11 Nov 2008)

Dave Vanian said:


> Ryan, Kenny & Duffy are effectively contractors.


I can think of better descriptions for them


----------



## TheBlock (12 Nov 2008)

This may answer some of NothDrums questions on RTE's finances. As well as how License fee is allocated and also the percentage of License Fee to Other Income (approx 47%). As was pionted out RTE do a lot more than provide two TV stations.

http://www.rte.ie/about/pdfs/annual_report07_english.pdf


My biased opinon of course.


----------



## NorthDrum (12 Nov 2008)

TheBlock said:


> This may answer some of NothDrums questions on RTE's finances. As well as how License fee is allocated and also the percentage of License Fee to Other Income (approx 47%). As was pionted out RTE do a lot more than provide two TV stations.
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/about/pdfs/annual_report07_english.pdf
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for trying to clarify that. A bit too much a long winded doc for mew to go through  ! ! !

One figure that popped out was Pat Kennys radio figures. If anything I think hes a better radio presenter then a tv presenter (not just a face for radio!), yet his radio figures would be considered poor in relation to his status at RTE!


----------



## z103 (12 Nov 2008)

> Ryan, Kenny & Duffy are effectively contractors.


Really? If they were IT contractors, revenue may have a case to call them employees.

Recently I've being going to the gym and they have TVs built into some of the machines. I noticed a programme called 'bertie' was listed. Surely this isn't about bertie ahern?
I also noticed the screens have video input so I'm going to get myself one of them there portable DVD players.


----------



## TheBlock (12 Nov 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> Thanks for trying to clarify that. A bit too much a long winded doc for mew to go through ! ! !
> 
> One figure that popped out was Pat Kennys radio figures. If anything I think hes a better radio presenter then a tv presenter (not just a face for radio!), yet his radio figures would be considered poor in relation to his status at RTE!


 

Not Trying to defend Pat Kenny in the slightest but he does run this radio programme as well as doing the Late Late (Both of which don't appeal to me). While 10% share does appear low the figures would best be compared to other stations programmes on at the same time. 

I would also find in intersting to know the salaries of similar presenters in the private broadcasting business....George Hook, Ray D'arcy, Matt Cooper, Ian Dempsey I'm sure their not scrapping through this recession 

By the way rumour has it Pat is still being tapped up by other broadcasters but this could be just rumour to keep his contract negotiations on track.


----------



## Blossy (13 Nov 2008)

a question: if you dont pay the tv licence and they are aware that there is a tv in the house and sky box etc visible, can they go ahead and summons you anyway? 

its on thier system if a particular house has a licence or not??

in the case of social or affordable housing, where the houses are not allowed to be rented out, surely they can prosecute the owners/ tenants of these houses, they cannot argue if they dont live there, or the tv isnt theirs as they are not allowed to do that anyway?

any thoughts on that?

ps i wouldnt want it imposed but im guessing technically it could be done? or do they have to actually speak to you...ie hide under the stairs if you see a man wit a clip board at the door


----------



## rabbit (13 Nov 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> Somebody said that Ryan and Kenny Etc arent employed by RTE ! ! !
> 
> Im confused, if they arent employed by rte who employs them.
> 
> ...


 
well said


----------



## Simeon (13 Nov 2008)

sandrat said:


> probably if you are in copper face jacks
> 
> apparently it costs 450 a day to get grainne seoige's gruaig done, that's nearly 3 tv licences.


I spent less than half of that getting a fourteen year old car through the NCT ........... and don't have to go back for over two years. Surely something wrong here


----------



## MandaC (13 Nov 2008)

Blossy said:


> a question: if you dont pay the tv licence and they are aware that there is a tv in the house and sky box etc visible, can they go ahead and summons you anyway?
> 
> its on thier system if a particular house has a licence or not??
> 
> ...




If they do not have a name on the list, ie if you have never bought a TV Licence before, therefore all correspondence will come in the name of the occupier. They cannot send a summons in the name of the occupier. 
My sister saw a suspicious person rooting at next doors bin and called the guards.  It turned out to be the TV Licence man trying to get peoples names from the bins at the front of the house.

Then, they have to actually call to the door and catch who ever opens the door.  I knew somebody who refused to give their name when the TV Licence man caught him coming out the door and nothing ever happened.  He said he was only minding the house (which he was) and the TV Licence man asked for the name of the owners.  Person just said, I dont think they would be very happy with me giving out their names, so you will have to call back yourself.  I dont know if the Inspector called back when the owners came back, but nothing happened as a result of the first call anyway.


----------



## Blossy (13 Nov 2008)

MandaC said:


> If they do not have a name on the list, ie if you have never bought a TV Licence before, therefore all correspondence will come in the name of the occupier. They cannot send a summons in the name of the occupier.
> My sister saw a suspicious person rooting at next doors bin and called the guards. It turned out to be the TV Licence man trying to get peoples names from the bins at the front of the house.
> 
> Then, they have to actually call to the door and catch who ever opens the door. I knew somebody who refused to give their name when the TV Licence man caught him coming out the door and nothing ever happened. He said he was only minding the house (which he was) and the TV Licence man asked for the name of the owners. Person just said, I dont think they would be very happy with me giving out their names, so you will have to call back yourself. I dont know if the Inspector called back when the owners came back, but nothing happened as a result of the first call anyway.


 
 you would think they would have access to whom lived in what address, and just summons them! 

basically u need never pay for one if you dodge them???


----------



## MandaC (13 Nov 2008)

No legally, you can't just just send a summons to someone once you have a name.  The summons can only issue if you are caught by the TV Licence Inspector. The summons relates to being at an address with an apparatus (or whatever way it is worded)  They have to ask if you have a TV, and then who you are.  Some people genuinely do not have TV's. There was talk of them getting the databases from Sky, etc, but I think there would be data protection issues from that.

Once they have your name from one year to the next, normally they send a threatening letter when your TV Licence is expired, most people pay. But they cant send a summons unless you are caught by the Inspector.  

I suppose you could dodge if you wanted to, but it would be a pain keep looking out to see who is at the door.  One guy I know has never had a licence since he moved into his house in 1996.  He never bought a licence and keeps getting letters to the Occupier, but nothing further than that.


----------



## mercman (13 Nov 2008)

And that is the reason for my Post. 99.9% of all residences have a TV. Therefore the authorities should force the property owner to pay the licence fee and if no licence fee due then prove it. Otherwise cough up.


----------



## shesells (14 Nov 2008)

The most unfair thing about TV licences is that there is only one type. While a pub or a hotel will pay a much higher rate for SKY packages than a private house will, the tv licence fee is the same for an entire 300 room hotel as it is for a bedsit.


----------



## majik (21 Nov 2008)

mercman said:


> the authorities


And whom are these authorities?

To reiterate what a number of posters have said.

The inspector has no legal right to enter your home. The inspector is there to act as a witness to your TV ownership, nothing more. So if he can't witness anything then hes out of lock, a closed door in the face usually does the trick. Even if they get your name and address they still have to witness you in possesion of a TV. The inspector has no right to look through your post, this is a criminal offence.

Finally if they ever do catch you and you have your day in court try to memorise correctly who the inspector was on the day you got caught, (not the day you were summoned!). An Post will usually schedule a number of TV license sittings together in the court and usually send out whoever is available. 9 times out of 10 it usually not the person that witnessed your ownership, make the judge aware that the inspector in the court is not the inspector who allegedly witnessed your TV ownership and voila case thrown out. No witness, no crime.


----------



## z103 (21 Nov 2008)

> And that is the reason for my Post. 99.9% of all residences have a TV.


I would say that this figure is reducing. I don't have a TV, and some of my friends have also got rid of the telly, or are thinking about it.
TV's heyday has gone, and I believe it's becoming old hat. Now people are using the Internet more, instead (like me, right now!) People will start waking up to the fact that TV is  mostly dire, and not worth the licence fee.
(Especially with programs called 'bertie', which I suspect was about bertie ahern. - I'd pay not to watch that.)


----------

