# TV License fee



## whiskey1 (5 Aug 2010)

Hello, I am a sky subscriber at the moment and I am provided with RTE1, RTE2, TV3 and TG4 by Sky. Do I still have to pay my annual TV license even though I do not have an aerial to recieve these channels?


----------



## WindUp (5 Aug 2010)

Yes


----------



## Tessi (5 Aug 2010)

Yes you do.  Isn't it a ridiculous money making racket.  We seem to pay twice for a lot of things in this country.


----------



## Leo (5 Aug 2010)

Tessi said:


> Yes you do. Isn't it a ridiculous money making racket. We seem to pay twice for a lot of things in this country.


 
If you feel that strongly about it, you should drop the sky subscription.


----------



## Boyd (5 Aug 2010)

Leo said:


> If you feel that strongly about it, you should drop the sky subscription.



Yeah if you love watching TV through the haze that is terrestrial TV, depending on where you live 

TV license is a joke, if it was in anyway not a money racket there would be zero ads on TV at least.


----------



## Tessi (5 Aug 2010)

Hi Leo

I just don't get why you would suggest dropping the sky subscription.  I am an extremely satisfied sky customer.  As far as I can see I get very little for my tv licence where as I am happy to pay my sky subscription because I get quality and quantity.


----------



## hopalong (5 Aug 2010)

you pay a licence for your receiving appartus,the tv,and then you decide the supplier you want,sky,upc etc.


----------



## Marietta (5 Aug 2010)

hopalong said:


> you pay a licence for your receiving appartus,the tv,and then you decide the supplier you want,sky,upc etc.


 

I dont't think this is correct, what about the computer, the mobile phone, the ipods are these not receiving apparatuses in which we can watch tv programmes, news broadcast, documentaries etc in which we dont need a licence??


----------



## Pat Bateman (5 Aug 2010)

Leo said:


> If you feel that strongly about it, you should drop the sky subscription.


 
Surely he/she shouldn't be forced to ditch the service that they want because they're forced to pay for a service that they don't want?


----------



## Marietta (5 Aug 2010)

Pat Bateman said:


> Surely he/she shouldn't be forced to ditch the service that they want because they're forced to pay for a service that they don't want?


 
+1 exactly


----------



## WindUp (5 Aug 2010)

section 140 of the Broadcasting Act 2009
defines the “television set” to include ‘any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.’ The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has previously expressed the opinion that devices capable of receiving on-demand digital content (non-linear audiovisual services) over the Internet and through mobile phone devices  are intended to be excluded from the requirement of holding a television licence.


----------



## Marietta (5 Aug 2010)

So are you saying that a person who dosent have a TV but does have a computer should have a TV licence??? I have never heard of anybody being prosecuted as such.


----------



## Tessi (5 Aug 2010)

Hopalong thats bull. Its nothing to do with the "Aparatus" as such.  All it means is that if one has a TV they have to be receiving channels (unless its broken) and therefore whether you are bothered or not with the irish channels one has to pay a tax called a tv licence.


----------



## dahamsta (5 Aug 2010)

It's not "bull", read Windup's post, they went to trouble of posting the relevant legislation.


----------



## Boyd (5 Aug 2010)

Tessi said:


> Hi Leo
> 
> I just don't get why you would suggest dropping the sky subscription.  I am an extremely satisfied sky customer.  As far as I can see I get very little for my tv licence where as I am happy to pay my sky subscription because I get quality and quantity.



Exactly. I note that alot of people who post here often exude a "Holier than thou" vibe from them, opitomised by Leo's post. 

It is a crazy situation where you are forced to pay for receiving terrestrial channels even though you dont watch them. I know perfectly well its the law but the government changes laws constantly to suit themselves. 

This tax is completely outdated since a huge percentage of people have some form of satellite TV, however due to our current economic disaster its unlikely any government will scrap the TV license.


----------



## allthedoyles (6 Aug 2010)

Lads - your agument is a no-hoper -It is all summed up above in one word ie . Leglislation.

The aparatus in question is a television , and if there is one of these at an address , then you need a TV licence .

End of story ..


----------



## Tessi (6 Aug 2010)

username123 said:


> Exactly. I note that alot of people who post here often exude a "Holier than thou" vibe from them, opitomised by Leo's post.
> 
> "Holier than thou" is just another name for a bloody sheep.  Ireland is full of them.  Afraid to speak up against out dated so called "relevent legislation".  There was no such thing as sky/ntL when  this legislation was brought in.  If it suit, the law can change  but if they are making easy money why change unless enough standup to them.
> 
> Perhaps if these tv licence agreers are so happy to just pay up, they won't mind paying the licence fee brought in to cover the radio stations played on their apparatus at home or whilst driving.  Wouldn't that be nice.


----------



## mathepac (6 Aug 2010)

Tessi said:


> ... Perhaps if these tv licence agreers are so happy to just pay up, they won't mind paying the licence fee brought in to cover the radio stations played on their apparatus at home or whilst driving.  Wouldn't that be nice.


I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but the requirement to have a radio reception licence was abolished some time ago.

Maybe the sheep, or goats as the case may be, who pay for driving licences, dog licences, road haulage licences, pilot's licences, etc. should mobilise and become refusniks, is that your suggestion, refuse all licence payments to central government?


----------



## Rois (6 Aug 2010)

I have long since cancelled my sky subscription, as part of cost saving measures.  I still have the TV even though it's not used.  I have no aerial. 

Does having the "apparatus" i.e. tv in the house mean i am liable for the TV Licence even though it's not used (except to watch the occassional DVD) ?


----------



## dahamsta (6 Aug 2010)

Yes.


----------



## Tessi (6 Aug 2010)

Maybe the sheep, or goats as the case may be, who pay for driving licences, dog licences, road haulage licences, pilot's licences, etc. should mobilise and become refusniks, is that your suggestion, refuse all licence payments to central government?[/QUOTE]


Comparing tv licence with Pilot's licence - Where the logic in that.  I'm finished with this dicussion if this is the mentality we subjected to!


----------



## Pope John 11 (6 Aug 2010)

Can anyone tell me when the price increased to €160.

I see there has been no decrease since.

Here is an extract from An Post website.

*What about inflation? *
In announcing the Government approval of an increased TV Licence Fee, December 2002, Minister Dermot Ahern stated: "RTÉ will be able to seek annual increases up to the level of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). All future licence fee changes will be subject to the strict monitoring of performance against financial, management and programming targets."

Is a TV licience due a decrease at this stage?


----------



## foxylady (6 Aug 2010)

Rois said:


> I have long since cancelled my sky subscription, as part of cost saving measures. I still have the TV even though it's not used. I have no aerial.
> 
> Does having the "apparatus" i.e. tv in the house mean i am liable for the TV Licence even though it's not used (except to watch the occassional DVD) ?


 

Yep unfortunately it does. Sure if the tv man called around you would have no way of proving that you dont watch the tv .


----------



## Joe Q Public (6 Aug 2010)

Unless you disable the tuner and make it incapable of receiving RTÉ.


----------



## aslan (6 Aug 2010)

54 people went to jail in 2008 for not paying their tv licence according to an article in the Irish Examiner


----------



## Leo (6 Aug 2010)

Tessi said:


> I just don't get why you would suggest dropping the sky subscription. I am an extremely satisfied sky customer. As far as I can see I get very little for my tv licence where as I am happy to pay my sky subscription because I get quality and quantity.


 
You were complaining of having to pay for the same thing twice, the only way you can legally avoid that in this situation is to drop the sky subscription. It wasn't really a serious suggestion! I wouldn't be without Sky myself.

The TV licence is a revenue stream for the government, nothing more, if you believe it's anything else, you're naive. Like many other taxes applied, it has no direct impact on the service provided. When it was introduced, it was another means of taxing those who could afford it, but it has been outdated for many years at this stage.


----------



## TheBlock (6 Aug 2010)

I don't understand how its a revenue stream for the government it's collected by An Post and passed directly to RTE. If you suggesting that without the license fee the government would have to subsidise RTE that would be correct if RTE still had to comply with its public service remit. If people are advocating making RTE a fully commercial entity you can kiss goodbye to TG4, RnaG, Lyric as well as the majority of the performing groups orchestras. The quality of programming will also decline (The do make some good docs). Also the €70Million currently spent in the Independent production area would be greatly reduced with all the knock on effects on employement etc.

RTE would just become another TV3 showing aquired progammes.


----------



## truthseeker (6 Aug 2010)

The whole notion of tv licencing needs to be overhauled.

I do have a tv and I do have ntl - but I find myself more and more often not using the tv/ntl but instead using the laptop to watch documentaries/programs online - or the dvd player to watch dvds (meaning of course that I have to use the tv to see the picture from the dvd - not a transmission broadcast - but because I use the 'apparatus' it requires the tv licence).

The whole thing is out of date, there was no such thing as sky, ntl, dvd's, online viewing etc when tv licencing was introduced.

Myself and himself have discussed getting rid of the tv/ntl a number of times - but its the watching of dvd's that we keep it for - meaning we gotta pay the licence fee, despite having no interest in the terrestial channels.


----------



## SparkRite (6 Aug 2010)

truthseeker said:


> T
> Myself and himself have discussed getting rid of the tv/ntl a number of times - but its the watching of dvd's that we keep it for - meaning we gotta pay the licence fee, despite having no interest in the terrestial channels.



You do NOT need a television license to watch DVD's, once none of the equipment used  has a R/F tuner capable of receiving TV signals.


----------



## Joe Q Public (6 Aug 2010)

Correct. Once there is no tuner you are not liable. 

Some inspectors are not aware of this little fact.


----------



## DB74 (6 Aug 2010)

Forgive my ignorance but:

Where in the Act does it state this re the lack of an R/F tuner?

Is it possible to get Sky Digital without an R/F tuner (probably a stupid question but anyway)?


----------



## truthseeker (6 Aug 2010)

SparkRite said:


> You do NOT need a television license to watch DVD's, once none of the equipment used has a R/F tuner capable of receiving TV signals.


 
Yes, I am aware of this - but currently we use our (quite newish) tv - so in order to get something to watch dvd's on its more expense for us - so we just use what we currently have.

Im not even sure how or where one would buy a 'screen' that wasnt capable of receiving TV signals?


----------



## Joe Q Public (6 Aug 2010)

The lack of a tuner would stop you form getting RTÉ etc on an aerial. 

If you were claiming only to watch DVDs and the TV had no tuner they could not say you were capable of receiving TV. Obviously if you had a sky/upc box then you are liable.


----------



## DB74 (6 Aug 2010)

Joe - as previously posted on the thread, Sect 140 of the Broadcasting Act 2009 states

_“television set” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving_
_and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general_
_reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on_
_the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or_​_assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;_

A laptop/computer is capable of playing television pictures (eg Sky Sports live etc) so surely this would qualify as a television set as defined under Sect 140 of the Act.

The Act doesn't specifically exclude digital signals, whether the Minister intends it to or not.


----------



## SparkRite (6 Aug 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Yes, I am aware of this - but currently we use our (quite newish) tv - so in order to get something to watch dvd's on its more expense for us - so we just use what we currently have.
> 
> Im not even sure how or where one would buy a 'screen' that wasnt capable of receiving TV signals?




99% of monitors (PC/CCTV/ etc.) do not have tuners.


----------



## DB74 (6 Aug 2010)

But where does it say in the legislation that you have to have a tuner?


----------



## truthseeker (6 Aug 2010)

SparkRite said:


> 99% of monitors (PC/CCTV/ etc.) do not have tuners.


 
Would it not be prohibitively expensive to buy a monitor the same size as a tv? Our tv isnt that big - but Ive never seen a monitor that size.


----------



## Leo (6 Aug 2010)

The legislation is deliberately vague, Noel Dempsey attempted to widen it even further, but has so far been unsuccessful.


----------



## SparkRite (6 Aug 2010)

DB74 said:


> But where does it say in the legislation that you have to have a tuner?



This has been debated many many times on this board before.

Any device capable of receiving a *Broadcast* televisual signal must be licensed. Hence the reference to a tuner, albeit it vague.


----------



## SparkRite (6 Aug 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Would it not be prohibitively expensive to buy a monitor the same size as a tv? Our tv isnt that big - but Ive never seen a monitor that size.



That may well be.

But I thought we were discussing how to watch DVDs without having to pay a TV license and not the inherent cost of doing so.

Another option is buy a TV and remove the tuner thus rendering it incapable of receiving broadcast signals. Maybe not particularly practical but an option all the same.


----------



## mathepac (8 Aug 2010)

SparkRite said:


> ..  Maybe not particularly practical but an option all the same.


It is not an option nor is it pratical. An inspector does not have to verify the funtionality of a receiver -  if it looks like a receiver to an inspector, you need a licence.


----------



## Pat Bateman (8 Aug 2010)

mathepac said:


> It is not an option nor is it pratical. An inspector does not have to verify the funtionality of a receiver - if it looks like a receiver to an inspector, you need a licence.


 
That is not the case.  This isn't North Korea.  The inspector is merely an enforcer of the legislation and is suject to it like the rest of us.  If an individual is compliant with the legislation, the inspectors view is irrelevant.


----------



## mathepac (8 Aug 2010)

Pat Bateman said:


> ... the inspectors view is irrelevant.


Incorrect. In law the inspector is the technical expert, and his view carries the weight of expert opinion in court; in the absence of contrary  "expert opinion", his view is all that matters.

Unless the defendant in a TV licence prosecution can offer substantial expert credentials or expert opinion to the court it is unlikely their opinion will carry much weight, unfortunately.


----------



## Marietta (8 Aug 2010)

Is there somebody who can verify whether a TV licence is required if one only watches TV material on a computer and there is no television apparatus in the house??


----------



## Pat Bateman (8 Aug 2010)

mathepac said:


> Incorrect. In law the inspector is the technical expert, and his view carries the weight of expert opinion in court; in the absence of contrary "expert opinion", his view is all that matters.
> 
> Unless the defendant in a TV licence prosecution can offer substantial expert credentials or expert opinion to the court it is unlikely their opinion will carry much weight, unfortunately.


 
You said "if it looks like a receiver to an inspector, you need a licence".

That simply isn't true.

The view of any inspector does not supercede the facts of any case or what's in the legislation.


----------



## Joe Q Public (8 Aug 2010)

Marietta said:


> Is there somebody who can verify whether a TV licence is required if one only watches TV material on a computer and there is no television apparatus in the house??


Provided you don't have a sky/cable box, outdoor aerial or dish then you will be exempt. 

What do you mean by television material?


----------



## Gulliver (8 Aug 2010)

Marietta said:


> Is there somebody who can verify whether a TV licence is required if one only watches TV material on a computer and there is no television apparatus in the house??


 
It appears that no licence is required for Internet-based TV in certain circumstances

The relevant legislation is Statutory Instrument no 319 of 2009 (TELEVISION LICENCE (EXEMPTION OF CLASSES OF TELEVISION SET) ORDER 2009) which _states:-_
_"3. The following classes of television set are declared to be classes of television set to which __section 142__ of the __Broadcasting Act 2009__ (No. 18 of 2009) does not apply, namely—_
_(a) a non-portable television set capable of exhibiting television broadcasting services distributed by means of the publicly available Internet, and_
_(b) a portable television set._

_“portable” in relation to a television set, means that the television set is designed to be easily carried manually by a person and the set and, if it is used in conjunction with another apparatus, that apparatus, is capable of displaying an image of not more than 160 square centimetres."_

_This latter exemption for portable tv exempts a set with a picture diameter below about 6 inches_


----------



## Marietta (8 Aug 2010)

Joe, my query was for someone else, he has no TV in the house but he does have 2 dishes outside + an aerial, I best tell him to take them down. By TV material, I mean documentaries, news etc.


----------

