TV Licence

Jess

Registered User
Messages
21
Does anyone else, like me, think that the TV licence is DAYLIGHT ROBBERY!

In my mind there is just no justification for having to pay a licence to RTE to watch your own TV in your own home. :mad: :mad: :mad: They get their revenue from advertising!

It is just not right......

PS: Tried to post this on 'letting off steam' but was denied access to post there. ?
 
Letting Off Steam is for registered users with a track record of at least 50 posts. I am moving this thread which means that you will no longer be able to contribute to it.
 
I don't mind paying the TV licence, but I think it should be one licence per household. I do have issues with subsidising the huge salaries of TV presenters and I would also like to know if RTE paid for the helicopter which circled Landsdowne Rd with Uri Geller and Blanaid Ni Chofaigh last week in an effort to create good vibes!
 
Yes it's definitely one license per houshold. See (my underlining):
If I have two television sets in my home do I need licences for them both?

If the equipment capable of receiving a television signal (i.e., a television set, a personal computer), etc. is held in a household (i.e., apartment, flat, house), then one television licence will cover multiple pieces of equipment. In other words, if you have a television set in your living room and kitchen, one television licence covers both sets.

However, if the building in which the equipment is kept (i.e., the house, etc.) is sub-divided into flats, apartments, separate living quarters, then a separate television licence must be held for each of these quarters. In other words, an individual licence must be held for each separate flat, apartment, etc.
 
Well, Thanks for that info. I always assumed you had to have a licence for each set.
 
No, but now the boys are older and wanting TV's I don't have the excuse of saying 'NO, I can't afford any more licences!' :eek:
 
ophelia said:
I don't mind paying the TV licence, but I think it should be one licence per household. I do have issues with subsidising the huge salaries of TV presenters and I would also like to know if RTE paid for the helicopter which circled Landsdowne Rd with Uri Geller and Blanaid Ni Chofaigh last week in an effort to create good vibes!
Uri Geller. No wonder we did not score. He must be one of the greatest scammers of the 20th & 21st centuries.
 
I didn't think that RTÉ were funding Uri's helicopter ride. Why do you suspect that they were?
 
If the equipment capable of receiving a television signal (i.e., a television set, a personal computer), etc.

I assume that by Personal Computer they mean a Personal Computer WITH A TV
CARD. A normal PC would have a DVD ROM Drive but wouldn't be capable of picking up TV signals. Would such a machine require a Licence?

I hope not if so I was breaking the law for two years. Of course if a regular PC did require a licence that would be a law I'd seriously consider breaking.

I'm quite happy to have no TV, but the PC's are unavoidable.

-Rd
 
ClubMan said:
I didn't think that RTÉ were funding Uri's helicopter ride. Why do you suspect that they were?
Because Uri Geller was talking to Blanaid Ni Chofaigh on The Afternoon Show and he suggested that he would be willing to fly over Landsdowne Rd if he was supplied with a helicopter. Who else would have been daft enough to have paid for it?
 
I don't know but I can't really see RTÉ paying for it to be honest. Does anybody know what the facts behind this chopper ride are?
 
daltonr said:
I assume that by Personal Computer they mean a Personal Computer WITH A TV
CARD. ........

I hope not if so I was breaking the law for two years. Of course if a regular PC did require a licence that would be a law I'd seriously consider breaking.

Anything that is capable of receiving a tv signal must have a tv licence. Including a PC with a TV card.
 
Anything that is capable of receiving a tv signal must have a tv licence. Including a PC with a TV card.

My question was whether PC's WITHOUT a TV Card would require a licence,
since they are generally capable of being used for watching DVD's.

E.g. A TV with no Antenna which is owned by a business and used only for
watching Video's is required to have a licence. Although even RTE seemv to know how stupid this is. In their Radio Ad they could only justify it by suggesting that the TV was also used to watch the occasional Match.

If a PC without a TV card is licence free then it's the way to go.

1. Watch all the DVD's you like. Your favourite shows and movies
without the Ad's and without being stopped half way through for the
News.

2. No Recycling charge, The computer industry is absorbing that cost.

3. Endless new possibilities for creating a really good Media Center in your home, with your Movies, CD's Pictures etc all stored electronically.

-Rd
 
daltonr said:
My question was whether PC's WITHOUT a TV Card would require a licence,
since they are generally capable of being used for watching DVD's.

The key is, as per my post above, the ability to receive a tv signal. So, a pc without a tv card has no ability to receive a signal, therefore no licence is required.

A tv used only to watch dvds and videos is still capable of recieving a tv signal, and is therefore liable for a licence.
 
Basically anything with a TV tuner mechanism needs a license even if the tuner is not used. I'm sure that those who need to avoid the purchase of a license could buy a TV monitor with no TV tuner capabilty (although not sure if you can get VCRs with no tuner?) but I reckon it might be simpler and more cost effective to just by a normal TV/VCR/etc. and a license as legally obliged.
 
I wonder what the position would be if you had no TV, and a pc without a tv card, but you downloaded tv shows via broadband and watched them?

Technically you're not receiving a tv broadcast - will they change the law as more and more of us download tv shows via broadband and possibly do away with the traditional signal receiving tv?
 
Back
Top