Slashdot Mirror
New Irish Internet Tax?
MarkDennehy writes "The Broadcasting Bill 2009 (currently in the last stages of becoming the Broadcasting Act 2009 and then being commenced into law in Ireland) has thrown up a rather unpleasant little nugget for broadband users in Ireland. It now defines a television set as being an electronic apparatus able to receive TV signals or 'any software or assembly comprising such apparatus' which would mean that even if you haven't got a television set, even if you don't watch streaming content from RTE.ie (the state broadcaster's website), you'd still have to pay 160 euro a year for a television license for your iPhone, or netbook, or laptop or desktop if you have fixed or mobile broadband."
So what you're saying is that since the state provides a service, if you could use that service you should pay for it?
How is this different from, oh, say EVERY OTHER STATE SPONSORED SYSTEM IN EXISTENCE for broadcasting.
Yes, you may not use it, but most people don't use all the roads either.
I applaud them for making the technological leap to being able to provide it online and REALIZE that online is the same effective use.
Now, i do have two questions.
Is the cost to distribute online around the same as the TV cost? If so, sure go nuts with it.
Is the license per household like a lot of other state TV licenses. If it's not, i see an issue with it.
IF it's per household and it reflects the cost to run it, i say more power to them.
We should be applauding efforts like this to adapt technologically and that are put forth by people who apparently have a grip on the actual issue.
Not just getting mad because it's a tax. Taxes have purposes. I return to my earlier car analogy of driving on all roads.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
People paying taxes for things they don't want, need, or use is nothing new.
Mine is Good
"broadcasting service" means a service which comprises a compilation of programme material of any description and which is transmitted, relayed or distributed by means of an electronic communications network, directly or indirectly for simultaneous or near- 20 simultaneous reception by the general public, whether that material is actually received or not, and where the programmes are provided in a pre-scheduled and linear order, but does not include:
(a) a service provided for viewing in a non-linear manner where each viewer chooses a programme from a cata- 25 logue of programmes, or
(b) other audio and audiovisual services provided by way of the Internet;
I don't even watch TV, I have a TV to use as a display device for my Wii and SNES. What cock sucker thought this tax up?!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"any software or assembly comprising such apparatus" most likely refers only to equipment and software designed to receive VHF and UHF transmissions on a computer.
An internet-connected multimedia computer (pretty much anything nowadays) counts as a TV+radio set.
Which means that even if you do not have any other apparatus (no TV...), you have to pay quarterly fee of CHF 115.50 - about 300 Euros per year.
And yes, this is to sponsor contents and broadcasts from the Swiss television and radio stations.
Allows us to have less advertisement time than in the USA, and to have some "quality programs" that are not always maket-/audience-driven.
Not always a bad thing... like all taxes ... although one might disagree with how the money is used.
In Denmark : Multimedia taxation.
If you own one or more of the following you are to pay up :
1. 3G Phone
2. PC with TV card
3. TV
4. Internet connection >= 256 kb/s
Never buy Sony CDs - they will open up your computer to anyone..
Hi all. I live in Denmark, and we have a similar thing.
Until "the Internet counted as a TV", the rules were:
If you have a TV, you have to pay $n DKK per year. That included 98% of the people.
After: If you have a TV or a 256 kilobit/s (or faster) internet connection, you have to pay $n DKK per year. This includes 99% of the people.
The license-paid station (dr.dk, "Denmark's Radio") streams some microsoft video format over mms://.
At 256 kb/s, it can't be particularly great quality; yet if they stream in greater quality, they essentially charging people who can't get a good viewing experience.
But---they're being quite fair about it. A fellow student of mine who owns no TV but has an internet connection had to pay, until he phoned them up and said "I don't have the necessary codec to play your videos, and I won't install it" (He's on Linux). They exempted him from paying, and even paid him back what he had paid so far (because he paid under a false pretext).
They are testing something which will reach Linux users as well (and presumably other OS users too). Then he'll have to pay.
Note that DR sometimes shows infomercials on their channels, encouraging illegal viewers to pay license fees. That is: they spend money on it.
If 99% of the people have to pay already, why not just charge everyone via the Plain Old Taxation system? The remaining 1% can go to a public library and view DR on the web, so they're getting something for their money too. That'll save the money spent on the "please pay up" campaigns.
And then of course there's an argument to be had about the pros and cons of Public Service and Public Access, but let's leave that for later...
The underlying problem is, these state broadcasters are offering services which lots of people would not subscribe to if they had a choice. Lots of people do not think they are worth having at all, lots do not think they are value.
In the UK, for instance, lots of people would rather do without the BBC than pay £130 a year for it. But they have no choice. Its a criminal offense to watch any TV at all without subscribing to the BBC.
The difficult intellectual question is, what justifies this compulsion? It is not compulsory to subscribe to any other broadcaster. Why is the BBC not just another subscription TV company? Why do we insist people subscribe to it, whether they want to watch it or not?
It is exactly not like Road Tax, where we pay an annual fee for the privilege of driving a car, which at least nominally goes to pay for the roads. Don't have a car, don't pay. We do not, with Road Tax, pay a fee to one particular car manufacturer every time we buy a car from the competition.
The BBC is nominally independent, but in practice is simply the State TV company. The real reason why we insist everyone subscribes to it is that we want there to be a state broadcaster. We therefore want people to have an incentive to watch it, and making it compulsory to subscribe means that it has a competitive advantage. It is incrementally free. In economic terms it is cheaper than ad funded TV, because it does not have ads. We want this because we are afraid of what a genuinely free broadcasting media could be like.
People argue all the time that this model is justified because they like what the BBC puts out. This is not the point. The fact that I like it, is not a reason why people who neither like nor want it should be forced to buy it. This is the real point of the argument about funding the state channels by compulsory fees on all TV ownership.
There is no justification.
Not really; RTE and indeed the Irish government are in serious financial trouble (yes, worse than everyone else) and they're scrabbling for every cent they can get. (Yes, I'm ignoring the leprechaun reference)
The conclusion of your syllogism, I said lightly, is fallacious, being based on licensed premises
Here in Switzerland they try to "tax" internet PCs too.
In the olden days the justification for this tax was, that you cannot control the reception of a broadcast unless you monitor every home. The same is not true for internet services. It's not broadcast, it's 1:1 connections and you can easly identify your subscribers. There's no reason (besides greed) to charge non users like me. I've consciously choosen not to have tv or radio. I won't pay just because i have a internet connection.