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;
"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.
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...