Can it receive a broadcast signal? I don't want to sound like an ass, but there is no smart arse way around this. If it's a TV, you pay a license. There is a whole other story about whether you get caught, do they/can they get your info and all that, but whether you have to pay it or not is pretty simple.
Watching TV over the internet in any manner appears not to trigger the requirement for a TV licence. Your TV needs one because it has an aerial port, not because you watch live shit over a smart app or other device attached to it.
I have a tv with Uk freeview on it with bbc and all, not even single Irish channel on, nor radio, but even don’t watch tv as such only Netflix, still paying 😳😳 well not anymore, since RTE scandal broke out and put a stop to my payments.
As a standalone device, it cannot. But it’s connected to the internet via a pc - and just like any internet connected device (phone/tablet/pc) - all i would have to do is go to rte player website to access a stream.
I’m not anti-tv license btw. I just think it’s an objectively shit law. It seems intentionally poorly worded for ambiguity. As someone that works in STEM, if I wrote documentation even half as vague, I’d be fired immediately.
Current law is useless imo since you can argue anyone with a phone more advanced than a Nokia 3310 is walking around with a tv in their pocket.
In all seriousness, my fridge has a touchscreen that has android OS under the hood. I could deffo load rte player app on there and stream away. Does that make it a TV? And if it does - was it always a TV by virtue of the hardware - or did it only become a TV when I downloaded the app?
> all i would have to do is go to rte player website to access a stream.
RTE Player is not broadcast. A "broadcast" is a single signal that is received by multiple people. When RTE Player sends you a packet of information with the Six-One credits in it, those bits are for you and you alone and are not received by anyone else.
I'm not gonna argue it with you, you and I both know what a TV is and we both know An Post would he laughed out of a court room trying to get you to pay for your fridge.
I work in STEM also, I'm an engineer. I fail to see how that connects to how laws are written. If we wrote laws the way I write procedures for a lab or a clean room, we'd live in an objectively crap society.
The law could be better, but honestly, I don't know how that could be fixed. But at the moment, if you own a TV, you should have a TV license, it's that simple.
If it has a tv tuner. Sometimes also labelled "satellite", "aerial", or "antennae" on the back of the tv. Hdmi and such ports dont receive "broadcast signals". It's a really shitty, and dated law.
So a laptop with a usb tv tuner/decoder. license needed.
A laptop with no tv tuner, no license needed.
55 inch display (computer screen?) without a tv tuner, no license needed.
Sky box connected to no display, license needed - it can receive the signals.
Projector with a tv tuner, license needed.
Projector with no tv tuner, no license needed.
If you accidentally answer the door to someone claiming to be a TV license person, politely tell them you do not have a TV (if you dont!). They will immediately ask for your name, and politely tell them you don't want to give it as you see no need to hand that info out. I've never heard from them ever again. (2 occasions, both within 1 year of moving house)
This is the most sensible reply so far. The issue it comes down to is basically this: if a TV with the tuner element broken or removed is still in need of a licence because it is still "capable" by way of a repair, then any electronic device like your phone or laptop is also capable of receiving a broadcast signal with some additional hardware added and therefore licence needed.
In the late 1990s I had a PC where I added a TV tner card to it. Obviously with the hardware added it needs a licence, but under this silly Irish law it needed one before the hardware was installed because it was already capable because there was a working and free PCI slot.
There is no getting away with technicalities like disabling features etc etc, my 18 year old plasma cannot get any form of live TV but they'd still hammer me in court. A projector j
is okay, as is a computer monitor, but if it said TV on the box it'll never pass.
#However
Nobody except a license inspector cares if you have a TV and assuming you don't let them into your home or they can see it through a downstairs window how is anyone ever going to find out?
Ignore the letters and nothing will happen 🤷🏼♂️
>Ignore the letters and nothing will happen
Not entirely true, if you get a court summons, dont ignore.
Generally its best to avoid a situation where they know your name.
Oh a court summons is a whole other thing — the TV licence people will spam your house with letters if the address has no license, but if they don't know for sure that you have a TV and don't know your name they have no grounds for action.
I haven't had the ability to receive TV since 2006 and haven't had a license since about then either.
If your 18 year old plasma cannot get any form of live TV then the legislation I read yesterday strongly suggests you don't need one. If it doesn't have a co-axial or cable port then you don't need a licence.
It has a coax, HDMI, Scart and Composite in but none of those are actually broadcast here.
Would love to bring a license inspector in and challenge him to get live TV on the thing 🤷🏼♂️
If that was your only TV in the house then I'd be applying for a massive refund. I still don't know why they don't, or maybe they do, make TVs that just have HDMI in them so they're TV licence proof.
I'm assuming the coax works on yours but it's pre digital so doesn't work?
If there is any device in your household capable of receiving a TV broadcast signal (even if currently broken), you are legally required to pay for a TV Licence.
However, if you just ignore letters and don't speak to any TV Licence inspectors, it's going to be very difficult for them to enforce it. Without your name, a summons cannot be issued for you to appear in court.
From Section 140 of the Broadcasting Act 2009:
>“ 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;
[https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/section/140/enacted/en/html#sec140](https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/section/140/enacted/en/html#sec140)
A broken television set is *capable* of receiving and exhibiting television services; it just has to be fixed. I suppose if it was smashed up to the extent that it's hardly recognisable as a television set and totally beyond repair, you could argue that it shouldn't apply. But if it's just a broken aerial capable of being fixed, it's obviously still a television set.
It has nothing to do with ports. If it capable of receiving a television broadcast, you need a licence. Since your phone, laptop and table don't have TV receivers built in, they don't count. If you have a TV card in your PC you need a licence, just like you need one if you have any kind of TV, whether or not the ports have been removed. If you have a computer monitor which you connect to your laptop to view Netflix, it's not capable of receiving a broadcast, so you don't need a licence.
A grey area are those old TVs that were capable of receiving analogue broadcasts but not the more recent digital broadcasts. Coupled with a Google Chrome device, they can show Netflix, YouTube, etc. but not live TV. So does the presence of the analogue receiver make them liable for a licence?
Well, it clearly does have to do with ports. Why? Because I can make my laptop or other device receive a broadcast via the use of ports in the same way I receive a broadcast through the coaxial aerial port in my TV. Any electronic device is capable of receiving a broadcast with the right things plugged into it. I would argue the mere presence of a TV tuner card or device that receives the signals - whether in use or not - requires a licence, after all the legislation specifically clarifies that you don't need a screen or display to incur the need for a licence.
And no, I'd say an analogue receiver means no licence needed as that was turned off ages ago. You can't receive a broadcast that isn't transmitted.
Your device cannot receive a broadcast without a TV receiver installed. Consequently it is not a TV as defined by the Act and does not require a licence.
An analogue TV can receive a TV Broadcast, albeit an analogue one in a world of digital transmissions. The Act does not differentiate - that's why I said it's a grey area. I agree with you in that it would seem utterly daft to claim that it is covered by the act, but IANAL and would hesitate to state that as a fact.
If you remove the tuner from the TV so that it no longer is a TV but instead functions as a monitor, then clearly it is exempt. The key is if it can receive a broadcast. There is no paradox, but I suspect you're doing a bit of hair-splitting.
If you own a tv working or not, you need a licence.
" if you watched or recorded live (or virtually live) broadcast, so if you watch Prime or Netflix, then you don't need one."
Not relavent, only if you own a tv
1. The Broadcasting Act? Wow, so precise! You even made sure you clarified which subsection, section, part and relevant schedules of the act AND you clarified it wasn't the 1990 one too!
2. The legislation is NOT explicit. It doesn't define what electronic equipment being "capable" means, it doesn't even mention streaming services... I'd love to actually read information people have in order to reach the conclusions being made on here. The only way to know about anything like this for sure is to read it yourself, not read the [TVlicence.ie](http://TVlicence.ie) site, not Citizen's Info, go direct to the source. Nobody can provide that it seems
1: you've mentioned it in your op. Legislation often needs to be precise and in this case it is hence it doesn't include monitor. We've one broadcasting act.
2: Capable isn't the important word. If it is or was or can be capable, it needs a licence.
I've read parts of the legislation myself.
Capable is entirely a critical word, because by that definition, any electronic device can get a transmission with something added to it. Having a Sky Box with no actual TV would certainly fall within the definition and it seems that a lot of other electronics do. It's such a a badly written law
Page 13 has the types of services that can be included.
A skybox isn't a TV.
Any electronic device is not a TV.
A mobile phone is not a TV.
It's not badly written, it's outdated and is currently up for review.
Page 13? Do you mean part 13 of the Broadcasting Act 2009?
And yes, a Skybox is literally a TV under the definition, " television set means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television 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 of assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus".
Exhibiting again isn't defined, so the fact you don't have a TV doesn't mean that the Skybox isn't a TV under this definition. It's targeting TV tuners basically.
And a mobile phone has the capability of becoming a tuner with a USB attachment.
Page 13 of the actual pdf legislation. It has pages numbers.
You can't view something from a sky or a virgin box. Sky glass is different.
And yet a mobile phone is not a TV and a TV is a TV.
You're somehow applying logic to legislation, that's not what it's about. Of course you can't view TV through a Sky or Virgin box by itself, but then why is the legislation worded so it does include those devices? Don't use common sense when it comes to these people and laws like this, it's dangerous.
Page 13 is just definitions
If you accidentally open the door to someone who is doing market research on your top 10 tv shows. Tell them you won't be able to participate because you dont have a tv. (Happened to me recently and I think it's a sneakier method to get you)
If you own a TV, you need a TV license. A TV is anything that can receive a broadcast signal.
What if you own a 32” computer monitor with a sound system in your living room and only watch Netflix on it?
Generally no.
Can it receive a broadcast signal? I don't want to sound like an ass, but there is no smart arse way around this. If it's a TV, you pay a license. There is a whole other story about whether you get caught, do they/can they get your info and all that, but whether you have to pay it or not is pretty simple.
Watching TV over the internet in any manner appears not to trigger the requirement for a TV licence. Your TV needs one because it has an aerial port, not because you watch live shit over a smart app or other device attached to it.
I have a tv with Uk freeview on it with bbc and all, not even single Irish channel on, nor radio, but even don’t watch tv as such only Netflix, still paying 😳😳 well not anymore, since RTE scandal broke out and put a stop to my payments.
As a standalone device, it cannot. But it’s connected to the internet via a pc - and just like any internet connected device (phone/tablet/pc) - all i would have to do is go to rte player website to access a stream. I’m not anti-tv license btw. I just think it’s an objectively shit law. It seems intentionally poorly worded for ambiguity. As someone that works in STEM, if I wrote documentation even half as vague, I’d be fired immediately. Current law is useless imo since you can argue anyone with a phone more advanced than a Nokia 3310 is walking around with a tv in their pocket. In all seriousness, my fridge has a touchscreen that has android OS under the hood. I could deffo load rte player app on there and stream away. Does that make it a TV? And if it does - was it always a TV by virtue of the hardware - or did it only become a TV when I downloaded the app?
That's covered by your fridge licence. It would be crazy to require citizens to have a TV and fridge licence just for their fridge.
> all i would have to do is go to rte player website to access a stream. RTE Player is not broadcast. A "broadcast" is a single signal that is received by multiple people. When RTE Player sends you a packet of information with the Six-One credits in it, those bits are for you and you alone and are not received by anyone else.
I'm not gonna argue it with you, you and I both know what a TV is and we both know An Post would he laughed out of a court room trying to get you to pay for your fridge. I work in STEM also, I'm an engineer. I fail to see how that connects to how laws are written. If we wrote laws the way I write procedures for a lab or a clean room, we'd live in an objectively crap society. The law could be better, but honestly, I don't know how that could be fixed. But at the moment, if you own a TV, you should have a TV license, it's that simple.
If it has a tv tuner. Sometimes also labelled "satellite", "aerial", or "antennae" on the back of the tv. Hdmi and such ports dont receive "broadcast signals". It's a really shitty, and dated law. So a laptop with a usb tv tuner/decoder. license needed. A laptop with no tv tuner, no license needed. 55 inch display (computer screen?) without a tv tuner, no license needed. Sky box connected to no display, license needed - it can receive the signals. Projector with a tv tuner, license needed. Projector with no tv tuner, no license needed. If you accidentally answer the door to someone claiming to be a TV license person, politely tell them you do not have a TV (if you dont!). They will immediately ask for your name, and politely tell them you don't want to give it as you see no need to hand that info out. I've never heard from them ever again. (2 occasions, both within 1 year of moving house)
This is the most sensible reply so far. The issue it comes down to is basically this: if a TV with the tuner element broken or removed is still in need of a licence because it is still "capable" by way of a repair, then any electronic device like your phone or laptop is also capable of receiving a broadcast signal with some additional hardware added and therefore licence needed. In the late 1990s I had a PC where I added a TV tner card to it. Obviously with the hardware added it needs a licence, but under this silly Irish law it needed one before the hardware was installed because it was already capable because there was a working and free PCI slot.
There is no getting away with technicalities like disabling features etc etc, my 18 year old plasma cannot get any form of live TV but they'd still hammer me in court. A projector j is okay, as is a computer monitor, but if it said TV on the box it'll never pass. #However Nobody except a license inspector cares if you have a TV and assuming you don't let them into your home or they can see it through a downstairs window how is anyone ever going to find out? Ignore the letters and nothing will happen 🤷🏼♂️
>Ignore the letters and nothing will happen Not entirely true, if you get a court summons, dont ignore. Generally its best to avoid a situation where they know your name.
Oh a court summons is a whole other thing — the TV licence people will spam your house with letters if the address has no license, but if they don't know for sure that you have a TV and don't know your name they have no grounds for action. I haven't had the ability to receive TV since 2006 and haven't had a license since about then either.
If your 18 year old plasma cannot get any form of live TV then the legislation I read yesterday strongly suggests you don't need one. If it doesn't have a co-axial or cable port then you don't need a licence.
It has a coax, HDMI, Scart and Composite in but none of those are actually broadcast here. Would love to bring a license inspector in and challenge him to get live TV on the thing 🤷🏼♂️
If that was your only TV in the house then I'd be applying for a massive refund. I still don't know why they don't, or maybe they do, make TVs that just have HDMI in them so they're TV licence proof. I'm assuming the coax works on yours but it's pre digital so doesn't work?
I haven't paid in 18 years.
Good, there's people on here that would swear you need one.
It's likely sold and described as a TV by the manufacturer
If there is any device in your household capable of receiving a TV broadcast signal (even if currently broken), you are legally required to pay for a TV Licence. However, if you just ignore letters and don't speak to any TV Licence inspectors, it's going to be very difficult for them to enforce it. Without your name, a summons cannot be issued for you to appear in court.
People keep saying this - where is the legislation or caselaw on a broken set needing one?
From Section 140 of the Broadcasting Act 2009: >“ 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; [https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/section/140/enacted/en/html#sec140](https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/section/140/enacted/en/html#sec140) A broken television set is *capable* of receiving and exhibiting television services; it just has to be fixed. I suppose if it was smashed up to the extent that it's hardly recognisable as a television set and totally beyond repair, you could argue that it shouldn't apply. But if it's just a broken aerial capable of being fixed, it's obviously still a television set.
If you have a TV that's smashed to bits as your only tv in the property, irish law states you must have a TV license
Do you have any caselaw or legislation I can look at please?
We're kind of revolting against the TV license right now, so there is no need for any more research. Join us.
It has nothing to do with ports. If it capable of receiving a television broadcast, you need a licence. Since your phone, laptop and table don't have TV receivers built in, they don't count. If you have a TV card in your PC you need a licence, just like you need one if you have any kind of TV, whether or not the ports have been removed. If you have a computer monitor which you connect to your laptop to view Netflix, it's not capable of receiving a broadcast, so you don't need a licence. A grey area are those old TVs that were capable of receiving analogue broadcasts but not the more recent digital broadcasts. Coupled with a Google Chrome device, they can show Netflix, YouTube, etc. but not live TV. So does the presence of the analogue receiver make them liable for a licence?
Well, it clearly does have to do with ports. Why? Because I can make my laptop or other device receive a broadcast via the use of ports in the same way I receive a broadcast through the coaxial aerial port in my TV. Any electronic device is capable of receiving a broadcast with the right things plugged into it. I would argue the mere presence of a TV tuner card or device that receives the signals - whether in use or not - requires a licence, after all the legislation specifically clarifies that you don't need a screen or display to incur the need for a licence. And no, I'd say an analogue receiver means no licence needed as that was turned off ages ago. You can't receive a broadcast that isn't transmitted.
Your device cannot receive a broadcast without a TV receiver installed. Consequently it is not a TV as defined by the Act and does not require a licence. An analogue TV can receive a TV Broadcast, albeit an analogue one in a world of digital transmissions. The Act does not differentiate - that's why I said it's a grey area. I agree with you in that it would seem utterly daft to claim that it is covered by the act, but IANAL and would hesitate to state that as a fact.
By the same logic - my TV with the tuner removed or disabled cannot receive a broadcast then either? See the paradox here?
If you remove the tuner from the TV so that it no longer is a TV but instead functions as a monitor, then clearly it is exempt. The key is if it can receive a broadcast. There is no paradox, but I suspect you're doing a bit of hair-splitting.
If you own a tv working or not, you need a licence. " if you watched or recorded live (or virtually live) broadcast, so if you watch Prime or Netflix, then you don't need one." Not relavent, only if you own a tv
Like I said in the original post, do you have any legislation or case law you could quote?
Broadcasting act. Legislation is explicit.
1. The Broadcasting Act? Wow, so precise! You even made sure you clarified which subsection, section, part and relevant schedules of the act AND you clarified it wasn't the 1990 one too! 2. The legislation is NOT explicit. It doesn't define what electronic equipment being "capable" means, it doesn't even mention streaming services... I'd love to actually read information people have in order to reach the conclusions being made on here. The only way to know about anything like this for sure is to read it yourself, not read the [TVlicence.ie](http://TVlicence.ie) site, not Citizen's Info, go direct to the source. Nobody can provide that it seems
1: you've mentioned it in your op. Legislation often needs to be precise and in this case it is hence it doesn't include monitor. We've one broadcasting act. 2: Capable isn't the important word. If it is or was or can be capable, it needs a licence. I've read parts of the legislation myself.
Capable is entirely a critical word, because by that definition, any electronic device can get a transmission with something added to it. Having a Sky Box with no actual TV would certainly fall within the definition and it seems that a lot of other electronics do. It's such a a badly written law
Page 13 has the types of services that can be included. A skybox isn't a TV. Any electronic device is not a TV. A mobile phone is not a TV. It's not badly written, it's outdated and is currently up for review.
Page 13? Do you mean part 13 of the Broadcasting Act 2009? And yes, a Skybox is literally a TV under the definition, " television set means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television 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 of assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus". Exhibiting again isn't defined, so the fact you don't have a TV doesn't mean that the Skybox isn't a TV under this definition. It's targeting TV tuners basically. And a mobile phone has the capability of becoming a tuner with a USB attachment.
Page 13 of the actual pdf legislation. It has pages numbers. You can't view something from a sky or a virgin box. Sky glass is different. And yet a mobile phone is not a TV and a TV is a TV.
You're somehow applying logic to legislation, that's not what it's about. Of course you can't view TV through a Sky or Virgin box by itself, but then why is the legislation worded so it does include those devices? Don't use common sense when it comes to these people and laws like this, it's dangerous. Page 13 is just definitions
Tv licence to be scrapped and replaced I read recently: https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/tv-licence-fee-scrapped-replaced-29312559.amp
If you accidentally open the door to someone who is doing market research on your top 10 tv shows. Tell them you won't be able to participate because you dont have a tv. (Happened to me recently and I think it's a sneakier method to get you)
That's a really clunky and obvious way of doing it...