New Irish Internet Tax? 242
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."
Ok I'll Bite... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
More of the same? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ok I'll Bite... (Score:5, Insightful)
fuck you, pay me
The govenment
Re:Ok I'll Bite... (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this different from, oh, say EVERY OTHER STATE SPONSORED SYSTEM IN EXISTENCE for broadcasting.
It's one thing to say that if someone owns a TV, they're probably watching TV. Here, they're saying if you have a computer and broadband, you're watching TV. Bit more of a reach. Sort of like those jurisdictions that place uniform taxes on CD media with the presumption being you're using them for music piracy and not, say, linux ISOs or something.
Re:Learn to read your own Bills (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, hook up a TV tuner card to your PC, and it'll be taxed as a TV. Download your TV programs and it won't be.
So, this p2p DL's legal then? You pay for it now! (Score:2, Insightful)
Under this, you are no longer, using their own definition, "stealing" when using p2p networks. You pay their licenses.
I can't wait to see this come up in court cases initiated by the IFPI
Re:Ok I'll Bite... (Score:2, Insightful)
fuck you, pay me
The govenment
haha, clearly you haven't heard of something called the "Social Contract". You should check that out.
Re:More of the same? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, it goes hand in hand with other people paying taxes for things don't want, need, or use that you do.
If you wanted fair you shouldn't have joined a society. Society is about the weak banding together to take from the strong and prevent the strong from taking from them. Whether the strong are the physically strong, militarily strong, intellectually strong, or economically strong.
Re:Ok I'll Bite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your TV would have to be a monitor with no ability to tune in to a signal before you could argue exemption for TV licenses, at least in the UK, and Ireland sounds like it has a similar system.
That's reasonable since 99.99% of TVs are used as...TVs.
So really, this is just the same: if you have an internet connection, you have the ability to tune in.
Except for one massive difference: watching TV is NOT the primary use of broadband. Seems to me there's a 'presumptive use' argument missing that should be applied before taxing something. Especially for freaking TV. Really, we need a tax for *entertainment* that needs to be broadly applied not just to people using it, but to anyone using the internet? That's getting your priorities a bit out of order.
Let's apply your argument to other arenas: if my town enacts a tax on erotica, should Target have to apply the tax if I want to buy candlesticks? See how it's kind of silly to apply a tax blindly because people *might* use it for entertainment? Find a better way to target the tax. Or make it a subscription service with a decoder card, easy and done.
Re:Ok I'll Bite... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps you missed the "fuck you" part of his post.
Re:Ok I'll Bite... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure they do resent it. But if their tax-funded competitor is obliged to provide content that would not otherwise be shown at all (because it "doesn't get good ratings") and said content is high quality work that contributes to the cultural enrichment of the country, then I don't see why the commercial broadcasters' resentment is meaningful.
Re:Ok I'll Bite... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ok I'll Bite... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I never have to go to the hospital, call the police, drive on the roads or send any kids to the schools, I still have to pay the exact same council tax as someone who uses all of them.
That's just the way general taxes work; everyone pays the bill so you have the option of using the services if you need them, and it's assumed everybody uses some but not all of them.
Most households already have a TV, and thus have to pay the tax anyway, for now. This discussion is happening in the UK too; with many people now watching the BBC iplayer instead of over an aerial, how long can we stick to only having the TV as the basis for the tax, before people switch to only watching online with no tv, and thus avoiding funding the BBC? It's not so much paying for the website streaming per se, it's that the BBC programme making funding is based on having some 95% of the population paying the tax. If that drops significantly, because people dump their tv for their broadband, the BBC is in trouble - and I'm sure the same applies to RTE.
Either sell advertising to cover the cost Dear God no. I've seen US TV, with the adverts virtually every 5 minutes. I have no idea how you bear it.
charge people who do watch it online through the website. Hmm, lets have a nice online record of what people watch, tied to their real name and credit card, held by the state broadcaster. Weren't people screaming about youtube having to hand over its viewing records with just IPs a while back?
I think is a premature move, but as broadcast TV slowly becomes obsolete, the only way to keep the ad-free public service system running is to maintain the high subscription levels. Perhaps we'd be better served if it become a completely ordinary tax, like the council tax, where every household pays it regardless.
The underlying problem (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:There seems to be a pot of gold... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ok I'll Bite... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hospitals, Police, fire dept and other common interest services CAN be to your benefit. Think of it as an insurance that you get for your tax. Should you get robbed or should your house burn down, they'll come and won't first ask for money before they help you in the moment of need.
Schools serve the same purpose, because they educate our children. Yes, they won't be mine, but I still benefit from a better educated workforce that will eventually pay the tax to pay my retirement money.
TV serves no such purpose. TV is entertainment and (to a shockingly dwindling degree) information. And, bluntly, the public broadcasting services we have in Europe serve more often than not neither, with the BBC being the notable exception. Our public TV here is by no means different than private networks. The same crappy sitcoms, the same crappy news, the same ads. The difference is that they additionally get my money and they still have worse cash flows.
At the very least I'd demand something in return for my tax money. How about a little "culture"? How about a little off-mainstream programming for those that want to see good documentaries and interesting discussions? And no, broadcasting them at 2am (like our networks do to fulfill their mandated "educational and cultural service") does NOT count!
Bluntly, currently there is ZERO difference between public and private networks. And thus people complain.
Internet != Broadcast (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:More of the same? (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't. I was born into one. And because various societies control all useful land (and seas) on Earth, I have no choice but to be subject to one or another.
No, society is about some strong people banding together and making sure their own form of strength is the one which counts.