(edit title) The new TV license fee for Sweden The phasing out of the charge (as we know it) Options

[byke]

Has anyone read the latest proposals to phase out the TV fee and integrate it into a collected tax?

I know its been long debated that it could happen, but with a current shift away from conventional TV and ever changing technology (IPTV, Streaming etc). So in all likely hood it now seems much more plausible that we will start to see a integration of the fee collected as taxes instead. Thus making it a public service that one can no longer opt out from.

I can understand the possible dilema of technologies changing and poor quality of media choice by the "state" channels leading to consumers looking for alternative means and in turn leading to a funding problem for these channels.

But really, is this really a justifiable measure by government to cover the costs through additional tax collection of citizens not wanting to cover the costs brought forth from the piss poor programming? If people actually choose to go the extra mile and look for alternative options or choosing not to watch TV altogether in an attempt of avoiding the fee, what does it say about the channels on offer?

In the past few years we have seen a whole slew of extra (**shit** / excuse my French) channels funded by the TV fee and government. Only to be followed up this year with a clearer definitions regarding fees and technology by Radiotjanst.

I understand the argument that the state needs an "independent" commercial free station to offer "unbiased" information. But if we are completely honest, its about as unbiased as a state run communist channel. Then add on to the fact that its not just 1 channel but multiple channels that the new taxes will cover, and in combination with the 2009 Swedish language laws and you have a recipe for state sponsored fascism.

Reinfeldt, "Dear Leader" ... whats next?

/Rant over (for now)

[Yorkshireman]

Ouch!

Actually the only way to "opt out" today, in theory, is not to buy or own a TV. Since the license fee is based upon TV's. There has been much dabate over the last few years to extend that to cover Computers also, since so much is streamed over the net.

My personal opinion is a "Big Welcome" to this latest proposal, if I remember correctly this is already done in Finland. The idea is to reduce costs, since there is no need for seperate collection, almost everyone has either a TV or Computer, Smartphone etc.. much better this way then seperate license and collection.

The only sad part is those working for Radiotjänst who will lose their jobs ...It was not totally correct what was written the other day in the press when it was stated that removing Radiotjänst would release 140 Million SEK for programs, since the odds are most will not find jobs for a while, so it will cost a pretty penny in social costs/unemployment benefits.

And it may not happen, since the Social Democrats have said they disagree.

[Bender B Rodriquez]

I understand the argument that the state needs an "independent" commercial free station to offer "unbiased" information. But if we are completely honest, i ... (show full quote)

I understand the argument that the state needs an "independent" commercial free station to offer "unbiased" information. But if we are completely honest, its about as unbiased as a state run communist channel. ... (hide full quote)

Considering how many politicians (both red and blue) that have been forced to resign after SVT-investigations, I think that this claim is a bit unfair, although journalists in general are a bit on the left (no matter private or public TV).

[byke]

Actually the only way to "opt out" today, in theory, is not to buy or own a TV. Since the license fee is based upon TV's. There has been much dabate over the las ... (show full quote)

Actually the only way to "opt out" today, in theory, is not to buy or own a TV. Since the license fee is based upon TV's. There has been much dabate over the last few years to extend that to cover Computers also, since so much is streamed over the net. ... (hide full quote)

Actually its not as simple as that.
The law many suggest has been purposely murky over the years as technology has changed in an attempt to collect fee's without question.

What is defined as a TV (say from that of a monitor) is the actual tuning device.
And not that of the term "TV".

And since the digital switchover has left many TV owners needing to use a 3rd party digital box and card to have the ability to watch "TV". It has created a situation were public confusion and poor definitions has allowed Radiotjanst to pursue fee's under a false generalization.

No longer can the fee be described as that of a TV fee, but in fact a tuner fee.

With the basis of, if you have a tuner ... then you could be able to see state content without paying a fee.
Whereas other channels are able to protect their content not at the expense of the mass general public, but through license agreements and 3rd party digital cards and subscriptions.

The whole thing is bent, and forces residents to not only be subjected to such rubbish.
But also have to pay for it and subsidize it, regardless if they wish to watch it.

Whats next, a reading tax?
Where every adult and child is charged a tax purely because they could read a piece of text left out in public view without the permission of the state who put it there?

And in turn the government can send every citizen X amount of little red books through the post regarding state ideology and other facts. Under the guise of freedom and independence, while creating jobs for its citizens.

“Brandalism

Any advertisement in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It belongs to you. It's yours to take, rearrange and re-use. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.”
― Banksy, Wall and Piece

[Bender B Rodriquez]

The current law ( http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19890041.htm ) is pretty similar to this http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-...v-licence-top3/

Nowhere does the law specify a "tuner" anymore.

[byke]

Not at all,The UK TV Fee is not collected as a tax.Has higher quality programming, more channels and cheaper starting at approx 500kr a year versus over 2000sek in Sweden.Allows citizens to own a "TV" without having to pay for a license if owners can show it is not tuned to receive channels when inspected. Thus allowing owners to use such devices for game console unit displays, computer displays, tv catchup displays, DVD displays and so on.
The emphasis is on the inspectors proving you are taking something without paying for it.Where as in Sweden the emphasis is on the citizen to pay regardless. Often with half assed information used to deceive the person (see radiotjanst)

Definition
2 § En TV-mottagare är en sådan teknisk utrustning som är avsedd att ta emot utsändning eller vidaresändning av TV- program, även om utrustningen också kan användas för annat ändamål. Lag (2006:798).

Would this not be considered a tv tuner?

[Yorkshireman]

The emphasis is on the inspectors proving you are taking something without paying for it.Where as in Sweden the emphasis is on the citizen to pay regardless. Often with half a ... (show full quote)

The emphasis is on the inspectors proving you are taking something without paying for it.Where as in Sweden the emphasis is on the citizen to pay regardless. Often with half assed information used to deceive the person (see radiotjanst) ... (hide full quote)

This is not so ... If You do not pay for the license, the emphasis today is on Radiotjänst to prove You have a TV device. They don't even have the right to enter the premises. So, even if the TV is blasting in 1 room, that cannot be seen from the street or doorway, they cannot prove You have it, they cannot make You pay!

Adding the TV license as a percentage of the general tax collection will cut costs tremendously, remove the need for all these definitions, and stop the need for hunting down those who should pay the license. In directly that should reduce the amount individuals pay, and increase the amount available for programming (assuming they ring-fence the monies).

Can You opt out, NO. Then again You cannot opt out of paying begravningsavgift, nor claim a refund if You are burried abroad

[byke]

One of the biggest issues is that the law uses different terms to describe what validates a TV and uses broad context which doesn't seem to be defined.

First section 2 defines what it regards as a TV tuner ... (aka something to recieve television program's or broadcasts) but doesn't define what a television program is other than a broadcast. It doesn't define the media or how it gets there but states it has to be received through a tuner.

Secondly section 2a - It then says the owner of a "television set" must pay a fee ...
What is the definition of a set compared to a device with a tuner? And why has the term changed to something that is not defined?what does a set consist of? Can it exclude a tuner? Is it simply a screen?

Section 3 then goes on to refer to a television reciever (not tuner or set) ... Which again questions the first definition of a television tuner in section 2. Since a tv is classed as a tuner (the ability to locate channels) not nesciserilly the ability receive. If so what is it classed to recieve?, compliments, fresh air ? It doesn't state this. Thus could a monitor be considered a tv reciever or that of a digital watch or even an electronic book like a kindle?

Section 5 refers to an item as a tv set again, with the possability for an exemption of the fee if not being able to recieve Tv program's. But Tv program's and what they cover aren't defined apart from section 2 in relation to a tuner. So if your tuner is not able to recieve a signal because it is unplugged then you should qualify. However how this relates to a "set" is unclear as even if you qualify for exception to paying a fee relating to the ability to receive broadcasts via a tuner.

So far we know that tv program's are considered Related to article 2 of being related to a tv tuner.
But other references state it to be a set or a reciever which could be different to a tuner.

As you can see, the law appears to be pupously murky which uses refernces that it does not define.

So this clearly shows that media and how it is viewed and defined has seen a radical shift.
What was easily defined in the past, has now become blurred through new technology and inventions.

The law is flawed and the only way to define what government would term as something that requires a fee, would then need to be defined on the channels that are under its wing (SVT, 4 etc) but that would mean taking the emphasis away from the hardware, and focusing on the media itself and not what or how it is displayed.

But I think it's fair to say that if citizens were given the choice to pay for these channels at the price they are sold for at present, that many would seek for other alternatives. And a subsiquent drop in subscriptions would put government state channels into economic problems.

Thus presenting the government with a problem as it claims the nation needs an "independent" broadcaster, but many of its citizens may not wish to subscribe to such or may look to other sources for information they deem better value or more trustworthy than that of the dictatorship of the current government.

So this attempt to link taxes to hardware in essence is anti competitive as the government have clearly set out to ensure that media is restricted. Or requires a subsady payment before it lets its citizens gain access to other information. Last year the Swedish government were taken to the European court of human rights and lost its case over 2 tenants who were evicted for having a satellite dish mounted on their dwellings. Article 10 of the European Covered the couple in regards to the right to recieve information freely. This right to freedom of information must be brought into question when associated directly to the use of hardware, and even more so if such rights are restricted unless a subsidiary tax is paid first before that right is granted.

In regards to the current stats of licenses in Sweden.
Radiotjanst in the past has claimed a 9/10 household percentage of registered subscribers.
But since much of the information it release's has been brought into question, I am not sure how truthful that is.

So while a TV license fee collected through taxes may seem convenient to those who wish for such. That shouldn't come at the cost to those who do not wish for such. Or do not wish specifically to subscribe to those particular government channels for the ability or right to view other information freely.

Democracy and the ECHR doesn't work that way.

[gplusa]

This will soon become a fuss over nothing. NZ changed from a license fee to a general television taxation years ago. A bit of wailing at the time (presumably from the habitual non-payers), then everyone moved on. The justification for the change was that there were so many ways to access television other than via a television set, that it was impossible (or prohibitably expensive)to determine exactly who was using the service. Computers, mobile phones, etc. And that those who were paying their license were subsidising those who were trying to avoid paying what they owed. The issue was not whether or not you used the service, but whether or not you had the opportunity and ability to use the service. It was a cleaner and simpler way of dealing with the problem, and covered 95% of the population.

[cogito]

The only sad part is those working for Radiotjänst who will lose their jobs

In my view this would be a bonus. Far too much of the licensing fees goes to pay the salaries of far too many employees to produce pxxx-poor programs.

Radiotj (like SvT) is a dumping ground for the excessive number of graduates from Journalisthögskolan, the government's journalism school, and the huge bureaucracy that manages them.

Here's a novel idea: perhaps a public service shouild exist to serve... uhhh...the public? Not to keep unemployment stats down. Let half the employees go find real jobs in real public service. I've heard the homes for the elderly are v. short of staff

[Yorkshireman]

Radiotjänst have nothing to do with programming or program content, it is the daughter company set up to collect and chase TV license fees. Main office is in Kiruna. If monies are collected via normal Taxes then they will lose their jobs.
In theory this means currently the 140 Million could be saved and used for programs, however what is likelyhood that all will find new jobs

As for old peoples homes as public service ... Dear poster, You need to watch the news more carefully, that is currently being privatised across the country, and the results so far have not been promising, given the recent highlighted incidents! And that is public monies being given to private sector. Has little to do with being short-staffed!

[Bender B Rodriquez]

One of the biggest issues is that the law uses different terms to describe what validates a TV and uses broad context which doesn't seem to be defined.First section 2 defi ... (show full quote)

One of the biggest issues is that the law uses different terms to describe what validates a TV and uses broad context which doesn't seem to be defined.

First section 2 defines what it regards as a TV tuner ... (aka something to recieve television program's or broadcasts) but doesn't define what a television program is other than a broadcast. It doesn't define the media or how it gets there but states it has to be received through a tuner.

Secondly section 2a - It then says the owner of a "television set" must pay a fee ...
What is the definition of a set compared to a device with a tuner? And why has the term changed to something that is not defined?what does a set consist of? Can it exclude a tuner? Is it simply a screen?

Section 3 then goes on to refer to a television reciever (not tuner or set) ... Which again questions the first definition of a television tuner in section 2. Since a tv is classed as a tuner (the ability to locate channels) not nesciserilly the ability receive. If so what is it classed to recieve?, compliments, fresh air ? It doesn't state this. Thus could a monitor be considered a tv reciever or that of a digital watch or even an electronic book like a kindle?

Section 5 refers to an item as a tv set again, with the possability for an exemption of the fee if not being able to recieve Tv program's. But Tv program's and what they cover aren't defined apart from section 2 in relation to a tuner. So if your tuner is not able to recieve a signal because it is unplugged then you should qualify. However how this relates to a "set" is unclear as even if you qualify for exception to paying a fee relating to the ability to receive broadcasts via a tuner.

So far we know that tv program's are considered Related to article 2 of being related to a tv tuner.
But other references state it to be a set or a reciever which could be different to a tuner.

As you can see, the law appears to be pupously murky which uses refernces that it does not define.

So this clearly shows that media and how it is viewed and defined has seen a radical shift.
What was easily defined in the past, has now become blurred through new technology and inventions.

The law is flawed and the only way to define what government would term as something that requires a fee, would then need to be defined on the channels that are under its wing (SVT, 4 etc) but that would mean taking the emphasis away from the hardware, and focusing on the media itself and not what or how it is displayed.

But I think it's fair to say that if citizens were given the choice to pay for these channels at the price they are sold for at present, that many would seek for other alternatives. And a subsiquent drop in subscriptions would put government state channels into economic problems.

Thus presenting the government with a problem as it claims the nation needs an "independent" broadcaster, but many of its citizens may not wish to subscribe to such or may look to other sources for information they deem better value or more trustworthy than that of the dictatorship of the current government.

So this attempt to link taxes to hardware in essence is anti competitive as the government have clearly set out to ensure that media is restricted. Or requires a subsady payment before it lets its citizens gain access to other information. Last year the Swedish government were taken to the European court of human rights and lost its case over 2 tenants who were evicted for having a satellite dish mounted on their dwellings. Article 10 of the European Covered the couple in regards to the right to recieve information freely. This right to freedom of information must be brought into question when associated directly to the use of hardware, and even more so if such rights are restricted unless a subsidiary tax is paid first before that right is granted.

In regards to the current stats of licenses in Sweden.
Radiotjanst in the past has claimed a 9/10 household percentage of registered subscribers.
But since much of the information it release's has been brought into question, I am not sure how truthful that is.

So while a TV license fee collected through taxes may seem convenient to those who wish for such. That shouldn't come at the cost to those who do not wish for such. Or do not wish specifically to subscribe to those particular government channels for the ability or right to view other information freely.

Democracy and the ECHR doesn't work that way. ... (hide full quote)

I really wonder what you are on about. The law ONLY uses the word TV-mottagare, which is defined in section 2. You may question the definition in section 2, but NOWHERE does the law use any different word than TV-mottagare in the remaining paragraphs.

If you really think the TV-fee is something for the ECHR you are clearly grasping for straws, which does not surprise me since all you posts on this forum are about inane issues. Most EU-countries use similar laws and this would be like opening Pandora's box, why ECHR will never, ever, touch this issue. The case of satellite dishes is not even remotely close to this one.

[Willy]

I really wonder what you are on about.

Run the text of SFS 1989:41 through Google Translate and you'll see what he is on about.

[byke]

Radiotjänst have nothing to do with programming or program content, it is the daughter company set up to collect and chase TV license fees. Main office is in Kiruna. If monies ... (show full quote)

Radiotjänst have nothing to do with programming or program content, it is the daughter company set up to collect and chase TV license fees. Main office is in Kiruna. If monies are collected via normal Taxes then they will lose their jobs.
In theory this means currently the 140 Million could be saved and used for programs, however what is likelyhood that all will find new jobs ... (hide full quote)

What you seem to be over looking is peoples right to choose.
If we all took this similar attitude that we should make others collectively pay for a service to help reduce your overall cost, then where would it stop?

Should we force everyone to pay a beer tax, because some people get out of paying customs on it and that in turn causes greater costs for beer drinkers who do go the legal route?

Or how about a church tax to a designated religion, irrespective of the fact that many people may not be of faith or of faith to that particular religion.

What about smokers, should we reduce the overall cost of tobacco and in turn introduce a greater tax to cover everyone to help pay for the offset costs? so non smokers have to pay greater taxes t cover those who choose to use such?

The distribution of media overseen by the state is no longer a state service, since many other private organisations cover such. And in turn offer a much more unbiased delivery through choice than that of state commissioned channels.

If Radiotjanst looses X amount of jobs because the system has to change, then there is a very clear message in that action. However if Radiotjanst collected subscriptions and died a death because what is was selling proved unpopular then it would be allot more honest and give a more accurate state of the economy and peoples choice.

[byke]

Run the text of SFS 1989:41 through Google Translate and you'll see what he is on about.

I am trying to find the official English translation of the latest TV law.
Previously the English versions of the TV fee laws were written almost in identical mannerisms and references.