(edit title) Radiotjänst fees - register Waiting for their letter Or shall I self-register Options

[cbgbg]

First of all the system is out of date. Why should mobile phones and computers be excluded. Then half the time if you want to see the rest of an interview etc then you must go to www.svt/... what about the people who do not have computers? SVT is crap, have you seen how many programmes that are repeated (approx 20 everyday).
I am a tight git but one with principles. Why pay for something which is of bad quality. If it is illegal then tough luck. Dropping rubbish and speeding are also breaking the law

[dave.smith]

I understand your frustration, but even if you hate the content or find the delivery method outdated, refusing to pay is against the law. What you should do instead is write a letter to SVT instead, explaining why you disapprove and suggesting changes they should make. If I didn't like garbage disposal laws I still wouldn't throw all of my trash into your yard to let you take care of it for me - this is basically what you are doing by not paying what you owe, transferring the burden onto everyone else.

[dave.smith]

Consider the following:

You want SVT to improve the quality of their broadcast material before you pay. But if you refuse to pay, how can they improve? They need money to produce better content, surely this makes sense to you? To ask them to improve, while at the same time withholding the funds which they need to use to improve, is highly counter-productive. Please reconsider your stance.

Wanting improved quality is perfectly acceptable. Breaking the law by not paying, and depriving SVT of the means to improve at the same time, is unacceptable!

[byke]

I disagree in regards some things that have been written.

Firstly the law was re-written to deal with changes in technology, but was written in such a way that it didn't address any real changes and is greatly open to interpretation.

Firstly the law states that payment is required if you own a tv receiver.
But what exactly is a tv receiver? And what media distribution is classed of that of TV?

A modern tv generally consists of a screen and a box that decodes a signal so that a user can view specific content.
But this content that is classed as tv, how does that seperately itself from other forms of digital media such as DVDs or ip streaming?

The truth is what defines tv channels nowadays is state sponsored channels. Thus making the collected fee appear dedicated specifically for these channels whereas it is meant to cover all forms.

What I despise however is this use of law in which so called independent collection agencies interpret the law as they see fit based on the assumption of profit. And responsabilty falls on individual users to prove their innocence rather than the agency proving users have been found in breach of the law.

Personally I can't stand SVT or the sh*tty radio stations in Sweden.
And believe the fee charged is too high in relation to the content and would like to see such services either shut down or become privatised like other channels. Obviously one argument is that by requiring state channels to compete on a level field would cause big issues as many would choose not to subscribe to it. Which pretty much speaks for itself in regards to its own value.

[Yorkshireman]

First of all the system is out of date. Why should mobile phones and computers be excluded.

The current proposal is that they do away with the license fee and follow Finlands example, and add it as a fixed tax on everyones tax declaration (like Begravningsavgift), and just count it as a tax for a public service. That way they will make saving of 100+ Million SEK by dissolving Radiotjänst and pumping the monies into programming. However Social Democrats are against this idea, since it also means the people working in Kiruna will lose their jobs etc..

What I despise however is this use of law in which so called independent collection agencies interpret the law as they see fit based on the assumption of profit. And responsab ... (show full quote)

What I despise however is this use of law in which so called independent collection agencies interpret the law as they see fit based on the assumption of profit. And responsabilty falls on individual users to prove their innocence rather than the agency proving users have been found in breach of the law. ... (hide full quote)

Actually, burden of proof falls onto the license investigators, and as mentioned earlier, they have to prove You have a receiver, and have no right to enter your home. If your TV is out of line of sight, cannot be seen through windows, nor from the open front door, they cannot prove it. Hearing it is not considered proof either!

I would like to add though, the law is the law, regardless of whether or not you like it. One cannot pick and choose just because You think the programs are crap!... What if a burglar broke in, stole your tv, and quoted ... I didnt like his furniture, didnt do the TV justice, and I consider laws against theft out-of-date!!!

You are technically stealing TV programs You have not paid for.

Which then makes Me ask ... for those using UK VPN's and accessing BBC etc... across the net, do You pay the UK license fee ? ...it was changed to use GeoIP for the very fact the UK license payers complained that they paid for BBC, yet non-UK residents could access programs without having to pay the license fee!

[byke]

@yorkshireman

Firstly I never advocated the use of stealing.
Nor did I suggest anyone watch SVT without a licence.
But would gladly suggest people to refrain from using or supporting such a waste of cash.

Secondly in regards to UK law.
The TV licence doesn't cover on demand or catchup services.
So by using a proxy or smart DNS doesn't steal or break the law.

[byke]

Actually, burden of proof falls onto the license investigators, and as mentioned earlier, they have to prove You have a receiver, and have no right to enter your home. If your TV is out of line of sight, cannot be seen through windows, nor from the open front door, they cannot prove it. Hearing it is not considered proof either!

Again, I can't see how this could prove you owned a receiver as content is defined through a specific type of hardware rather than actual content.

If a man owns a tv without a receiver and is streaming a YouTube video or even a SVT play program, and was visible to the inspector it wouldn't class as a crime since it doesn't pass through a receiver. And again the state has been deceitful in not clearly defining the definition of a tv receiver as it would put presidence on their own channels and thus leave a loop hole for people to opt out.

[dave.smith]

Also, consider the following:

You mentioned that it was ridiculous that the SVT programmes referenced external content in the form of URLs, and claimed this wouldn't be good for people without computers. But how many people in Sweden don't have computers? And of those people, how many don't have other devices capable of web browsing, such as tablets or smart phones? I am quite sure the number in a country like Sweden is going to be negligible.

[dave.smith]

Byke,

You are falling into the trap of interpreting of the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law - do you honestly want a situation where all channels are privatised and only commercial crap that caters to the lowest common denominator is broadcast? If you think that SVT is bad imagine how bad it would be if everything was privatised... More commercials, more crap... Be careful !

[Snood]

Which then makes Me ask ... for those using UK VPN's and accessing BBC etc... across the net, do You pay the UK license fee ? ...it was changed to use GeoIP for the very ... (show full quote)

Which then makes Me ask ... for those using UK VPN's and accessing BBC etc... across the net, do You pay the UK license fee ? ...it was changed to use GeoIP for the very fact the UK license payers complained that they paid for BBC, yet non-UK residents could access programs without having to pay the license fee! ... (hide full quote)

I would GLADLY pay a fee up to the price of a UK TV license to be able to have full access to BBC iplayer without having to faff on with VPNs and torrenting...

[byke]

I agree,but also note that link I have posted to in the past now includes a dynamic dns possability.So when you submit your ip to their database, you don't have to worry about a reduced speed. And it's optimised for primarily uk content.

[byke]

Byke,You are falling into the trap of interpreting of the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law - do you honestly want a situation where all channels are privatised ... (show full quote)

Byke,

You are falling into the trap of interpreting of the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law - do you honestly want a situation where all channels are privatised and only commercial crap that caters to the lowest common denominator is broadcast? If you think that SVT is bad imagine how bad it would be if everything was privatised... More commercials, more crap... Be careful ! ... (hide full quote)

"the spirit of the law" ? - I am sorry komrad but the days of the sickle and hammer are long behind us ... But I do believe brother Putin is still trying to keep these values alive.

Personally I have never seen anything of any value shown on SVT ... Singing in skansen? - no thanks.
Let democracy and fair licensing choose its fate, and that way we can finally get rid of it.

[cbgbg]

Also, consider the following:You mentioned that it was ridiculous that the SVT programmes referenced external content in the form of URLs, and claimed this wouldn't be goo ... (show full quote)

Also, consider the following:

You mentioned that it was ridiculous that the SVT programmes referenced external content in the form of URLs, and claimed this wouldn't be good for people without computers. But how many people in Sweden don't have computers? And of those people, how many don't have other devices capable of web browsing, such as tablets or smart phones? I am quite sure the number in a country like Sweden is going to be negligible. ... (hide full quote)

Many old people do not have computers. I dont have a smart phone and certainly don´t want one in the future

Going back to whether the licence fee makes better programmes. The answer is no. As i said before SVT sometimes can have over 30 repeats a day. I agree with other people whom have said that we should do the same as in Finland. That would be much more fairer. The problem is that most of the licence fees go towards administration. How many times have we seen the same films and programmes again and again. Its a joke. Call me criminal but i don´t care. I havn´t paid the last 17 years and i will not pay again until the system is fairer