• Sweden edition
 
The comments below have not been moderated in advance and are not produced by The Local unless clearly stated.
Readers are responsible for the content of their own comments. Comments that breach our terms and conditions will be removed.
8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »    Reply to this topic

New SVT law: why should I pay?

And how to avoid TV fees

Garry Jones
post 13.Feb.2013, 12:16 AM
Post #31
Joined: 20.Feb.2005

Of course you have to pay. The law is not new, its been in force since 2006. The difference is that SVT are now streaming their content.

We need public service TV. If Sweden comes under a large scale chemical attack with several million dead the state will take over SVT and continue to broadcast TV and radio from the underground bunkers. All other TV and radio stations could be in enemy hands or blacked out. The Government could remain on top of the situation with public moral boosting statements as the army tack back the country. At the end of the day the difference between winning and losing, death of mankind as we know it or survival might just be because of the state run tv.

For more on this see this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7uIjg9dtoI

Its the same story but from England how the Goverment could take over the BBC if needed in a time of war.

Also, if you are not watching SVT sometimes you are missing out on public information films and programmes like Uppdrag Gransking. Use the "tex" if you don't understand spoken Swedish.
Go to the top of the page
+
oddsock
post 13.Feb.2013, 12:19 AM
Post #32
Joined: 19.Dec.2008

Ah yes, I see, the licence fee is to pay for the tin foil hats.

History tells us that in such war time situations the established media falls into enemy hands, and people tend to get their information from underground newspapers run by resistance organisations.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 13.Feb.2013, 02:15 AM
Post #33
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

QUOTE (Garry Jones @ 13.Feb.2013, 12:16 AM) *
Of course you have to pay. The law is not new, its been in force since 2006. The difference is that SVT are now streaming their content.We need public service TV. If Sweden co ... (show full quote)

What a total load of old bollocks.
First you state that public broadcasting is needed if Sweden comes under attack.

So where is the independence in that?
They get to run down into a fox hole and be somewhat protected by which ever government is in power.
But in a coup, or any other similar situation - who says that the current government is representative of the people?

Hardly independent ... more so national derived based on who is in power.
Especially if such channels are reliant for so called independence without political bias in the hands of whoever is in power during a so called war.

In the days of old, transmissions were the only way for broadcasting messages.
So whoever owned the airwaves controlled maintained a false sense of information.
But today we dont use such for the larger part, so it has no value.

If SVT tried to send out broadcasts from a bunker via internet streams while some other politicial force was in power ... what do you think they would do ? They would get a internet block via service providers under the orders of which ever invader in power.

I have no qualms with the idea that content used, needs for content to be paid for.
But the truth of the matter is, that according to news reports mediums of format changes regarding content delivery have been changed for other reasons.

Firstly, the airwaves that were used to broadcast such channels which the state obviously had exclusive rights over were somewhat limited and allowed for such a monopoly. But such technology has become defunct as other methods for delivery have become possible (cable etc) - and at the same time many of these frequencies that have been freed up generate other cash through sales by the government to services often relating to the telecom services (4g etc) so cash is still being generated.

in 2011 there started to be a notable decline in the public cutting off their licence in Sweden.
And with the advances in technology, many Swedes looked to other mediums as sources of information (A right under article 10 of the freedoms of expression) and in a very democratic way through choice posed a threat to state broadcasting. Such channels were not freely available online, so its not a case of Swedes looking to steal or not pay for content. The truth is, they were looking to get away from something they didn't want and looked for alternatives.

So 2 years later after falling revenue risks, we see state providers streaming their content online without any form of security with the emphasis of criminal intent placed upon the general public of being guilty of intent without any form of proof that such criminal intent was intended (such as watching SVT without rights to). Which conflicts with article 7 of the human rights article.

QUOTE
(1) No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
(2) This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.[1]

Truth is, TV is dead.
The format of conveying information has changed considerably.
And no longer can states control a monopoly of information if the infrastructure it uses is not owned by the state.

With such changes, the state is looking to expand its definition of rights, further than they were intended for by using other mediums of technology it doesnt own(streaming etc). Nor does it own the infrastructure in which original permissions were granted when article 10 was agreed to.

Next we have the question of independence based on demographics.
If such state funded channels were as independent as they so claimed, would they not provide proportionate programming based on ethnic and cultural backgrounds and language in relationship to the fee's generated?

Either way, looking to tax a form of information such as the internet as justification in a system which has seen falling numbers when given the choice on such things as state TV is not a form of democratic leadership. So in such senses how could any claim of independence be nothing more than smoke and mirrors?
Go to the top of the page
+
ljtaylor88
post 13.Feb.2013, 09:32 AM
Post #34
Joined: 16.Mar.2012

QUOTE (byke @ 12.Feb.2013, 02:01 PM) *
What are you on about?The BBC doesnt charge a licence for internet users?It requires that anyone who watches live TV, regardless of the way its transmitted to pay a licence.Bu ... (show full quote)

I never said it did, but that they sure want to.
Go to the top of the page
+
as8
post 13.Feb.2013, 12:00 PM
Post #35
Location: Malmö
Joined: 17.Oct.2010

QUOTE (oddsock @ 12.Feb.2013, 01:29 PM) *
Why?I am happy to pay tax and charges for health care, education, police, fire service, roads, social security, water systems, sewerage systems, airports, train lines, etc.Why ... (show full quote)

Because I believe it's good that everyone can have access to a minimum amount of this type of information and culture. I think the current model of tracking people down to pay is wasteful and we would all pay less if everyone chipped in.

Additionally, I suspect that the vast majority of people who don't pay do actually watch some content despite claims to the contrary. It is the case with every person I know who doesn't pay.

as8
Go to the top of the page
+
dave.smith
post 13.Feb.2013, 12:20 PM
Post #36
Joined: 12.Jan.2007

You should pay your TV license if:

You watch TV
You stream content that is analoguous to what you would watch on TV
You listen to the radio
You enjoy living in a civilized country that allows you to thrive by supplying a decent infrastructure, including TV and radio broadcasts that are useful to you or anyone in your family or social circle.

People want it both ways: live in a great country (which Sweden is), and avoid paying taxes or fees. It just doesn't work that way. I make a lot of money, and pay tax on a lot of that, but find the trade off of living in a clean, safe, informed, enviromentally aware country worth it.

You might argue as many have that SVT is crap. So instead of boycotting it, why not pay and then with peace of mind, write to the people resposnible for the content and air your views and concerns?

It's really not that much money. Avoid paying if you must, but don't expect me to consider you less than petty if you do.
Go to the top of the page
+
Andrey Kiselev
post 13.Feb.2013, 12:51 PM
Post #37
Joined: 2.Jan.2012

I seems to me that you did not get my point. I am happy to pay if and only if I clearly understand what I am paying for. E.g. if radiotjänst can clearly say "we want you to pay because we all pay, this is our tradition and thus we support our public services" I will immediately pay.
Go to the top of the page
+
intrepidfox
post 13.Feb.2013, 01:05 PM
Post #38
Location: Gothenburg
Joined: 18.Jul.2012

Why isn´t there a licence fee for just the radio?
Go to the top of the page
+
oddsock
post 13.Feb.2013, 01:11 PM
Post #39
Joined: 19.Dec.2008

QUOTE
You enjoy living in a civilized country that allows you to thrive by supplying a decent infrastructure, including TV and radio broadcasts that are useful to you or anyone in your family or social circle.

Sorry, I fail to see how television entertainment is important for society or civilisation.

QUOTE
People want it both ways: live in a great country (which Sweden is), and avoid paying taxes or fees. It just doesn't work that way.

Well it does work that way, that's why they introduced a TV-licence system which meant that you didn't have to pay for TV if you didn't watch it. It is not required that you pay for TV if you don't watch it and it never has been.

Nobody is suggesting "avoiding paying taxes" here. I pay all my taxes and fully support the progressive taxation system.

I also don't pay fordonsskatt. You know why? I don't own or drive a car. Would you also argue that I am dodging tax because of this?
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 13.Feb.2013, 01:44 PM
Post #40
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

QUOTE (dave.smith @ 13.Feb.2013, 12:20 PM) *
You should pay your TV license if:. You watch TV. You stream content that is analoguous to what you would watch on TV

The term "TV" is very ambiguous in many senses as while we all consider the term to relate to a specific form or medium.
Both in regards to technology used to define it, and by channels that are covered by such terminology.

Many would argus that in Sweden, the only channels that can be classed as "TV" are those who are licensed by the state to exist (based on past spectrums). Meaning that other channels from outside of Swedens licensing system while sharing a similar name could not be classed as such. As they are not licensed by the state and as such cannot fall into such category.
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 13.Feb.2013, 02:04 PM
Post #41
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (Andrey Kiselev @ 13.Feb.2013, 12:51 PM) *
I seems to me that you did not get my point. I am happy to pay if and only if I clearly understand what I am paying for. E.g. if radiotjänst can clearly say "we want you ... (show full quote)

Radiotjänst is a public body that has the responsibility of collection and distribution of the license fees ... it does not need to say anything as to why. It is written in Swedish Law that You must pay if you meet the criterior defined in law.

Own the device(s) that meets the defined criterior (no matter how broad the definition), you must pay the license, don't own the device(s) and you dont pay.

Just as You pay VAT on things You buy in the shop. Don't buy anything, dont pay VAT.
Just as You pay income tax on your income, dont earn anything, dont pay income tax.
...etc...
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 13.Feb.2013, 02:08 PM
Post #42
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

QUOTE (Yorkshireman @ 13.Feb.2013, 02:04 PM) *
Just as You pay VAT on things You buy in the shop. Don't buy anything, dont pay VAT.


You dont pay the same rate of VAT on items from outside of Sweden.
These rates are based on countries own specific borders.
And how can you pay VAT on something if its free to begin with and obtained from outside of Sweden.
Go to the top of the page
+
oddsock
post 13.Feb.2013, 02:11 PM
Post #43
Joined: 19.Dec.2008

If SVT park a large screen TV outside my front window and leave it switched on 24/7, does that mean I should be forced to pay for a TV licence?

This is essentially what they are arguing by insisting that everyone who has internet should pay a TV licence.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 13.Feb.2013, 02:29 PM
Post #44
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

QUOTE (Yorkshireman @ 13.Feb.2013, 02:04 PM) *
it does not need to say anything as to why. It is written in Swedish Law that You must pay if you meet the criterior defined in law.

But laws cannot extend past the borders they govern.
Nor can EU states block other EU transmissions.

So this attempt to claim that other mediums of technology fall into context of definition which are extremely limited in regards to the scope in which they could cover is extremely disproportionate and the law that covers it would appear to be a clear breach of article 10, which holds greater authority.
 
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 13.Feb.2013, 06:27 PM
Post #45
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (byke @ 13.Feb.2013, 02:29 PM) *
But laws cannot extend past the borders they govern.. Nor can EU states block other EU transmissions.

And exactly where does the Swedish TV License fee laws extend past Swedish households? ohmy.gif ...The law does not charge any medium as such, it is a charge on a household that has devices/technology to receive TV Programs however they are transmitted. And by that it isn't a charge for the internet, nor a TV Program, but on Your household for having the device. Simple, yet you fail to understand it!

And with regards the Human Rights article you keep crying about, Freedom of Expression ...remember, whilst You claim that the extension of devices covered by license fees is against your human rights ...if you actually checked more carefully You will find that there is an implied obligation of the state to provide/allow Freedom of Expression ...which Sweden indirectly is doing so by extending public broadcasts to be streamed across the internet and well as the airwaves... The rights cover many things wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Swedish Down Town Consulting & Productions
Swedish Down Town Consulting & Productions is an innovative business company which provides valuable assistance with the Swedish Authorities, Swedish language practice and general communications. Call 073-100 47 81 or visit:
www.swedishdowntown.com
PSD Media
PSD Media is marketing company that offers innovative solutions for online retailers. We provide modern solutions that help increase traffic and raise conversion. Visit our site at:
http://psdmedia.se
If you want to drink, that’s your business.
If you want to stop, we can help.

Learn more about English-language Alcoholics Anonymous in Sweden. No dues. No fees. Confidentiality assured.
AA-EUROPE.ORG/SWEDEN