Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

The Local _ Telecoms _ TV Fee in Sweden

Posted by: Furu 13.Feb.2010, 12:36 AM

Do we need to pay it.

Any possibilities exist in order to avoid this fee.

Thanks

Posted by: Marmi 13.Feb.2010, 01:37 AM

It is called TV-Licens, and it is kind of hard to get out of paying. If you go out and buy a TV, you can bet on it that shortly after a bill for TV-Licens will drop down in your mail box. If you get the bill, and don't pay it, it will cause you a lot of trouble in the future. Leaving bills unpaid in Sweden is nothing to take lightly. wink.gif

Posted by: superturbo 13.Feb.2010, 01:56 AM

When you get the bill you should just email/call (preferebly email, otherwise they will ask some you some dumb questions) them and say that you have sold your tv or that it has broken down. Then those nasty bills will stop coming in and you save yourself some money which could be used for something better other than supporting supporting some leftist tv channels.

Note that those bill will only automatically pop in your mail if you bought your tv new using a credit card. Using cash or buying a used one should not bring you any troublesome bill.

If you get mail from radiotjänst asking you to 'register' your tv, just ignore it. They can't force you to register your tv unless you do it by yourself. If they knock on your door, don't open or hide your tv before you do.

Posted by: Monark540 13.Feb.2010, 09:23 AM

This is a recurring topic with posters offering a variety of opinions and rationales about paying, or more often, not paying.

Here is the link to the licensing organization so that you can see for yourself your rights and responsibilities here in Sweden:

http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/Customer-service-/FAQ/

For those of you inclined not to pay or feel that you shouldn't have to pay, there is an answer just for you that I have pasted below:

If you feel that you do not have to pay the TV Licence fee, you can request a reassessment. Radiotjänst will then investigate the matter and make a decision.

Invoices must be paid during the time you are waiting for the decision (15 § The Act on Financing of Radio and Television in the service of the public).

Posted by: Rick Methven 13.Feb.2010, 11:18 AM

This is the regulation

Everyone who owns, rents or borrows a television receiver has to pay a TV Licence fee.

The term "television receiver" includes:

TV sets
Video recorders with channel selector
Video cameras with channel selector
Computers with a TV-card making it possible to receive TV signals
DVD player with channel selector
Digital TV-selector
A single TV Licence fee is payable for all receivers in one and the same household. The definition of a household includes a second home (holiday/weekend cottage), caravan or temporary accomodation elsewhere.

Students living away from home, registered as residents where they are studying, must pay a separate TV Licence fee.

Sub-tenants must also pay the TV Licence fee. If a TV receiver is included in the sublet, the person who has access to the TV receiver is required by law to register with Radiotjänst.

And this is how they check

We continually visit all households that are not listed in our customer register. We even contact those who have bought or rented a TV receiver, as well as those who have moved and not notified us of TV possession.

Why risk a hefty fine and a criminal record?

Just pay the money 2076SEK per year and no extra charge if you want to pay it monthly for 173

Posted by: ShaneW 13.Feb.2010, 11:55 AM

Bear in mind something that happened to me.

I pay it quarterly. Once I forgot to pay it, I got no reminder ..just a letter from kronofogden! Not good news!!! make sure you pay your quarterly bill as you dont want to get blacklisted for something as minor as a tv licence!

Posted by: Rick Methven 13.Feb.2010, 12:20 PM

You can do it by autogiro. saves a lot of hassle and the risk of a visit from Kronofogden

Posted by: Essingen 13.Feb.2010, 12:50 PM

Now there is an interesting business idea ...a service whereby I buy TV's for people to order (in my name) and then immediately resell them to the person who ordered it for cash whose name is then never known by the TV licensing people laugh.gif

Maybe it could be one of the new tax deductable services to get the Swedish economy moving again.

Posted by: jack sprat 13.Feb.2010, 01:03 PM

It may come as a surprise to some, but there are quite a number ppl. way out in the sticks who have never had a TV licence, and maybe never will.
Any TV related device they purchase is done in the name of another family member who more often than not lives in the city.
In the unlikely event they ever get a knock on the door, they also have an excellent second line of defence.

Posted by: kaze 13.Feb.2010, 01:27 PM

I got one of those bills soon after I registered as living here. I just ignored it (no TV) and no one came to check on me or anything.

If you've a job- pay it. Its not much money. Saves the risk of bother. And Swedish TV is so awful you'll need some other service on top of regular TV which pretty much announces "I'VE GOT A TV!'
If you've not- ignore it. The guy needs a search warrant to come in your house anyway. And the chances he'd even turn up are low.

QUOTE
In the unlikely event they ever get a knock on the door, they also have an excellent second line of defence.

Which is?

Posted by: jack sprat 13.Feb.2010, 01:40 PM

QUOTE (kaze @ 13.Feb.2010, 02:27 PM) *
Which is?

Ha,ha,..thought you might ask.
Well it doesn't involve a moose gun,...but it well may again involve other family members,... and once again best to be out in the sticks for it to be feasible.
Think I'll leave you to work it out,
Can't divulge all the tricks of the trade

Posted by: Rick Methven 13.Feb.2010, 02:06 PM

Very simple to work that one out.

You only require one licence per houshold

"A single TV Licence fee is payable for all receivers in one and the same household. The definition of a household includes a second home (holiday/weekend cottage), caravan or temporary accomodation elsewhere"

So you have one family member with a licence and then every other residence is just a stuga in the sticks biggrin.gif

But that only works as long as you are not registered as living in your 'second home'

Easier just to pay up cool.gif

Posted by: Lost Hammer 13.Feb.2010, 03:11 PM

I pay mine quarterly. And bitterly.

I use the e-faktura service with my internet bank so it pops up on my internet bank when I have a bill to pay.

Makes me appreciate the BBC a whole lot more.

Posted by: Rick Methven 13.Feb.2010, 03:17 PM

Well I have BBC world in my ComHem package and I have BBC/ITV iPlayer. I have just looked to see if there is anything to watch on the Iplayer and even SVT has more interesting programs

Posted by: Localer 13.Feb.2010, 03:38 PM

our new apartment is connected to fiber optic(no TV port), and all channels are provides by Telia via internet...do we have to pay as well, since we paid every moths to Telia... ?

anyway, i got the invoice recently and just ignored it...hope there will be no letter from kronofogden!!

Posted by: Rick Methven 13.Feb.2010, 03:44 PM

QUOTE (Localer @ 13.Feb.2010, 03:38 PM) *
our new apartment is connected to fiber optic(no TV port), and all channels are provides by Telia via internet...do we have to pay as well, since we paid every moths to Telia... ?

anyway, i got the invoice recently and just ignored it...hope there will be no letter from kronofogden!!

Yes you are liable to pay

The term "television receiver" includes:
TV sets
Video recorders with channel selector
Video cameras with channel selector
Computers with a TV-card making it possible to receive TV signals
DVD player with channel selector
Digital TV-selector

If you are able to select a TV chanel on your Telia digital TV box then you must pay

Posted by: Localer 13.Feb.2010, 03:52 PM

QUOTE (Rick Methven @ 13.Feb.2010, 03:44 PM) *
Computers with a TV-card making it possible to receive TV signals

what ? computer with TV card liable to pay as well ?? that's totally non sense...how on earth they going to check whether the PC is equipped with tv card.

Posted by: Rick Methven 13.Feb.2010, 04:19 PM

If you stuck a tuning card up your nose and an aerial on the top of your head and you where able to receive Swedish TV then they would want you to pay.

Good News is that once you have paid for your nose TV the rest of your household can relax and watch any number of normal TV's without worrying about a knock on the door cool.gif

Posted by: Lost Hammer 13.Feb.2010, 04:56 PM

QUOTE (Rick Methven @ 13.Feb.2010, 03:17 PM) *
Well I have BBC world in my ComHem package and I have BBC/ITV iPlayer. I have just looked to see if there is anything to watch on the Iplayer and even SVT has more interesting programs

Over the years the beeb has come out with some world class programs. I personally don't think theres anyone else in the world better at doing nature documentarys. I still to this day watch Planet earth in awe. But its not just that, its the whole package. A world class news service, 4 main radio stations that cover every musical taste (I'm a big fan of the essential mix on radio 1, and the friday night comedy on radio 4). As well as providing local radio to just about everywhere in britain, with commentary on local football games and more.

To be fair, I've always been a fan of the beeb even before I moved here. They get caught up in a lot of political bollocks, but I think british media is better for it. I'd rather have them than a load of murdoch spewed crap that was "voluntary" to pay for.

Posted by: Rick Methven 13.Feb.2010, 06:39 PM

I agree that BBC programing in general is good and the best of it is available here.

I also have Viasat Nature and Animal planet where all those great BBC Nature documentarties are shown and BBC radio is available internationaly without any restriction. BBC World gives full news commentary and loads of other stuff including news night

I would never pay for anything that puts money into the pocket of the 'Dirty Digger' laugh.gif

Posted by: nic_tester 13.Feb.2010, 07:08 PM

QUOTE (superturbo @ 13.Feb.2010, 02:56 AM) *
When you get the bill you should just email/call (preferebly email, otherwise they will ask some you some dumb questions) them and say that you have sold your tv or that it has broken down. Then those nasty bills will stop coming in and you save yourself some money which could be used for something better other than supporting supporting some leftist tv channels.

Note that those bill will only automatically pop in your mail if you bought your tv new using a credit card. Using cash or buying a used one should not bring you any troublesome bill.

If you get mail from radiotjänst asking you to 'register' your tv, just ignore it. They can't force you to register your tv unless you do it by yourself. If they knock on your door, don't open or hide your tv before you do.

Hear! Hear! Thats good advice. Unless you WANT to support state propaganda and indoctrination. Personally, i threw my tv out the window in disgust 15 years ago and havent gotten a new one since. And im always hopefull that one of their hired thugs will ring my doorbell so i can let them push themselves inside (they have no legal right to raid your home but they do have the right to collect evidence, ie report they saw a tv) and then give them a good speaking to and explain just exactly how disgusted i am with the sinister evilness that employs them for a good hour and a half. Sadly, so far noone has come to visit me sad.gif Im still hopefull thou, some day they will come biggrin.gif

Posted by: Miss Kitten 13.Feb.2010, 07:20 PM

This has always been a divisive issue here at TL. You have two options to consider.

There are those who simply cannot afford to pay the fee, but they usually start paying it as soon as they are able to. Then there are those who adamantly refuse to pay the fee on sheer principle, citing that being required by law to pay the TV-avgift is a gross violation of their civil rights. They would recommend that you:

1. Lie to Radiotjänst

And then there are those who figure that 164 sek per month is really not that much to ask for commercial-free television and radio, and that paying it is much easier than having to lie and living in fear of the phone or the doorbell ringing. They would recommend that you:

2. Pay the fee and shut up about it.

The choice is up to you.

Posted by: Furu 13.Feb.2010, 07:28 PM

This is what happened.

My local Bostaden changed the programming on the channels they offered. They wanted to save the money so they ran a survey on local population and everybody voted out BBC, NG, Nick, TV4 Film, CNN. They offered 10kr off the monthly cost.

I asked them how can I get the channels back, they asked me to get a digital box and subscribe to programming that I need.

One week after subscription I got a phone call from this TV License fee department asking me to pay the fee as I ordered a digital service.

They also said we will send you information by postal mail in English to read all about it.

So here I am with my 88kr monthly TV bill (Basic Cable) changing to 425kr per month (incl TV license Fee).

Posted by: 7 7.Jun.2010, 11:36 AM

QUOTE (Furu @ 13.Feb.2010, 08:28 PM) *
One week after subscription I got a phone call from this TV License fee department asking me to pay the fee as I ordered a digital service.

does anyone know if they can access the details if you still have the service or just that you subscribed to one?

Posted by: Furu 7.Jun.2010, 07:40 PM

They get notification if you subscribe.

Posted by: 7 7.Jun.2010, 10:32 PM

cheers furu

Posted by: phoenix_glory 8.Jun.2010, 09:37 AM

QUOTE (Rick Methven @ 13.Feb.2010, 11:18 AM) *
This is the regulation

Everyone who owns, rents or borrows a television receiver has to pay a TV Licence fee.

The term "television receiver" includes:

TV sets
Video recorders with channel selector
Video cameras with channel selector
Computers with a TV-card making it possible to receive TV signals
DVD player with channel selector
Digital TV-selector
A single TV Licence fee is payable for all receivers in one and the same household. The definition of a household includes a second home (holiday/weekend cottage), caravan or temporary accomodation elsewhere.

Students living away from home, registered as residents where they are studying, must pay a separate TV Licence fee.

Sub-tenants must also pay the TV Licence fee. If a TV receiver is included in the sublet, the person who has access to the TV receiver is required by law to register with Radiotjänst.

And this is how they check

We continually visit all households that are not listed in our customer register. We even contact those who have bought or rented a TV receiver, as well as those who have moved and not notified us of TV possession.

Why risk a hefty fine and a criminal record?

Just pay the money 2076SEK per year and no extra charge if you want to pay it monthly for 173

This is just normal, surely? 173 SEK a month is a decent fee, about the same as what we pay here in the UK. wink.gif

Posted by: Kieruk 8.Jun.2010, 01:10 PM

I'm really interested to know if the expats on here that don't want to pay the licence used to pay in their home countries?

I have always paid the UK licence fee, and never even though not to pay the Swedish one. Yes, I get nearly nothing from it, I dont think I have ever wached SVT1, but if every non UK citizen refused to pay the UK licence fee the rest of us would have to pay considerably more!

And as for the quality of programs...again remember, that there are about 9 million people here (significantly less then in the UK) so there is a lot less coming in through this licence fee...

Posted by: Bender B Rodriquez 8.Jun.2010, 06:24 PM

QUOTE (Localer @ 13.Feb.2010, 03:52 PM) *
what ? computer with TV card liable to pay as well ?? that's totally non sense...how on earth they going to check whether the PC is equipped with tv card.

The system is based on peoples honesty (stupid, I know). If you don't want to pay you just don't pay. I've been doing that for years...

Posted by: Rick Methven 8.Jun.2010, 06:34 PM

So you are the one who makes it more expensive for us honest souls who cough up our due unsure.gif

Posted by: Furu 8.Jun.2010, 07:22 PM

QUOTE (Bender B Rodriquez @ 8.Jun.2010, 07:24 PM) *
The system is based on peoples honesty (stupid, I know). If you don't want to pay you just don't pay. I've been doing that for years...

How did you manage to avoid it?

Posted by: Bender B Rodriquez 8.Jun.2010, 08:05 PM

By not paying. Just say that you don't have a TV and they won't bother you anymore.

Posted by: Mirrorman 8.Jun.2010, 08:15 PM

no better than a thief if you dont pay.

Posted by: Bender B Rodriquez 8.Jun.2010, 09:37 PM

I do not see any moral obligation to pay for things I do not use, do not intend to use, or do not see any societal benefit in.

Posted by: Mirrorman 8.Jun.2010, 09:54 PM

the societal benefit of a state run broadcaster is there for all to see. Would imagine the issue has more to do with your moral intelligence than being a mere license dodger though.

dont worry we will pay your share.

Posted by: Bender B Rodriquez 8.Jun.2010, 10:46 PM

Wow, you really are a twat.

Posted by: Mirrorman 8.Jun.2010, 11:00 PM

maybe but not a cheating thieving twat.

Posted by: 7 8.Jun.2010, 11:39 PM

wow how morally superior people get. the tv license ought to be collected along with your taxes. it is a tax and it's a service for the entire population. think of it as a part of the cultural funding.

Posted by: jack sprat 9.Jun.2010, 01:13 AM

Wow,the only one appearing to be morally superior is yourself 007, with your usual holier than thou attitude,..though where any culture quite comes into Swedish TV is difficult to fathom.

The frequency spectrum incl. the many millions of transmissions carried on it, is available and present Worldwide in everyones home and everywhere else,just like the air we breathe and the rain from the sky, and existed long before TV and Radio stations were ever thought of.
It should therefore be no crime to make use of whatever is openly transmitted on it.
In any event there is always the simple option of encoding, if those transmitting signals wish to limit their audience, or hold them to ransom.
I have never paid in either the UK or Sweden,(in Spain it is free),and fortunately there are signs that the gestapo-like tactics of the authorities are increasingly being ignored, swept aside and more recently in the UK withdrawn to a large extent as no longer morally justifiable.
The eventual withdrawal of licenced services would in the long term make little difference, as there will always be a plentiful,wide range of self supporting commercially viable stations more than willing to fill any void.

Posted by: Furu 9.Jun.2010, 01:20 AM

QUOTE (Bender B Rodriquez @ 8.Jun.2010, 09:05 PM) *
By not paying. Just say that you don't have a TV and they won't bother you anymore.

How can one deny having a TV if subscribed to digital cable service such as Canal or Boxer.

Posted by: Bender B Rodriquez 9.Jun.2010, 03:49 AM

Because Boxer, Canal Digital and SVT are different companies and privacy laws forbid them to share information about their customers.

Posted by: Craptastical 9.Jun.2010, 06:44 AM

This begs the question as to why one of the earlier posters received a letter from Radiotjänst after the purchase of a digital box.

Something which could actually make a difference in the annual overall costs for everyone would be to include the monthly fee as an item in the monthly bill for the TV service one is subscribed to. This wouldn't nab all of the people who don't have a subscription, but I don't think they constitute the majority of the population in Sweden anymore anyway (a big nothing-to-back-it-up guess).

It would be interesting to see statistics on subscriber vs. free-terrestrial viewers though. It does make me wonder and it could be a good indicator for where our Radiotjänst monies should be spent.

Posted by: Rick Methven 9.Jun.2010, 06:54 AM

QUOTE (Bender B Rodriquez @ 9.Jun.2010, 04:49 AM) *
Because Boxer, Canal Digital and SVT are different companies and privacy laws forbid them to share information about their customers.

You are wrong there.

If you buy a TV from a retailer, or subscribe to a TV service such as Boxer, the details are sent to Radiotjänst.

Posted by: Renfeh Hguh 9.Jun.2010, 07:19 AM

It's a stupid system which I got suckered in to start paying many years ago. When I was in Dublin for a couple of years I never bothered to pay.

I think that if we have to support a state broadcaster then it is better that the pain is shared by every taxpayer in the country by paying for it from our taxes. For a start, Radiotjänst & BBC would no longer need to have staff supporting the money collection activities. The act of getting money to support these broadcast companies would be limited to the CEO/VD grovelling on his/her hands and knees to the Government biggrin.gif

In times of economic downturns Radiotjänst is probably not affected by a drop in cash flow like the commercial broadcasters and all government agencies, so why should they be immune from belt tightening as well?

Posted by: Craptastical 9.Jun.2010, 07:34 AM

All very good points.

The end result is that the cost would (hopefully) decrease on a per-person basis, but at the same time increase the monies available for SVT et al to use for both original and purchased programming.

Posted by: richardbw 9.Jun.2010, 07:38 AM

The TV license pays for the government channels (SVT etc), at least in part. So if you don't pay for the TV license but watch SVT then you could be seen as 'stealing'. And unlike PBS in the USA, Swedish public TV is very high quality, often premiering films, foreign TV programmes, and showing all major sports events. I guess most people pay because they like the collectiveness (oh and scared of getting fined :-) )

Then again I don't know why I am defending the system, given that I avoided paying the UK TV license for much of my student years (eek I bet I'll get a letter from the BBC now!)

Posted by: cogito 9.Jun.2010, 08:43 AM

QUOTE (richardbw @ 9.Jun.2010, 06:38 AM) *
Swedish public TV is very high quality, often premiering films, foreign TV programmes, and showing all major sports events.

Are you serious? Most of the day the Swedish State Propaganda TV shows nothing but their logo

When huge world events are being covered by BBC, CNN, Sky and Al Jazeera, SVT shows reruns of Hej Hej Sommar. Or that logo. Or a picture of a flower, with some easy Mozart.

Of course if you love Allsång på Skansen, it's fine. Otherwise there is almost nothing.

The only break from the tedium of Swedish TV is the occasional American series (Sopranos) or the rare French or Italian film.

Posted by: Rick Methven 9.Jun.2010, 08:51 AM

I hope that all those of you who say that SVT is rubbish and you never watch it and so do not pay your licence fee will carry on with your principles during the world cup and not watch the matches that are only shown on SVT and chanel 4. laugh.gif

Posted by: EtoileBrilliant 9.Jun.2010, 08:55 AM

What really bothers me is the digital switch. 5 years ago we got a wealth of free TV channels here in Sweden. When they switched to digital they gave the broadcasting rights to Boxer who try and strong arm you to pay SEK 300 per month for even their most basic package (including channels that were previously free and are filled to the gills with advertising).

In Sweden we get SVT1, SVT2, SVT Barn/24, Channel 6 (or 9 I can't remember), Axess TV and TV Finland (defintely the worst TV in Europe) on Free to Air. In the UK and Germany there are about 60 free to air channels. What irks me is, I thought I was paying my license fee to get these original channels. Now I have to pay Boxer and extra fee.

The EC took Sweden to task for not allowing competing services on terrestial DTV but any progress on this looks to be a long way off.

Lastly a questions: do we need a seperate license for our summer house?

Posted by: Mirrorman 9.Jun.2010, 09:02 AM

is it the same people that dont want their money spent on the royal family or public broadcasting that usually list their positives for living here as cheap child care/nursery and maybe education?. Funny how the taxpayer is expected to subsidise the takers and cheats in order that they can rear more self serving little brats. take take take. shameful selfish and unintelligent people.

A criminal is a criminal. those who avoid paying their dues are doing society no favors at all.

Posted by: jack sprat 9.Jun.2010, 09:13 AM

Why should ppl be forced to pay for something that in many cases they may not want or need?
It is basically taking away freedom of choice.

When you go into a showroom to buy a brand spanking new Volvo, would you be happy to be told,..."No problem sir, you can buy one right away, only first of all we have to insist that you buy and pay for a new Saab whether you want one or not."?

Possibly there was a case for a licence fee for state controlled TV/Radio many years ago when there were few if any practical alternatives, but in todays, what should be a free market situation,it should no longer be imposed on ppl against their free will.

Posted by: Mirrorman 9.Jun.2010, 09:15 AM

while i am here. A comment for furu the thread starter. Do you know anything ? i have noticed that you ask every little question on here and after checking your posts it is suprising that you are able to leave home without forgetting to put your clothes on or having a panic attack. which train?, which shop?, which phone?, which insurance? how do i work my keyboard? which flights? which polarmaskin? which bank? what tax? what age kids? how, how, how etc.
now i am newish here but i also note that you are quick to provide one liners of advice to people that ask questions and that is noble. the question i have is why do you think anyone would take your info as reliable? by giving responses you are placing doubt and misinformation onto the people that need a true answer.

Posted by: Mirrorman 9.Jun.2010, 09:44 AM

QUOTE (jack sprat @ 9.Jun.2010, 09:13 AM) *
Why should ppl be forced to pay for something that in many cases they may not want or need?
It is basically taking away freedom of choice.

freedom of choice? Hogwash. dont use big phrases you dont understand. On your theory libraries should be shut down, parks should be closed, roads should not be maintained, community centres shut, swimming pools shut, schools and colleges open only for those who can afford it etc and all because you personally dont use them. money appears to make people less tolerant and more selfish. if everyone had your attitude then we would live in a world of anarchy.

Posted by: jack sprat 9.Jun.2010, 10:24 AM

Absolute cobblers,thats no comparison at all.

We are talking about a marketable commodity of which increasing numbers and choice are becoming readily available.
It is not a question of shutting anything down at all, but on the contrary expanding the various options and freedom of choice, without ramming only one available service down every ones throats, regardless if they like it or not.

Posted by: cogito 9.Jun.2010, 10:40 AM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 9.Jun.2010, 08:44 AM) *
On your theory libraries should be shut down, parks should be closed, roads should not be maintained, community centres shut, swimming pools shut,


You are comparing things that do not hold up to comparison.

But let's pretend to follow your strange logic.
If the parks, schools libraries and swimming pools are closed most of the time and if, during the few hours a day they are open, they deliver the same poor quality as Swedish Television, then, yes, shut them down.

Posted by: Mirrorman 9.Jun.2010, 11:31 AM

In any normal society it is essential that the populous can obtain information such as news from a broadcaster that has integrity, honesty or neutrality and held accountable for doing so. It is one of,if not the most important requirements for a democracy. Without it society will break down.

if however you want to see an essential fabric of your country being run by the "competition" who operate only for profit or personal motive like egomaniacs rupert murdoch or silvio burlesconi then you will find the country you are living in is being corrupted for personal gain. But as long as you can watch baywatch then you are ok yeah.

life isnt about taking at every opportunity. it is about what you give that matters.

Posted by: Rick Methven 9.Jun.2010, 11:48 AM

You got it in a nutshell!

If there was no publicly funded broadcasting then the content would be dictacted by the advertisers, not just the programs that are aired but also slants on the news. You would end up with the truth according to Fox News rather than the neutral reporting that you now get from the likes of SVT/BBC.

It is only the existence of public funded broadcasting that keeps the likes of Murdoch honest. without it the cost would go up, you may save on the licence fee but you would find that Free to air channels would disappear and in the end the subscription costs to the likes of Boxer Canal+ etc would rise and you would end up paying more than the licence fee. You can watch all the world cup matches for free on SVT/TV4. If Sky had the exclusive I wonder how much it would cost?

Posted by: cogito 9.Jun.2010, 12:04 PM

QUOTE (Rick Methven @ 9.Jun.2010, 11:48 AM) *
If there was no publicly funded broadcasting then the content would be dictacted by the advertisers,You would end up with the truth according to Fox News rather than the neutral reporting that you now get from the likes of SVT/BBC.



And Swedish Television's content is dictated by the Social Democratic Party.

"Neutral reporting" by the likes of SVT/BBC?...

Oops! I just fell off my chair laughing...

Posted by: jack sprat 9.Jun.2010, 12:07 PM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 9.Jun.2010, 11:31 AM) *
In any normal society it is essential that the populous can obtain information such as news from a broadcaster that has integrity, honesty or neutrality and held accountable for doing so. It is one of,if not the most important requirements for a democracy. Without it society will break down.

if however you want to see an essential fabric of your country being run by the "competition" who operate only for profit or personal motive like egomaniacs rupert murdoch or silvio burlesconi then you will find the country you are living in is being corrupted for personal gain. But as long as you can watch baywatch then you are ok yeah.

life isnt about taking at every opportunity. it is about what you give that matters.


Even more absolute Tosh.
Reference to SVT in the same sentence as integrity,honesty and neutrality,...I don't think.
I would have thought that democracy was much more about the freedom to watch and listen to a wide spectrum of opinions from all sides before deciding for yourself who is telling the most porkies.
Possibly the main criteria on which the original "common market" was formed was to allow free trade and competition.
Probably more than any other country in the EU, Sweden has resisted these principles, with regard to hanging on to its state controlled monopolies,restrictive rules and regulations as long as it possibly could, whilst also continuing to try and keep its cake and eat it.
On the other hand if you prefer living in a society based on such as N.Korean democratic values then I'm sure thats a great way to have the "truth" rammed down your throat every day.

Posted by: richardbw 9.Jun.2010, 12:09 PM

@jacksprat

I agree with you on the lack of ability to choose, and it is one of my major annoyances about Sweden; lack of individual choice. However, you could see the TV license as comparable to Road Tax, paying for the infrastructure which in the case of TV includes some TV channels as well as transmitter masts, etc. But I still feel like I am trying to convince myself, so I give way to the honourable lord Jack of Sprat :-)

Posted by: jack sprat 9.Jun.2010, 12:37 PM

Thanking you kindly Sir Richard,
However even regarding the infrastructure,were it the case that all TV services operated on a commercial basis,then as with cellular telephones and other services they would no doubt have to pay their whack with regard to maintenance of existing transmitter masts and equipment and also raise funding for new ones as and when required.

Posted by: Rick Methven 9.Jun.2010, 12:46 PM

I like the way that those who break the law by not paying things like the TV licence, justify it on a freedom of choice basis.

I wonder if you would be such a supporter of freedom of choice if somebody owed you money for a service provided and they did not pay because they excercised their freedom of choice rolleyes.gif

Posted by: byke 9.Jun.2010, 01:01 PM

I still pay a license even though I dont receive a TV signal.
Personally I would like to see the TV license scrapped and so channels are paid on a buy now basis.

If sweden requires a official state channel paid for by the people, then it needs to be only 1 channel only and contain nothing but state related information. (no bingo lotto, or other crap shows)

Posted by: Mirrorman 9.Jun.2010, 01:45 PM

state broadcasting cannot provide any kind of service with just one channel, that is a very weak idea. it is not there for propaganda purposes but to serve a very diverse population with essential information, education and entertainment whilst being accountable for maintaining standards of decency, honesty and integrity.

Posted by: byke 9.Jun.2010, 01:51 PM

Why should the state have state channels designed to "entertain" ?

When we clearly have a wide range of diverse companies from all over the world offering TV services as per seen fit by the consumers.

Diverse populations are not being served by multi state owned channels and thus the resistance to have the license revoked.

If the state is going to enforce a national license based on their own exclusive channels then that clearly goes against monopoly laws.

Posted by: Furu 9.Jun.2010, 02:05 PM

QUOTE (Bender B Rodriquez @ 9.Jun.2010, 04:49 AM) *
Because Boxer, Canal Digital and SVT are different companies and privacy laws forbid them to share information about their customers.

Cable operators share information with RT.

Posted by: Bender B Rodriquez 9.Jun.2010, 02:14 PM

No, not to the extent you think. When you buy a new TV, digital box or receiver, the seller has to inform RT. However, other than that they are not allowed to pass on information. When RT calls you you just say that you cancelled your subscription or gave away your TV. They have no means to check this other than to visit your home, which they rarely do.

Posted by: Rick Methven 9.Jun.2010, 02:27 PM

It is not just about TV but radio as well

In 2010, 6.7 billion SEK will be divided up.

SVT, 57,69 percent (3 875.4 million SEK)
Sveriges Radio, 37,57 percent (2 523.7 million SEK)
UR, 4,75 percent (318.9 million SEK)

Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR provides Educational programing that would never be produced in a commercial only environment as there is no profit in it.

Radio also gets a lot of support. without the licence fee you would be listening to non stop advertising broken by the odd crap song that the media group is pushing at that moment in time.

Posted by: Mirrorman 9.Jun.2010, 02:32 PM

byke, choice is a word massively overused by people that are fortunate enough or wealthy enough to demand anything they want at the exclusion of it benefiting society as a whole. in other words you are ok so you know best.

Posted by: byke 9.Jun.2010, 02:45 PM

Its called democracy.
"Benefitting society as a whole" ?? - I am totally lost by your point as you havent given any merit to your beliefs.

Just out of interest, do you by any chance work in a job that is in part or full funded via such a license fee?

Posted by: jack sprat 9.Jun.2010, 04:47 PM

QUOTE (Rick Methven @ 9.Jun.2010, 12:46 PM) *
I like the way that those who break the law by not paying things like the TV licence, justify it on a freedom of choice basis.I wonder if you would be such a supporter of freedom of choice if somebody owed you money for a service provided and they did not pay because they excercised their freedom of choice rolleyes.gif

I certainly would,and I would definitely not expect anyone to pay me for something they did not want or had not ordered.

Posted by: Mirrorman 9.Jun.2010, 05:12 PM

byke, outof interest do you judge everyone to have a personal financial interest when they believe in something? that narrow view is prevalent amongst the selfish. not everyone is out for everything they can personally get, choose or manipulate.
And to answer your point I have no interest other than a moral one. sadly i am in IT.

Posted by: byke 9.Jun.2010, 05:35 PM

There is nothing selfish by asking the state to reduce costs.
Especially if the state is not adhering to the peoples needs.

And by implementing this license to force TV viewers within Sweden to have to pre pay for state channels before allowing them to buy other channels is ethically wrong. Especially if the state has a vested interest in the state channels.

If the government believes that local information and state information should be made compulsory then it should implement this into a national tax rather than a license. And thus insure that public expenses are not squandered.

As the current TV model makes a mockery of its citizens and if this policy was attempted by any other company it would be deemed as illegal under both Swedish and EU laws.

Modern TV uses digital / fibre or satellite connections.
So what service is the state providing anymore ? appart from forced programming?

Posted by: Mirrorman 9.Jun.2010, 07:25 PM

IMHO you still totally fail to see or perhaps understand the purpose and necessity of state run broadcasting and subsidiary activities as part of a nations fabric. for something that has been around since public broadcasting began that is strange. your suggestions are very unworkable but insistent on change because thats the way you want it. nothing more or less.

Posted by: byke 9.Jun.2010, 07:45 PM

What you are trying to justify is state extortion.
And that does not require 5 state owned TV channels.

Since the advent of TV Licence fees (which has now been changed to "TV fee") the medium and technology that was state owned and used to broadcast the information is no longer in existence.

TV no longer relies on an infrastructure for the country to be supplied with media via the use of radio waves.

So what we are paying for is state run channels without the possibility of an opt out.
This confirms and proves the point of extortion and shady tactics by the state to enforce an illegal monopoly.

Posted by: cogito 10.Jun.2010, 07:53 AM

QUOTE (Rick Methven @ 9.Jun.2010, 12:46 PM) *
I wonder if you would be such a supporter of freedom of choice if somebody owed you money for a service provided and they did not pay because they excercised their freedom of choice

It would depend on whether I had requested that service or had the unwanted and shoddy "service" imposed on me by the state.

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 9.Jun.2010, 02:32 PM) *
choice is a word massively overused by people that are fortunate enough or wealthy enough to demand anything they want at the exclusion of it benefiting society as a whole. in other words you are ok so you know best.

What a lot of envy is revealed in your constant references to "wealthy people." And "benefit society as a whole" is classic Orwellian and the mantra of totalitarian regimes everywhere.

Are you in North Korea? Or have you simply been watching too much Swedish State Television.

Posted by: Mirrorman 10.Jun.2010, 08:39 AM

QUOTE (cogito @ 10.Jun.2010, 07:53 AM) *
What a lot of envy is revealed in your constant references to "wealthy people." And "benefit society as a whole" is classic Orwellian and the mantra of totalitarian regimes everywhere.
Are you in North Korea? Or have you simply been watching too much Swedish State Television.

no jealousy but no greed either. unless you haven't realised it this is a semi socialist country and it wants to stay that way. i dont want to live in a capitalistic joke town like the US anymore and appreciate society over here. i am happy, how about you?. your posts tell me that you are a sad dude who is stuck in a place he doesnt understand nor have any idea how to enjoy life. maybe you should watch a bit more community tv. it might lighten up your dim mind.

Posted by: byke 10.Jun.2010, 09:02 AM

I will gladly buy you a brick so you can help re-build the east german wall.
As long as I know you will stay on that side.

And just for the record, as I have clearly demonstrated.
A socialist government needs to work for the people.

If the Swedish TV license supported channels served the people of this country, then SVT should have nothing to worry about if the current "TV Fee" compulsory fee's are abolished to make way for a subscription service.

Posted by: Mirrorman 10.Jun.2010, 09:24 AM

byke, your insults are weak like you.
i have read much of your posts, not to be a stalker but to understand where you come from. sure you are a big moaner about living here and have a negative view on most things. but you seem to be the least grateful type of moaner. someone who appears to have loads of money without earning it or respecting it. do you exist on some kind of personal income that keeps you going i your shopping threads. you dont work do you? did you win the lotto?. for hell it aint inheritance as you lack ay class for that.
Have a think about society and what it can do for your children and then think about your influence on them and how your negative attitude is the worse thing for them. i see you criticise schools often but you are responsible for their education as much as them and yet you are so negative.

Posted by: byke 10.Jun.2010, 09:31 AM

Come on Mirrorman, I had hoped you could do better than that.
Stick to the topic.

Would Swedes actively pay if they had the choice for SVT channels in the same way they do for other subscription channels in Sweden?

Posted by: Mirrorman 10.Jun.2010, 09:49 AM

i believe that most swedes like to see the collective best for their country and work to keep things that way. so i think they would. but as state broadcasters are integral to having a sound society and it doesnt have to be opened up for vote.

Posted by: 7 10.Jun.2010, 09:58 AM

all modern societies have some form of publicly funded programming. sweden simply has a financing system based on an out-of-date reasoning from days gone by. that's the point of moving the collection of the funding from radiotjänst to part of the tax pot.

Posted by: Mirrorman 10.Jun.2010, 10:09 AM

"that's the point of moving the collection of the funding from radiotjänst to part of the tax pot."

sorry this isnt a clear sentence to me, what are you trying to say?

Posted by: Renfeh Hguh 10.Jun.2010, 10:22 AM

It's pretty obvious to me rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Keith #5083 10.Jun.2010, 10:27 AM

Hmmmm. I was thinking to get a dvd and flat screen tv - but I do not want tv, only to play films I have purchased. Where I live it is difficult to get antenna reception without a lot of cost (so I am informed) and I do not want sat tv. I do NOT want tv at all, just a big screen which I can buy quite cheap nowadays.
Getting a big screen for my PC to play dvd's is terribly expensive, it seems much easier to buy a big screen for my living room - but it's a tv and I don't want tv,really I don't. It's nice to watch a film now and then and my internet speed is pretty low (despite all the 3g and superfast claims, etc - which work if the wind is blowing in the right direction and the sun is higher than 30 degrees over the horizon and the lake is calm and the Swedish elephants are sleeping in the middle of the forest).
So, does owning a tv and/or dvd mean I must pay a licence irrespective of whether I have any possiblity or equipment to enable me to receive a signal?

Posted by: Renfeh Hguh 10.Jun.2010, 10:30 AM

QUOTE (Keith #5083 @ 10.Jun.2010, 11:27 AM) *
So, does owning a tv and/or dvd mean I must pay a licence irrespective of whether I have any possiblity or equipment to enable me to receive a signal?

Yes!! tongue.gif

Posted by: cogito 10.Jun.2010, 10:30 AM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 9.Jun.2010, 01:32 PM) *
choice is a word massively overused by people that are fortunate enough or wealthy enough to demand anything they want...

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 08:24 AM) *
byke,... you seem to be ... someone who appears to have loads of money without earning it or respecting it. do you exist on some kind of personal income that keeps you going i your shopping threads.

Mirrorman,

And you seem to suffer from a bad case of the famous "royal Swedish envy."

I suspect your obsession with other people's assets is due to your watching too much State controlled TV.

Do you peek through your curtains at the neighbors to ascertain they don't have one more bottle in the cupboard than you?

It is a pity the old East Germany went down the tubes. You would have been happy there.

Posted by: Johno 10.Jun.2010, 10:31 AM

QUOTE
So, does owning a tv and/or dvd mean I must pay a licence irrespective of whether I have any possiblity or equipment to enable me to receive a signal?

Beat me to it, but just go and read the first page of posts to this topic, which one can only assume you haven't.

Posted by: 7 10.Jun.2010, 10:45 AM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 11:09 AM) *
"that's the point of moving the collection of the funding from radiotjänst to part of the tax pot."

sorry this isnt a clear sentence to me, what are you trying to say?

that the money shouldn't be collected as a separate fee but the money to fund the programming (the current money collected from the fee) come out of the state fiscal budget.

so yes, it would require raising taxes but that hike could be earmarked and divided by all tax payers rather than per household.

Posted by: Mirrorman 10.Jun.2010, 10:52 AM

ok thanks for explaining. i am not sure that raising the taxes and making everyone pay whether they use tv or not is a sound solution. its a sure hit way of making the thieves pay though.

Posted by: 7 10.Jun.2010, 10:57 AM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 11:52 AM) *
ok thanks for explaining. i am not sure that raising the taxes and making everyone pay whether they use tv or not is a sound solution.

what percent of the taxpaying population would not already fulfill the radiotjänst definition of being required to pay the fee? i'd venture that it's under 10% more like 5% (pure speculation of course)

taxpayers fund the opera. what percentage of the same taxpayers see an opera regularly? what percentage have never been to one and will never go to one in their lifetime? apply the same thought process to other forms of arts, culture and public information distribution and you should follow the line of thinking i follow.

i'm not going to watch the royal wedding but my tax money is paying for most of it

Posted by: Beavis 10.Jun.2010, 11:08 AM

Mirorman obviously works for either SVT or radiostad...
Only someone completly braindead would be as defensive..

Posted by: Mirrorman 10.Jun.2010, 11:13 AM

you cant employ a simple strategy across everything in sweden. that is just lazy. not sure that opera funds are comparible either as its a very small and singular form of the arts. i also notice that it costs a lot here to see museums and galleries and hear the subsidies were taken away by the present government who foolishly operate on a US capitalist model. As for royalty, that gives this country a great part of its history and standing. they are worth their weight in gold to sweden. your tax money to pay towards them is under 10kr per year normally but if you have children i bet you are happy to take much more from others tax money to help you do it just for yourself?

Posted by: Renfeh Hguh 10.Jun.2010, 11:15 AM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 11:52 AM) *
ok thanks for explaining. i am not sure that raising the taxes and making everyone pay whether they use tv or not is a sound solution. its a sure hit way of making the thieves pay though.

The fee covers TV and Radio and perhaps in theory should also include computers and video streaming capable phones as the van display SVT content.

The number of people who do not have such a device must be extremely small.

Paying for these services via taxes will reduce the costs of running SVT and in times of economic belt tightening, why should SVT be immune as they pretty much are now.

Posted by: Renfeh Hguh 10.Jun.2010, 11:18 AM

QUOTE (Beavis @ 10.Jun.2010, 12:08 PM) *
Mirorman obviously works for either SVT or radiostad...
Only someone completly braindead would be as defensive..

Their debt collection agency is my bet. tongue.gif

Posted by: Mirrorman 10.Jun.2010, 11:33 AM

renfreh, so the income and cost efficiency can be calculated by including a theory that fees should also be for computers and phones? but they are not. hope you are not in finance.lol. you need to look further up the road too as when the government get the money they will reduce spending and everyone gets less.

Posted by: 7 10.Jun.2010, 11:40 AM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 12:13 PM) *
you cant employ a simple strategy across everything in sweden. that is just lazy.
that is your best reply? your rhetoric is to make a general statement of "those are the rules cuz i just made 'em"? are we playing tag?

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 12:13 PM) *
not sure that opera funds are comparible either as its a very small and singular form of the arts.
it's used as an example of something the public has available to it yet may not voluntarily take part in e.g. watching SVT tv programming. it addresses you "it's not fair" retort.

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 12:13 PM) *
i also notice that it costs a lot here to see museums and galleries
so now you're advocating the removal of a usage fee (which is truly a co-payment since it's subsidized )?

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 12:13 PM) *
and hear the subsidies were taken away by the present government
do a little research to get the whole picture smile.gif

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 12:13 PM) *
who foolishly operate on a US capitalist model.
you mean like how museums like the NY metropolitan museum of art is free or the entire collection of the smithsonian?

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 12:13 PM) *
As for royalty, that gives this country a great part of its history and standing. they are worth their weight in gold to sweden.
how much do they weigh? their costs exceed that annually (total weight of the family --even including daniel multiplied by current gold prices).

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 12:13 PM) *
your tax money to pay towards them is under 10kr per year
where did you learn your math? actually, the breakdown in cost is relatively irrelevant since there is also the matter of whether or not a society like sweden ought to have and will continue to want a constitutional monarchy --which they currently support happily)
QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 12:13 PM) *
but if you have children i bet you are happy to take much more from others tax money to help you do it just for yourself?

ah, that precious nugget LOL...who's going to pay your pension? you?

Posted by: Renfeh Hguh 10.Jun.2010, 11:57 AM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 12:33 PM) *
renfreh, so the income and cost efficiency can be calculated by including a theory that fees should also be for computers and phones? but they are not. hope you are not in finance.lol. you need to look further up the road too as when the government get the money they will reduce spending and everyone gets less.

I am looking up the road and Radiotjänst has bought up the topic of including computers and video streaming mobile phones as devices they would like to chage the fees for.

Posted by: Mirrorman 10.Jun.2010, 12:00 PM

007,you sure say a lot but not too mcuh to take away and think about.

as for my pension, i pay every penny that i will be entitled to in contibutions. if you want to blame someone for financial holes then look in the mirror. it is the same capitalistic system that you probably believe in and take part in that are mismanaging the money so take responsibility for your own stance before laying down that your children are paying for me. they are not. but i pay you to raise your own on the cheap here.

Posted by: Mirrorman 10.Jun.2010, 12:03 PM

yes renfreh, but it isnt possible to guarantee your efficient financial model based on unknown factors.

Posted by: 7 10.Jun.2010, 12:31 PM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 01:00 PM) *
007,you sure say a lot but not too mcuh to take away and think about.

you're giving up that fast...can't you hold your argument? reminds me of how children give up when the game isn't going their way LOL

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 01:00 PM) *
as for my pension, i pay every penny that i will be entitled to in contibutions.

not if there's no money in the pot. your tax money is paying today's pensions. some of those pensioners had children (who are working and paying taxes) and some didn't --yet they are still getting their pensions paid out. that's how the system works. the only money sitting in an account reserved exclusively for you is in your own bank accounts. you might be able to say you have a right to your pension, but if the state can't pay it who are you going to collect it from?

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 01:00 PM) *
if you want to blame someone for financial holes then look in the mirror. it is the same capitalistic system that you probably believe in

ad hominem = rhetorical fail...struggling are you?
QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 01:00 PM) *
your children are paying for me. they are not.

i never mentioned my own offspring but the children born, subsidized and educated today in sweden (or a lot of them) will be paying your pension since money isn't stuck in mattresses LOL

Posted by: Renfeh Hguh 10.Jun.2010, 01:36 PM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 01:03 PM) *
yes renfreh, but it isnt possible to guarantee your efficient financial model based on unknown factors.

You are making a lot of replies in this thread and yet in the most of them you say nothing of value.

What's your problem? Right from your very first post yesterday in the sore arse thread you have been nothing more that an arogant prick in your posts.

Rick... if you are reading this thread please post up your Troll image for .Mirrorman

007 you might as well give up trying to have an inteligent discussion with this troll, unless you are bored that is wink.gif

Posted by: cogito 10.Jun.2010, 02:03 PM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 09:49 AM) *
i believe that most swedes like to see the collective best... it doesnt have to be opened up for vote.

If you are correct, that "most Swedes" are champions of Swedish TV/radio, then let these "most Swedes" pay the fee. Surely, this vast majority can cover the high costs of that bloated bureaucracy of those who pretend to work there..

And let those happy few who prefer to think for themselves, rather than swallow the bilge from the Ministry of Disinformation, use their hard-earned kronor on books, newspapers or media outlets that treat us like adults rather than like children or idiots.

Or on beer ;-D

Posted by: Mirrorman 10.Jun.2010, 02:49 PM

renfreh, and who do you think you are calling me an arrogant prick. if someone you dont know, discusses something here, it doesnt make them a troll. Are you god on this site or what? oh hang on after looking at your profile here it shows you to be no better than a soft porn pervert. a seedy single middle aged man. i have every right to be here as you do. in fact you are not exactly a prime contributor are you?

but overall thinking about it say what you like. you dont matter. lol.

Posted by: markusd 10.Jun.2010, 03:42 PM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 09:52 AM) *
ok thanks for explaining. i am not sure that raising the taxes and making everyone pay whether they use tv or not is a sound solution. its a sure hit way of making the thieves pay though.

So why are you willing to give non-owners a free ride? Isn't charging the fee to people who have a TV but who don't want Swedish TV (and don't watch it) morally equivalent to taxing people who don't own a television? In both cases, they don't want the product and have no intention of using it. The only difference, ownership of a television, is just a technicality.

Posted by: Rick Methven 10.Jun.2010, 04:10 PM

I would seem that the majority of people who are against paying the licence fee are expats who in reality never watch SVT because their level of Swedish is too poor and SVT has fewer English language programs than the commercial stations.

With the world cup being shown on SVT and TV4 are those who NEVER watch SVT going to miss a match they would like to see just because it is on that crap SVT laugh.gif

Posted by: jack sprat 10.Jun.2010, 04:52 PM

So in a last desperate attempt to justify the licence system Rick, are you now saying that ppl.should pay licence fees in order to view something that is Free to Air by numerous broadcasting systems on a Worldwide basis?

Posted by: Renfeh Hguh 10.Jun.2010, 05:26 PM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 03:49 PM) *
renfreh, and who do you think you are calling me an arrogant prick.

I call a spade a spade.

I have looked through all of your posts again and my judgement stands.

Posted by: 7 10.Jun.2010, 11:37 PM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 10.Jun.2010, 03:49 PM) *
renfreh, and who do you think you are calling me an arrogant prick. if someone you dont know, discusses something here, it doesnt make them a troll. Are you god on this site or what? oh hang on after looking at your profile here it shows you to be no better than a soft porn pervert. a seedy single middle aged man. i have every right to be here as you do. in fact you are not exactly a prime contributor are you?

but overall thinking about it say what you like. you dont matter. lol.

why do you prefer to discuss the poster (and cast personal insults) than discuss the topic?

QUOTE (markusd @ 10.Jun.2010, 04:42 PM) *
So why are you willing to give non-owners a free ride? Isn't charging the fee to people who have a TV but who don't want Swedish TV (and don't watch it) morally equivalent to taxing people who don't own a television? In both cases, they don't want the product and have no intention of using it. The only difference, ownership of a television, is just a technicality.

nicely put

Posted by: Beavis 11.Jun.2010, 12:35 AM

If you are to apply the same logic.. I think its high time bicycle owners paid their fair share. They use the road, just like cars and motorbikes but they don’t pay road tax. Its unfair that they are not paying road tax..and as for pedestrains.pffff, wheres their road tax certificates? If they are not going to pay they shouldnt be allowed to use!
And mirrorman seen as your working for radiosdat/SVT why dont you question instead why the SVT managent team are getting such high salaires for doing an incredebly poor job?

Posted by: Mirrorman 11.Jun.2010, 08:32 AM

007 "why do you prefer to discuss the poster (and cast personal insults) than discuss the topic?"

if you were not so smug then you would see i only retort to insults not start them. but i see you do not ask renfreh why he uses insults. comfy site for those that stick together isnt it?

Posted by: cogito 11.Jun.2010, 08:39 AM

btw, those who find the poor choice of music, news and slant of Swedish state radio inadequate might try a Web Radio. It looks like a little old-fashioned radio and accesses 18,000 stations--news, information and music from everywhere in the world from Afghanistan to Zambia. Lots of quality American music stations (jazz, rock and classical), news, France-culture...it's all there.

Cost was about 1,300 sek.

http://www.argonaudio.com/sound/i-net/argon_inet_1.htm

There are several new brands.

Posted by: 7 11.Jun.2010, 09:09 AM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 11.Jun.2010, 09:32 AM) *
if you were not so smug then you would see i only retort to insults not start them.

i've insulted you? please indicate what i've said which has insulted you.

Posted by: Rick Methven 11.Jun.2010, 10:33 AM

It must be because you are still breathing blink.gif

Posted by: byke 11.Jun.2010, 10:37 AM

I still cannot see the justification of so many state supported channels. And with the latest estimates that Sweden is close to 20% populated by non Swedes it clearly doesn't serve the interest of the people.

Posted by: Renfeh Hguh 11.Jun.2010, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (Mirrorman @ 11.Jun.2010, 09:32 AM) *
007 "why do you prefer to discuss the poster (and cast personal insults) than discuss the topic?"

if you were not so smug then you would see i only retort to insults not start them. but i see you do not ask renfreh why he uses insults. comfy site for those that stick together isnt it?

I called you an arrogant prick because in almost every post you have made in this and other threads you have acted like an arrogant prick. Maybe others might not call you an arrogant prick, bu if they took the trouble to check all of your posts, some might quietly agree with me that you are and arrogant prick whilst others might form a different oppinon which may or may not be complementary to you.

I just called it as I saw it.

You on the other hand choose to retort based on my forum name and my profile photo, which is a rather pointless response, but then again that about sums up your contribution to the forum so far.

Posted by: umers 20.Jan.2016, 07:28 PM

I just bought a new smart TV but i haven't subscribed to any channels subscription, i just use the TV to play games with my playstation
Am i also required the the TV license fee of 2200 kr / year ???

It seems a little too much to pay just to play playstation on my TV and not watch any TV channels :/

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)