
Sweden To Charge TV Tax For Anyone With A Computer or Tablet - timgluz
http://www.arcticstartup.com/2013/01/23/sweden-to-charge-tv-tax-for-anyone-with-a-computer-or-tablet
======
kristofferR
Norwegian here, our National Broadcaster is planning to introduce the same
here. Here's a story from today about it (in Norwegian):
[http://www.aftenposten.no/digital/Norge-vurderer-TV-
lisens-p...](http://www.aftenposten.no/digital/Norge-vurderer-TV-lisens-pa-
mobiler-og-PC-er-7099723.html)

I'm fine with a TV-license fee, but if they're going to charge it for everyone
who owns either a tablet, cellphone, computer or TV (which is basically 99,9%
of households) they might just abandon their massive fee bureacracy and get
the money through the government budget instead. It'll save a lot of money,
especially if everyone is basically forced into paying it (regardless if they
actually own a television set or not) anyway.

~~~
chestnut-tree
How do Norwegians feel about the cost of their licence fee? Are people
generally happy with the quality of output and services provided by the
publicly-funded broadcaster?

I'm in the UK, and the BBC licence fee is approx 175 euros. Germany, Norway,
Sweden and Denmark all have more expensive license fees. Obviously, the UK has
a much larger population than Norway, Sweden or Denmark so the BBC gets more
revenue.

Generally speaking, there is broad support for the BBC license fee. Given the
BBC's long history, many people in the UK see them as a cultural institution
rather just a broadcaster - which may sound strange to people outside the UK.
Of course there are plenty of people who dislike the BBC in the UK. And then
there are lots of people who like the BBC but are irritated by many of its
programmes or behaviour.

------
derda
Germany had this for some years. The fee is almost the same as in Sweden. I
feel ripped off by this, its a remainder of a time when TV-Broadcasting was
still so expensive that only public founded institutions could provide it.
These ages are long gone. Until beginning of this year it was actually
relatively easy to avoid paying it. You just did never answer one of their
letters and took care who you opened the door. Now its tax-like for every
household. What disgusts me most there is almost no control over the budgets
they just collect whatever they want. The politicians that are assigned to the
advisory board do nothing, cause they fear bad publicity by the channels (and
also want to secure some well paying jobs for friends).

~~~
Svip
We also have it hear in Denmark. It's called »medielicens« and technically not
a tax, but a licence fee (BBC subscribers will understand). It is also
required even if you do not use any of DR's services (DR being 'Danish
Broadcasting'), but own any form of media device. Most people I know do not
pay it, however.

~~~
OrdojanAndrius
Wait what? How do you not pay it? Just throw out the bills they send you?

~~~
Svip
Since they are not the government, they cannot legally gain entrance to your
property (actually, neither can the government without a warrant, but they
_cannot_ get a warrant either). They send you a letter, asking you to sign up
to pay the media licence or sign a declaration that you own no such devices.

The declaration - however - is legally binding and there are huge fines for
breaking such a declaration. However, they must be able to prove that you _do_
actually have such devices, by entering your property. In most cases, they
don't really bother, though.

~~~
OrdojanAndrius
Seems like this could get me in trouble. Also I don't remember signing any
document I just started receiving the bills. I live in a dormitory so maybe
that somehow affects the issue.

------
guylhem
You don't want to watch TV ?

We don't care. We will make you, whether you want it or not.

And we will charge you for the privilege - having to subsidize the things you
dislike, what a cool idea.

(I guess I would have to give up my computers if I lived in Sweden)

EDIT: Downvoted already? Whatever. I will not willingly subsidize government
propaganda.

~~~
noarchy
There are those who really believe that because something is funded by taxes,
that it will be impartial. By this thinking, the old Radio Moscow was
perfectly legit. After all, it was free of corporate influence, and the need
to cater to advertisers. I wouldn't doubt that some of the same people would
like Pravda-style, government-funded newspapers.

------
unkoman
It's not a tax. It's a fee, required to pay by law to fund independent
channels of opinion free from government and/or private funded influence.

200 eur a year is quite cheap for what you get.

<http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/Radio-and-TV-fee/>

~~~
MrCheese
Unless you have no interest in watching the programs. Then it's horribly
expensive

~~~
rmk2
The point is that you in theory (!!!) get media this way that do not depend on
advertisement and are thus more independent from industry influence. This in
turn leads to you being able to profit from this _even_ if you do not watch
the programs and/or listen to the radio, simply because this injects a
different kind of media into the media landscape which in turn other media
interact with (newspapers, websites, blogs etc. etc.).

Whether this works in _practise_ is up for debate and subject to opinion, but
I do think that the general idea is commendable.

~~~
josteink
> The point is that you in theory (!!!) get media this way that do not depend
> on advertisement and are thus more independent from industry influence.

Instead you get a media-station which is entirely dependent on continued
blessing from the government. So much better.

That severely limits how impartial it gets to be, and the similar system we
have in Norway has consistently proven to provide media-coverage leaning
further to the left than the general population does.

It's not a disaster by any means, but I wouldn't argue it's "impartial"
either. And I can definitely see why some people would chose not to fund it if
given the option.

~~~
rmk2
Again, I see the overall goal as having a balanced _media system_. I wrote in
a reply further down about the same thing. A balanced system does not mean
each element has to be balanced (or "impartial"). A government-funded media
station still counteracts a commercially funded media outlet on a much more
fundamental functional basis than just political ideology.

Both public and private media are in my opinion necessary parts of an overall
functioning and thus independent media system. This system, like _every_
complex system, is only able to achieve "impartiality" from a certain point of
observation, in this case that of the comparing listener/reader/viewer basing
judgement on multiple outlets.

------
patrickg
We have this tax in Germany as well. They just don't call it a tax, but every
household and company has to pay 216 Euro/year.

They used to bind it to having a computer/radio/tv/mobile phone (with
radio/internet) but now you even have to pay if you don't own any of those.

~~~
klez
Same here in Italy. Here they tax for any apparatus that is meant or adaptable
to receive tv or radio signals. So basically anything with a graphical
display.

------
samwillis
I think it is only a matter of time before the UK moves to something like
this. We have TV licensees to fund the BBC but with more and more of the
content that they produce being available on-line though iPlayer things will
have to change. I believe the BBC's charter is up for renegotiation in about
four years and it would be the perfect time to make the change.

~~~
dspence
I actually think this is pretty reasonable - everybody I know consumes BBC
content in some form (most of them without paying the license fee) and it's a
small price to pay for the presence of an impartial news source.

~~~
thisone
I'd have to agree.

We don't watch live to air anymore, but we do use the heck out of iPlayer.

When it came around to renewing the license a few months ago, we made the
conscious decision to renew it, even though we legally didn't need to (no sat
receiver, no aerial).

I know a lot of people will call us stupid for doing so, but I'm also
convinced that the BBC will lobby (or whatever they need to do) for changes to
the licensing laws once the UK officially is out of the economic danger zone.

~~~
iuguy
> I know a lot of people will call us stupid for doing so, but I'm also
> convinced that the BBC will lobby (or whatever they need to do) for changes
> to the licensing laws once the UK officially is out of the economic danger
> zone.

I'm not entirely sure where you've got this idea from, but you do realise that
the bulk of the BBC's funding comes from the licence fee[1], and that TVL (the
organisation that sends nasty letters through the post if you don't have
TV[2]) is part of the BBC[3], right?

[1] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Uni...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licence_fee_expenditure)

[2] - <http://www.bbctvlicence.com/>

[3] - <http://www.televisionlicence.info/tvl/who>

------
zacharyvoase
You must pay for the right to receive electromagnetic waves which are passing
through your body 24/7, whether you like it or not.

Seems legit.

~~~
awestroke
Swede here.

The money goes towards radio and television that is free from political
influence, and also free from ads. It is like a tax for something most people
benefit greatly from. It has nothing to do with the medium it is broadcasted
through.

~~~
runeks
> The money goes towards radio and television that is free from political
> influence [...]

The public TV stations depend more on politicians than any commercial media
company, because it's the politicians that write the laws that dictate how
much money they get, or if they should even receive any money in the first
place.

------
hiddenfeatures
Welcome to the club, dear Swedes!

The average German household will pay 215,76 Euro (~290 USD) for "receiving"
(whether you have a device or not) government-run TV and radio programs.

In contrast, the same household will pay 786,56 Euro (~1050 USD) for National
Defence.

Obviously watching football (the real one, my American friends) is almost as
important as living in a free country

~~~
mylittlepony
> football (the real one, my American friends _[1]_ )

[1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4msKdfMtGY>

------
maurits
The Swiss do the same ("Billag") to the tune of 460 CHF per year for radio and
tv. I basically see it as a tax for a public system as there seems absolutely
no way of wiggling your way out of it. E.g even if you don't have kids, you
will also pay for public schooling.

------
yobo
Just a sidenote. The fact that it's a fee instead of tax means that the
government cannot change how much money SVT should receive. This means that
journalists are not controlled by neither politicians or companies. This means
that we have real journalism and free media. And I find that awesome =)

~~~
runeks
> The fact that it's a fee instead of tax means that the government cannot
> change how much money SVT should receive.

What do you mean? Politicians can change any law they wish. Unless it's in
violation of the constitution. And I don't think withdrawing mandatory
financial support to public broadcasting is prohibited in many constitutions.

~~~
yobo
They cannot do that during one period. They can only suggest such change and
then the next elected government can approve it. This way the people will
always be able to vote against such government. And I really doubt any party
would suggest any drastic change on this topic.

------
sageikosa
Sweden: socialism. Check!

------
drucken
How is the tax actually/to be charged though?

~~~
ukdm
If I'm understanding it correctly, there's already a TV license in place that
households pay. This update just means if your house doesn't have a TV, and
instead consumes all media on a tablet or similar device, you still need to
pay the fee, where as before you could argue you didn't need to pay it for
lack of a TV.

~~~
anderspetersson
Correct. Communism at its finest.

------
glomph
Does this not turn it into a poll tax?

------
LatvjuAvs
You are forced to fund a propaganda box. Dear god. And some people consider
this a norm(and even a good thing).

Of course entity that is dependent on public funding will protect its image,
will fight for its long lasting survivability and lobby to enforce its funding
by law.

ze irony.

~~~
takluyver
On the other hand: TV programs break off every 15 minutes (or more) for
various corporations to assault your eyes and ears with messages crafted to
make you want to buy their rubbish. And many people consider this a norm.

Of course, an entity that is dependent on these commercial interests won't
want to upset them too much, in case they take their advertising elsewhere.

Brit here: having a publicly funded broadcaster (that's required to act
impartially) _in addition_ to commercial media is very much a good thing.

~~~
noarchy
All of that advertising still boils down to choice. I can refuse to purchase
the goods that they're constantly peddling. The system is voluntary.
Meanwhile, I cannot refuse the taxes/fees that the government decides to levy.
In my own country (Canada), I am taxed for CBC whether I wish to watch/listen
or not.

~~~
LatvjuAvs
Essentially it boils down to "we as a government can't trust you, so we have
to enforce these laws and you must comply or else you will face our
enforcers".

Sadly, choice of 3 men overwrites choice of 3 million.

Trust is lacking, not only between governing body and sheep, but between sheep
also, when sheep will start trusting each other, it will reflect on governing
body.

~~~
noarchy
>Essentially it boils down to "we as a government can't trust you, so we have
to enforce these laws and you must comply or else you will face our
enforcers".

That's really the essence of everything that the government does.

>Trust is lacking, not only between governing body and sheep, but between
sheep also, when sheep will start trusting each other, it will reflect on
governing body.

I think that people still tend to trust their governing body, though it
obviously never trusts its own population. In countries with elections, the
sacrament of voting is still observed by large numbers of people. But I think
that apathy and pessimism is growing, but I see that as a good thing; you can
see there is a concern, when governments begin to discuss or even enact
mandatory voting laws. Then the sacrament becomes more than "duty", it becomes
another act of coercion, like most of what government does.

------
paulhauggis
Enjoy your taxes Sweden. I hope it's worth it.

