Whether this works in practise is up for debate and subject to opinion, but I do think that the general idea is commendable.
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.
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.
This means that I can't trust SVT to deliver "independent" news more than I can trust any other media source in the country. It does not matter at all to me that they are financed by force instead of ads.
Just because the given media outlet's political views do not coincide with yours does not negate its cultural function.
I certainly disagree with the BBC regarding a number of political issues, yet I am still glad it exists.
Does it not make a difference that it's set up as an hypothecated tax, where revenue from the Yle tax is dedicated to go to Yleisradio?