There's something Media License in the State of Denmark

[Thue]

Originally posted by Winston


Isn't this is a bit of a pseudo-issue, since you do have a computer and a connection?

Yes, but they don't know that...

Our personal information laws are very strict, yes, but in matters of public authorities obtaining information to enforce laws and regulations, unfortunately (?) they're strict in another sense of the word than the casual observer would think.. Believe me, I've worked within "the system" for far too long to hold any illusions. If Danmarks Radio wants to check whether you've got a license-due connection, they will have the means to do so. But I guess we'll have to wait and see for a while. An unusually low level of information has been made public on how this new law is to be enforced, presumably due to the low number of people directly affected by it.

But can they really get customer lists from a private corporation?

As I said, we are more or less an ISP, and they will not get customer lists from us...

The 256 K threshold is a "preliminary" cut-off point, as according to Danmarks Radio, in all their unfailing wisdom, this speed is required for viewing television streams of "adequate" quality. -- Pah!

[DanS]

Bizarre.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Thue
But can they really get customer lists from a private corporation?

Absolutely. They get notified everytime a new TV set is purchased, that's a mandatory notification that the TV vendor is obligated to give by law.

All kinds of public agencies are notified of a wide range of transactions and other things by private companies all the time. I'm surprised that you're so.. inclined to belive that this case would be any different. The laws that govern these notifications and information exchanges are already in place, and I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't apply here.

As I said, we are more or less an ISP, and they will not get customer lists from us...

I'm not too insightful as to the technical side of how ISP's operate, but the way I see it, the company which provides your bandwidth, be it TDC, Stofa, Tele2, CyberCity or what have you will be obligated to notify - if my "hunch" of this holds true. Whether it is actually doable on a basis of individual bandwidth access the way you've set up your network remains an open question.

Again, no matter how you shake and rattle, we do agree that you should be paying, right? This is the central point to me personally - not whether one is likely to be found out.

Yeah, I know. I'm stupid that way.

Originally posted by DanS
Bizarre.

Couldn't agree more. Imagine having to go through all of this nonsense, like I've had to. And for what purpose? Some brilliant idea to bring in a few extra bucks, hatched by a clique of commie bureaucrats who couldn't imagine that a few people actually refuse to watch their crappy programming. Or any programming for that matter.

Well, I'm still not getting into the fold. Ha! Although, increasingly, I do get the feeling that the joke is on me.. I mean, having to pay $100 to change ISP's, and for a miserable 160 kbps..

[Monk]

Hey Winston,

You need ID to buy a television set now? I'm starting to agree this country must be run by the commies.

Then again, just to play devil's advocate, didn't we vote for a party that promised they wouldn't raise taxes if we kept voting for them? Abolishing the media license would count as a tax increase, and as such, political suicide for your party.

[Monk]

That is, of course, unless you got rid of gov't-sponsored media altogether... but that wouldn't be too cool either, I think (edit: and it won't happen either how).

[Winston]

They shouldn't have introduced the new media license to begin with. It's counter-intuitive, vastly bureaucratic - and truly unnecessary in my opinion. The politicians, at least the ones I'd consider voting for, let themselves get tricked into doing this by the totalitarian-conformist minded elite in our public TV network. It's just because this is such a non-issue to 99.5% of the population that it hasn't garnered louder protests. It's a big issue to me personally, but I realise that it's not something very many people are bothered by. You know, I've already gotten used to having to do an awful lot of "explaining" when people learn that I don't watch TV. They can't imagine why anybody would choose not to watch, and I'm being viewed as a bit anti-social. Well I am, but that's not the main reason!

I used to think like you do, that having a public TV network was a benefit, all things considered. But increasingly, I'm indifferent at best and opposed to the idea at worst. Their programming is tending more and more toward that of the commercial stations, in terms of catering to the lowest denominator, and their overall news coverage is so unbelievably left wing biased, anti-establishment, anti-U.S., that I actually think it'd be a democratic bonus to get rid of it altogether.

Argh. I'm having trouble breathing..

[Monk]

Originally posted by Winston
Their programming is tending more and more toward that of the commercial stations, in terms of catering to the lowest denominator, and their overall news coverage is so unbelievably left wing biased, anti-establishment, anti-U.S...

I actually agree with this part. I'd certainly cut the mainstream news in a heartbeat, and just about any imported mainstream, English-speaking movie or series business. I'd still keep most of DR2 and P1 though, and maybe some DAB/internet channels or whatever. Some of the things that we couldn't expect the private sector to cover.

[Winston]

Offer the whole miserable lot to Thøger Seidenfaden and his buddies, and have them run it with their own funding. Just drop the pretence of all that "public service" and "balanced reporting" nonsense.

And give me back a somewhat decent net speed!

[Proteus_MST]

Yes,
after all they could encrypt it and so give their "services" only to the paying "customers" i.e. all those people who actually pay for the program.

AFAIK BBC does so with parts of its web content so that it cannot be seen outside of GB.
The german public television has introduced their fees on this "new kind of television receivers" as it is called by them, too.
Now every personh who owns a PC with internet connection but not a radio or TV set should pay radio fees (which means that, if you use your PC for woirk, you have to pay double the fees, as in germany you have to pay for both separately, for TV sets/radios you use at work as well as for TV sets/radios you use privately [which, of course is somehow strange, as you can only hear radio/watch TV once, either at work or at your home ])

But I guess and hope that, as soon as the GEZ (Gebühreneinzugszentrale, the institution which collects the media fees for the public TV stations) begins to enforce these new rules, there will be people who file a lawsuit against this (especially people who work at home and use their PC for both, work and private things and therefore would have to pay double the fees for the PC).

The swiss TV stations tried the same thing, i.e. enforcing a general fee on all PCs with a high speed internet connection. But they failed because of the argument, that you cannot watch their programs via livestream over the internet.
As the german public TV (and AFAIK radio-) stations also don´t have a livestream broadcast over the internet I hope that this argument will work here, too.

[Thue]

Winston, I have the solution! I think I mentioned this possibility above, but here somebody has actually gotten through to the minister (I sent a letter to him asking the same question, but received no answer)

Take a look at http://www.tax.dk/artikler/medielicens.htm . A translated quote "No license if your ISP closes the access to DR and TV2". Actually I would think that they would just have to limit the access speed to those sites to <256Kb/2.

It should be possible to talk your ISP into blocking you if it means that you will buy a bigger line.

[Winston]

Thanks Thue. I'll have to investigate that possibility more closely. But I have to say I'm skeptical as to it being correct, since it was always a specific principle that license fees were due regardless of whether one actually made use of the services provided for by the license. Having the receiver to do so was sufficient. But I could see a scenario in which that would change, since it is now technically possible to block access to these services via the computer, unlike before with traditional TV and radio sets. At present, however, I hold it as unlikely that Danmarks Radio would bother to allow for such arrangements in order to avoid funding them.

After taking a quick peek at Folketinget's website, at the documents mentioned in your link, it does seem that tax.dk got it horribly wrong. I will quote part of the Minister of Culture's reply to the question raised by Spies Information (my does that sound suspicious in English.. ),

Det fremgår [...] af medieaftalen, at medielicensen forudsættes at omfatte alle apparater, der er i stand til at modtage og gengive billedprogrammer og –tjenester, herunder pc’ere og visse mobiltelefoner.

I L 64, som gennemfører medieaftalen 2007-2010, præciseres det, at et apparat alene er licenspligtigt, hvis det er i stand til at modtage billedprogrammer eller –tjenester, der er udsendt til almenheden – med andre ord er apparater, der alene kan modtage billedprogrammer eller –tjenester, der udsendes ”on demand” eller til en snæver modtagerkreds, ikke omfattet af medielicenspligten. Det fremgår desuden af bemærkningerne til lovforslaget, at den kommende medielicens ligesom den eksisterende licensordning er en apparatbaseret afgift. Licenspligten er således ikke betinget af, hvilke programmer man vælger at se, og hvilken distributionsform man forsynes af, men betinget af besiddelsen af apparaterne.

Kulturministeriet skal understrege, at licenspligten ligeledes ikke er knyttet sammen med de formål, man anvender licensmidlerne til, jf. lovforslagets § 69 a, stk. 1.

Det er efter Kulturministeriets mening ikke praktisk muligt at pålægge samtlige internetudbydere, at de efter anmodning fra borgere skal kunne foretage skridt, der er egnede til at forhindre, at et apparat via en internetforbindelse kan få adgang til samtlige billedprogrammer eller –tjenester, der udsendes til almenheden over internettet. Det må antages at være en administrativ umulig opgave at holde øje med samtlige internet-udbydere, ligesom det vil være administrativt tungt at skulle lukke og åbne for adgangen afhængigt af hver enkelt borgers licensbetaling. Der kan desuden rejses tvivl om, hvorvidt det er praktisk muligt at etablere en sådan spærring.

(My bolding)

It would seem to be the opposite of what is referenced at tax.dk, despite being from the same source.

I will however try and look into this more closely. Thanks again for alerting me to the issue.

[Winston]

Ok Thue, after carefully reading of the two documents, the question from Spies Information and the minister's reply, it's painfully clear to me that this will not work as a way to avoid paying the license.

Two things;

1) The minister makes it clear in his answer that any blocking of media streams by the ISP would have to include all media streamed "to the general public", not just DR's and the regional TV2 streams, as suggested by Spies Information.

2) The minister also unequivocally rejects the idea that any such blocking would free an individual of the obligation to pay the license. He substantiates the rejection of the idea by pointing to the practical difficulties of verifying who has been blocked when and for how long - as well as the administrative burden it would place on ISP's to start offering such blocking of media streams to specific customers.

Alas, that's not a workable way to get out of this unfortunate situation. And the impression given by tax.dk that it is, is patently false.

I can't link directly to the 2 documents concerned, but if you're interested in seeing them, I can post directions of how to get to them from this menu page at Folketinget's site.

[Winston]

For the texts of the question and the reply, 1 and 3 pages respectively, go to Folketingets dokumenter.

Then, for the question,

1) click "Lovforslag fordelt på ministerområde"
2) click "Kulturministeriet"
3) click "Af ministeren. Vedtagne"
4) click "L 64"
5) click "Dokumenter"
6) click "Bilag"
7) click "L 64 - bilag 3"
8) click or right-click->Save-as "Indskannet 20/11-06, 1 sider (PDF)"

For the reply,

Steps 1) - 5) as above, then:
6) click "Svar på spørgsmål"
7) click "L 64 - spm 1"
8) click or right-click->Save-as one of the two links called "Endeligt svar til KUU.doc"

Turn the music off, let the cat out, and read very carefully indeed.

Then, realise that we are indeed doomed.