Fortunately for us they are a little more intelligent than you.

Billag certainly was compulsory if, as I said, there was the remotest possibility that you could consume broadcasts of TV and/or radio. Certain conditions had to be met but it was a very low bar. I detailed at length and repeatedly in the Billag thread how to avoid paying Billag if you genuinely couldn't (not just "didn't") receive any broadcasts, but if you could, then yes, Billag was compulsory.

Some people getting away with not paying their fair share didn't make the fee optional.

The Swiss also voted to give international law priority over Swiss law. They are clueless and ignorant. Turkeys voting for Christmas. They voted for the licence fee because they want to stay cosy and brainwashed in their comfort zone and echo chamber.

The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter.

Yes, that'd be it! They all yearn for the numb comfort of being told what to do, or at least, they would if they weren't so ignorant. How perceptive of you!

Are you capable of any original thought? Instead of copy-pasting jokes and quotes off the internet, how about you share some original concepts with us, your dutiful brainwashed audience?

Which reincarnated Switzerland-hating troll are you, anyway?

Transport infrastructure is a bit different to one of many forms of sedentary entertainment.

I opted out of the TV portion as I've never owned a TV.

I was allowed to do that as it was with the rules and all above board.



I respect that and of course will pay it.

If it was some dumb law rescinding the current non-smoking laws or increasing the use of homeopathic medicines more so than now then I would probably join a campaign.

I'm not arguing the new TV laws - I can see why the Swiss voted for them. I'm arguing that some of the arguments for it on here are so lame.

You sound triggered. I suggest you find a safe space and get with the Play-Doh.

With you all the way on those points.

And obviously I have no beef with anybody who legally avoided (as opposed to evaded) Billag.

can someone summarize what has changed vs Billag in terms of consequences, if the fee won't be paid?

Yep, I'm the one who's triggered.

Nothing has changed except the fine (maybe; I don't know how much it was under Billag), and the likelihood that you will be caught (orders of magnitude larger under Sersfe as they have almost every household's address, almost all of those have company, and it's a trivially simple exercise for Serafe to work out which of them haven't paid). Oh, and the individual responsible for the fee, who would be fined in the event of non-payment, I guess.

Your arguments don't stack up. I consume SRF daily. I do not have a sedentary lifestyle. A national broadcast platform and its services are important for people who are not you and do not have the choice to go snowboarding.

Your worldview is narrow and selfish and is reflected in your endless moaning for what is ultimately a pittance to find a service that is crucial for many people.

I didn't write "sedentary lifestyle", I wrote "sedentary entertainment". There is a difference.

I never said it wasn't. Read what I wrote again. At the risk of repeating myself - I said the infrastructure required now for public service broadcast is simpler, and cheaper than it used to be.

I also wrote that the cost of producing local current affairs programmes etc was much cheaper than it used to be.

I also wrote that it's not necessary for a local broadcaster to purchase international sporting events coverage as there are many commercial pay-per view or subscription-based services that offer this.

I'm actually arguing that the crucial stuff should be kept but the unnecessary and expensive content should be culled.

Why is that selfish?

No, not everyone pays. It is still possible not to pay it by opting out.
Nothing. It was optional with Billag and is optional now. You didn't have to pay it before and you don't have to pay it now. Just use the exemption.
And yet they can't even send the right invoices to the right addresses.

For the next five years. After that, unless you're blind or on benefits (to over-simplify it), every household pays.

Again, it is not optional. It is compulsory (there is the small chance of an opt-out, only for the next five years), just as Billag was if you had any possibility of consuming broadcasts. I really don't care if you don't want to pay the fee and refuse to do so, and you may even get away with it; I'm just letting you know that it's compulsory for just about every household.

As discussed here, the errors are not due to Serafe, and the percentage of inaccurate addresses is very small.

I reply to the second question: because I used to have a radio (belonging to my ex partner, who took it away when we split), and so I kept paying for that, not to bother with discussing again with billag what happened. My choice. And again, my choice entirely.

Overall I think it is extremely dangerous that people are forced to pay for private services that they do not intend to use, based on the assumption that they are capable of, theoretically.
I am forced to fund services which I dislike to begin with.
What the heck?!

What is going on with this country honestly...I cannot understand.

With all the respect, there is a difference between public safety and mobility needs, and being forced to pay to finance TV.

Paying Billag was as optional as the 120 km/h speed limit on the Autobahn.

If you do not use the Autobahn you do not have to respect it. If you use the Autobahn it is still optional and nothing will happen when you do not obey it. How I know? In over 20 years I never got a speeding ticket on the Autobahn!

As I said before: I'm OK with paying for TV (even though I don't have one and only watch the online-version at the rarest of occasions).


But SRF should be reduced to the bare minimum.


All the useless crap like quiz-shows etc. should be cut (though they are probably way cheaper to produce than say a "Tatort".


They could probably sell the studios and rent them back for the few hours a day they really need them...

Maybe not.

The Billag vote was won on the back of a lot of promises, many of which SRG will struggle to keep. Traditional programmed TV is more and more becoming a thing of the past. SRG rightly argued that quality journalism is something of value, but their arguments went wrong when they trtried aied to claim that they were part of - or want to eb poart of - that quality journalism, which clearly they are not and are unwilling to become. SRG is a 20 Minuten masquerading as an NZZ. In the long term, that's not going to work.

I believe that when this vote is repeated in say 10 years, that the result will be quite different.