read original article

more Swiss stories?

People looking for sparks of colour in the otherwise very-grey debate about Swiss radio  and television law - and including how much  people should pay for their annual television licence fee - have, until now, had very little to savour, writes the newspaper Neue Zuercher Zeitung (NZZ). Now, however, thanks to the suggestion of one member of the council responsible for overviewing the process, they do.

Pay-as-you go income for the
Swiss Radio & TV Group?

At the beginning of May, the Swiss communications authority, Bakom, received a request to check whether the TV licence fee could be made more flexible and, in future, be based on the amount of time each household spends before the screen. The request came, NZZ says, from Maximilian Reimann of RTVG, the body managing the TV and radio review.

Bakom has thus been charged with looking at the financial and technical aspects of a model which sounds a little like the way households currently pay for their electricity.

Those, NZZ says, who watch little TV might be rather enthusiastic about such a scheme, given that they, like everyone else, currently have to pay the full fee of SFr. 280 per year, even if they only turn on their set to watch the news once a week.

The TV fee principally benefits the Swiss state broadcasting authority, SRG, says the paper, and, like in other countries such as the UK, payment is mandatory for all those people who own a TV. According to TV research companies, the number of people who don't, in fact, watch SRG is clear minority.

The payment model proposed by Maximilian Reimann seems to be a further development, NZZ says, of a previous suggestion to give viewers more choice by allowing them to allocate a portion of their fee to private TV companies. Though that idea was a failure politically, it is on a similar wavelength to others, such as sending taxpayers a questionnaire on a yearly basis asking them if they would prefer to pay the amount of their TV licence fee to charity or some other good cause. This, NZZ says, would bring true market influences to bear on what is otherwise a strictly regulated area of administration.

Reimann's model is, however, similar to that operated within the Swiss state health insurance sector, where those who use more, pay more. There are limits, however, to applying the model to TV viewing.

In order to measure consumption, each houehold would need to have a measurement device installed in it which was secure against manipulation. A further piece of equipment would need to be delivered to allow for the meter to be read and administration of charges would cause an increase in bureaucracy and, therefore, cost. Flat rates, as are currently charged, are probably a simpler, less costly solution.

Instead of complicated solutions, the authorities should, NZZ says, opt for clear, simple ones. It should, for example, be possible to establish the "dual model", with advertising and sponsoring reserved for the private radio stations. Other questions that need resolving, it adds, are how it can be possible to lightly- alcoholic products but not, for example, for Schnaps. Vodka is not, per se, more damaging than Heineken.. it's a question of how much you drink. Products of mass consumption are subject to trends that develop independently of advertising measures, NZZ Says. Advertising may encourage some people to drink or smoke, not advertising likewise.