One law is all that matters. For now. Someone has come up with the idea of paying more to watch TV. More specifically, for owning even one device that receives and operates the signal. Well, yes, 15 crowns a month is not murder. But it is a principle. Why should I pay for something I don\’t use and haven\’t even known existed for 20 years? Besides, I have the excuse that I have to prove it. Me, a citizen? Why should they have to prove that I am watching their crap? But then again, most people accept it and pay for it. Because I sent an affidavit that I do not own a TV because I threw it out the window. Would you try that on a gentleman in a tie?

Well, these gentlemen agreed to push through a law that would make everyone who connects to the Internet pay. And this is no longer about 15 clones, but about the full price of TV and radio. And it is already taking a toll on the budget. For example, does that mean we won\’t watch TV on our cell phones? Or on a laptop? It doesn\’t matter. That\’s just it. It really takes a lot of colleges to come up with something like this. The suggestion that the gentlemen who vote for this will get pennies from the TV is scant. What percentage of the monthly donation would that be? Would it be in the hundreds of thousands?

The TV stations will spend it on something. With the rest of the money they will make a crappy movie that no one will care about. And if they are interested, let them pay for it; it is interesting that CT\’s proposal to simply encrypt the broadcasts did not pass. If it had, only a few percent of the public would have paid for it and it could have been shut down as an institution. The excuse that it is technically impossible is just an embarrassing end to this whole issue. I don\’t have a TV, so I don\’t know how many channels are encoded in our country, but if it is technically possible for them, shouldn\’t it be possible for CT? What do you think, council members?

One law is all that matters. For now. Someone has come up with the idea of paying more to watch TV. More specifically, for owning even one device that receives and operates the signal. Well, yes, 15 crowns a month is not murder. But it is a principle. Why should I pay for something I don\’t use and haven\’t even known existed for 20 years? Besides, I have the excuse that I have to prove it. Me, a citizen? Why should they have to prove that I am watching their crap? But then again, most people accept it and pay for it. Because I sent an affidavit that I do not own a TV because I threw it out the window. Would you try that on a gentleman in a tie?

Well, these gentlemen agreed to push through a law that would make everyone who connects to the Internet pay. And this is no longer about 15 clones, but about the full price of TV and radio. And it is already taking a toll on the budget. For example, does that mean we won\’t watch TV on our cell phones? Or on a laptop? It doesn\’t matter. That\’s just it. It really takes a lot of colleges to come up with something like this. The suggestion that the gentlemen who vote for this will get pennies from the TV is scant. What percentage of the monthly donation would that be? Would it be in the hundreds of thousands?

The TV stations will spend it on something. With the rest of the money they will make a crappy movie that no one will care about. And if they are interested, let them pay for it; it is interesting that CT\’s proposal to simply encrypt the broadcasts did not pass. If it had, only a few percent of the public would have paid for it and it could have been shut down as an institution. The excuse that it is technically impossible is just an embarrassing end to this whole issue. I don\’t have a TV, so I don\’t know how many channels are encoded in our country, but if it is technically possible for them, shouldn\’t it be possible for CT? What do you think, council members?