Understanding Sweden
-
The Danish national television isn't Government controlled, and I strongly suspect that the Swedish is not either. Simply because the channel(s) are funded the way they are does not mean they spew biased pro-government propaganda to its viewers. If anything, these channels can afford to be much more objective and unbiased then similar private funded channels who have to take into account the opinions of their sponsers and advertisment companies. These are public service channels, and not subjected to the whims of various owners. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
I can't see how these channels would be able to afford more objectivity. After all they are controlled by people who have their own interests (for example, keeping the control over public media) and I see no reason to doubt some people (those that create their own televisions) more then other (elites of public media). Typically these are non-market (political and academia) elites which are inherently biased and anti-market. This is fundamental bias of public television. Tomaz
-
I agree. One can be in agreement with the way the channels are funded or not, however - the channels ensure much more open debate because their foundation can't be removed over night if they offend one of their primary backers. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
Private channels ensure much more diversity because they compete for the viewer. The reason why this is so is exactly the same as the reason that private markets are better supplied then government controlled markets - free market performs optimal allocation. Private media will compete for mainstream viewer until market shares stabilize. Then they'll start moving into niche markets fulfilling the needs of minorities. This is clearly visible in United States where shows with bad viewership, that would be cancelled ten years ago are kept on the air. Public television does not need to do this. Since it has no market controls and its funding is independent (of reaching and satisfying the viewer) if can only do good allocation coincidentally. There is another trouble with public television. Public television is a major player in every Euro country. Potential competitor has to compete with TV which is commonly well funded from independent sources and does not need to care about the viewers. If public television has several thousand employees then the only way to compete on the market (against it) is by really huge initial investment. Due to huge entry condition only few players can enter and this leads to less choice for the viewer. It is very common in Europe for a state to only have two major players - public television(s) and one private television. Tomaz
-
I doubt that situation in Sweden is so different from situation in Germany or in Slovenia. From my experience there are easy ways to spot bias in European public media. This is through polls about themes that polarize public. If dominant majority shares one opinion then this is clear sign of brainwashing. For example, poll about support for president Bush or the Iraq war might show that the public equaly divided or it might show 90%+ people supporting leftist views of these events and people. The latter is a clear sign of deep bias in the country. Similar questions could be asked about neoliberalism, neoconservativism and other topics. Negative opinions about these soft topics by huge majority of people would be clear sign of brainwashing and bias. One could always say that this are opinions about events abroad but that public television is not biased when reporting about internal events. But anti-americanism in European public media has a task of protecting socialist dogmas internally. What happens in internal debates is that every classical liberal solution is opposed with slogans, such as "Europe is not America", which simply use results of such propaganda to stop non-socialist reforms. So anti-Americanism on public media is a sign of internal bias. p.s. In Germany opposition politicians don't protest against bias not because there would not be biased, but because its results are so devastating that protesting would mean their political suicide. And this was done by public media. I suspect that similar situation would exist in leftist country such as Sweden. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: I doubt that situation in Sweden is so different from situation in Germany or in Slovenia. I have no idea what it's like in Germany and Slovenia, but I assure you that SVT isn't pushing a socialistic agenda. Around the riksdag (swedish name for parliament), are several bodies whose job is to supervise the government, and instutitions under direct government control. These are lead mostly by the opposition, and I can tell you right now that, should SVT misbehave and do the sitting government's bidding, war would ensure in at least one of these bodies. Tomaž Štih wrote: For example, poll about support for president Bush or the Iraq war might show that the public equaly divided or it might show 90%+ people supporting leftist views of these events and people. The latter is a clear sign of deep bias in the country. All polls are made by several independent groups, of which only one is appointed by the government. I follow these often, as I like to see what the current political climate is. (Favorable right now. If there's an election tomorrow, there will be a change of powers). These polls are almost always statistically close to eachother. I suppose when they differ, they've managed to sample radically different populations. But I have yet to see any "there is only one party!"-pattern. I've only witnessed the decline of the left... Tomaž Štih wrote: But anti-americanism in European public media has a task of protecting socialist dogmas internally. You know, I have yet to see an anti-american report in the media (state owned or not). Well, sure, there are left wing as well as right wing media, who like to spin things. But the serious news media, don't go about pitching the US as the ultimate decadence. I would say Sweden is quite US-friendly. But on another note, I've seen reporters in various media favoring the Palestines in the West Bank/Gaza conflict. That said, I've yet to see anyone accepting terrorism. Tomaž Štih wrote: In Germany opposition politicians don't protest against bias not because there would not be biased, but because its results are so devastating that protesting would mean their political suicide. And this was done by public media. I suspect that similar situation would exist in leftist country such as Sweden. Protests occur frequently. From both sides. And it heats up exponentially closer to election day. I don't kno
-
That's exactly what I am talking about. The danger that public media is exploited by the state and lobbies. Public media then becomes a media that promotes one ideology but is paid by all citizen, even those who do not agree. This is interference of state in the democratic process; it means using taxpayer money to assure unfair political advantage of certain views. Italian system is beautiful example of this. It is also an environment where duopoly grew out of public television monopoly; this situation is similar throughout Europe. It is very rare that public media is exploited by the right, such as in Berlusconi's case. And that is the reason that leftists talk so much about Italy and so little about other places though very same duopoly exists in Sweden. Natural position of public media is for the big goverment and the nanny state because that is the ideology on which public media is founded. It has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with opinion that wise welfareists have to help the "public" understand the world that they themselves are not capable of. Natural bias of public media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing. It is media to "prevent market failure" so behind it is belief in fictional "market failure". It is media to prevent "capitalist domination of media" so behind it is the ideology that there is something inherently wrong with freedom of speech of people who are more productive then average. Public media will not always support specific goverment, but it will always support specific policy. It will attack governments that do not pursuit this policy and use gloves with goverment that does. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: It is very rare that public media is exploited by the right It is very rare private media is exploited by the left. By itself, private media doesn't guarantee there will be several views proposed to the audience. When these media are owned by a few tycoons who share the same interests, the audience is as manipulated as in a totally state-controlled system. Private channels manipulate their audience too, and with no democratic control (when public channels are often supervized by a government-independent counsil). Only the mix of both systems can lead to a mix of views. Tomaž Štih wrote: Natural bias of public media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing. Natural bias of private media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing.
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
-
I can't see how these channels would be able to afford more objectivity. After all they are controlled by people who have their own interests (for example, keeping the control over public media) and I see no reason to doubt some people (those that create their own televisions) more then other (elites of public media). Typically these are non-market (political and academia) elites which are inherently biased and anti-market. This is fundamental bias of public television. Tomaz
They can afford more objectivity, because they don't answer to the government simply because they are funded via legislation and not privately funded. They don't - like a privately owned network - have to cater to sponsors or the owners who each run their own private agenda. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
They can afford more objectivity, because they don't answer to the government simply because they are funded via legislation and not privately funded. They don't - like a privately owned network - have to cater to sponsors or the owners who each run their own private agenda. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
That tells nothing of objectivity. It just tells that self sustained elites can develop there using taxpayers money instead of their own to promote their agenda; and that they are not responsible to the viewer. It is much more objective to be responsible to the viewer. Private media is responsible to the viewer. They only make money if they attract the audience so they have to follow their desires. Public media is not; they are responsible to their political sponsors only. Tomaz
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: It is very rare that public media is exploited by the right It is very rare private media is exploited by the left. By itself, private media doesn't guarantee there will be several views proposed to the audience. When these media are owned by a few tycoons who share the same interests, the audience is as manipulated as in a totally state-controlled system. Private channels manipulate their audience too, and with no democratic control (when public channels are often supervized by a government-independent counsil). Only the mix of both systems can lead to a mix of views. Tomaž Štih wrote: Natural bias of public media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing. Natural bias of private media is towards reasons for its own existence and rationale for its financing.
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
It is not true that free media market does not guarantee that there will be several views proposed to the audience. As soon as there is audience that desires certain views, there is opporunity for private media to exploit it and it will be exploited. What is true is that political propaganda will not be a matter of controling government media anymore. Instead one will have to promote his own views with his own means which is what fair play is all about. Find people for your idea, convince them and then promote it rather then force people to contribute so that you can promote it. It is a matter of convincing versus forcing people. Market is a competitive game; the results throughout the world and especially in the United States prove that there is absolutely no proof that market would in any way fail here. There is, however, plenty of proof, that public media distorts the market. What amuses me is your overall message, that "the right and liberals should sponsor the left, because the left is not capable of financially surviving by itself." Tomaz
-
Private channels ensure much more diversity because they compete for the viewer. The reason why this is so is exactly the same as the reason that private markets are better supplied then government controlled markets - free market performs optimal allocation. Private media will compete for mainstream viewer until market shares stabilize. Then they'll start moving into niche markets fulfilling the needs of minorities. This is clearly visible in United States where shows with bad viewership, that would be cancelled ten years ago are kept on the air. Public television does not need to do this. Since it has no market controls and its funding is independent (of reaching and satisfying the viewer) if can only do good allocation coincidentally. There is another trouble with public television. Public television is a major player in every Euro country. Potential competitor has to compete with TV which is commonly well funded from independent sources and does not need to care about the viewers. If public television has several thousand employees then the only way to compete on the market (against it) is by really huge initial investment. Due to huge entry condition only few players can enter and this leads to less choice for the viewer. It is very common in Europe for a state to only have two major players - public television(s) and one private television. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: Private channels ensure much more diversity because they compete for the viewer. The reason why this is so is exactly the same as the reason that private markets are better supplied then government controlled markets - free market performs optimal allocation. Very amusing. All the private channels I have access to shows crap. Endless rehearsals of Navy CSI, Jackass, and Oprah. I clearly remember a 'documentary' that was shown on one of the channels. It was about plastic surgery, and it produced a flattering image of the business and the starring clinic in particular. It turned out that the 'documentary' was produced by the owner of the clinic and that the channel got paid to send it. The owner is under run these days, fleeing from punishment for serious malpractice. Tomaž Štih wrote: If public television has several thousand employees then the only way to compete on the market (against it) is by really huge initial investment. Due to huge entry condition only few players can enter and this leads to less choice for the viewer. I got 30 channels to pick from, and besides watching a bit Discovery, I hardly ever switch from our national channels. I really don't want to spend my sparetime watching dr. Phil and Co. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
That tells nothing of objectivity. It just tells that self sustained elites can develop there using taxpayers money instead of their own to promote their agenda; and that they are not responsible to the viewer. It is much more objective to be responsible to the viewer. Private media is responsible to the viewer. They only make money if they attract the audience so they have to follow their desires. Public media is not; they are responsible to their political sponsors only. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: That tells nothing of objectivity. It just tells that self sustained elites can develop there using taxpayers money instead of their own to promote their agenda; and that they are not responsible to the viewer. They are very much responsible to the viewer. There are rules they must follow. Tomaž Štih wrote: It is much more objective to be responsible to the viewer. Private media is responsible to the viewer. They only make money if they attract the audience so they have to follow their desires. And that is why private media can't be objective: they constantly have to please the viewer. People really don't want facts, they want news that solidifies their world view. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: Private channels ensure much more diversity because they compete for the viewer. The reason why this is so is exactly the same as the reason that private markets are better supplied then government controlled markets - free market performs optimal allocation. Very amusing. All the private channels I have access to shows crap. Endless rehearsals of Navy CSI, Jackass, and Oprah. I clearly remember a 'documentary' that was shown on one of the channels. It was about plastic surgery, and it produced a flattering image of the business and the starring clinic in particular. It turned out that the 'documentary' was produced by the owner of the clinic and that the channel got paid to send it. The owner is under run these days, fleeing from punishment for serious malpractice. Tomaž Štih wrote: If public television has several thousand employees then the only way to compete on the market (against it) is by really huge initial investment. Due to huge entry condition only few players can enter and this leads to less choice for the viewer. I got 30 channels to pick from, and besides watching a bit Discovery, I hardly ever switch from our national channels. I really don't want to spend my sparetime watching dr. Phil and Co. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
Quite interesting point of view. I watch a lot of private Discovery. With lower budget it produces better documentaries then any of the so called "public" televisions. I wonder why are they not trying to promote interests of their capitalist owners against the public instead? Because good shows are in the interest of their owners? That's is, after all, how the market works. National Geographics is trailing; and Oprah is not far behind. Actually Oprah does more for raising the culture of the common people then any public television. Simply because private production has to first be accepted and then sold; while public television is already sold, regardless of viewership. Private shows like Oprah has to appeal to the viewer. Frankly speaking it is better then anything BBC - at least channels we have opportunity to see in Europe - has to offer. Besides, she's apolitical. Try watching shows on German publicly financed televisions just to see leftist monologues about how bad the neoliberals are; without anyone taking the opposite view. I suppose some people recognize this as quality; but the problem with public TV is that it should not interfere with political process by airing cheap propaganda of few when all people are paying for it. That's not fair play; that's simply tyranny. I love German local shows and comedians who make it to public TV too. The best way to break through is to immitate George Bush and be as primitive as you possibly can, promoting any stereotype and fictional truth that exists in leftist repertoare. One really got to see this to belive the primitivism airing on public TVs as "objective viewpoints" and "critical intellectualism". And you really gotta love interviews with prominent "leftistlectualls" and "eurollectuals" on public TV. And if you don't you don't have an option because they outnumberin (in their views of the United States) probably ten to one any other opinion. That's just quality without the name (if it was allowed a name it would be "bias"). Angela Merkel yesterday criticized United States. She didn't have a choice - German public is so thirsty of American blood that anything else would make her loose the elections. So where are positive results of public television? Where is the objectivity that prevents narrow mindedness and hate? Instead public television spearheaded this primitivism, simply because it is held in the hands of political elites. Tomaz
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: That tells nothing of objectivity. It just tells that self sustained elites can develop there using taxpayers money instead of their own to promote their agenda; and that they are not responsible to the viewer. They are very much responsible to the viewer. There are rules they must follow. Tomaž Štih wrote: It is much more objective to be responsible to the viewer. Private media is responsible to the viewer. They only make money if they attract the audience so they have to follow their desires. And that is why private media can't be objective: they constantly have to please the viewer. People really don't want facts, they want news that solidifies their world view. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
jan larsen wrote: Tomaž Štih wrote: That tells nothing of objectivity. It just tells that self sustained elites can develop there using taxpayers money instead of their own to promote their agenda; and that they are not responsible to the viewer. They are very much responsible to the viewer. There are rules they must follow. Rules are only as good as results they produce. Commonly public TV will have a program committee. But the fact is that committee will be composed of men with their own interests. They'll work by the rules. For example, if the rule is a cultural show, why not showing an aspiring comedian who makes fool of G.W.Bush? And if the rule is show about social troubles, why not airing statements by poor people against neoliberalism? Repeating such patterns is pure propaganda; compliant with rules. What you don't seem to understand is that programs are always produced by people and bias is introduced by people; it doesn't really matter where in the hierarchy they are. If you let editors more power then they are the one with power of decision about bias. You actually did not remove the bias with it, you just changed the subject who has the power to introduce it. Bias is actually not a problem as long as you have a competitive market. After all people have a right of free speech. The trouble with public TVs is that most of them are (in Europe) incredibly huge, many times on the brink of the monopoly. Correct me if I am wrong but I belive every single European public TV (possible many channels) has wider audience in percent of population then any of largest corporation stations in the United States, and thhe public TV number is not few percent higher but typically double. And the problem with bias on public TV is that it is financed by all households - so it is actually not fair play - the state is using its power to give unfair political advantage to one group of citizen against the other. jan larsen wrote: Tomaž Štih wrote: It is much more objective to be responsible to the viewer. Private media is responsible to the viewer. They only make money if they attract the audience so they have to follow their desires. And that is why private media can't be objective: they constantly have to please the viewer. People really don't want facts, they want news that solidifies their world view. How very wrong. In democracies people disagree and that creates the need for different viewpoints which creates the market for private
-
Quite interesting point of view. I watch a lot of private Discovery. With lower budget it produces better documentaries then any of the so called "public" televisions. I wonder why are they not trying to promote interests of their capitalist owners against the public instead? Because good shows are in the interest of their owners? That's is, after all, how the market works. National Geographics is trailing; and Oprah is not far behind. Actually Oprah does more for raising the culture of the common people then any public television. Simply because private production has to first be accepted and then sold; while public television is already sold, regardless of viewership. Private shows like Oprah has to appeal to the viewer. Frankly speaking it is better then anything BBC - at least channels we have opportunity to see in Europe - has to offer. Besides, she's apolitical. Try watching shows on German publicly financed televisions just to see leftist monologues about how bad the neoliberals are; without anyone taking the opposite view. I suppose some people recognize this as quality; but the problem with public TV is that it should not interfere with political process by airing cheap propaganda of few when all people are paying for it. That's not fair play; that's simply tyranny. I love German local shows and comedians who make it to public TV too. The best way to break through is to immitate George Bush and be as primitive as you possibly can, promoting any stereotype and fictional truth that exists in leftist repertoare. One really got to see this to belive the primitivism airing on public TVs as "objective viewpoints" and "critical intellectualism". And you really gotta love interviews with prominent "leftistlectualls" and "eurollectuals" on public TV. And if you don't you don't have an option because they outnumberin (in their views of the United States) probably ten to one any other opinion. That's just quality without the name (if it was allowed a name it would be "bias"). Angela Merkel yesterday criticized United States. She didn't have a choice - German public is so thirsty of American blood that anything else would make her loose the elections. So where are positive results of public television? Where is the objectivity that prevents narrow mindedness and hate? Instead public television spearheaded this primitivism, simply because it is held in the hands of political elites. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: I watch a lot of private Discovery. With lower budget it produces better documentaries then any of the so called "public" televisions. Thats a point of view, unless you by 'better' meant higher quality. Most of the documentaries produced, or paid for, by our national TV are in a quality of such magnitude that makes Discovery look like Cartoon channel. And really, the documentaries on Discovery aren't concerned about sensible subjects, probably to avoid offending their viewers. It's all Volcanoes, Battle vehicles, Sharks, Cars and Crime Investigation. Tomaž Štih wrote: Actually Oprah does more for raising the culture of the common people then any public television. Simply because private production has to first be accepted and then sold; while public television is already sold, regardless of viewership. Actually Oprah is an offence to the intelligence of the Common Danish viewer. For people raised on high quality TV, that show seems quite absurd and totally unworldly. The only glimpse of intellect, is the book review, which isn't quite an in-depth review. Tomaž Štih wrote: Private shows like Oprah has to appeal to the viewer. Frankly speaking it is better then anything BBC - at least channels we have opportunity to see in Europe - has to offer. Besides, she's apolitical. I don't think that Apolitical == Good, and neither did the people that made the rules for our National TV. Hosts and documentaries are allowed to have a political view, as long as it's inside the defined borders. But there must be a balance in the overall program schedule, so that all political views are covered. If your ideas were true, then our current government, liberal in the European way, would have objected long time ago. I don't know much about German TV, my German is a bit rusty, and I don't want to watch a show that is interrupted by commercials every 10 minute. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
Quite interesting point of view. I watch a lot of private Discovery. With lower budget it produces better documentaries then any of the so called "public" televisions. I wonder why are they not trying to promote interests of their capitalist owners against the public instead? Because good shows are in the interest of their owners? That's is, after all, how the market works. National Geographics is trailing; and Oprah is not far behind. Actually Oprah does more for raising the culture of the common people then any public television. Simply because private production has to first be accepted and then sold; while public television is already sold, regardless of viewership. Private shows like Oprah has to appeal to the viewer. Frankly speaking it is better then anything BBC - at least channels we have opportunity to see in Europe - has to offer. Besides, she's apolitical. Try watching shows on German publicly financed televisions just to see leftist monologues about how bad the neoliberals are; without anyone taking the opposite view. I suppose some people recognize this as quality; but the problem with public TV is that it should not interfere with political process by airing cheap propaganda of few when all people are paying for it. That's not fair play; that's simply tyranny. I love German local shows and comedians who make it to public TV too. The best way to break through is to immitate George Bush and be as primitive as you possibly can, promoting any stereotype and fictional truth that exists in leftist repertoare. One really got to see this to belive the primitivism airing on public TVs as "objective viewpoints" and "critical intellectualism". And you really gotta love interviews with prominent "leftistlectualls" and "eurollectuals" on public TV. And if you don't you don't have an option because they outnumberin (in their views of the United States) probably ten to one any other opinion. That's just quality without the name (if it was allowed a name it would be "bias"). Angela Merkel yesterday criticized United States. She didn't have a choice - German public is so thirsty of American blood that anything else would make her loose the elections. So where are positive results of public television? Where is the objectivity that prevents narrow mindedness and hate? Instead public television spearheaded this primitivism, simply because it is held in the hands of political elites. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: Where is the objectivity that prevents narrow mindedness and hate? Are you referring to the broadcasting of the Dutch documentary on Islam that got the producer killed? I agree that it did stir quite an uproar in the Danish Islamic population, but it was within the limits of free speech, and the protesters got air time to defend their views. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
jan larsen wrote: Tomaž Štih wrote: That tells nothing of objectivity. It just tells that self sustained elites can develop there using taxpayers money instead of their own to promote their agenda; and that they are not responsible to the viewer. They are very much responsible to the viewer. There are rules they must follow. Rules are only as good as results they produce. Commonly public TV will have a program committee. But the fact is that committee will be composed of men with their own interests. They'll work by the rules. For example, if the rule is a cultural show, why not showing an aspiring comedian who makes fool of G.W.Bush? And if the rule is show about social troubles, why not airing statements by poor people against neoliberalism? Repeating such patterns is pure propaganda; compliant with rules. What you don't seem to understand is that programs are always produced by people and bias is introduced by people; it doesn't really matter where in the hierarchy they are. If you let editors more power then they are the one with power of decision about bias. You actually did not remove the bias with it, you just changed the subject who has the power to introduce it. Bias is actually not a problem as long as you have a competitive market. After all people have a right of free speech. The trouble with public TVs is that most of them are (in Europe) incredibly huge, many times on the brink of the monopoly. Correct me if I am wrong but I belive every single European public TV (possible many channels) has wider audience in percent of population then any of largest corporation stations in the United States, and thhe public TV number is not few percent higher but typically double. And the problem with bias on public TV is that it is financed by all households - so it is actually not fair play - the state is using its power to give unfair political advantage to one group of citizen against the other. jan larsen wrote: Tomaž Štih wrote: It is much more objective to be responsible to the viewer. Private media is responsible to the viewer. They only make money if they attract the audience so they have to follow their desires. And that is why private media can't be objective: they constantly have to please the viewer. People really don't want facts, they want news that solidifies their world view. How very wrong. In democracies people disagree and that creates the need for different viewpoints which creates the market for private
Tomaž Štih wrote: What you don't seem to understand is that programs are always produced by people and bias is introduced by people Yes, why do you think this doesn't apply to private TV? Tomaž Štih wrote: The trouble with public TVs is that most of them are (in Europe) incredibly huge, many times on the brink of the monopoly. Correct me if I am wrong but I belive every single European public TV (possible many channels) has wider audience in percent of population then any of largest corporation stations in the United States, and thhe public TV number is not few percent higher but typically double. Monopolies aren't inheritantly bad. Look at eg. Microsoft: agreed standards shouldn't be proprietary, but at least we got standards. Another example: Telephone services. The national Danish telephone company had a monopoly up untill the early 90's, the result?: one of the best telephone and cable infrastructures in the world, and the prices were only marginally higher than what the competitors could offer once the monopoly was broken. Also, all customers had a right to get connected to the telephone system regardless of accessibility. These days you can only get an ADSL connection if the telephone company finds it profitable to do the wiring. And we're not talking remote areas here, ADSL is off limits for lots of areas in the viscinity of Copenhagen. Tomaž Štih wrote: How very wrong. Explain Fox News then. Or do you find them balanced and objective :-) "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr