SABC plans licence clampdown

[kilps]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...0001969C413425

AFAIK Etv gets none of the licences - so why should it all go to SABC?

[Farquaon]

Then b a s t a r d s took me to the lawyers for not pating my tv license. I moved twice in one year, registered a pobox in a company name, and next thing i get a laywers letter from them to pay up.

[bwana]

I'm getting a plasma or similar without a tuner and having the turners removed from all the other tv's in the house. There is absolutely no broadcast reception available here so everything I watch is satellite.

[skydog]

Please can someone with a legal background point to the act the allows them to walk into my house and tell them that I owe them for money....... that they have already been given via the taxes that i pay because... yes i do pay taxes and I want to see something in return....!!

[stoke]

And to top it all off - these SABC ripoff governmint controlled ba$tards are getting 14th cheques this year.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
History Reminder: http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/show...ht=14th+Cheque

[werner]

if you want to be first world, and have first world broadband then the other first world rules apply...pay your tv license guys. We can argue till the cows come home whether it is worth it or not, but if it is part of the law then thats the game you have to play.

Here in the Uk it is pretty jacked up, each address has a license which covers that address, but the license is in a persons name (because some houses are split into two or even three sub-houses), so require 3 licenses. My mom-in-law came to visit and bought a vcr to take back to the seychelles, she paid cash, but bought an extended warranty on it, and registered the extended warranty at my address.

2 days later (I kid you not) I get a letter in the post...basically, Mrs xyz, we see you bought a piece of kit that can receive tv signals, but dont have a tv license in your name for the address you gave, please provide proof of a tv license that covers that piece of equipment.

[noswal]

As I recall in the UK your license fee goes to the BBC who do not have commercial advertising during programs, the other channels - ITV, SKY etc.get all their income from advertising during programs. Here the SABC get both.

[sparklehorse]

Hmm... tv detector vans. Sounds like a waste of time. Good scare tactic though
Looks like the BBC has been doing it for some time.

quoted from this site

Reader Andy McNish — who closes with "Yours combatively" — provides one about my recent boo-boo on the BBC matter:

Methinks your irate BBC correspondent doth protest rather too much. Back in the '70s, there was a frequently broadcast "public information" film showing a TV detector van in operation. The occupants of this vehicle were shown sitting at high-tech-looking consoles, wearing headsets as I recall, in an image reminiscent of Gene Hackman in "The Conversation" or any number of stakeout scenes in cop dramas. The chief "spook" had an air of high seriousness as he homed in on some hapless illicit gogglebox users. I can't remember the full dialogue of the ad, but the final line has stayed with me to this day. Having identified an address (shown from outside with the light from a cathode-ray tube illuminating the tightly-drawn curtains) and the names of the criminals within, this grim-faced agent of the state pronounced his final, damning indictment: "And they're watching 'Columbo.'"

Even until quite recently, it was common to see posters saying something like "TV detector vans are in your area now." Are we now to believe that this was all just a scare tactic? I think we should be told.

Personally, I have immense admiration for the BBC, and cheerfully pay my license fee, but the persecution, fining and occasional imprisonment — for non-payment of fines, not for illicit TV watching per se — of poor people whose chief source of information and entertainment is the humble TV set, is quite simply a national disgrace. The BBC itself may not be a government agency, but you can be darn sure that if you don't pay your "BBC tax," certain blue-uniformed agents of the state will shortly be taking quite an interest in how you choose to spend your leisure time.

I'll offer the following letter to you without further comment. It was just received, and I'm only dropping it in here to show that this is a very controversial matter indeed. No careers hang on this, no huge changes in our futures are anticipated, but we see that a situation that appeared to have been rather simple to settle, is not necessarily that cut-and-dried. This comes from reader Ron Matthews, in Hither Green, London:

I have just had the pleasure of reading the May 6 commentary. I live in London and my late father used to work for the Post Office which was responsible for enforcing the TV license fee. I remember back in the early 60's my father bringing home the detector car and the team that operated it. It wasn't black and scary but, if I remember correctly, it was a pale blue Austin Cambridge estate car. The engineer on the team explained how the system worked and that it was possible to discern what room in the house the set was in and even what channel was being watched. They had a Polaroid camera to photograph the oscilloscope screen so that it could be used as evidence in court. I was sworn to secrecy about all of this, not for some men-in-black reason but because my father feared that if people knew what he did they would wreak some terrible vengeance upon us.

[werner]

As I recall in the UK your license fee goes to the BBC who do not have commercial advertising during programs, the other channels - ITV, SKY etc.get all their income from advertising during programs. Here the SABC get both.

Like, I said, I'm not getting involved in whether your tv license is worth it, or justified. but I can tell you the Uk tv license fee goes to the BBC, which is now a mostly private company...the government collect the tv license fee on behalf of the bbc. True, no adverts on the bbc channels, but every other channel has it, and if you have equipment "capable" of receiving tv (doesnt matter what channels you do or dont watch, or if you even use that equipment) you still pay a license fee to the BBC.

Extrapolate that to the SABC, and you can see that if you have a dstv decoder, hooked up to a normal tv....well...if either one of them is capable of receiving sabc then a license fee is due. The law may be different (i.e. *any* channel would require a license fee) but I havent taken the time to find out.

[bwana]

if you want to be first world, and have first world broadband then the other first world rules apply...pay your tv license guys. We can argue till the cows come home whether it is worth it or not, but if it is part of the law then thats the game you have to play.

Many first world countries obtain their revenue by advertising - eg USA - and not by TV licensing. I dont mind paying the license but no adverts please. Here they want both which is what I dont agree with.

Thats why I'm neutering my televisions so they will only be able to get satellite. Like I said earlier, there's no broadcast signal worth watching here anyway so no hardship.

SABC TV Lic FAQ:

Q: How is a TV set denatured so that a TV licence is not required?
A: A TV set is denatured by removing its "tuner", rendering it incapable of receiving a TV signal and therefore exempt from payment of licence fees. Subject to written confirmation of such denaturing following inspection of the TV set, written application for exemption must be made three months in advance on an annual basis.
http://www.tvlic.co.za/new_legis.htm

[werner]

weird, that same sabc licensing faq has this to say:

Q: Do I need a TV licence if my set is used only to view videos? What must I
do if I don't want to pay a TV licence?
A: What a TV set is used for is irrelevant in terms of the legal liability for payment of
TV licence fees. As long as one has TV receiving equipment in one's possession a
licence remains payable. If one doesn't want to pay a licence, the SABC must be
satisfied that one has no such equipment in one's possession.


They mention tv receiving equipment, which earlier in the faq is defined as blah blah and pc with tv tuner cards (so I assume satellite decoders etc are also classed as such). So even if you remove the tuner from the tv, if you hook it up to a receiver of some sort you are still liable. Thoughts?

[bwana]

The part about the tv receiving equipment and tv tuner card contains one critical word - broadcast

Q: What is a TV set, as defined in the Act?
A: Any device designed or adapted to be capable of receiving a broadcast television signal.
This includes a PC fitted with a TV tuner card.

I guess satellite is not considered as being broadcast.

If I can legally get out of paying a license I will

[sparklehorse]

Thats why I'm neutering my televisions so they will only be able to get satellite. Like I said earlier, there's no broadcast signal worth watching here anyway so no hardship.

As I see it that would save you R225 per year as you will not be able to receive a broadcast signal. But you can still get sabc tv through satellite - so don't know how that works
As for nothing worth watching, I have to disagree. There is plenty of good programming to watch.
The way I understand it, e-tv can't charge a license fee because they are a 'commercial' station and not a public broadcaster

[DragonLogos]

A little bit of history

The SABC came into being back in the mid 1920s - At that time there were commercial Radio stations operating. The Government at the time considered that Control of the Media was second only of importance to agriculture. They formed the SABC and then passed a law that forbid any advertising on Radio, effectively (the BS reason) this meant the end of commercial Radio

This is the Shame of the SABC - And has never really been made public

The song Ag Pleez Daddy - was banded for the line Canada Dry, because you were not even allowed free advertising, even in some Local TV programs a contestant will say, I work of a construction company in Cape Town.... and who remembers old local TV programs were they used to black out the name of a product.

Today things are a bit better, but know this.... all of what Telkom are doing is much the same thing, they are controlling the media

[bwana]

As I see it that would save you R225 per year as you will not be able to receive a broadcast signal. But you can still get sabc tv through satellite - so don't know how that works
As for nothing worth watching, I have to disagree. There is plenty of good programming to watch.
The way I understand it, e-tv can't charge a license fee because they are a 'commercial' station and not a public broadcaster

What I meant was there is no broadcast signal worth watching - there's a bloody big hill in the way All my television comes in via my decoder so there's not need for broadcast tv anyway.

I'd have less of a problem with the idea of a license if the broadcaster didnt show commercials before, during and after shows - let em generate income that way like eTV does.

I was incorrect earlier when I said there was no license fee in the US. There is in fact a license fee but the cost is borne by the broadcaster and not the viewer.