Large monitors that don't require a TV licence

I find it surprising how anyone would spend this amount of additional cash just not to pay a TV license.
If you said it was for better quality or something, sure.
 
G.A.S said:
I find it surprising how anyone would spend this amount of additional cash just not to pay a TV license.
If you said it was for better quality or something, sure.
Click to expand...
Monitors in general have lower input lag, higher refresh rates and faster response times as well as higher pixel density. But it would depend on what you are going to use it for. If you use it for both viewing and gaming, it makes sense. I suspect that for most people a once off cost it cheaper in the long run than paying a license fee forever.
 
Bad Ballie said:
Monitors in general have lower input lag, higher refresh rates and faster response times as well as higher pixel density. But it would depend on what you are going to use it for. If you use it for both viewing and gaming, it makes sense. I suspect that for most people a once off cost it cheaper in the long run than paying a license fee forever.
Click to expand...
I'm also realising since getting a smart TV that you can't really get a TV that isn't running some kind of software on it.
This is a problem because that software needs to be updated and can fail.

I do have regrets not getting a dumb panel with a cromecast\TV box.
 
I paid for my TV license. I told them I will only pay for the current year and they wiped out my debt. Anyway paid and started replacing our TVs.

Buying these panels are honestly a waste of money, in many cases it costs you 2x the price of the tv, and many doesnt have apps, so add another 2k for that so even the cheapest youre basically paying 7k more for a descent quality version. So youre basically paying for 26 years of tv licenses to buy a tv that you dont need a tv license for.

Honestly you got to be a total idiot.

The cheapest one I bought was a Hisense QLED 7 series for R4400 for the 43 inch comparatively with all the apps and better sound.

So here is throwing it upside down. Its cheaper to pay for your annual TV license so you can buy 85-100 inch tvs than waste your money on 1 movie at the cinema. And that's why I simply just paid it. Now am looking at those NEO QLED from Hisense, or Samsung OLEDs 85 inches or more
 
G.A.S said:
I find it surprising how anyone would spend this amount of additional cash just not to pay a TV license.
If you said it was for better quality or something, sure.
Click to expand...
It's for better quality... ;)
 
RedViking said:
It is more than just not to pay a TV license. It is about not funding corruption, incompetence and satanism.
Click to expand...
StickittotheMan.gif
 
G.A.S said:
I find it surprising how anyone would spend this amount of additional cash just not to pay a TV license.
If you said it was for better quality or something, sure.
Click to expand...
Back in the day when we had landlines we used to think how easy it would be for Telkom to add 1c onto your monthly phone bill & how much money they could make. Yet here they are just blatantly demanding it. So no - I'm not ok paying for something I'm not going to use or give money to an organisation that will inevitably dribble the funds out into cadre pockets.
 
Bad Ballie said:
Monitors in general have lower input lag, higher refresh rates and faster response times as well as higher pixel density. But it would depend on what you are going to use it for. If you use it for both viewing and gaming, it makes sense. I suspect that for most people a once off cost it cheaper in the long run than paying a license fee forever.
Click to expand...
Pixel density on a 4k screen will be the same on a 50" TV or monitor. You will have the same amount of pixels, but you're also paying a massive tax on any monitor over 22" thanks to the SABC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X