How to cancel and stop paying your TV licence

[xrapidx]

That's actually a plan - next letter I get I'm sending back incorrect address.

 

[Xiphan]

A few years ago I won a PlayStation 3 which I wanted to play on a big-screen TV instead of my regular 22" computer monitor. However, having never owned a TV and thus no TV License I thought it was a great injustice to have to pay a yearly fee just so I could play a few PS3 games. There is no aerial on my house, nor do I have DSTv as I consider it an even bigger waste of money, so why should I have to pay for a TV License?

You then have to send proof to the SABC every year that your TV cannot receive a signal. If an inspector comes to check, you pay an additional R300.

So does that mean an inspector can come to my house at any time and I would have to pay him R300 every time? F$#& that! The steps outlined in this article border on the absurd just for the chance that the SABC will stop bothering you; like you have to kick the hornets nest once a year to avoid being stung. No thanks. I have my TV now thanks to a friend buying it for me on their license, but there is no way I am going to pay for a license just so I can play games and watch Blu-Rays! Nor am I going to risk damaging my TV to remove the tuner just so that I can say what I have been doing all along is now legal.

 

[killerbyte]

A few years ago I won a PlayStation 3 which I wanted to play on a big-screen TV instead of my regular 22" computer monitor. However, having never owned a TV and thus no TV License I thought it was a great injustice to have to pay a yearly fee just so I could play a few PS3 games. There is no aerial on my house, nor do I have DSTv as I consider it an even bigger waste of money, so why should I have to pay for a TV License?



So does that mean an inspector can come to my house at any time and I would have to pay him R300 every time? F$#& that! The steps outlined in this article border on the absurd just for the chance that the SABC will stop bothering you; like you have to kick the hornets nest once a year to avoid being stung. No thanks. I have my TV now thanks to a friend buying it for me on their license, but there is no way I am going to pay for a license just so I can play games and watch Blu-Rays! Nor am I going to risk damaging my TV to remove the tuner just so that I can say what I have been doing all along is now legal.

tl;dr

How to troll friends and irritate people. Sorry Xiphan, could not resist.

 

[Swa]

I see no issue with objecting to a law about e-tolling by NOT making use of a road subject to tolls, and therefore still not being guilty of breaking the law .....

Civil disobedience is not the correct way to keep governments in check ----- Using the democratic process is the way to go about it.

Democracy only works when the government is democratic. Also why "should" people obey a law that was set up in an illegal process? You still haven't answered that nor on whether you obey every single law.

Uhmm, no. You are wrong on both counts. The regulations do refer to a tv set, but you have to read the definition of a tv set as well.

Still waiting for someone to show that. I've looked through the regulations myself and can't find it. Everyone keeps making that claim but nobody ever backs it up.

Nowhere is it stated that you don't have to inform the SABC if it is a private sale.

Right you are because it only applies to dealers so the reverse conclusion is true without needing to state it.

Thank you for digging out the relevant clauses.

Except he hasn't. He's only referred to the SABC's interpretation of it.

You inform them by way of an affidavit, and until the licence is formally cancelled, the fees remain payable.

Show me where in the legislation is this a requirement. It's only an SABC "requirement" and from what we've seen companies don't always comply with the law. Also they can't refuse to cancel it because you have fees outstanding. They can charge interest and arrears but they have to cancel it if you request it.

 

[chrisc]

That's actually a plan - next letter I get I'm sending back incorrect address.

To catch suppliers who sell on your name and address, but vehemently deny it, I always make a typo, like adding a letter in my name or mis-spelling the street address. Have caught SABC, FNB and our local pharmacy like this. The pharmacist owned up after I had a letter published in the local newspaper. He asked why I did not come to see him prior to writing the letter. I pointed out 3 emails to him which he chose to ignore

 

[Geoff.D]

Democracy only works when the government is democratic. Also why "should" people obey a law that was set up in an illegal process? You still haven't answered that nor on whether you obey every single law.


Still waiting for someone to show that. I've looked through the regulations myself and can't find it. Everyone keeps making that claim but nobody ever backs it up.


Right you are because it only applies to dealers so the reverse conclusion is true without needing to state it.


Except he hasn't. He's only referred to the SABC's interpretation of it.


Show me where in the legislation is this a requirement. It's only an SABC "requirement" and from what we've seen companies don't always comply with the law. Also they can't refuse to cancel it because you have fees outstanding. They can charge interest and arrears but they have to cancel it if you request it.

Looks like we will have to for the sake of completeness dig out all the regulations to satisfy some on the forum.

You cancel it by means of an affidavit, AND, with the payment of any accumulated debts outstanding ......

 

[killerbyte]

I see no issue with objecting to a law about e-tolling by NOT making use of a road subject to tolls, and therefore still not being guilty of breaking the law .....

Civil disobedience is not the correct way to keep governments in check ----- Using the democratic process is the way to go about it.

Civil disobedience is the ONLY way to keep a government in check. If they know that their people will tell them where to stick their unjust laws then they won't make unjust laws. We, the People, have the responsibility to hold our government accountable and to go against unjust laws.

 

[Willie Trombone]

Civil disobedience is the ONLY way to keep a government in check. If they know that their people will tell them where to stick their unjust laws then they won't make unjust laws. We, the People, have the responsibility to hold our government accountable and to go against unjust laws.

And you do that by firing them at election time, not breaking the law.

 

[xrapidx]

And you do that by firing them at election time, not breaking the law.

Yeh - because that works in SA Those actually paying their TV licenses are probably already not voting for the ANC.

I'm pretty sure that if laws were changed so that EVERYONE has to contribute to the running of the country via tax, the government would be completelty different, whether ANC or another.

 

[Geoff.D]

Civil disobedience is the ONLY way to keep a government in check. If they know that their people will tell them where to stick their unjust laws then they won't make unjust laws. We, the People, have the responsibility to hold our government accountable and to go against unjust laws.

We the people have the responsibility to hold our government accountable by using lawful means NOT by deliberately flouting the law.

And you do that by firing them at election time, not breaking the law.

Spot on!

 

[Willie Trombone]

Yeh - because that works in SA Those actually paying their TV licenses are probably already not voting for the ANC.

Let me ask you...
Do you want to live in a democracy?
Those who vote for the ANC vote for everything that they stand for - deal with it. Please suggest the alternative.

 

[xrapidx]

Let me ask you...
Do you want to live in a democracy?
Those who vote for the ANC vote for everything that they stand for - deal with it. Please suggest the alternative.

Doubt it - the majority don't have the education to know what they're voting for, they're voting for free T-Shirts, clothing - and empty promises of restitution... which they'll never get.

The solution? Education - and its quite clear how the ANC is making sure that doesn't happen.

And well done on selective quoting, you seemed to have missed the rest.

 

[Jola]

Let me ask you...
Do you want to live in a democracy?
Those who vote for the ANC vote for everything that they stand for - deal with it. Please suggest the alternative.

When you are dealing with an electorate that persists in electing corrupt and incompetent leaders, can you really say that democracy is working ?

 

[Geoff.D]

The LAW and Regulations Governing TV Licences.

@ SWA and all the others who believe they are in the right regarding flouting the Law, below are the relevant ACTS that are applicable, as well as the latest Government Gazette dealing specifically with TV Licences.

(1) The Act means the Broadcasting Act no 4 of 1999 or any amendment thereto or substitution thereof.
(2) Television set has the meaning assigned to it in Section 1(1) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act no 153 of 1993 as amended.
(3) Concessionary Domestic Licence is governed to some extent by the Social Assistance Act 59 of 1992 as amended.
(4) The Broadcasting Act delegates responsibility to the SABC to administer TV Licences.

GG 25582 is attached for all to read for themselves.

 

[furpile]

Democracy only works when the government is democratic. Also why "should" people obey a law that was set up in an illegal process? You still haven't answered that nor on whether you obey every single law.


Still waiting for someone to show that. I've looked through the regulations myself and can't find it. Everyone keeps making that claim but nobody ever backs it up.


Right you are because it only applies to dealers so the reverse conclusion is true without needing to state it.


Except he hasn't. He's only referred to the SABC's interpretation of it.


Show me where in the legislation is this a requirement. It's only an SABC "requirement" and from what we've seen companies don't always comply with the law. Also they can't refuse to cancel it because you have fees outstanding. They can charge interest and arrears but they have to cancel it if you request it.

Ok, so here is the Government Gazette.

REGULATIONS REGARDING TELEVISION LICENCE FEES
“television set” has the meaning assigned to it in Section 1(1) of the
Independent Broadcasting Authority Act No. 153 of 1993 and includes
computers fitted with electronic broadcast cards (television tuner cards)
and the electronic broadcast cards themselves;

The IBA refers to the ECA:

‘‘subscriber equipment’’ means any device which is used by a subscriber to
access, use or receive the services of a licensee referred to in Chapter 3 or the
services of a person providing a service pursuant to a licence exemption, including
without limitation, a telephone, regardless of technology such as IP (internet
protocol) phones, mobile phones, publicly available phones; a handset, a
computing device such as a personal digital assistant or a personal computer; a
device for receiving a sound radio broadcasting service and a television; or other
device or equipment, and any associated software;

I am not sure if this is the correct definition they use but looks like it.

Regarding the notice when selling, it is also in the gazette in the first link:

A user or a licence holder who is no longer required to be in possession of a
television licence shall provide the Corporation with written notice on a
prescribed form setting out the changed circumstances which have made it
unnecessary for him to be in possession of a television licence, which notice
shall be given within thirty days of the expiry of the licence.

These laws are completely messed up, and the fact that they are impossible to work with due to the ineptitude of the state departments just make it worse. I despise the SABC and what they are currently doing, and wish there was an easy way to get rid of them.

 

[Geoff.D]

Ok, so here is the Government Gazette.


The IBA refers to the ECA:


I am not sure if this is the correct definition they use but looks like it.

Regarding the notice when selling, it is also in the gazette in the first link:


These laws are completely messed up, and the fact that they are impossible to work with due to the ineptitude of the state departments just make it worse. I despise the SABC and what they are currently doing, and wish there was an easy way to get rid of them.

Yes as far as I know that is the definition used. Not aware of any amendments yet.

The regulations are very complicated and very difficult to administer. And yes we probably all believe the SABC is incredibly badly run, and there is very little positive about the DoC and the DTPS, the only way to try and implement change is through the ballot box .....

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

Oh my Dan the Man, what say you about this section:

‘‘subscriber equipment’’ means any device which is used by a subscriber to
access, use or receive the services of a licensee ... including ... a television

I repeat "used by a subscriber".... Not capable of receiving broadcasts, therefore if one does not use the device to "access, use or receive the service" of the SABC one is not obligated to pay the license.

So the SABC is actually not entitled to demand a license at purchase unless you'll use the TV to watch SABC, oh my... You mean they overreached their scope in order to make more money, oh my... You mean the SABC is acting unlawfully, oh my...

Oh my... What a waste of righteous indignation.

No wonder no-one has been taken to court over this, SABC would be ripped to shreds.

 

[Willie Trombone]

Oh my Dan the Man, what say you about this section:



I repeat "used by a subscriber".... Not capable of receiving broadcasts, therefore if one does not use the device to "access, use or receive the service" of the SABC one is not obligated to pay the license.

So the SABC is actually not entitled to demand a license at purchase unless you'll use the TV to watch SABC, oh my... You mean they overreached their scope in order to make more money, oh my... You mean the SABC is acting unlawfully, oh my...

Oh my... What a waste of righteous indignation.

No wonder no-one has been taken to court over this, SABC would be ripped to shreds.

The law states that if you own a tuner, you are a subscriber. End of.

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

The law states that if you own a tuner, you are a subscriber. End of.

It may do and I'm not disputing that but the key line:

used by a subscriber....

 

[Willie Trombone]

Doubt it - the majority don't have the education to know what they're voting for, they're voting for free T-Shirts, clothing - and empty promises of restitution... which they'll never get.

The solution? Education - and its quite clear how the ANC is making sure that doesn't happen.

And well done on selective quoting, you seemed to have missed the rest.

Understanding it doesn't make it less legal. What's your excuse for breaking the law?

When you are dealing with an electorate that persists in electing corrupt and incompetent leaders, can you really say that democracy is working ?

Every democracy is broken the world over for many reasons, it doesn't give you license to break the law. So what's the alternative?