How to cancel and stop paying your TV licence

[Willie Trombone]

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

used by a subscriber....

You own something you don't use? Not the government's problem, the law stands.

 

[xrapidx]

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

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?

What law have I broken?

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

You own something you don't use? Not the government's problem, the law stands.

Not "owned" or "in possession of" or "bought" but USED, therefore one may be a subscriber(although your claim to this is completely unfounded) but if the device is not USED to "access, use or receive the services of a licensee", well then... The law does stand, just not on the SABC's side.

It's really quite clear there in the actual gazette in black and white. Legal terms are not open to ambiguity.

 

[Thor]

Amen to that!

Racketeering, is organized crime = act of offering of a dishonest service (a "racket") to solve a problem that wouldn't otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service.

Pay an SABC inspector to come and investigate if you don't have a TV? And you already pay his salary via your taxes? = Just who do they think they are.... its racketeering.

He's welcome to go and check TVs - its his job - but to charge a fee for that on top of his salary paid by the tax payer?

No wonder SABC refuses to comply with ICASA rulings. They can't force you to watch state TV.

An affidavit signed by a witness at a police station to state that you no longer own a TV will stand up in court.

If not - dump your TV in the foyer of the SABC and photograph it. They can sweep away the pieces themselves.

They can't regulate what you don't own any more. And if you don't own a TV any more - there is no need to entertain them.

Can we sue them for racketeering as a class action lawsuit?

 

[DreamKing]

scrap it.

simple.

 

[Geoff.D]

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.

Remember when you point a finger there are 4 pointing back at you!

The ECA is the overarching legislation under which ALL electronic communication services including broadcasting is provided in SA.
This Act refers to "subscriber equipment" which includes a "Television Set"

The ECA is what give ICASA the authority to determine whether the SABC as a licensed Public Broadcaster is complying with its mandate in terms of the licence issued to it under the ECA.

The ECA then specifically states that broadcasting is covered by the Broadcasting Act no 4 of 1999, which deals with the creation of the SABC and defines which Act governs the SABC directly. That Act in turn refers to the IBA Act no 153 of 1993, which deals with the details.

The BA number 4 of 1999, defines what a public broadcasting service is:

Public broadcasting service means --
(a) any broadcasting service provided by the SABC;
(b) a broadcasting service provided by a statutory body; or
(c) a Broadcasting servicer provided by a person who receives his or her revenue, either wholly or partly, from licence fees levied in respect of the licensing of persons in relation to sound radio sets and in relation to television sets, or from the State,

and must include a commercially operated broadcasting service provided by a person referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this definition.

While this Act defined a Sound Radio Set, it is silent on any device used to receive television and does not include a definition of a TV.

This Act describers the SABC, including where its funding comes from.

Section 27 of this Act specifically refers to Television Licences stating the SABC may issue a television licence conferring on the holder the right to use a television set or any number of sets specified in the licence, that the licence is renewable annually, etc, but includes a clause which says ...."a holder MUST apply for a licence". A holder is defined as meaning amongst others, ANY owner of a television set.



Note it does NOT say anything about the owner actually using the TV set to receive broadcasted signals.

The IBA number 153 of 1993 as amended then picks up from this Act dealing with amongst other things how licence fees will be determined and who must pay these fees as well as a more comprehensive definition of in this case a "television set".

This act defines "broadcasting" to mean unidirectional telecommunication intended for the public or sections of the public, including subscribers to a subscription service. This means persons subscribing to say DSTV are also bound by the regulations of this act, and those that try and argue that they do not receive services from the SABC, so they are not bound to pay licence fees are thus WRONG..

A sound radio set is defined in this act, so is a television set.

television set means any apparatus designed or adapted to be capable of receiving transmissions broadcast in the course of a television broadcasting service.

It is terms of this Act that the Minister then published the GG 25582 giving effect to licence fees and who should pay those licence fees. read the GG, and you will see legally you have no leg to stand on whatsoever!

SO wriggle and argue as you may and want to about whether you ( and the hordes of others) are liable for paying licence fees simply because you own a device capable of receiving broadcast signals in South Africa and does NOT say anything about which and what broadcasts you actually receive from whomever.

I trust you continue to get away with your actions BUT if they catch up with you, I reserve the right to say to you I told you so.

So now IF you don't like it, vote for a government that you believe will take action and then start lobbying for the changes to the laws that you want.

In the meantime stop criticising anyone on this forum or anywhere else for being law abiding and paying a licence fee if they own a TV set or any other device capable of receiving broadcasted TV signals in South Africa.

Case closed !


And |BTW go and read in detail ALL the Acts of parliament dealing with telecommunication matters, and THEN come back and argue your case with many on this forum who have spent a lifetime trying to work within the law and delivering telecommunication services for people to use.

 

[Ho3n3r]

Enjoy while you can, and make money off the suckers out there, but do not cry when all those TVs you have hoarded become totally obsolete overnight ........

Not sure what you're on about.

 

[Jola]

Wouldn't it be great if one could just get everyone to delay their payments by a few months ?

This would make a point and cause some difficulties for the SABC.

 

[e4et]

Wouldn't it be great if one could just get everyone to delay their payments by a few months ?

This would make a point and cause some difficulties for the SABC.

This !!!!

 

[Willie Trombone]

Not "owned" or "in possession of" or "bought" but USED, therefore one may be a subscriber(although your claim to this is completely unfounded) but if the device is not USED to "access, use or receive the services of a licensee", well then... The law does stand, just not on the SABC's side.

It's really quite clear there in the actual gazette in black and white. Legal terms are not open to ambiguity.

The law has nothing to do with using it to access SABC 1, 2 and 3. That's impossible to prove and you know it.

 

[Willie Trombone]

What law have I broken?

Referring to those who don't pay their TV license when the law is fairly clear - even if it is stupid.

 

[Swa]

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 ......

Yes please, I've read the regulations and they make no mention of needing an affidavit or having to pay outstanding debt before being able to cancel. It would in any case go against the CPA which trumps other legislation.

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

In your opinion.

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.

Corruption iow. There are many alternatives but you're too stupid to realise it because you keep believing the lie that voting against the ANC is voting for apartheid. Luckily you're all dying out and being replaced by the young Juliuses who see the stupidity and keep laughing at you.

@ 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.

Ok so where is the definition then? People were circumventing these legally well after 1993 and not afraid to publicly publish it. As you say yourself the regulations are very complicated.

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 that's what I'm referring to. It clearly stipulates notice in writing on a form and NOT an affidavit. Also there's no mention of selling a tv set as it deals with no longer requiring a license.

Not sure what you're on about.

He's definitely on something. Also keeps on accusing people of breaking the law.

 

[HavocXphere]

Managed to stay clear of it along with the other STDs out there...

 

[Drunkard #1]

Simphiwe999 and daniellgr, you two can talk **** all day about laws and regulations, but the fact remains: The sabc has not taken anyone to court in 20 years, because they know they'd to get their arse handed to them, and then they couldn't harass people any more.

So it's irrelevant whether we're breaking the law or not, we're not going to pay until the law is fixed.

 

[Wag]

Simphiwe999 and daniellgr, you two can talk **** all day about laws and regulations, but the fact remains: The sabc has not taken anyone to court in 20 years, because they know they'd to get their arse handed to them, and then they couldn't harass people any more.

So it's irrelevant whether we're breaking the law or not, we're not going to pay until the law is fixed.

I think you on to something. For the last 10 years I ignored them, 100's of lawyer letters, phone calls and sms's and still nothing. Sabc must remove their signal from my property.

 

[MickeyD]

Mod note: play the ball, not the person.

 

[Adenoid Hynkel]

And as to SANRAL bills, I am already on record to say that I do not have to pay them because I do not use the highways affected by e-tolls at all.

Hmm. So you agree that you don't have to pay SANRAL bills if you don't use the affected e-toll roads? Yes, makes sense. Did you send them an affidavit stating you're not using those roads? Did they send out an inspector that followed you for a week to make sure you're not? Exactly.

Your car is capable of driving on those roads, does it mean you have to pay E-tolls regardless if you're using those roads or not?

Just because my TV can receive a broadcasting signal doesn't mean I am actually broadcasting SABC material.

The legislation is flawed.

 

[Slootvreter]

I was going to say... dont you NEED a TV license to BUY a TV.... if you cancel it how the heck do you buy a new TV?

Phone a friend/parent

 

[Slootvreter]

LOL. Trying to reason out of not having to pay a license :crylaugh: If you own a device that is able to receive signal you must pay. Whether you are using it or not.

That said, I have never and will never. SABC can tsek.

 

[Geoff.D]

Hmm. So you agree that you don't have to pay SANRAL bills if you don't use the affected e-toll roads? Yes, makes sense. Did you send them an affidavit stating you're not using those roads? Did they send out an inspector that followed you for a week to make sure you're not? Exactly.

Your car is capable of driving on those roads, does it mean you have to pay E-tolls regardless if you're using those roads or not?

Just because my TV can receive a broadcasting signal doesn't mean I am actually broadcasting SABC material.

The legislation is flawed.

The legislation is very complicated as you will see from my post on all the laws in play. Yes it may require revision as well.

As far as SANRAL is concerned, it is irrelevant to this debate.