South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
What channels can you actually get free from that site? It doesn't really say.
Edit: Saw now thanks, not much.
I don't understand. Where does a 'transfer of ownership' come into it in this case? He had his decoder, you bought yours new. Sounds like you became a new customer at that time. Had you subscribed under your own name then MC would have seen that you are a subscriber?
Naspers is publically traded, isn't it?
Personally, I think the whole regulatory process in this country would be far more interesting and enlightening to research.
) if you hammer DStv - they're just doing what any other company would do in the same regulatory environment.[1] And you certainly don't land up with a free market through tedious, drawn-out licence application processes, that cost a lot, and have to be scrutinised as to their 'viability' by idiots. Let the market decide on 'viability'.
Yes, you've said that already.
So, there's no record that you own that PVR? I couldn't do it that way- what if it got stolen? I like my stuff registered to me.
I think they mean that the subscriber is the one who's name is on the account. Technically, if your name is not on the account, you're not a subscriber, regardless of who's doing the bank transfer.
Well, their interpretation sounds perfectly fine to me. You could have fixed that one little niggle by simply subscribing under your own name (red-tape or no red-tape), and then they would not have been able to class you as a non-subscriber. *shrug*
Yes, according to Wikipedia. Although I guess one should always take dig a bit deeper than Wikipedia.
Personally, I think the whole regulatory process in this country would be far more interesting and enlightening to research.
Sorry if I sound like a rampant free-market capitalist, but I honestly believe that an open market for pay TV is a far more laudable goal than simply bashing MultiChoice on forums. You're wasting your breath (and bits
Free markets have a wonderful way of rewarding companies that provide customer satisfaction, and punishing companies that don't, while at the same time placing downward pressure on prices, and increasing product qualilty.
[1] Even in the absence of competition, they do seem to have brought new products to market, when there was absolutely no market pressure to do so.
Stoopid, stoopid ICASA.
In any case I think that NOCHOICE have picked up bad habits from SABC -- pay for content once -- play it over and over to death -- charge consumer for every repeat -- pocket the difference as if it was honest profit. WHAT do you think they would do if you sent them LAST YEARS CHEQUE .......syndyre said:
I am pretty sure that in those days there WERE still broadcast licences -- as there are today.
I agree about the "Free-Markets" BUT how "Free" are they really
At the moment in SA do we have a "Free-Market" when it comes to Telecoms and DSTV
Or do we rather have every kind of regulatory body and all kinds of other intrusive legislation ( BEE)
I stand by my statement that MCH were able to achieve a monopoly position BECAUSE of Gov legislation -- which is still pretty much in place. No-One picked up on my reference to the ADULT channel guy up in Gauteng -- and the subsequent court case. ( Which has HUGE wider implications for the whole legal system in SA )
MW
Can someone who knows the history intimately comment here. I am not so sure that they did operate without a license -- perhaps "de-facto" but NOT "de-jure"
We have as many if not more Gov regulations and interference in the market as we had under the old regime
ANYONE have a link to the inside history of MCH -- MIHH -- history of DSTV in SA ???? Could be the basis of a interesting little book.
MW
DY Radio HAMS to know everything
