SABC and pay-TV scrap

Mpofu defends the SABC’s stance: “If the SABC provides content to a third party it’s entitled to compensation. I don’t understand why that should differ under a must-carry agreement.”
Click to expand...
Then scrap the "must carry" requirement. SABC is available on FTA, so what the **** is the problem?
 
why must I pay twice to watch SABC? If I subscribe to pay TV (which must pay SABC), then I should not have to buy an SABC TV Licence!

He believes that SABC channels are of commercial value to subscription-TV. “Research shows that people would not subscribe if SABC were absent,” he claims.

I have not watched SABC for years, so much for his research
 
As a consumer, I can't understand why I would be forced to pay for content twice. I pay my TV license, under protest - I NEVER watch their damn channels, and now I will be forced to pay for it over and over for every additional broadcaster I subscribe to.

The only reference to the "must carry" provision in the ECT Act that I could find was:
The Authority must prescribe regulations regarding the extent to which
subscription broadcast services must carry, subject to commercially negotiable terms,
the television programmes provided by a public broadcast service licensees.

So, it all boils down to whether the SABC can convince (read: bribe) ICASA to prescribe the regulations in their favour.
 
All it will take is some person who gets irritated enough to challenge such a regulation in court and we could see it tumbling in terms of the consumer paying a TV license, as well as a subscription to PayTV...

I pay my TV license under huge protest, and I will not be subscribing to any extra paytv players IF they're forced to pay for SABC's rubbish, which they will then pass on to the consumer.
 
There is that as well..


and now that muh TV has been stolen, its going to be interesting when the SANBC try to get me for next years tv license fee... they can think again :)
 
He believes that SABC channels are of commercial value to subscription-TV. “Research shows that people would not subscribe if SABC were absent,” he claims.
Click to expand...

hahaha... what planet is this guy from?
 
"The public broadcaster and the pay-TV industry are already at loggerheads, ahead of the launch of a number of new commercial TV stations next year. "

so its launcing now in 2009 ?
 
Mpofu defends the SABC’s stance: “If the SABC provides content to a third party it’s entitled to compensation. I don’t understand why that should differ under a must-carry agreement.”
Click to expand...
Maybe you will understand when you grow up one day Dali!
He believes that SABC channels are of commercial value to subscription-TV. “Research shows that people would not subscribe if SABC were absent,” he claims.
Click to expand...
If they (SABC channels of poop) were of commercial value then pray tell why there is a 'must carry' stipulation. Surely if these channels were in such demand profitability would not be an issue as a result of all the advertising revenue you would be hauling in.
Also, what research shows people would not subscribe to pay tv if SABC was not included, where and from who! I think you are telling fibs!

Telkom Media GM, marketing & communications, Michelle Garden, says the company has budgeted for the cost of carrying the SABC.
Click to expand...
There's your favourite government controlled 'listed' company that makes billions of rands every year at the expense of the public singing the 'party' tune as per usual.
Feed the machine.
 
Telkom Media GM, marketing & communications, Michelle Garden, says the company has budgeted for the cost of carrying the SABC.
Click to expand...

And if nuclear war broke out tomorrow you would tell us that you budgeted for that too. Not surprising considering how profitable your monopoly 'big daddy' is:rolleyes:
 
If SABC channels were so sought after they pay tv operators would be clamoring for broadcast right! Except now they're trying to pawn them off on one another like a dirty nappy :rolleyes:
 
Multichoice

I bet if Multichoice were state owned they would not even consider other pay tv applications at all. The only reason they want more providers is so that they can get there beloved Telkom media into it.

As far as paying for SABC channels that is absolute rubbish. if that is the case then i should not have to pay my tv license at all.

Or alternatively Multichoice and the other providers should have the option not to use SABC at all in there boquets. I am pretty convinced there are far better options out there to use should they want to pay for a rubbish channel.

SABC must catch a wake up. they are a public broadcaster so if they want people to pay for there channels then they should become a pay tv service.

it is just another way the government is trying to line there pockets with other peoples hard earned money while the officials and directors sit on there a$$ doing nothing all day yet go home with lots of money for it.

the government must catch a wake up and start doing something to reign in these bastards.
 
At the end of the day, I watch SABC3 every now and then. Heroes was only broadcast on SABC3 and Law and Order is no longer on Hallmark so I watch it on SABC3. Apart from that I never tune in, although I do pay my tv licence. I would love to say I refuse to pay for it twice, but I cant if SABC get their own way! That is a ridiculous position to put the consumer in - at the end of the day, this isnt only a corporate issue, but a consumer one too - SABC should not be putting their consumers in this position and the regulator should take this into serious account when making thier decision.
 
He believes that SABC channels are of commercial value to subscription-TV. “Research shows that people would not subscribe if SABC were absent,” he claims.
Click to expand...
Any substantiation to back up that statement? Which research company, over what time period, covering which demographic of the population and what were the questions asked in the survey?

The way I see this issue, SABC is treading on dangerous ground.
1. By forcing Pay-TV operators to carry their channels AND to charge for the content would in effect remove the 'Public Broadcaster' status of the SABC as they will no longer be the broadcaster but rather content provider.

This would then nullify the ECA requirement SABC is depending on to obtain 'must carry' status. If not, then e-TV would have equal right to 'must carry' status.

2. It would be predudicial to expect the consumer to be burdened with the cost of the 'must carry' content as that is ALREADY paid by the legally mandatory SABC TV license. This cost, if it is indeed pushed through, should be borne by the SABC derived from the advertising revenue they would receive by the publication on the Pay-TV channels.

The SABC wants their content paid-for, then they should have no objection paying a portion of the 'additional' revenue they would receive from advertisers by reaching a wider trapped audience via pay-tv channels. The SABC cannot have it's cake and eat it too. If it does, then I feel very sorry for the state of democracy in this country.
 
LifelongGamer said:
Any substantiation to back up that statement? Which research company, over what time period, covering which demographic of the population and what were the questions asked in the survey?

The way I see this issue, SABC is treading on dangerous ground.
1. By forcing Pay-TV operators to carry their channels AND to charge for the content would in effect remove the 'Public Broadcaster' status of the SABC as they will no longer be the broadcaster but rather content provider.

This would then nullify the ECA requirement SABC is depending on to obtain 'must carry' status. If not, then e-TV would have equal right to 'must carry' status.

2. It would be predudicial to expect the consumer to be burdened with the cost of the 'must carry' content as that is ALREADY paid by the legally mandatory SABC TV license. This cost, if it is indeed pushed through, should be borne by the SABC derived from the advertising revenue they would receive by the publication on the Pay-TV channels.

The SABC wants their content paid-for, then they should have no objection paying a portion of the 'additional' revenue they would receive from advertisers by reaching a wider trapped audience via pay-tv channels. The SABC cannot have it's cake and eat it too. If it does, then I feel very sorry for the state of democracy in this country.
Click to expand...

Do you think they could get around this by NOT charging you for a TV licence and merely including it in your pay-tv subs?

What if you use more than one pay-tv operator? Will you effectively pay for SABC channels 3, 4 even 5 times? :eek:
 
timgaul said:
Do you think they could get around this by NOT charging you for a TV licence and merely including it in your pay-tv subs?

What if you use more than one pay-tv operator? Will you effectively pay for SABC channels 3, 4 even 5 times? :eek:
Click to expand...
Personnally, the solution I envision will probably NOT be taken seriously. What I propose is that the Television License be removed from the SABC and given to ICASA to oversee and manage. This involves establishing a centralised database similar to what was done for Mobile Number Portability. Consumers then pay a SINGLE license fee on an annual basis. TV operators (all of them from the SABC to the licensed Pay-TV ones) should then be legally obligated to ensure that you as a consumer are active on the database (and thus 'paid-up' for the current year) before activating your TV signal (regardless of whether analog / digital, satelite or IPTV).

This way the whole license fee becomes a non-issue and the service providers make their money from the content / service-delivery they offer. Then competition becomes the deciding factor - which is as it should be.

What do you think the chances are South Africa will head in this direction before 2012 (if at all)?
 
Last edited:
ToxicBunny said:
There is that as well..


and now that muh TV has been stolen, its going to be interesting when the SANBC try to get me for next years tv license fee... they can think again :)
Click to expand...

They'll send you to ITC:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X