SABC wants in on pay-TV earnings

[rpm]

http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Telecoms/1327.html

 

[Shake&Bake]

What a load of kuk (and mods edit away if you like please - I understand this may be offensive) BUT WILL IT NEVER END!?!?!?!?!!?

These slimy worms of an excuse for government (and I lean towards those in the ruling party that insist on these money making vendettas) will not stop at bleeding us dry.

We already pay a TV license fee for the bollocks we have to put up with. With such steps as they are wanting - they would just be adding another cost to us!

Forcing these new licensees to carry SABC is going to be at some cost - and that buck gets passed onto the consumer once again. So we end up footing the bill again - no matter how small - it adds up on a national level.

Slimy bastards!

/ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dudleydh]

Typical SABC gets forced down our throats and forced down the new pay-TV companies, and the SABC dee-mands its money. Well I say if you pay for a service you can deny a service.

It is like someone arriving everyday, without being asked, to crap on your lawn, then send you a bill for natural fertilizer. If you ask them to leave and refuse to pay for this service, then they prosecute you for having a garden.

Sorry if it looks like sh.t, and smells like sh.t, then it is ...

 

[Natas]

Thats complete k4k... I NEVER watch any of the local channels.. why? because they only ever have k4k on. I dont watch ANY of the locally made cr4p.

If pay TV guys are forced to carry and pay for those channels. its going ot effect their pricing... its not them that will have to pay for cr4p we will NEVER watch, it us, the consumers.... and it makes even less sense if you think about the fact that its your TV license that pays for these channels. So now we pay the license and then we carry the costs which are incurred by the Pay TV service Provider... so you pay twice for cr4p you never EVER fcuking watch

 

[The_Unbeliever]

I laughed at this :

A Telkom Media insider said, however, that it was unlikely it would carry SABC news content on its news channel. “We’re independent and for us to put SABC news on our channel, that would be a problem ...”

But, in all honesty and fairness, why am I forced to pay for a TV licence when all I do is watch videos and DVD's on mine?

In a submission to Icasa in May this year, the SABC said that if successful applicants for pay-TV licences were compelled by the regulator to carry its channels, they should also pay for the privilege.

Simple - the successful applicants won't carry SABC at all

But it still beats /me regarding the telly licence thing...

 

[antowan]

Radio access is all we need? Why does the SABC want to get other operators forced to carry their tv channels? Is it to make sure people can view hurricane emergency warnings or perhaps tsunami warnings?

Having ready access to SABC radio on any radio equipment is enough. There is NO reason to force pay tv operators to carry SABC. It is a bad and terrible idea with no functional use to anybody except the SABC.

 

[fskmh]

In a submission to Icasa in May this year, the SABC said that if successful applicants for pay-TV licences were compelled by the regulator to carry its channels, they should also pay for the privilege.

It called on Icasa to urgently implement both “must-carry” and “must-pay” provisions.

Does this not strike anyone as being extortionate and anti-competitive? Perhaps the Competition Committee should be looking into the implications of these demands. The general tone of the quotes in this article is rather shrill, I wonder if financial difficulties are forcing the SABC's hand.

Both its submission and the discussion document are premised on the 2005 Electronic Communications Act, which contains a clause requiring Icasa to “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 licensee”.

So DSTV is compelled to carry SABC 1, 2 and 3 in terms of its license, because it doesn't have a news service. But the SABC has recently withdrawn from the NEF and in doing so, compromised the independence of its news service. Surely the legality of this clause should be revisited?

The SABC’s general executive for content enterprise, Mavuso Mbebe, also argued earlier this year that pay-TV operators be required to verify that all their subscribers had TV licences .

This bit makes me wonder about the consequences for the SABC if their application fails. If pay-TV carriers are not forced to carry SABC content then they would not be able to argue that subscribers should pay for TV licenses, or worse still, that the revenue coming from TV licenses should be payable to SABC at all, but to a watchdog body like an S.A. version of Ofcom (and not Icasa either).

Asked about the financial implications for the new satellite platforms, he said: “Let’s not get into that at the moment. We’ve put our position to Icasa and when they make a decision, they will decide.”

Kganyago said the SABC would also try to position itself as a “content provider” for the new services.

Force-feeding and content provision are two distinct concepts, given that the carrier would have no choice if these anti-competitive demands are allowed by Icasa.

 

[Mike_De_Lange]

Im sorry but thats just bull****. They lost out initially. Its over! Now they try and squeeze themselves in! Thats horse ****!!!

 

[MFour]

Why does the SABC want to get other operators forced to carry their tv channels?

Simple really, again it's all about the money and marketing. If people have a affordable choice other than DSTV and SABC, who will end up watching the shait they broadcast on SABC? In turn who will want to advertise on a TV network with verry few viewers? In turn that means less money to line the fat cats pockets, which means they have to get off their backsides and start to work, providing competitve and ENTERTAINING content to the people... but that could proove too much for poor old SABC.

 

[qdada]

Could RPM use his contacts to find journalists that can investigate for us the reason ICASA wants public broadcaster(s ??) to be carried by other TV-Networks.

I do not understand the rationale behind these licensing conditions.

 

[bwana]

I laughed at this :



But, in all honesty and fairness, why am I forced to pay for a TV licence when all I do is watch videos and DVD's on mine?



Simple - the successful applicants won't carry SABC at all

But it still beats /me regarding the telly licence thing...

If that's the case get your tv denatured - then you dont have to pay for a license.

 

[Wyzak]

The SABC, aka government want to force it's propaganda down our throat. Short and sweet. Those who can afford DSTV and the other pay channels, have the most influence in this country and therefore the government NEEDS to be able to get to these people. So quite simply ICASA, aka governments lapdog, will obviously force the payTV operator to carry SABC's crap at no cost to SABC, and perhaps even at cost to payTV operator. We (unfortunately) live in a banana republic. Get use to it, or get out while you can.

 

[Wyzak]

If that's the case get your tv denatured - then you dont have to pay for a license.

Aren't you forced to pay SABC +- R300 for them to send out an inspector to come and see if your TV has been neatured even after you have to actually pay someone to neature it as well?

 

[Natas]

The problem with the SABC is that they have hopes of becoming a quality TV services provider. They need to accept that they are not and never will be. The function and DUTY of the SABC is produce the cr4p they have on there.... its supposed ot be cr4p and should stay crap. They are not Mnet and will never be able ot compete with them. I mean how much money do they make off tv licenses.... Etv is a free to air channel and they are miles better than any SABC channel. If SABC cannot even be better than Etv with all the cash they get from tv icenses then they should just give up..... throwing any more money at them would be like peeing against a strong wind.....

 

[Alan]

Aren't you forced to pay SABC +- R300 for them to send out an inspector to come and see if your TV has been neatured even after you have to actually pay someone to neature it as well?

 

[mancombseepgood]

My TV license says that SABC is a pay channel, albeit a cheap one.

 

[Nod]

My TV license says that SABC is a pay channel, albeit a cheap one.

And in SABC's case, you do actually get what you pay for, sadly.

 

[ic]

Simple really, again it's all about the money and marketing. If people have a affordable choice other than DSTV and SABC, who will end up watching the shait they broadcast on SABC? In turn who will want to advertise on a TV network with verry few viewers? In turn that means less money to line the fat cats pockets, which means they have to get off their backsides and start to work, providing competitve and ENTERTAINING content to the people... but that could proove too much for poor old SABC.

IMO you've hit the nail on its head there.

TV adverts are a big source of revenue for the SABC, MonoChoice and e-TV, and advertisers factor in demographics and cost when deciding which channels to advertise on and how frequently to have an advert broadcast.

It is reasonable to conclude that the SABC is scared that advertisers will spend more money advertising on the Pay-TV channels than on SABC, if the demographics say that's the best way of getting any particular advert out to the desired target audience [subset of consumers].

So forcing the Pay-TV network operators to carry SABC channels, implies that advertisers might still consider advertising on SABC channels as Pay-TV subscribers will have easy access to adverts on SABC channels broadcast via the Pay-TV networks.

The flaw in the SABC's logic, is that there has to be something worthwhile on the SABC's channels for Pay-TV subscribers to even consider watching the SABC channels and adverts.

About the "must-pay" [to the SABC] aspect, I don't know how the SABC1&2&3 broadcast content currently gets transmitted from the SABC to DSTV, but I expect it involves one or more expensive fibre links - probably that MonoChoice currently pays for [the link(s) that is] - unless the SABC uplinks its broadcasts directly via satellite for re-broadcasting via DSTV. If expensive links are required to get the broadcast content from the SABC to the Pay-TV network operators, then the Pay-TV network operators would already be paying for the initial terrestrial transmission of the content, and then the SABC still wants the Pay-TV network operators to pay for the actual content itself - that's before taking into account the actual satellite transmission broadcast costs for actually being forced to carry the additional SABC channel content...

Repeating what others have already posted: the costs associated with being forced to carry SABC channels content, would be passed on to Pay-TV subscribers, who probably don't want the SABC channels content anyway - I know I can live without SABC channels on DSTV etc if it means paying less.

 

[Gatecrasher]

Aren't you forced to pay SABC +- R300 for them to send out an inspector to come and see if your TV has been neatured even after you have to actually pay someone to neature it as well?

Man, I googled "neature" but it didn't feature.

 

[bekdik]

Was SABC excluded from bidding for pay for TV?