Corelli

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
2,111
Face it we all complain because to watch sport its basically 1000pm. Offer us the same service for less and we will pay. As long as it is in 4k. Or 8k.

But give us crap quality, and no sport and its a no go. Simple as that.
 

HunterNW

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
19,597
Well, the model that SABC is proposing isn't unique nor did they come up with the idea. They've seen it work in Germany and want to adopt it here. Hence me mentioning it.
This is SA, not Germany. Have you seen the millions of shacks with dishes ? Think they will be part of paying this tax ?
Answer: NO.

So SABC, anc can go stick a live eel up their kfc outlets.
 

Priapus

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
7,947
This is SA, not Germany. Have you seen the millions of shacks with dishes ? Think they will be part of paying this tax ?
Answer: NO.

So SABC, anc can go stick a live eel up their kfc outlets.

There are exemptions to the tax; same a Germany has exemptions. So if the people in shacks are excluded; then I think that is fair. They're below the poverty line and shouldn't be made to pay this.

Same as if you're unemployed in Germany; you don't pay.
 

Ipwn 4

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
1,858
You guys know Germany has this model in place right?
Since 2013 all citizens have to pay. Regardless if they have a device or not to watch tv or listen to the radio. Currently their fee is 18 euros per house per month.

I can see where the SABC are coming from. The current model is outdated and doesn’t work. Germany ditched that model in 2013 for the same reasons.
Have you seen the garbage the SABC produces? Have you read the stories around the corruption?

Regardless of how they implement I refuse to pay, the same goes for e tolls.
 

elf_lord_ZC5

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
8,846
So they tapping the same vat as before, with their biggest audience still excluded. Sure recipe for failure.
 

HunterNW

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
19,597
There are exemptions to the tax; same a Germany has exemptions. So if the people in shacks are excluded; then I think that is fair. They're below the poverty line and shouldn't be made to pay this.

Same as if you're unemployed in Germany; you don't pay.
They have money to pay for the dish - they can pay the tax. Fck poverty.
 

R13...

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
39,810
How do they propose to collect this outside of forcing DStv to do their work for them? Unless the plan is to just fleece dtsv subscribers. Cause otherwise this will have the same compliance rate as normal the existing licence regime.
 

Afon Kulikov

Forging
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
38,464
You guys know Germany has this model in place right?
Since 2013 all citizens have to pay. Regardless if they have a device or not to watch tv or listen to the radio. Currently their fee is 18 euros per house per month.

I can see where the SABC are coming from. The current model is outdated and doesn’t work. Germany ditched that model in 2013 for the same reasons.
Works for Germany and other 1st world countries, not for a failed criminal state where 10% of the population pays and the rest carry on watching the anc criminals propaganda machine for free.
RSA is not Germany, a European country, nor is it anywhere close to a 1st world country. We have seen in the past where these anc muppets try something that is used in 1st world countries here in RSA and fail spectacularly.
 
Last edited:

MightyQuin

Not amused...
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
25,585
You guys know Germany has this model in place right?
Since 2013 all citizens have to pay. Regardless if they have a device or not to watch tv or listen to the radio. Currently their fee is 18 euros per house per month.

I can see where the SABC are coming from. The current model is outdated and doesn’t work. Germany ditched that model in 2013 for the same reasons.
Don't worry.jpg
 

MagNorthDigital

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
122
There are exemptions to the tax; same a Germany has exemptions. So if the people in shacks are excluded; then I think that is fair. They're below the poverty line and shouldn't be made to pay this.

Same as if you're unemployed in Germany; you don't pay.
So that's 6.1% not paying in Germany
And 34.4% in south africa

It's like comparing yourself to a powerlifter. You simply cannot pull 300Kg off the floor, while they do it for reps.
 

Vrotappel

Bulls fan
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
23,120
There are exemptions to the tax; same a Germany has exemptions. So if the people in shacks are excluded; then I think that is fair. They're below the poverty line and shouldn't be made to pay this.

Same as if you're unemployed in Germany; you don't pay.
As a country we are already overtaxed.

So basically you propose a system that the ones that don't want to watch the garbage must pay for the ones that are watching the garbage and is in fact not paying and will be exempt from paying.
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
99,496
There are exemptions to the tax; same a Germany has exemptions. So if the people in shacks are excluded; then I think that is fair. They're below the poverty line and shouldn't be made to pay this.

Same as if you're unemployed in Germany; you don't pay.

That generally works because the programming would be aimed at the majority of viewers who use the services... In Germany the majority are paying then because their unemployment rate is sitting at 6.1% compared to our 34.4%.

When the programming will be focused largely on the people not paying, then it kind of makes it hard to justify really.
 

Priapus

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
7,947
As a country we are already overtaxed.

So basically you propose a system that the ones that don't want to watch the garbage must pay for the ones that are watching the garbage and is in fact not paying and will be exempt from paying.

I'm not the one proposing the model. Just saying its not unique. Sure it needs tweaking to work in SA but I get where the SABC are coming from.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about it. Chances are this won't happen anyway so its a ,moot point.
 

system32

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
4,758
MultiChoice has argued against collecting fees on the SABC’s behalf but favours a device-independent, technology-neutral household levy for public broadcasting.
IIRC, MultiChoice colluded with SABC to prevent having a Conditional Access Module (CAM) in the Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) migration.

Was a really short sighted, self serving move by Cloudy & SABC at the time.

MultiChoice have CAM but is not interested in collecting TV Licenses.
SABC can't collect licenses as they don't have CAM.
SABC can't broadcast some HD content on DTT as there is no content protection.

SABC please just shutdown already - no one that pays watches you anyway.
 
Top