-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
Sentech wants more money
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
The_Unbeliever
Honorary Master
Not again?
I thought it was covered a while ago...
Sure it was covered.
That sure is a lot of money...
I thought it was covered a while ago...
Sure it was covered.That sure is a lot of money...
MadMailMan
Expert Member
R100 million for the fat cats and bribes. Sorry for "management" and "facilitation". Then R150 million for the actual network. Seems government might have gotten this one right. Lets hope the spend on the network first.
pkid
Expert Member
Like a broken record...
AirWolf
Honorary Master
You think they use money instead of tissue paper in their rest rooms? 
Road runner
Expert Member
Just another Parastatal. Wat verwag julle?
Ou grote
Honorary Master
Are they building their towers out of money?
Road runner
Expert Member
LOL! 
Good one.
Good one.killadoob
Honorary Master
i think the next mandate should be to shut them down
iburst is not great but its really good if you cannot get adsl
iburst is not great but its really good if you cannot get adsl
plugger123
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 520
- Reaction score
- 11
Incompetent statement:
>> Sentech has long blamed a lack of funding for its lackluster performance
Competent statement:
>> Sentech has long blamed a lack of competence for its lackluster performance
>> Sentech has long blamed a lack of funding for its lackluster performance
Competent statement:
>> Sentech has long blamed a lack of competence for its lackluster performance
AirWolf
Honorary Master
Money going to right place?
Ok, the way I have it, TV / Radio licenses was initiated to fund our telecommunication network. Back then, the only content provider was the SABC. That was the case with both radio and television networks. SABC is a state owned business, and technically should be funded by tax and adverts. Back then, the coverage for especially TV was not that dense, and it was only fair to "tax" the people that can actually use a TV, and thus enter the "SABC/SAUK TV license.
Things have changed since then. Everybody can have a reception. If not terrestrial, then Satellite. Secondly, SABC is a not the only content provider. Players like Naspers with their Multichoice since the 80's and Midi TV with ETV in the 90's joined. They share the network with SABC. Also, advertising have increased on SABC significantly since they started back in the 70's. I remember a time when there were no advertising on Sundays, not to mention infomercials. Yet, the SABC spend a great deal on their own time on air to advertise them self and to urge people to pay them. I believe a lot of the revenue generated from these licenses is being used in this campaign. That does not make sense at all if one considers that it was supposed to go to the development of infrastructure.
So if TV licenses must keep our infrastructure alive, and Sentence h are the company that do that, then this money must go to them. Bearing in mind that they also provide service to Etv and Multichoice, it is unfair that only the SABC get the cut. Considering that that this infrastructure is state owned and managed, the money for it must be from our tax. We don’t pay a license fee to the DOD or Police. If you only want basic education, it can be free, and you can choose for that to be the case. SABC is basic entertainment, and if you choose basic entertainment, you should not pay for it. It should then be viewed as a state function. Funding should then be provided by the state and adverts only.
If the governments loose the SABC TV license, I am prepared to pay more tax to pay Sentech to upkeep a network that everybody use. This way, not only SABC will benefit, but also the other providers that we use. It makes sense that everybody will pay, since it is deducted from taxes. I know that people start screaming when they hear extra taxing, but for people who do pay their license, it would just be money that the were paying anyway to the SABC. More people will thus pay, so it would cost less.
The issue of TV Licenses prevails in Britain as well, as only the BBC get the money, with ITV, Sky and others players getting no cut. Paying a license fee to the BBC is compulsory by law if you own a Television receiver. It is thus of no surprise that it we have the same problem in South Africa, as the SABC learned a lot from the BBC back then.
Ok, the way I have it, TV / Radio licenses was initiated to fund our telecommunication network. Back then, the only content provider was the SABC. That was the case with both radio and television networks. SABC is a state owned business, and technically should be funded by tax and adverts. Back then, the coverage for especially TV was not that dense, and it was only fair to "tax" the people that can actually use a TV, and thus enter the "SABC/SAUK TV license.
Things have changed since then. Everybody can have a reception. If not terrestrial, then Satellite. Secondly, SABC is a not the only content provider. Players like Naspers with their Multichoice since the 80's and Midi TV with ETV in the 90's joined. They share the network with SABC. Also, advertising have increased on SABC significantly since they started back in the 70's. I remember a time when there were no advertising on Sundays, not to mention infomercials. Yet, the SABC spend a great deal on their own time on air to advertise them self and to urge people to pay them. I believe a lot of the revenue generated from these licenses is being used in this campaign. That does not make sense at all if one considers that it was supposed to go to the development of infrastructure.
So if TV licenses must keep our infrastructure alive, and Sentence h are the company that do that, then this money must go to them. Bearing in mind that they also provide service to Etv and Multichoice, it is unfair that only the SABC get the cut. Considering that that this infrastructure is state owned and managed, the money for it must be from our tax. We don’t pay a license fee to the DOD or Police. If you only want basic education, it can be free, and you can choose for that to be the case. SABC is basic entertainment, and if you choose basic entertainment, you should not pay for it. It should then be viewed as a state function. Funding should then be provided by the state and adverts only.
If the governments loose the SABC TV license, I am prepared to pay more tax to pay Sentech to upkeep a network that everybody use. This way, not only SABC will benefit, but also the other providers that we use. It makes sense that everybody will pay, since it is deducted from taxes. I know that people start screaming when they hear extra taxing, but for people who do pay their license, it would just be money that the were paying anyway to the SABC. More people will thus pay, so it would cost less.
The issue of TV Licenses prevails in Britain as well, as only the BBC get the money, with ITV, Sky and others players getting no cut. Paying a license fee to the BBC is compulsory by law if you own a Television receiver. It is thus of no surprise that it we have the same problem in South Africa, as the SABC learned a lot from the BBC back then.