Television Licenses - The Truth Revealed

[undesign]

You are a little - the SABC only acts as point of collection for tv licenses. From there the money goes to the government at large, from where a percentage is reapportioned to the SABC.

You are one of the people that suffer under the misconception that the fees go to them in its entirety, whilst this is simply not true. Regardless of your opinion, it does not release you from your obligation under the law.

I understand, and I don't really mind paying the R225...whatever per year.

BUT - you can de-correlate (is that a word?) as much as you want to, the fact is: SABC wastes money through incompetence ---> wants to increase fees to compensate.

That's all the correlation I need.

 

[davemc]

They ate my money. They made fat-cats, the are not doing anything to prevent that from re-occurring, they don't a cent form me again.

 

[HapticSimian]

They ate my money. They made fat-cats, the are not doing anything to prevent that from re-occurring, they don't a cent form me again.

Implying:
The received cents from you in the past,
you are on the system,
you will be harassed to the ends of the Earth,
in the eyes of the law, you are a criminal.

All the best...

 

[BLIXEMPIE]

The state may have built the roads I drive on, but God created the frequency spectrum on which I receive my analogue TV signals, it's not man-made. Maybe I should pay my TV license fee to my church.
And since DStv can be received via AV or HDMI inputs directly from the decoder, it doesn't take up any of the precious frequency spectrum. And the PAS7/10 satellite is not state owned or managed. So if I do not watch SABC, why should I pay my TV license fee again if my TV or PC only has AV inputs?

 

[HapticSimian]

The state may have built the roads I drive on, but God created the frequency spectrum on which I receive my analogue TV signals, it's not man-made. Maybe I should pay my TV license fee to my church.
And since DStv can be received via AV or HDMI inputs directly from the decoder, it doesn't take up any of the precious frequency spectrum. And the PAS7/10 satellite is not state owned or managed. So if I do not watch SABC, why should I pay my TV license fee again if my TV or PC only has AV inputs?

Your answer is on the previous page:

1.2 Access to Broadcasting Frequencies
In all countries, the electromagnetic spectrum (broadcasting frequencies) through which all TV and radio signals are transmitted and received is regarded as a national asset. Since only a limited number of frequencies are available it is strictly controlled by the State. Broadcasters pay by way of a radio or television broadcasting licence for the right of using this resource to broadcast programmes to their viewers. TV viewers, in turn, need a television licence for being in possession of a device (a TV set) that enables them to access those frequencies in order to receive broadcast programmes. The television licence fee is a levy imposed by the State, not the SABC, on access to South Africa's broadcasting frequencies. In the same way that a vehicle licence grants a motorcar owner access to the country's road network, a TV licence authorises the use of a television set to access the broadcasting frequencies.

1.3 What if One Never Watches SABC TV?
The licence fee therefore remains payable even if one never watches SABC1, 2 or 3 but only the M-Net pay channel, the private broadcaster e-tv or the digital DStv satellite service, since the signal still reaches one's television set via the broadcasting frequencies.

In the same way that one has to pay a fairly high additional toll fee for travelling in one′s motor-car on a multiple-lane toll road, an expensive additional subscription fee is payable for access to pay-TV channels such as M-Net or DStv. Subscription to the latter currently costs ±R440.00 per month. However, subscribing to a pay-TV channel doesn't exempt one from paying one's television licence, in the same way that paying for travelling on a toll road does not exempt one from licensing one's motor vehicle.

In fact, a valid licence is required even if one does not use one's TV set at all – since it is still in one′s possession and has the capability of receiving a TV signal. In the same way that one isn't exempted from payment of a vehicle licence on the grounds of "not using" one's motorcar, that is not a legally acceptable reason for non-payment of one's TV licence fees. As long as one has a TV set in one′s possession, the licence remains payable – regardless of how it is used or whether it is used at all. There is no legal obligation on the SABC to "send out TV licence inspectors to verify that my TV set is not being used", as demanded by some viewers.

To add: Yes, your DSTv signal DOES COME VIA THE SPECTRUM. No additional satellite can broadcast on the same frequency and with the same footprint as PAS7/10 concurrently, thus it forms part of the limited resource.

 

[Slootvreter]

The state may have built the roads I drive on, but God created the frequency spectrum on which I receive my analogue TV signals, it's not man-made. Maybe I should pay my TV license fee to my church.

Oh please. Did your god build the transmitters as well?

 

[SYNERGY]

My question to you Engima is:
What if you have a (40") Monitor which is incapable of receiving a TV signal. Why are we still forced to pay for a license?

 

[HapticSimian]

My question to you Engima is:
What if you have a (40") Monitor which is incapable of receiving a TV signal. Why are we still forced to pay for a license?

A monitor connected to what? If it's used to display a broadcast signal (not solely recorded media) its connected to something that is able to receive such a signal. If not, then no licence needed.

 

[SYNERGY]

Its only connected to a DVD player. Nothing else.

How do I explain that to those @#$% idiots that nag about the TV License. In the end-we just paid it :/

Thanks for the info

 

[undesign]

@enigma243 - are you are an undercover license inspector? We all know nepotism is rife in the SABC - did your dad arrange the job for you?

 

[davemc]

Implying:
The received cents from you in the past,
you are on the system,
you will be harassed to the ends of the Earth,
in the eyes of the law, you are a criminal.

All the best...

Sent in my Affidavid at about 09H30 via Fax.
I have also sent it registered mail.
And, I will go and collect proof of them accepting the registered mail.
And, I will show this to the judge in court in 4 years time.
I have applied the breaks.

 

[reederbok]

Your posts are strong on the law enigma, but weak in describing the practical realities of the application thereof.

Sure, if the SABC worked as mandated, I think a lot fewer people would have a problem paying their TV licences.

 

[hj2k_x]

My question to you Engima is:
What if you have a (40") Monitor which is incapable of receiving a TV signal. Why are we still forced to pay for a license?

If it is incapable of receiving a TV signal then you need no license. Tell them to f off.

 

[HapticSimian]

Your posts are strong on the law enigma, but weak in describing the practical realities of the application thereof.

Sure, if the SABC worked as mandated, I think a lot fewer people would have a problem paying their TV licences.

It might be, but it does not release you from your legal obligation. We don't go around capping our fellow citizens just because the police battle more often than not to capture murderers, however tempting it may be to open fire sometimes.

And no, I'm not an SABC employee - I would rather work for Pikitup given the SABC's current state. I have wondered about the possible rewards for pointing their legal department to a corner of the Interwebz where multitudes of people admit to dodging the licence fees, though

Kidding, of course. The first posts in this thread give all the information relevant to TV licences in South Africa. It is within the public domain. If, after seeing that you are acting illegally, you continue to do so then it is your free choice I suppose. My aim is only to inform, not to persecute.

 

[remybfg10k]

RAS for SABC License collectors

 

[hj2k_x]

Your posts are strong on the law enigma, but weak in describing the practical realities of the application thereof.

Sure, if the SABC worked as mandated, I think a lot fewer people would have a problem paying their TV licences.

Well said.

Also the DSTV vs toll road analogy is weak at best.

 

[reederbok]

It might be, but it does not release you from your legal obligation. We don't go around capping our fellow citizens just because the police battle more often than not to capture murderers, however tempting it may be to open fire sometimes.

And no, I'm not an SABC employee - I would rather work for Pikitup given the SABC's current state. I have wondered about the possible rewards for pointing their legal department to a corner of the Interwebz where multitudes of people admit to dodging the licence fees, though

Kidding, of course. The first posts in this thread give all the information relevant to TV licences in South Africa. It is within the public domain. If, after seeing that you are acting illegally, you continue to do so then it is your free choice I suppose. My aim is only to inform, not to persecute.

I do not own a device capable of receiving this thing you call TV.

Not paying one's tv licence is a reasonable expression of passive resistance against injustice. It can hardly be compared to vigilante kangaroo court murders enigma.

 

[HapticSimian]

I do not own a device capable of receiving this thing you call TV.

Not paying one's tv licence is a reasonable expression of passive resistance against injustice. It can hardly be compared to vigilante kangaroo court murders enigma.

It is comparable in the sense that your argument revolves around a statement of "the SABC don't perform as mandated, thus I won't pay" when the legislation very clearly states that the two matters are separate - your tv license is not a service agreement with the broadcaster, it is a lawfully stipulated fee to the government.

If you personally don't own a television as defined by the law, then so be it - that was not clear from your original post.

 

[reederbok]

It is comparable in the sense that your argument revolves around a statement of "the SABC don't perform as mandated, thus I won't pay" when the legislation very clearly states that the two matters are separate - your tv license is not a service agreement with the broadcaster, it is a lawfully stipulated fee to the government.

And that government, it is lawfully stipulated, must uphold and promote the mandate of the public broadcaster. Which they do not. Tell me, where does the first offense originate from?

Not all laws are created in relative equality to one another. It is more of an offense, lawfully and morally, to murder someone than to jaywalk/to not wear a seatbelt/to drive 0.0005cm over the white stop street line/to not pay a failing corrupt broadcaster who does not fulfill their lawful mandate.

 

[HapticSimian]

And that government, it is lawfully stipulated, must uphold and promote the mandate of the public broadcaster. Which they do not. Tell me, where does the first offense originate from?

Not all laws are created in relative equality to one another. It is more of an offense, lawfully and morally, to murder someone than to jaywalk/to not wear a seatbelt/to drive 0.0005cm over the white stop street line/to not pay a failing corrupt broadcaster who does not fulfill their lawful mandate.

Agreed, but the flaw in your argument is this: you're NOT paying a service fee to the broadcaster in order to have a service rendered, you're paying a fee to the government via the broadcaster allowing you the use of a national asset.

I still maintain - if tv license fees are destined to remain with us, move it onto the municipal billing system and be done with it. This would at least break the automatic connection Joe Public makes between the SABC and tv licenses.