Television Licenses - The Truth Revealed

[wikus]

the money goes to the government at large

O goody, the more reason to withhold our TV license fees.

 

[reederbok]

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.

No, if TV licences remain, do it the proper damn way and partly fund the broadcaster from fees, not via the national treasury (ie at the bequest of parliament/minister/rent-seeking politicians). Extract the broadcaster from the government and give it more financial and editorial autonomy.

Otherwise, and this speaks to your point about paying for what you describe as a "national asset", for all intents and purposes, in practice the SABC is NOT a national asset and is not run as a national asset...it is a ruling party asset used, abused, and now run into the ground by the ruling party (the very people charged with it's CUSTODIANSHIP).

 

[HapticSimian]

Perhaps the spectacular implosion of the SABC in recent months will be a catalyst for that to start happening... either that, or they'll be 'decommissioned'. If the SABC does vanish of the radar it wouldn't necessitate the disappearance of a tv license, though - it would simply become another organ of government's headache to administer.

 

[SABCisaloser]

I smell bribes

 

[bwana]

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.

All TV licence fees collected by the SABC must be used by the them solely for the public service to be provided by them.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Also (and I do stand to be corrected on this), but you're copying and pasting SABC's interpretation of the Broadcasting Act... which is not necessarily the CORRECT interpretation.

The way I read the Act, you don't need to prove to the SABC you no longer own a TV capable of receiving a signal, and you do not need to prove to them the monitor you use is incapable of receiving a signal.

 

[HapticSimian]

All TV licence fees collected by the SABC must be used by the them solely for the public service to be provided by them.

Yes, read up on this in the interim, which also explains why eTV & Multichoice don't get any of this revenue. If they were to voluntarily broadcast programming conforming to the public broadcasting mandate, they could apply for a percentage of the funds...

 

[3G-Spot]

DVB-H signal enabled on some mobile TV phones- license required for that too??

 

[HapticSimian]

DVB-H signal enabled on some mobile TV phones- license required for that too??

I believe this is still in a testing phase, but if implemented then most likely. Keep in mind this is new technology and it remains to be seen which way it will go, but according to the letter of the law, most likely.

 

[HazMan]

What then?

Engima, perhaps you could answer or find an answer to this one:

What happens when DTT goes live and the analogue signal is turned off ? My current TV will no longer be capable of receiving the broadcast signal without a set-top box - so can I finally say goodbye to paying my licence ?

 

[HapticSimian]

Engima, perhaps you could answer or find an answer to this one:

What happens when DTT goes live and the analogue signal is turned off ? My current TV will no longer be capable of receiving the broadcast signal without a set-top box - so can I finally say goodbye to paying my licence ?

I think it's a little to soon to make that call - we don't know exactly what's going to happen with regards to future analogue terrestrial broadcasts. Just thinking, but what it community stations start popping up?

I would assume that if it is to be a blanket blackout of analogue signals, your television would no longer be able to receive anything resembling a broadcast? Maybe the definition of what a 'television' is would need revision, and sets like yours would be reclassified as monitors... Who knows.

 

[Hein_JHB]

What if someone with a DVB-H signal enabled cell phone from overseas come to visit South Africa, will he need a license if he want to watch tv on his cell phone

 

[ToxicBunny]

See I have an issue with that when DTT comes on stream and the dual-illumination period ends...

I have NO intention of getting a set top box to watch SABC or anything.. All the channels I want are on DSTV... and from what I can gather, the freed up analogue spectrum will be used for other things rather than television

 

[HapticSimian]

See I have an issue with that when DTT comes on stream and the dual-illumination period ends...

I have NO intention of getting a set top box to watch SABC or anything.. All the channels I want are on DSTV... and from what I can gather, the freed up analogue spectrum will be used for other things rather than television

You're still outside the law on that one. The license entitles you to receive the services of a broadcaster, defined by the Broadcasting Act as "any legal or natural person who composes or packages television or radio programme services for reception by the public or sections of the public or subscribers to such a service irrespective of technology used". That covers DSTv as well.

 

[LabAnimal]

The SABC can suck my hairy nuts before I'd pay them anything for owning a TV. My TV is just for DVD's and my Media Center. I don't own a single decoder, I don't have an arial - nothing... So FAIL to SABC.

 

[Vegeta]

I have a 32" LCD Computer monitor hooked up to a computer, bought from a computer hardware store. It has no TV tuner and is unable to receive the signals, it only has RGB yellow black and red and DVi input. I dont watch any SABC on it at all ever. Am i a kitty murderer :erm:

A friend of mine has DSTV only no analog antenna no tv only a computer lcd. He watches DSTV. I told him he's a kitty murderer if he doesnt have a tv lic :erm:

Is my logic correct?

 

[mashster]

Could the reason why you have never seen them in Gugulethu be because, you never set your foot there!

Just a question!

As I've said before, I won't pay a TV license as long as those fsckers in Gugulethu or somewhere are watching on my stolen televisions for free. I don't see a TV license inspector coming around there.

 

[HapticSimian]

Vegeta, your logic is flawless. Kitties are safe from you, but they cower behind rows of puffy pillows at the mention of your friend's name.

 

[Drunkard #1]

The SABC can suck my hairy nuts before I'd pay them anything for owning a TV. My TV is just for DVD's and my Media Center. I don't own a single decoder, I don't have an arial - nothing... So FAIL to SABC.

This is a typical case of "don't trust the SABC's interpretation of the broadcasting act" If you don't have an aerial, you CAN'T receive their signal. And yet their "give us all your money" interpretation of the act still considers you liable for payment.

As far as I'm concerned:
a "monitor" without a tuner isn't a TV.
a "tuner" (such as an M-NET decoder or a VCR) without a monitor isn't a TV.
so then how the hell does the SABC construe a monitor and a tuner without an aerial to be a TV?

They abuse their access to an endless supply of taxpayers money, paying for an endless supply of lawyers, for the sole purpose of unlawfully taking money from people who would never be found liable by a court. They're no better than a thug stealing from people by threat of violence.

If someones bored (and rich) enough to take this case to court, I'm sure that the SABC will see their ass.

As for your "It's the law" answer to all opposition, Enigma243, I've broken plenty of laws so far, and yet this is the one I feel least guilty about breaking.

 

[HapticSimian]

This is a typical case of "don't trust the SABC's interpretation of the broadcasting act" If you don't have an aerial, you CAN'T receive their signal. And yet their "give us all your money" interpretation of the act still considers you liable for payment.

As far as I'm concerned:
a "monitor" without a tuner isn't a TV.
a "tuner" (such as an M-NET decoder or a VCR) without a monitor isn't a TV.
so then how the hell does the SABC construe a monitor and a tuner without an aerial to be a TV?

They abuse their access to an endless supply of taxpayers money, paying for an endless supply of lawyers, for the sole purpose of unlawfully taking money from people who would never be found liable by a court. They're no better than a thug stealing from people by threat of violence.

If someones bored (and rich) enough to take this case to court, I'm sure that the SABC will see their ass.

As for your "It's the law" answer to all opposition, Enigma243, I've broken plenty of laws so far, and yet this is the one I feel least guilty about breaking.

As mentioned, I am not a proponent of the law itself. I merely get annoyed when people apply flawed logic in order to make themselves feel better about their choice to not comply with a given law.

So, care to plug a set of R50 bunny ears into your monitor/tuner combination? Voila - TV

I've made my stance clear insofar your ability as an individual to disobey a given law but then it can also be expected that you accept the possible repercussions of your actions.