Television Licenses - The Truth Revealed

[LabAnimal]

but the definition is specific already. They are not going to redefine it for you alone.

The court is going to ask... can the device receive a television signal? Does it display the signal on the screen? Answer, Yes, Yes. Therefore the device fits the definition of a TV.

What makes you think you are so special that you are going to get off where thousands of others have been fined?

well, if you have a Monitor as a TV that has no tuner or VCR or TV card - the answer is NO all round! The SABC can stand on their head!

 

[Drunkard #1]

who are you trying to argue with here? This is the definition that has seen thousands of people fined for not having a TV license. If you want to argue with it... wait your turn in court.

Fined does not equal guilty. Paying a fine mostly means "I couldn't be bothered to waste my time fighting for R200" Which is exactly what the SABC's extortion department relies on. I'd like a reference to a court case please.

And the courts entertain all kinds of doobie-fueled attempts at interpretation from the defendant? Where ambiguity exists, the court will settle on the most obvious & reasonable definition.

Your "but now my pet rock needs a licence" explanation will get nailed to the wall.

Focus on the rock. Stare intensely at it. Don't let your gaze shift off it. Completely ignore the M-Net decoder right next to it. Wouldn't want you to become confused by my comparison.

For folks not staring at the rock, my question stands. Why doesn't an M-Net decoder require a TV licence? Because the "decoder+aerial" combination can't display the processed signal. Similarly, does a VCR require a TV licence? It's got a tuner built in just like the decoder. What about a VCR and a monitor? Probably doesn't need a licence either. So why does a monitor with a tuner built in require a licence if it isn't plugged into an aerial? What if the aerial socket is mauled? I doubt a good lawyer would have much trouble getting a client off the hook.

And yes, if I'm bored and rich and the SABC ever does find me, I'll take the case to court and report back. Don't hold your breath though, they're not going to come looking for me until they run out of soft targets. Enjoy your raping suckers.

 

[Budza]

So, how do I disable my TV? At the moment, it does not get any signal. All fuzz. If I clamp the Co-ax cable port at the back, is it still classified as working? Who can I get to verify it can no longer receive a signal? I will "pay" someone for this if needs be...

 

[ToxicBunny]

You need to pay the SABC R300 to get the "certificate" that your TV is denatured... and you'll probably have to pay it every year... so its cheaper to pay the license if you're on their books.

 

[Frankie]

When I bought my new Sony HD panel from Makro a few months ago they checked the status of my TV license and the word was that I owe them around R4,600 and until that was settled I could not buy the new Sony - we found a work-around.

The huge TV license bill stems from a few years back when my ID number was used to purchase a TV - now I have no idea who did that !!

I only use the Sony HD panel with the HDMI input and my own viewing material - they should make these things available without the tuner (at least in SA where there's absolutely no need for one).

The overdue TV license account does not reflect on my credit record, and it will remain unpaid, and if the inspector happens to get his timing right and visit my home when I'm there, which is about 6 weeks in a year, he will NOT gain access to the property (very secure).

I've got to live with the poor choice of the masses (ANC electorate) but there's no way in hell I'm paying for the ANC's official mouthpiece.

 

[LabAnimal]

Fined does not equal guilty. Paying a fine mostly means "I couldn't be bothered to waste my time fighting for R200" Which is exactly what the SABC's extortion department relies on. I'd like a reference to a court case please.



Focus on the rock. Stare intensely at it. Don't let your gaze shift off it. Completely ignore the M-Net decoder right next to it. Wouldn't want you to become confused by my comparison.

For folks not staring at the rock, my question stands. Why doesn't an M-Net decoder require a TV licence? Because the "decoder+aerial" combination can't display the processed signal. Similarly, does a VCR require a TV licence? It's got a tuner built in just like the decoder. What about a VCR and a monitor? Probably doesn't need a licence either. So why does a monitor with a tuner built in require a licence if it isn't plugged into an aerial? What if the aerial socket is mauled? I doubt a good lawyer would have much trouble getting a client off the hook.

And yes, if I'm bored and rich and the SABC ever does find me, I'll take the case to court and report back. Don't hold your breath though, they're not going to come looking for me until they run out of soft targets. Enjoy your raping suckers.

if the VCR has its tuner ripped out, then maybe, same applies to the Mnet Decoder! I realise they don't ask for TV licence when you buy a VCR (not sure about this) and I think a TV card aswell!, So technically, you are liable for a TV License just as much as I am because my TV has a tuner, but i'm not using that feature.

However, I still refuse to pay for that TV license! That said, I can't wait for my new Big Screen monitors! The Media Center's are built and waiting (and no, they don't have TV tuner cards!)

 

[LabAnimal]

You need to pay the SABC R300 to get the "certificate" that your TV is denatured... and you'll probably have to pay it every year... so its cheaper to pay the license if you're on their books.

lol! noway! they expect you to pay!??! SABC can forget it!

 

[HapticSimian]

lol! noway! they expect you to pay!??! SABC can forget it!

Yep, it wouldn't be yearly though. If you do have it done & then get another functional TV a year later and an inspector happens to come knocking a few years later... eish.

People are free not to view broadcast media & if they don't own anything enabling them to, then why should they pay? A once-off R300 doesn't sound terrible to me.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Given the uselessness of the SABC License dept, I can guarantee you it would be yearly, because they'll "forget" that you got it denatured.

As for paying the SABC to prove you don't have a TV License... thats just BS from start to finish. There is NOTHING that I could see in the law that says you are required to prove your equipment is unable to receive a signal.

 

[LazyLion]

Given the uselessness of the SABC License dept, I can guarantee you it would be yearly, because they'll "forget" that you got it denatured.

As for paying the SABC to prove you don't have a TV License... thats just BS from start to finish. There is NOTHING that I could see in the law that says you are required to prove your equipment is unable to receive a signal.

Ja, it is not worth it getting it denatured. You have to get a letter from an approved technician that it has been denatured (for which I am sure you pay a fee). Then you have to pay the TV License inspector R300 to certify that it has been denatured. If at any time in the future he finds that it has been restored, your will be fined, charged another inspection fee and be liable for all the years in between.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Yeah, if its legally required to inform them of such then its not worth it and they make it that way..

BUT (and i might be wrong here), but I couldn't find any legal requirement to inform the "Corporation" or to get the "Corporation" to certify that a monitor can't receive a broadcast signal, so in this instance, IF I buy a screen with no tuner, the SABC can fsck off if they think I am paying them anything to prove I don't need to pay my license.

 

[HapticSimian]

Yeah, if its legally required to inform them of such then its not worth it and they make it that way..

BUT (and i might be wrong here), but I couldn't find any legal requirement to inform the "Corporation" or to get the "Corporation" to certify that a monitor can't receive a broadcast signal, so in this instance, IF I buy a screen with no tuner, the SABC can fsck off if they think I am paying them anything to prove I don't need to pay my license.

You're 100% right though. If you buy a monitor and not a television and you don't connect it to DSTv/a VCR/MNet, there's no reason to run to them & exclaim that you don't need a licence... Denaturing a television warrants an inspection to ensure that you've done what you say you did - buying a monitor it might as well be a mango as far as licensing requirements go

 

[ToxicBunny]

Yes, but the problem is once you're on their system the "Corporation" seem to feel that its your duty to pay them for the rest of eternity.

My TV in jhb was stolen whilst I was away on holiday 2 years ago, and I told them it was stolen, but thats not good enough, they want all the documentation and affidavits etc etc before they'll entertain me not paying the license anymore, and well fsck that.. it will take me a day or 2 off work getting all the documentation they require (which they will lose every year), so they can fsck off basically, I stopped paying after the tv was stolen, and if they want to fine me they'll need to prove I have a tv that can receive a signal rather than the other way around, AND should I go buy a new TV.. the onus is on them to prove I've had one in the intervening years that was in an unlicensed residence if they want me to backpay.

 

[HapticSimian]

OK Toxic... whatever you say. You're wrong about where the burden of proof would lay, but as long as you've got yourself convinced

Seriously though, I can understand the frustration people go through in a situation like that. Most administrative tasks in this country of ours are not only done by, but administered by people only a rung or 2 above (or is it below, I forget ) trained monkeys in the intelligence stakes.

What gets my goat are the self-righteous knobs who maintain they 'won't pay' because they 'don't watch SABC' or they 'only watch Mnet'. THIS is the type of mentality that lead to this thread...

 

[ToxicBunny]

Actually... by law the burden of proof lies with them, not with me... IF they wish to fine me for not paying my TV license, they'll need to prove I've lived in an unlicensed residence with a TV for the intervening period.

 

[Sackboy]

Whereas not all television programmes (especially those involving speech) have sound at the maximum permitted level, advertisements do tend to use maximum volume. This contrast is usually the cause of the perceived excessive sound levels. Incidentally, this is not unique to South Africa: it is experienced world wide. British and American technicians have been trying to find a solution for years and have come up with one that is not only extremely expensive, but does not work well enough to warrant the outlay. It works on the principle that the transmission computer "reads" an advertisement and immediately reduces the volume. However, many ads are produced without processed audio, and those are then reduced to an almost inaudible level. When a real solution is found, the SABC will be sure to implement it.

There is no incentive for the SABC to reduce the volume of ads. They thrive on the revenue and do not want to upset the sponsors. Of course they could preview the ads before broadcast and adjust the volume, but they choose not to. Cut the BS and tell the truth!

 

[bekdik]

What is the position wrt licenses if the public broadcaster ceases to broadcast?

 

[ToxicBunny]

That is ultimately a VERY good question and one that I think needs to be answered.

If the SABC broadcast switches off at any time, they've failed in their most fundamental mandate and have therefore broken the contract with the people who pay their tv license. (This is my opinion of course, which will not be what the SABC says)

 

[BLIXEMPIE]

Wow. 100 posts. Maybe I should paste links to my threads in my sig as well.

 

[HapticSimian]

That is ultimately a VERY good question and one that I think needs to be answered.

If the SABC broadcast switches off at any time, they've failed in their most fundamental mandate and have therefore broken the contract with the people who pay their tv license. (This is my opinion of course, which will not be what the SABC says)

This question goes to the core of my entire reasoning behind this thread. You clearly didn't read much of the documentation on the first page. There is no contract between the 'people' and the public broadcaster in terms of a television license being payable. It is not money payable for a service rendered, it is a government-mandated fee.

As things stand the need for a licenced television would not disappear along with the SABC, just as the need for a vehicle licence would not disappear if all but 1 or 2 manufacturers cease vehicle sales in the country.

The licence entitles you to receive a broadcast signal, regardless of where that signal originates from.

*general remark*

Is it really such an abstract concept to grasp?