Television Licenses - The Truth Revealed

[online14230]

Dilemma 1

Heres MY situation:
My wife and I purchased a tv 8 months before we relocated to JHB. The TV AND the Licence were on my wifes name. A few weeks ago, VVM Attorneys send ME an SMS saying I have not paid my SABC ACCOUNT. an to contact them to arrange an "affordable repayment" to avoid judgement.
I have NEVER recieved and written correspondence from either the SABC or VVM. Disregarding the fact that I gave the set away (to my mother, who has a licence for her other set) when I moved, am I liable for ANYTHING? When we purchased the set, we purchased a licence as well. We were given a page stating my wifes details etc. and we were told that we will get further docs via mail.

Where do I stand now? Ive told the operator at VVM, after holding for about an hour, to take her little lawsuit and go to hell.

 

[HapticSimian]

Ya, VVM are a bunch of monkeys on the face of it - I wonder if they had to tender for the position of SABC's legal representatives?

I can't answer your question though; maybe your number ended up on the initial form along with your wife's? Maybe VVM have your number linked to someone else? It is worthwhile to sort out though, as their lack of administrative skill is hardly worth having a judgment against you. Also, keep in mind that a legal obligation is not dependent on receiving 'written correspondence'.

And, no, I need a job

 

[bex.cpt]

This entire thread stinks of a SABC rep trying to convince us of our obligation to pay TV License. The SABC can stand on their head fart the last unfinished movement by Mozart and STILL I will not pay my TV license. What utter b/s ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO? in my world it's the right thing to screw over every paristatal and I intend to fullfil that mandate

 

[PeterCH]

A TV licence is not a "service contract" between a licence holder and the SABC.

A TV licence is not a "service contract" between a licence holder and the SABC. Payment of TV licence fees is a statutory (legal) requirement in terms of an Act of Parliament, and does not confer any rights on a licence holder to make demands of the SABC. The State – not licence holders – prescribe the services to be rendered by the SABC.

Fine, I've never argued this. I have argued that it is an unfair law and since laws are made ON BEHALF OF and FOR THE GOOD OF the PUBLIC this law should be changed, seeing that it is unfair. NO MONEY should be channeled from the revenue from these licenses to anything related to the SABC.

Secondly we should not have to pay licenses anyway since there is no reason to do so. If the license payer can not expect anything in return for the law other than the 'right' to own a TV set this law should be changed and the licenses abandoned. I am sure that if we had a referendum or if every license payer petitioned their MP about this, this law would change overnight and it would be ILLEGAL to charge a license fee.

Thank you.

 

[HapticSimian]

Wouldn't argue with that. As I've mentioned I'm not a proponent of the whole tv licence schtick, regardless of what picture this thread might paint. This information was posted merely to clarify the current state of the laws/regulations in question i.e.

1. If you possess anything that can be deemed a 'television' under the law, you require a licence.
2. This licence is a legal requirement - there is no option.
3. Not watching the SABC's channels does not release you from your obligation.
4. Not agreeing with what they broadcast is irrelevant.
5. Being found in contravention is unlikely, but a huge pain in the ass if it does happen - not worth R225 per year in my opinion.

Hey, I'd vote 'no' in that referendum just like the rest of the folks here, but until that day comes at least I can tell the licence inspector to shove it with a clear conscience.

 

[playtym]

The way I see it is that R225 a year is a small price to pay for Engima and his mates at the SABC to leave me hell alone - I never watch their damn shows anyway.

Q: Who needs a television licence?
A: Any person or entity who has in his possession and/or uses a TV set.

And I've just found the perfect excuse to hog the remote.

"Seriously, it's the law. You cant use the TV unless you have your own licence."

 

[jirm]

I haeve the right to striiikkee - nou seerrvice nou pay

 

[dlk001]

5. Being found in contravention is unlikely, but a huge pain in the ass if it does happen - not worth R225 per year in my opinion.

R225 per year is peanuts compared to the DSTV monthly subscription I pay.

 

[undesign]

R225 per year is peanuts compared to the DSTV monthly subscription I pay.

Hours of SABC watched in a year - 1 (maybe)
Hours of DSTV watched a year - 2 hours per day average (sport included) x 365 = 730

SABC cost - R225/hour
DSTV cost - R450*12/730 = R7,40/hour

DSTV much cheaper

 

[dlk001]

Hours of SABC watched in a year - 1 (maybe)

So, the only time you ever watch SABC is when you check how useless it is?

For me, DSTV = Watch only European soccer and Formula One. So, I probably spend same time on SABC channels if not more.

 

[undesign]

So, the only time you ever watch SABC is when you check how useless it is?

For me, DSTV = Watch only European soccer and Formula One. So, I probably spend same time on SABC channels if not more.

Once a year I watch Isidingo

If it wasn't for sport I would have canceled DSTV, but we are years away from a better sports alternative.

 

[5thelement]

I don't care what the law says, it is a subscription fee. Because they are the public broadcaster they can't call it that. So, they invented a "TV License". Don't know bout you guys but I ain't taking my TV out on the road, so I don't need a license.

 

[Uli]

ok what happens when my tv is broken and I dont want a new one what do I do to get removed from the SABC so that they stop sending me yearly fees?

 

[HapticSimian]

Read page 1

 

[Vixremento]

I just wish I could buy a TV without a tuner (and then also without a license). Sadly we don't exactly have that option yet a lot of us are forced to pay for something we never use. I don't know what the quality of their channels is like these days but the last time I checked it was really a waste of money in my opinion...even at 255c per year it would still be too expensive for what I use it for...which is NADA (oh wait - I do use it to keep them off my back).

 

[BrianStephan]

This is almost like paying tax only X number of people X = 4.4 million ppl in this country pay tax and the rest are all on Grants from the government and then the government squanders all the tax payers money anyway so what diffrence does R224 or whatever a year make its a small price to pay to keep them away from your house and your life.

 

[alloytoo]

Sorry to bump the thread, but where in LAW (Not SABC FUD) does it say I have to provide the SABC with an affidavit regarding the disposal of my TV set?

 

[ToxicBunny]

It doesn't say anything of that nature in the Law...

I've told SABC to **** many a time regarding this issue.

 

[alloytoo]

It doesn't say anything of that nature in the Law...

I've told SABC to **** many a time regarding this issue.

Having perused the act I'm enclined to agree.

As far as I can tell I have no need to tell them anything (unless I were a dealer) and my obligation to pay the licence goes out the door with the Telly.

 

[HapticSimian]

Just my interpretation of the processes involved:

Being a license holder would infer the assumption that you would keep your television unless you explicitly prove the contrary. You cannot expect the SABC to smell that you've gotten rid of a once-licensed television.

I own a car that hasn't been driven in 2.5 years - for argument's sake I could've sold it for scrap two years ago, but unless I have it officially deregistered or I do the whole transfer-of-ownership thing, I will be expected to renew the license every year ad infinitum.

Having a valid television license is a legal requirement, which can only be cancelled through legally acceptable means, no?

/SABC Defence Force out...