TV licence fee increase

I'll watch SABC again next year on World Cup season...
 
Thats bull. Im not going to get an SABC license, because im tired of generations mid-week, weekend, and anytime Generations commercials. I will rather watch tv illegaly.
 
Why are we still being forced into paying for sh*t that we don't want to watch, just to own a TV? I don't want to watch soapies, Oprah, 3Talk and a bunch of crap in languages that I don't understand! :mad:
 
Smooth Criminal said:
Why are we still being forced into paying for sh*t that we don't want to watch, just to own a TV? I don't want to watch soapies, Oprah, 3Talk and a bunch of crap in languages that I don't understand! :mad:
Click to expand...
you own a tv you must have a license, not like owing a car but if you want to drive it you must have a license.

i still regret the day i got a tv license. :(
 
Why pay more? ... to see more "quality coverage" on SABC News telling us Castro went to University 4 years before he was born
 
apogeeza said:
Why pay more? ... to see more "quality coverage" on SABC News telling us Castro went to University 4 years before he was born
Click to expand...

Actually, ahem, Castro went to university 6 years before he was born, but who's counting Hehe, The image is here

Although I pay my TV license, the only thing on SABC [at the moment] that I'm aware of is Survivor.
 
Last edited:
Smooth Criminal said:
Why are we still being forced into paying for sh*t that we don't want to watch, just to own a TV? I don't want to watch soapies, Oprah, 3Talk and a bunch of crap in languages that I don't understand! :mad:
Click to expand...

Just to comment on Mr Smooth. I have also tried to argue my way around this in circles many times. The fact still stands that you are paying a license to the government not the sabc, the sabc in the olden days were appointed to collect the license on behalf of the government thus do they collect a minimal fee on it for them selfs. We are paying a license for the reciever that is in the tv the actual device that can recieve a free to air tv signal. So no matter how much we run in circles with explanations and excuses if you want to buy a tv and it can recieve a tv signal you must pay the license fee whether you only watch cartoon channel or just natgeo.
 
Come to think of it all of this is a result of poor network infrastructure in our country if the old boozers stopped wasting money on crap and they went and actually spent money on good infrastructure and we were on track we wouldn't just be reliant on a 2 broadcaster monopoly we would be able to enjoy cable tv or pay for what you watch.
 
@rwtpl, the government works FOR us, not the other way round.
It's up to us to make it damn clear that we do not want the state to run a television station.
Unfortunately, we keep arguing about semantics instead of simply saying No.
 
I’m sorry but why must I pay for a service which doesn’t even cater for my needs, religion and skin color. There’s nothing good to watch on any of the SABC channels, and increasing the TV license fee is just going to make space for more of the tax payers money being spend on these ridiculous parties and waste more money!
 
I'm so mad at this increase.

But then, if i'm honest, it's R2 extra per month and not worth getting upset about.

PS: I still hate the local garbage they waste money producing.
 
davemc said:
It's up to us to make it damn clear that we do not want the state to run a television station.
Click to expand...

As I understand it the license is actually for the Air Wave Receiver that enable a device to receive and view OPEN Channels. (Just like it's for example illegal to listen (Or have a device capable of, i'm not sure) to reserved Police radio frequencies)

In other words the "control" and licensing is about the radio and air wave frequencies where nr 1, 2, 3 etc are open for the public, provided that they have a license for each device that can receive it, and nr 10, 11, 12 etc reserved and paid for by DSTV that then just add it to their fees)

If you adjust your TV so that it cannot receive the open air waves you don't need a "TV" license for such TV.
 
Might even be a business opportunity for an appropriate technician to offer a service where he adjust TV sets so that it cannot receive the open signals (If possible) and are therefore not subjected to a TV license.
 
Any legal expert can help us!!

Quote from CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL 2008

PREAMBLE
The people of South Africa recognise—
That apartheid and discriminatory laws of the past have burdened the nation with
unacceptably high levels of poverty, illiteracy and other forms of social and
economic inequality;
That it is necessary to develop and employ innovative means to—
(a) fulfil the rights of historically disadvantaged persons and to promote their full
participation as consumers;
(b) protect the interests of all consumers, ensure accessible, transparent and
efficient redress for consumers who are subjected to abuse or exploitation in
the marketplace; and
(c) to give effect to internationally recognised customer rights;
..............................
Click to expand...

Consumer’s right to select suppliers
13. (1) A supplier must not require, as a condition of offering to supply or supplying any goods or services, or as a condition of entering into an agreement or transaction, that
the consumer must—
(a) purchase any other particular goods or services from that supplier;
(b) enter into an additional agreement or transaction with the same supplier or a designated third party; or
(c) agree to purchase any particular goods or services from a designated third
party, unless the supplier—
(i) can show that the convenience to the consumer in having those goods or services bundled outweighs the limitation of the consumer’s right to choice;
(ii) can show that the bundling of those goods or services results in economic benefit for consumers; or
(iii) offers bundled goods or services separately and at individual prices.
(2) Except to the extent that any other law provides otherwise, in any transaction between a franchisee and franchisor in terms of their franchise agreement, it is a defence to an allegation that the franchisor, as supplier to the franchisee, has contravened this section if any goods or services that the franchisee was required to purchase from or at the direction of the franchisor are reasonably related to the branded products or services
that are the subject of the franchise agreement.
Click to expand...

Consumer’s rights to demand quality service
54. (1) When a supplier undertakes to perform any services for or on behalf of a consumer, the consumer has a right to—
(a) the timely performance and completion of those services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in the performance of the services;
(b) the performance of the services in a manner and quality that persons are generally entitled to expect;
(c) the use, delivery or installation of goods that are free of defects and of a quality that persons are generally entitled to expect,/U] if any such goods are required for performance of the services; and
(d) the return of any property or control over any property of the consumer in at east as good a condition as it was when the consumer made it available to the supplier for the purpose of performing such services, having regard to the circumstances of the supply, and any specific criteria or conditions agreed between the supplier and the consumer before or during the performance of the services.
(2) If a supplier fails to perform a service to the standards contemplated in subsection
(1), the consumer may require the supplier to either—
(a) remedy any defect in the quality of the services performed or goods supplied;
or
(b) refund to the consumer a reasonable portion of the price paid for the services
performed and goods supplied, having regard to the extent of the failure.
Click to expand...


and much much more ................

Did SABC violate the ACT? Can we sue SABC? :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X