TV Licence fees must become compulsory in South Africa - eMedia CEO

[Swa]

This is BS. So now instead of paying for not watching SABC you should now also pay to not even own a tv? The real question here is how openview can run an entire satellite service free on some advertising revenue but the SABC can't even break even with all of it? Maybe we should start with the bloat first.

 

[Swa]

Why should any broadcasting be ‘free’?

How about people pay for what they consume?

Public free broadcasting becomes paid for propaganda, why should we all pay for this even if we think it is bullshit?

No broadcasting is free. There is such a thing as advertiser funded.

No one says you need to also have a "radio". The issue is about licences. The licences started out for "radio reception" then evolved to "Radio and TV" and then the references to "Radio" were dropped. The funds collected however were there to fund BOTH operations, TV as well as radio operations.

You as many others' on this forum, have serious comprehension issues.

It used to include the radio part even though you didn't need a license to own a radio. It's no longer a "tv and radio" license but just a "tv license". The license is to fund the public broadcaster. If I'm not mistaken that's SABC 2 exclusively.

And "youtube" gets it from where?

That's irrelevant. If the SABC doesn't want their content to be distributed for free they shouldn't release it.

 

[j4ck455]

And "youtube" gets it from where?

I realise you're quite long in the tooth with your head stuck in the Apartheid days where no one ever dared to question the government's intentions/motives/agendas and just sheepishly obeyed all laws without even thinking, so I will explain this to you in simple terms: YouTube does not actively pull content from content providers, YouTube allows content providers to upload their content (that includes uploading live content), and YouTube does the "broadcasting" of that content by way of streaming.

YouTube does not go trawling the internet looking for content, it is up to content providers to decide if they want to use YouTube's streaming service.

Instead of forcing streaming providers to collect SABC TV Licences, the SABC should be paying streaming providers to carry its shite content.

 

[Deandbn]

No, it did not. TV licences were always a thing and most paid then because the collection process was enforced and inspectors went out and checked --------

Check your facts before posting BS.

Wikipedia says that it was initially funded in 1976 by a R36 PA licence fee and advertising started in 1978...
Even so, I do not believe that national TV broadcasting, even in its infancy at R36 per year could cover the cost, and would definitely have been heavily subsidized by government funds subscribed by income tax..
Even with a couple of 100,000 subscribers, sabc would only have around R10 million available annually for salaries/infrastructure /importation of programs...
Do you think this R10million would be enough Geoff d. Because I definitely am not posting BS and you are taking a long shot at arrogance.

 

[Geoff.D]

Absolutely and utterly irrelevant. If someone watches the news and tells me about it, do I need a TV licence. If they video it, and whatsapp the cellphone video to me, do I need a TV licence. You are clutching at straws.

On the contrary, you are clutching at straws to justify why you and your ilk believe it is okay to defy the law.

 

[Geoff.D]

Wikipedia says that it was initially funded in 1976 by a R36 PA licence fee and advertising started in 1978...
Even so, I do not believe that national TV broadcasting, even in its infancy at R36 per year could cover the cost, and would definitely have been heavily subsidized by government funds subscribed by income tax..
Even with a couple of 100,000 subscribers, sabc would only have around R10 million available annually for salaries/infrastructure /importation of programs...
Do you think this R10million would be enough Geoff d. Because I definitely am not posting BS and you are taking a long shot at arrogance.

No one ever claimed that the ONLY source of funding for public broadcasting was derived ONLY from licence fees.
That is not the case anywhere.
Public goods are in the main funded from taxes.
Read the reference I posted to see how it works.
The SABC was given the go ahead to start drawing funds from advertising in line with world practice.
It is an evolutionary process just about everywhere.
The licence fees also evolved from being a fee charged for the spectrum (per receiver) to a ring fenced fenced to supplement the tax funding for public broadcasting to a system that included advertising revenue.
The reference I posted lists the funding variations across the World. We are not the only country with a mixed funding model.
And there is nothing arrogant about getting the facts right.
The problems we have in SA are not about the concept of SOEs but about what happens when a weak corruptable govt is voted into power.
I have posted before what the real debate should be about.
1. Do we as the people of SA believe there are things that should be considered to be public goods that will be funded from tax revenue?
2. If so then is public broadcasting one of those?
3. Then how will this be funded?
4. What element of that funding will be based on a pay per use basis?

That is what the debate is about.

 

[Swa]

On the contrary, you are clutching at straws to justify why you and your ilk believe it is okay to defy the law.

Please don't start with the derogatories. There is a philosophical concept that it isn't just permissible to defy unjust laws but also each citizen's duty to do so.

 

[Geoff.D]

At least it seems parliament appears to understand the issue.
But then, none of you watch the SABC channels so you would not know what happened in the snap debate today, or what happened in the SCOPA thereafter?
Parliament has placed the blame where the current situation belongs, squarely in the laps of a pretty useless Board and management, not with the SABC personnel.
And then the opposition all pointed out where the rot belongs as well.
And then by association, with us citizens who see it fit to vote in the current government.

 

[Geoff.D]

Please don't start with the derogatories. There is a philosophical concept that it isn't just permissible to defy unjust laws but also each citizen's duty to do so.

And that is pushing the rebellion against authority too far. But then that is what the SJWs want not so?

In a completely unrelated program ex President Obama,talking about his new book, discussed this very issue.
When does civil disobedience in the guise of "reform" start to dismantle the basic principles of a democracy? And what will happen then?
Calling the fact that we have a law dealing with charging a miserable token amount as a licence fee to partly fund public broadcasting an unjust law is a huge stretch.

 

[envo]

"Jail time for corrupt officials must become compulsory" and other things we wished for

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

TV licence fees should be compulsory for every South African household and the SABC must be supported by the government,

And Zuma should be in jail, and BBBEE should be scrapped and every South African household should pay equitable rates and utility costs, and government should support farmers and provide a safer environment for our kids and ..................... oh fek off you clown.

 

[Pineapple Smurf]

TV licence needs to be scrapped
They can get funding elsewhere

I still remember as a laaitie in the 70s we had to get an annual bicycle metal licence disc. Cost an entire R1.00 per year

The entire household licencing factor is outdated, corrupt and colonial. #AllLicencesMustFall

 

[elf_lord_ZC5]

At least it seems parliament appears to understand the issue.
But then, none of you watch the SABC channels so you would not know what happened in the snap debate today, or what happened in the SCOPA thereafter?
Parliament has placed the blame where the current situation belongs, squarely in the laps of a pretty useless Board and management, not with the SABC personnel.
And then the opposition all pointed out where the rot belongs as well.
And then by association, with us citizens who see it fit to vote in the current government.

A "pretty useless board" appointed by Government, and the management, appointed by said board, so Government's responsibility.

No weaseling allowed.

 

[elf_lord_ZC5]

TV licence needs to be scrapped
They can get funding elsewhere

I still remember as a laaitie in the 70s we had to get an annual bicycle metal licence disc. Cost an entire R1.00 per year

The entire household licencing factor is outdated, corrupt and colonial. #AllLicencesMustFall

You had to lisence your dog(s) and the stray cat in your yard as well.

 

[Pineapple Smurf]

You had to lisence your dog(s) and the stray cat in your yard as well.

and back in the day you had a tv licence based on how many tvs you owned
a black and white tv licence was the cheapest
@Gordon_R still uses his black and white telly to view old cowboy movies

 

[Gazg]

Lmao......I thought they were when you bought a tv!!!

 

[HunterNW]

TV licence needs to be scrapped
They can get funding elsewhere

I still remember as a laaitie in the 70s we had to get an annual bicycle metal licence disc. Cost an entire R1.00 per year

The entire household licencing factor is outdated, corrupt and colonial. #AllLicencesMustFall

Agree. This is SO colonial, racist, apartheid, Oom Jan, etc.... Fck Licences.

 

[rietrot]

I remember when etv wasn't that bad. A long time ago.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

I remember when etv wasn't that bad. A long time ago.

Emmanuelle evenings

 

[elf_lord_ZC5]

I remember when etv wasn't that bad. A long time ago.

Don't have the foggiest idea, stopped watching TV before their time.