TV Licence prices - South Africa vs the rest of the World

[Binary_Bark]

How about a "Content - SABC vs the rest of the World" article? I'm sure the world is buying SABC content for top dollar....

 

[Shadowchaser1]

Ex cit. Really? You want to take Euro's and compare them to the Rand? You must be S*****G me.

 

[RonSwanson]

A tv license in the UK costs £157.50 and it's worth every penny - their productions are excellent and there's no advertising.


The ANC's mouthpiece is hardly free from control by either.

To compare the qualitiy of SABC productions to that of the BBC is ridiculous.

 

[RonSwanson]

The irony of the SABC, is that those who watch it's content will not pay a TV license. Then there are people like myself and my family, who do not watch their content at all who pay a TV license. If they include Tablets, cellphones, and computers and streaming boxes, in their TV license scheme. I will stop paying altogether.

spot on. ANC voters get free stuff, funded by everyone else.

 

[mypetcow]

Costs me €60 a year in Germany so not sure where the article get's that figure from.

I think you mean €60 every 3 months. Either that or your year is very short...

https://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de/welcome/englisch/index_ger.html#the_licence_fee

The licence fee is a legally prescribed contribution for citizens, companies and institutions as well as for public interest bodies. For private households, the current fee is 17.50 euros per month.

The contribution serves to finance public broadcasting service based on a contributory model. Contributory means that in principle all adult citizens, companies and institutions as well as public interest bodies in Germany should make a contribution – regardless of their actual media use. In this way, everyone can benefit from the variety and quality of the freely available public broadcasting services – even those who pay a reduced licence fee or none at all. The objective is to ensure the highest possible level of fairness in the financing.

 

[dualmeister]

Blah blah. Now compare the content....

 

[Swa]

How about a "Content - SABC vs the rest of the World" article? I'm sure the world is buying SABC content for top dollar....

Zimbabwean Dollars

 

[elf_lord_ZC5]

With the kark they show they should actually compensate the viewers for watching it.

Anybody who watches SABC is hardup and down and out ... , in other words, they cannot afford better, nor can they afford a TV license.

 

[markings]

The median monthly salary in Switzerland is 6,500 CHF = 113,806 ZAR

Swiss median monthly wage exceeds CHF6,500

A government survey analysing wage structures in the Alpine nation found that the median salary for a full-time job in 2016 was CHF6,502 ($6,509) for the entire Swiss economy.

www.swissinfo.ch

SA's median salary is 22,500 ZAR, approx 1/6.

This is the average salary in South Africa right now

Statistics South Africa has published the Quarterly Employment Statistics for Q4 2019, showing what workers are getting paid across the various sectors in the country.

businesstech.co.za

If we divide the license fee by that factor it works out to approx. 1,050 ZAR. While still high in comparison there is a vast difference to the pure money conversion one.

 

[SynergyZA]

"Although the SABC’s locally-produced TV shows, soaps, and news bulletins remain highly popular among the general populace"
I am going to say it, the majority of the people watching are not paying. I asked my domestic worker if she has a TV license and the answer is no, but she watches SABC daily. The objective here is not to be fair or align with the rest of the world or other example countries. It is to make money from people that don't care about SABC to pay for the propaganda engine that keeps the voters voting. This does not only apply to TV license, but to taxes, NHI, power, water, toll fees, you name it. Voting majority are subsidized by the working class, i.e. Socialism moving into communism.

I have been to Switzerland and watched some TV there. Majority of foreign shows are dubbed to German or French. So the money pays for something, good shows in local languages. We used to do that as well. Paying for that makes sense if you want to enjoy foreign content.

 

[Pineapple Smurf]

ours is cheap coz its kak

 

[Aghori]

SABC Shill. Comparing french champagne to Castle lite is what is going on here. In other countries, you actually get value for paying that TV licensing fee.

 

[Drake2007]

The irony of the SABC, is that those who watch it's content will not pay a TV license. Then there are people like myself and my family, who do not watch their content at all who pay a TV license. If they include Tablets, cellphones, and computers and streaming boxes, in their TV license scheme. I will stop paying altogether.

Don't kid yourself, no one watches SABC even 'those', that you unfortunately profiled, complain about the bad content.

 

[elf_lord_ZC5]

Don't kid yourself, no one watches SABC even 'those', that you unfortunately profiled, complain about the bad content.

They might complain about it, but they watch it nonetheless.

Firstly they do not have the infrastructure to stream anything.

Secondly they do not have the means to pay for Netflix/Amazon/Disney + etc.

They are not going to stream those on a 3G/LTE data connection. They do not have tbe wherewithal.

So it is SABC or nothing. They simy do not have a choice.

 

[^^vampire^^]

In Australia, zero licence fees and production quality is world class, with either locally produced ideas replicated in American and other markets or visa versa. Also, I can buy a set top box once off for $125 which gives me access to catchup on most prime free to air channels to stream previous episodes. This is great as most of the good shows are across 2-3 prime free channels in the same slot. Also, that content becomes available for catchup about 5-10 mins after it airs. Also included are a handful of premium movies each month for free.

There are offerings similar to DStv (called foxtel) which I have never used as it's not really a requirement unless you want the sport offerings. The nice things is that they at least had the forethought to box their offerings in $10-$20 offerings. Only want kids channels? $10. Only want sport? $20. DStv don't do this as they've already built a baseline revenue model which would see their income shrink to 15% if it incorporated this model now.

I currently supplement my free to air tv with netflix and prime video ($20 per month) and I have more content at my fingertips than I could ever want or need. For those that love their local content they can get stan for roughly another $10 a month.

At the end of the day if SABC is stuck in catering to the poor masses, meaning that the quality is **** but it's what the majority will watch. The problem with that is that you cannot get tv licence from poor people because they cannot afford it and you cannot sell ad space because prime viewers cant afford to buy anything advertised, meaning the SABC makes no ad revenue. SABC has basically targeted their whole platform to the lowest common denominator that doesn't have any way to serve them financially. Unfortunately, changing the business model would see the peasants burn the SABC to the ground. So in short, the SABC as a broadcaster is obsolete.

 

[elf_lord_ZC5]

In Australia, zero licence fees and production quality is world class, with either locally produced ideas replicated in American and other markets or visa versa. Also, I can buy a set top box once off for $125 which gives me access to catchup on most prime free to air channels to stream previous episodes. This is great as most of the good shows are across 2-3 prime free channels in the same slot. Also, that content becomes available for catchup about 5-10 mins after it airs. Also included are a handful of premium movies each month for free.

There are offerings similar to DStv (called foxtel) which I have never used as it's not really a requirement unless you want the sport offerings. The nice things is that they at least had the forethought to box their offerings in $10-$20 offerings. Only want kids channels? $10. Only want sport? $20. DStv don't do this as they've already built a baseline revenue model which would see their income shrink to 15% if it incorporated this model now.

I currently supplement my free to air tv with netflix and prime video ($20 per month) and I have more content at my fingertips than I could ever want or need. For those that love their local content they can get stan for roughly another $10 a month.

At the end of the day if SABC is stuck in catering to the poor masses, meaning that the quality is **** but it's what the majority will watch. The problem with that is that you cannot get tv licence from poor people because they cannot afford it and you cannot sell ad space because prime viewers cant afford to buy anything advertised, meaning the SABC makes no ad revenue. SABC has basically targeted their whole platform to the lowest common denominator that doesn't have any way to serve them financially. Unfortunately, changing the business model would see the peasants burn the SABC to the ground. So in short, the SABC as a broadcaster is obsolete.

You summed it up right proper Mate.

 

[patel8786]

It could be really simplified...
TV’s generally do not last past 10 years these days.

Why not just create a once off Tax structure based on screen size on the TV when it is imported? it could even be extended to a small fee on FM Radio receivers.

It would force everyone to pay it equally and reduces the administrative burden for a small amount each year.

In theory the funds could be used to fund Sentec as they are needed to distribute the signals anyways.

So give the SABC tons of money upfront and tell them to be responsible and use it over the next 10 years. Something tells me that this might not be the best idea.

 

[patel8786]

"frees the broadcasters from control and influence by governments or advertisers."

Enter Hlaudi and the Guptas