TV license fee increase

jes

jes

MyBroadband Alumnus
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
11,992
Reaction score
123
TV license fee increase

South Africa’s TV license fees are set to increase from 1 September 2013 for both standard and concessionary licenses
 
Won't make more people pay! Lol I swear in South Africa, once a business makes less revenue, instead of finding ways to remodel the business, they raise general prices across the board with nothing new to leverage value!

If you sold me crap at R50, and I didn't buy it, what makes you think I will buy crap at R60? Now bundle that crap with some pit toilets and now we talking!
 
Last edited:
Lol, it's basically a license to buy a tv. The bunch watching the crap on sabc all have stolen TV's anyway :rolleyes:
 
I am surprised that this was not increased last year, looking at the terrible financial troubles in the SABC, but even if you sugar coat manure it is still manure. :sick:
 
A licence remains payable, irrespective of whether a television set in one’s possession is used or not.
Click to expand...

Correction: A licence remains payable, irrespective of whether a the licence holder is living or dead.
 
purpleonlineadmin said:
Won't make more people pay! Lol I swear in South Africa, once a business makes less revenue, instead of finding ways to remodel the business, they raise general prices across the board with nothing new to leverage value!

If you sold me crap at R50, and I didn't buy it, what makes you think I will buy crap at R60? Now bundle that crap with some pit toilets and now we talking!
Click to expand...
They're not selling you anything. But the behaviour you describe is just standard monopoly operating procedure in private enterprise.
 
noxibox said:
They're not selling you anything. But the behaviour you describe is just standard monopoly operating procedure in private enterprise.
Click to expand...

Believe me the analogy applies even to this, and the parastatals! Around 2008 just over 3 million TV licences were being paid, there were far more TV's than that 3 million being paid we all have to agree there (I think census said there are now 76% of households with TV sets, whatever that means).

Now the SABC's tactic up till now has been threaten people to pay or get arrested or face fines, to justify this fossilized revenue model, they cut off neighbouring countries "because they don't pay licences". If the rest of TV owners are not incentivized to buy into this "free service" at the R250, raising it to R265 won't force non payers to pay and doesn't undress the lost revenue from those users. All it does is make the +3 million users subsidize those who won't pay or willing to pay for this, which a year later will be the issue again! There are many "free services" that offer a more premium incentive and would create more revenue. SABC lack the brain power to even come up with something as simple as having regional targeted advertising (especially for neighbouring countries) to generate ad revenue as a source instead of just blacking out Botswana from crappy TV as is!

We seeing it across ALL parastatals including SAA, Telkom, Eskom etc Highly frustrating:mad:
 
purpleonlineadmin said:
Believe me the analogy applies even to this, and the parastatals! Around 2008 just over 3 million TV licences were being paid, there were far more TV's than that 3 million being paid we all have to agree there (I think census said there are now 76% of households with TV sets, whatever that means).

Now the SABC's tactic up till now has been threaten people to pay or get arrested or face fines, to justify this fossilized revenue model, they cut off neighbouring countries "because they don't pay licences". If the rest of TV owners are not incentivized to buy into this "free service" at the R250, raising it to R265 won't force non payers to pay and doesn't undress the lost revenue from those users. All it does is make the +3 million users subsidize those who won't pay or willing to pay for this, which a year later will be the issue again! There are many "free services" that offer a more premium incentive and would create more revenue. SABC lack the brain power to even come up with something as simple as having regional targeted advertising (especially for neighbouring countries) to generate ad revenue as a source instead of just blacking out Botswana from crappy TV as is!

We seeing it across ALL parastatals including SAA, Telkom, Eskom etc Highly frustrating:mad:
Click to expand...
The stats: 11.5 million households with TV in SA acc to 2011 census, only about 30% has a license. See my remarks below the article.
 
The sabc is a state entity where anc family and friends are sent to, to sit around and do nothing all day and then collect a nice big salary cheque at the end of each month.

I cannot wait for the day that it will completely disappear.
 
purpleonlineadmin said:
Believe me the analogy applies even to this, and the parastatals!
Click to expand...
It doesn't apply to this in any way. They're not selling anything and would not need to even consider what they charge because their fee is a legal requirement.

We seeing it across ALL parastatals including SAA, Telkom, Eskom etc Highly frustrating
Click to expand...
No we don't because, SAA excluded, the other two operated as they do because they're a monopoly. Being a parastatal is irrelevant. It's pretty universal.
 
kingrob said:
The sabc is a state entity where anc family and friends are sent to, to sit around and do nothing all day and then collect a nice big salary cheque at the end of each month.

I cannot wait for the day that it will completely disappear.
Click to expand...

It won't because it's more than just a paid holiday. It's also an essential mouthpiece for the ruling party to get to the masses, so they can explain their laughable policies and achievements.

I recently saw an SABC interviewer talking to Ms Mandela (and it wasn't on SABC!) about the press attention that she's been moaning about (forget for one minute that it's this very cause of celebrity that keeps her in luxury). The guy was asking questions and framing her responses at the same time. The whole interview was a textbook definition of the terms "servile" and "sycophant". But it completely summed up the SABC's role today.
 
Everyone should really stop paying it. If everyone stop paying it, it will eventually die out. I've sent notice of cancellation about 3 years ago, and I still get "final" notices every month to pay about R1k already in arrears. I just keep on ignoring it and they can't do anything about it.
 
noxibox said:
It doesn't apply to this in any way. They're not selling anything and would not need to even consider what they charge because their fee is a legal requirement.
Click to expand...

Technically of course it's not classified as sales, but as it stands is a form of revenue, people are not paying that "legal requirement", threats haven't worked and raising prices on this doesn't change the fact that those who haven't been paying for it will start doing so. There is zero incentive and regardless of it being a legal requirement, no one really cares (as this thread also shows). Unless they start treating it differently to generate revenue from licences guess what? that small percentage of TV owners who still pay licences will remain that way, and those who aren't paying will still not pay as even taking the legal route on the majority of those who owe wouldn't be financially viable to the SABC.

noxibox said:
No we don't because, SAA excluded, the other two operated as they do because they're a monopoly. Being a parastatal is irrelevant. It's pretty universal.
Click to expand...

Again you being absolutely technical about something that we both agree on. Regardless of them being monopolies, ALL government parastatals have been using this flawed model to sustain their businesses, SAA and SABC are not monopolies, and guess what? In the face of financial troubles, they all use the exact same revenue philosophy in order to keep afloat, i.e. Raise prices and let those who are already paying sustain the business, while on one end you have a huge pool of people who should be paying and aren't. Eskom is doing the exact same thing to sustain their revenue while they are owed billions by various municipalities, monopoly or not!

Any private company in the same situation will either go down or try to remain competitive! SABC knowing full well TV licences should be shelved still force and increase prices on something no new users will start adopting at a higher price. Might be against the law, but people can see the SABC will do nothing but send legal threats by SMS every month!
 
Thanks for the exact stat Marcan. 11.5 mill households with TV sets is a lot, and having only 30% of those with TV licences is testament that they just can't administrate this efficiently to begin with, to think this is even a legal requirement makes it even more laughable. They need to change their tune on how this is either rolled out to people or attach a benefit to owning a TV licence. At this rate the 30% paying consumers will be paying over R300 per year in licences to subsidize 70% of SA households!

If they used region targeted advertising for neighbouring countries, the SABC would even make more revenue than they did when they used the pay up or lose it method. Clearly they can't even administrate this crap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X