TV license help

if marine took out the gadget that allows the signal to come into the tv but still has to pay tv does the same apply to a pc and a cellphone both of these are capable of picking up tv channels?

Yes, the law is very clear: any device capabled of recieving a TV signal. The functionality does not need to be enabled, it just needs to be present.
 
Yes, the law is very clear: any device capabled of recieving a TV signal. The functionality does not need to be enabled, it just needs to be present.

so if you buy a tv card from a shop do you need a license or if you by the latest cellphone do they also ask for a tv license?
 
and you have to pay him to do that.... which can amount to several hundred rand. Then you have to pay for a TV License inspector to come out and verify that it has been done. So by the time you have denatured your TV, you are already R800 down the hole. Not sure if it is once off... but the SABC website seems to say that the inspector can come back at any time and check. If it is found to be connected, you will have to pay the Inspector's fees again AND you will be liable for license fees retroactively. Sounds like a lose/lose scenario to me. Better just to pay the stupid TV tax so the masses can watch their soapies.

That's what I tell myself each year when I throw that R250 away.


Actually this still comes from the bad old days, don't give the comrades too much credit for creating revenue sources.

True. I remember my folks arguing over the R90-something they had to pay 20+ years ago. Money was an issue at the time and my Dad said we didn't really have to pay it but my Mom insisted 'they' would come arrest us if we didn't pay up :erm:

BUT!! In the bad, old days there was no pay tv service or interwebs to stream/download media so the paying a TV license almost made a little sense. I don't see the point of it today as I'm sure the SABC make more money than they actually need via advertising. eTV seem to do it pretty well.
 
Very annoying and ludicrous law... I find it funny that one has to have a license for a device capable of receiving a TV signal, but not for a device capable of receiving a radio signal...
 
But do you listen to any South African radio stations?

Yes. So basically I have to pay R250 per year to listen to 702 for about an hour each weekday. So, some poor dude living in the bundus that doesn't even have electricity but owns a little wind-radio needs to pay R250 per year?
 
Yes. So basically I have to pay R250 per year to listen to 702 for about an hour each weekday. So, some poor dude living in the bundus that doesn't even have electricity but owns a little wind-radio needs to pay R250 per year?

No, you don't require a TV license if you listen to radio... see my post above :D
 
They do with a tv card. Or they should. Esquire does.
Not sure about cellphone.

I got a flyer from one of these little corner cellphone shops selling these cheap & nasty tv enabled phones and it states you need a TV license, makes sense. They should be as accountable as a big franchise selling normal TVs.

marine1, do you download all your shows? If not what do you use the TV for?
 
I got a flyer from one of these little corner cellphone shops selling these cheap & nasty tv enabled phones and it states you need a TV license, makes sense. They should be as accountable as a big franchise selling normal TVs.

marine1, do you download all your shows? If not what do you use the TV for?

I download everything and dont use a TV, use my PC, just easier
 
Between Eskom, SABC, and every other gvt department is there one department where you get what you pay for?

This is a large part of the reason for public apathy regard tv licenses, though. You don't pay the SABC in the same sense that you pay Eskom for services (ideally) rendered; you pay a tv license for usage of the radio spectrum - like you pay a vehicle license for usage of the road network - which is regarded as a national asset. This is why it's irrelevant whether you watch the free-to-air SABC channels or not, as far as the law's concerned.
 
Yes but you should not have to pay just to RECEIVE, only if you transmit and we do not ;)

Well, the argument would be that you still receive a benefit by receiving a signal... :p Whether one regards being able to watch Generations as a benefit is of course an open question. :D
 
I wouldn't believe a word the SABC says regarding TV licences (especially on their web site), they've got a vested interest in milking you for every cent, and no ethics compelling them to follow the law. The BS on their website is their manipulation of the law, and won't hold up in court, if you've got the energy to fight them.

They won't take you to court if you send them an affidavit telling them that the TV no longer has a tuner, because you'll win, and that'll create a legal precedent that'll cramp their extortion racket, but sure as hell, they'll set their lawyers onto you to try scare you into paying.

Just do what's easiest; send them an affidavit, telling them that the TV died, and you chucked it. They'll demand all sorts of letters and so on, and even if you send them all that, they'll still send lawyers after you, because they're a bunch of corrupt, incompetent thieves. The law doesn't require anything close to what they demand from you, so they'll never win.

I just buy using a family members TV licence (we must have 20 TVs on that licence:D). SABC can get ****ed.
 
You can moan about the license fee, but it's not unusual to do it this way for a national broadcaster. It does seem like a pointless bureaucracy though.

eTV seem to do it pretty well.
eTV is for people who like to have programme breaks between their advertising.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X