Why the SABC wants Netflix users to pay for TV Licences

[HartsockZA]

Again, all hot fart air and no actual way of getting me to pay. So ggf

 

[Mista_Mobsta]

Interesting that this little "Netflix v SABC" tidbit came out alongside the SABC announcing they will look to offer streaming services eh? It didn't make sense to me at all that the SABC would even consider doing streaming services but now it's perfectly clear - they need their own streaming service to justify changing the definition of "streaming devices" and therefore charging other content providers a licensing fee. How can Netflix prove they won't use SABC's "free" streaming services as part of their package right?

SABC being cunning stunts with this move if you ask me...

 

[xwafiqx]

So who of you mofos is watching Isidingo on your smartbox? Is julle mal!

 

[system32]

Why don't they just get rid of the TV licence and make SABC a pay service like DSTV,NETFLIX,etc.

SABC had their chance to make it a pay service.
SABC & Cloudy voted with Mulichoice against CAM on DTT - which eTV wanted.

Only 4% of Alex pay for electricity.

Only 4% of Alex residents paying for electricity - City Power

The utility said it was taking action to address overloading on the network and to recover lost revenue caused by illegal connections.

ewn.co.za

This is probably the same percentage in most townships.
I'm happy to place a bet that less than 4% pay for TV License.

These proposals are to extract more money from people who don't even watch SABC.

 

[system32]

And where does Open Views money come from, R300 barely covers the cost of the dish and Decoder?

Advertising

 

[j4ck455]

“With regards to the likes of Netflix, what we are talking about here is streaming services, and what we are looking at is that where streaming services are available in the market and people are able to stream SABC’s content, there needs to be valid or paid-up TV Licence,” she said.

“For example, instead of saying Netflix collect TV Licence fees, there are various ways of doing it. We can negotiate with the streaming service about a percentage of whatever people are streaming that is content which belongs to the SABC,” Tladi said.

There you have it, she has admitted that an SABC TV Licence Fee is only applicable to content that belongs to (is owned by) the SABC.

Where is the SABC owned content available to be viewed via Netflix, why should Netflix collect fees on behalf of the SABC for content that the SABC neither owns nor has the right to distribution outside of the SABC's own distribution network?

It boils down to the intended legislated purpose of 'SABC TV Licence Fees' , surely the licence fees are only applicable to viewing content that is owned by the SABC? That much has been admitted by the SABC's Tladi spokesperson.

And maybe legislation does need to be updated because people don't just use a TV anymore to view SABC content, but most people that still view SABC owned content will still be using a TV to "view it".

If legislation is updated, it should be changed from an SABC TV Licence to an SABC Content Viewing Licence (irrespective of what device or technology is used to view the SABC's content).

If the SABC redistributes its content to DSTV, there is an uplink from the SABC to DSTV or a homing pigeon with a USB stick around its neck, that is arguably a form of indirect broadcasting, so a licence for viewing the SABC's content is applicable to DSTV subscribers that subscribe to SABC content that DSTV broadcasts on specific DSTV channels.

DSTV should move the channels broadcasting SABC content to a separate optional add-on bouquet.

If the SABC charges DSTV for redistributing SABC content, the SABC has already made DSTV the collector of licence fees because a portion of a DSTV customer's subscription fees will go towards paying whatever the SABC charges DSTV for redistributing SABC content.

Likewise, if Netflix ever redistributes SABC content, there will be a contractual agreement between the SABC and Netflix that outlines how much Netflix must pay the SABC for the SABC's content, and Netflix can base the amount of money on how much the content is actually viewed.

There is one problem though, and that is OpenView which broadcasts SABC content on specific OpenView channels, but there is no subscription fee for OpenView, and also no way of knowing how many OpenView viewers (are they customers if there is not subscription fee?) actually view channels containing SABC content.

The real issue here is that the SABC has not migrated to digital and currently cannot encrypt SABC owned content that the SABC broadcasts directly to people around the country using outdated analogue broadcasting.

The SABC needs to migrate to digital broadcasting where everything that the SABC directly broadcasts to its own set top boxes is encrypted, and people have to pay an annual licence fee to activate viewing of that content.

Then there is the 'Must Carry' legislation/regulations which need to be properly defined or preferably abolished.

 

[system32]

“In finalising the SABC’s submission, the public broadcaster will take cognisance of the wide range of views expressed on the need for a licence fee or a public broadcasting levy,” the SABC said.

“The SABC calls on the public and all interested parties to also make their comments to the DCDT by 30 November 2020.”

Where do we send our submissions?
@Bradley Prior please provide the links in the article to where the public can submit comments.
Is it on ICASA or DTPS or where - I did a google and can't find where.

We can let them know how we feel instead of venting on this forum which has no impact on the decision!

Here is Paul Theron submission to the SABC:
The interesting part is at 5min

I completely agree with Paul.

 

[j4ck455]

TV manufacturers should make the tuner easily removable.
So, if you go buy a TV, you have the option right there to get it removed, and thus also remove the need to pay/show your TV license.

I disagree, TV manufacturers should not put tuna fish into TVs by default, the tuna fish should be an optional add-on module that one can purchase separately and slot in somewhere or have fitted for a fee.

Diabolically, no one would pay for that tuna fish and would buy TVs without the tuna fish, the add-on modules would not sell at all.

 

[ConfusedR]

“For example, instead of saying Netflix collect TV Licence fees, there are various ways of doing it. We can negotiate with the streaming service about a percentage of whatever people are streaming that is content which belongs to the SABC,” Tladi said.

What is this idiot saying.
Netflix does not have any content that belongs to SABC. Why would they? SABC's content is ****.

 

[ThanksMBB]

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with this comment as it gets deleted by the moderator on the main news page for this story, my comment :

Thank you Sylvia Tladi for forcing another company out from South Africa. Our Zimbabwean dream is so much closer. Thank you SABC, Thank you ANC .

 

[Geoff.D]

The ONLY comments that are accurate and correct in this entire thread are those addressing the gross ignorance of those in charge at the SABC. They have neither the background, nor the experience to make ANY useful proposals.
And none of the comments on this thread mean anything either.
The issue is how to fund public broadcasting, which IS a "public good". It is NOT about "paying" for SABC content, most of which is in any case not theirs anyway.
The licensing model is and has been since for ever almost, an outdated way to fund anything.
These useless attempts at trying to link technology and the possession of devices to a funding model for anything is long gone. IF you want to implement a "pay for use" model then you need another way to do it that is technology agnostic because whatever you do today will be outdated tomorrow.
Another stupid attempt to "refine definitions" is just distracting attention away from the real issue which is how to fund public broadcasting.

 

[Geoff.D]

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with this comment as it gets deleted by the moderator on the main news page for this story, my comment :

Thank you Sylvia Tladi for forcing another company out from South Africa. Our Zimbabwean dream is so much closer. Thank you SABC, Thank you ANC .

Because it is meaningless twaddle of no value?

 

[Swa]

It added that this would be similar to municipalities collecting traffic fines and motor vehicle licence discs.

Not even remotely. First it's the traffic department which do the collection which is the correctly designated department. Secondly they don't call me up if I don't pay or make me pay for a vehicle I don't own/drive and have deregistered when I use Uber.

 

[Gandalf123]

No Sylvia Tladi, we do NOT buy TV sets to watch Netflix, Showmax, Multichoice or any other digital broadcaster. We buy MONITORS to watch the content on. You stick your content all over YouTube free of charge for everybody to see and then you complain that nobody is paying their TV licenses? Damn!

Here is my suggestion if you want to remain an open and free broadcaster: VASTLY improve on the content that you show and stop posting it on YouTube for all to see. Do that and you will bring your advertisers back. THEN and only then will you start making a profit again.

I will tell you this now: I don't own a TV set anymore. I dpn't watch SABC content at all so I REFUSE to pay a TV license to you. Your'e right about one thing though. We have moved into a digital era now. Perhaps you should consider becoming a Pay TV broadcaster as well.

 

[Jodes]

No people! No! No! No!

 

[Enzo Matrix]

TLDR

Because we are entitled thieving cunts

 

[Swa]

Where do we send our submissions?
@Bradley Prior please provide the links in the article to where the public can submit comments.
Is it on ICASA or DTPS or where - I did a google and can't find where.

We can let them know how we feel instead of venting on this forum which has no impact on the decision!

Here is Paul Theron submission to the SABC:
The interesting part is at 5min

I completely agree with Paul.

This. And submitting proposals to the SABC is useless. It needs to be a formal process where they can't just ignore it.

The ONLY comments that are accurate and correct in this entire thread are those addressing the gross ignorance of those in charge at the SABC. They have neither the background, nor the experience to make ANY useful proposals.
And none of the comments on this thread mean anything either.
The issue is how to fund public broadcasting, which IS a "public good". It is NOT about "paying" for SABC content, most of which is in any case not theirs anyway.
The licensing model is and has been since for ever almost, an outdated way to fund anything.
These useless attempts at trying to link technology and the possession of devices to a funding model for anything is long gone. IF you want to implement a "pay for use" model then you need another way to do it that is technology agnostic because whatever you do today will be outdated tomorrow.
Another stupid attempt to "refine definitions" is just distracting attention away from the real issue which is how to fund public broadcasting.

First identify the real issue. Is there anything to fund? It started as a tax to fund the spectrum. With the revised legislation it became a "fee" to fund the public broadcaster. SABC is not the public broadcaster. Neither is commercial content not in the public interest intended to be part of public broadcasting. If there's any content that fits that definition it would be that for public benefit like president's speeches. Most of such content should be free to air in any case so it doesn't affect the SABC's bottom line. It's only content that's produced by the SABC.

So now that we've identified what needs to be paid for, is there a need to fund it? If yes then is public funding the best option? Perhaps advertising would be better. Or whenever the government wants to air something in the public interest they should pay for it in the form of advertising space.

A device tax is a very poor way to fund anything. This is essentially what tv licenses has become as TVs aren't used just for broadcasting and TVs aren't the only way to watch broadcasting. Expanding definitions only cause more issues as well as probably being unenforceable.

A question that needs to be answered and which will probably be very interesting is how much is the SABC's revenue from tv licenses? Does it even make any meaningful difference or can it simply be scrapped?

 

[DreamKing]

currently, if you have a tv which may receive the signal (content) from sabc, so you have to pay tv licence.

so if you may receive the content on the internet by using any device, so you have to pay tv licence also.

make sense?

so why you don't encrypt your contents so that no matter what is the device I am using I still can't receive any content from you?

does that make more sense?

the evil anc government is using the "law" to force people to pay more "taxes" only.

f*** off anc.