# Regulatory Compliance Category > General Regulatory Compliance Forum >  SABC, TV Licence and DSTV

## Sadness

I once had a TV some years ago, On the introduction of LCD's I bought myself a 40'' monitor that I use to watch my DSTV. Suddenly I got a call from SABC's attorneys instructing me to pay my TV licence. I told him that I do not own any TV set but a monitor and I use DSTV. he told me that it doesn't matter what I am using, the fact is ''I must pay TV licence for as long I am receiving signal. 

my question is '' why do I have to pay for a TV licence whilst using DSTV and a monitor? 

The money that Multichoice paid to SABC isn't enough to cover for TV licence for DSTV clients? very sad

----------


## Citizen X

*If* you had no tv whatsoever, the SABC does provide you with a very specific affidavit to complete

----------


## Sadness

The guy from the law firm told me to call the SABC to book a technician to come check if  really it is a monitor or not. I did just, a lady took my details but still no technician has ever knocked on my door.

----------


## Dave A

Probably worth remembering there are SABC channels as part of the DSTV bouquet. And the combination of your equipment is displaying a broadcast TV RF signal.

A couple of years ago I had a TV licence inspector wandering through our offices looking for equipment that could receive a TV signal, even if it actually wasn't receiving a signal because of a lack of antenna or satellite dish. It's all that's needed apparently, and the licence inspector said he had surprised many places of work who had such stuff on the premises - normally in the board room, training room or some sort of requirement for an AV setup. 

To my mind, where the future of TV licences is going to get interesting is the increasing take-up of "TV" via fixed line internet to a monitor and sound system setup - no RF at all there.

----------


## desA

I'm amazed this sort of malarkey still exists.

All in the name of 'Freedom' I expect.   :Bananadance:

----------


## HR Solutions

Yes but I do suspect that Sadness is right in the sense that if you have a PVR and send that signal thro to a monitor (not a tv) - you don't need a TV licence.  In the old days it was called a SABC licence - now they call it a TV licence.

----------


## Justloadit

From what I remember with my brush with an inspector some 30 years ago, any item that can receive a TV signal, whether it is SABC or not, requires a TV license.
I suspect with all the corruption and misappropriation of funds, the SABC now needs more money, and they are desperately trying anything they can to get this income.So be weary, they have all the time and resources to wear you down. I think for R280 a year, it is just not worth the effort of getting out of payment, the aggravation will be far more expensive.

----------


## HR Solutions

Any computer screen can receive a tv signal thro a source.  When buying a pvr you do not need a tv licence.  You only need a tv licence when you buy a TV.

----------


## Justloadit

> Any computer screen can receive a tv signal thro a source.  When buying a pvr you do not need a tv licence.  You only need a tv licence when you buy a TV.


The assumption here is that if you can afford a PVR, in most likelihood you have a TV, and would have a TV license. The fact that you are not asked for your TV license when purchasing a PVR, does not mean that you do not need a TV license to view, after all the PVR does have a wireless receiver which receives signals that are considered to be 'Television" signals. 

Anyway what I was really driving at is the cost to defend the case, whether you are correct or not, far outweighs the cost of paying the TV license. Just to visit a lawyer to evaluate your case will set you back between R700 and a R1000.00, and this does not include your time, and the value of missed opportunities. However if you wish to fight because of principles, that is another matter.


Found this under SABC 



> Q: What is a television set, as defined in the Broadcasting Act?
> 
> A: Any device designed or adapted to be capable of receiving a broadcast television signal. That includes a PC fitted with a TV tuner card, or a videocassette recorder (VCR) connected to a monitor or TV screen.

----------


## desA

Some mobile phones can receive a TV signal. Oops!!!

----------


## Sadness

if any device designed or adapted to be capable of receiving a broadcast Television signal is considered a TV. Then SABC should start billing every citizen who owns or buys any device (Monitors, Cellphones, etc) that can receive a TV signal regardless of its nature.

What purpose does/will a TV licence serve?

----------


## BusFact

> What purpose does/will a TV licence serve?


Its just another form of taxation.

----------

Dave A (22-May-14)

----------


## Justloadit

Well you have to feed the fat cats who are running SABC

----------


## BusFact

> Well you have to feed the fat cats who are running SABC


"Running"? A slow amble backwards maybe. Running requires too much effort for them.

----------


## Hannes Botha

> Well you have to feed the fat cats who are running SABC


Or help pay for that matric certificate they lied about... :Zyfingerdance:

----------


## Xplosiv

TV licenses are an outdated concept that needs to be scrapped.
The income from licenses is a drop in the ocean compared to advertising income.
Channels that broadcast quality programmes will attract more advertisers due to larger audiences, thereby increasing their revenue.
I may receive SABC channels on my PVR, but they were bundled in with a lot of other junk that I'm not interested in. They already get a cut from my monthly subscription and I never watch SABC.
That said, DSTV bundles are a rip-off as you cannot choose exactly which channels you want to have. Most of us want the sports channels, which are the most expensive and come bundled with SABC and Rhema Network and other inferior channels that wouldn't have a market if they weren't forced onto us.

----------


## Justloadit

and do not forget the advertising. We pay for the channel, and still have to endure the endless advertising, no wonder they making so much money, both from the subscriptions and from the advertisers.

If I have to see another krapsurance advert I may fling my empty can at the screen.

----------


## Hannes Botha

Thank goodness they don't interrupt movies...or catchup. By a show of hands, who would actually order SABC 1-3 and e-tv into their bouquet if they had a choice?

----------


## wynn

DSTRepeat need I say more?

----------


## KCS

> DSTV bundles are a rip-off as you cannot choose exactly which channels you want to have. Most of us want the sports channels, which are the most expensive and come bundled with SABC and Rhema Network and other inferior channels that wouldn't have a market if they weren't forced onto us.


This is an interesting one. The new CPA clearly states that you may not force a consumer to buy goods they don't want buy bundling it into a package. But then many of the CPA rules are simply ignored by large corporations, for example the roll-over of airtime. The CPA states that your airtime has to roll over for three years. The cell companies just laughed that one off.

Cheers

KC

----------


## Hannes Botha

> This is an interesting one. The new CPA clearly states that you may not force a consumer to buy goods they don't want buy bundling it into a package. But then many of the CPA rules are simply ignored by large corporations, for example the roll-over of airtime. The CPA states that your airtime has to roll over for three years. The cell companies just laughed that one off.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> KC


Problem is most things with the CPA will first have to be proven in court. Don't see people hiring an attorney over airtime, that would've happened long ago, because its always been a ripp off even before the CPA

----------


## Pap_sak

> Thank goodness they don't interrupt movies...or catchup. By a show of hands, who would actually order SABC 1-3 and e-tv into their bouquet if they had a choice?


My farther. In fact, he is probably the only guy in SA that has a pvr (around R50 p/m) linked to only the free channels with DSTV (R30 p/m) -he says he's happy with his package and just wants to fast fwd through adverts!

I do not really mind paying the SABC fee - yes I do know a lot get's wasted - but I do watch survivor and amazing race - and occasionally a movie. For around R25 p/m it's not the end of the world and low down in my "taxes that I hate" list.

----------

