Deputy communications minister may have a point
The SABC is a broadcaster that is very hard to like.
It is an antiquated behemoth broadcasting via an analogue signal, beaming programmes so dreary they make watching paint dry exciting.
Because it is a state entity, the SABC also suffers from the same illness as the rest of the inefficient bureaucracy — it is overstaffed and burdened with a monstrous wage bill that drains its coffers.
The state intervened with a R3.2bn bailout last year to keep it from sinking.
No surprises then that a proposal by the SABC to allow regulation that expands the definition of TV licences to include streaming services such as Netflix has been met with such derision.
Presenting to parliament’s communications portfolio committee last week, deputy communications minister Pinkie Kekana said the public broadcaster wanted pay-TV services such as MultiChoice (DStv) and video-on-demand providers such as Netflix to collect TV licences on its behalf.
She said this would improve the financial position of the SABC by permitting it to collect licence fees from non-TV users.
I’m inclined to join the chorus of condemnation, but looking at the proposal closely, part of it makes sense.
Let me elaborate. Under SA law, no person can own a television set without a valid TV licence.
These fees, about R265 per set a year, are supposed to be a major source of revenue for the SABC.
But only a third of households pay their TV licences and the SABC spends millions of rand trying to chase nonpayers, using debt-collection agencies.
That South Africans are refusing to pay their licences is partly the SABC’s fault, but also because of the aggressive competitive streak of MultiChoice, aided by misguided government regulations.
Africa ’ s biggest pay-TV operator has invested handsomely in compelling local and international content, and has monopolised all sports rights.
Its acquisition of the local Premier Soccer League was a stroke of genius.
Drive around any informal settlement and I bet you there’s a MultiChoice satellite dish sticking out of the roof of every shack.
It doesn’t help that government blundered by creating must-carry ” regulations, which allow pay-TV operators to carry the SABC’s public-service channels at no cost.
The SABC has branded these regulations unfair, saying they allowed pay-TV operators to benefit from its channels without paying for the content.
The public broadcaster is correct; MultiChoice and other pay-TV services must compensate it not just for the content on its public-service channels, but for every subscriber of theirs who owns a television set.
Many South Africans flatly refuse to pay the R265 annual TV licence fee, but are happy to subscribe to pay-TV at a cost of between R99 and R1,000 a month, depending on the bouquet they choose.
This is where government should be aiming, not at foreign streaming services.
It should set regulations that force MultiChoice to collect about R20 a month from each of its subscribers as a TVownership levy.
That money should then be transferred to the SABC on a monthly basis, as replacement for lost TV licence revenue.
Yes, MultiChoice may complain that this will increase the cost of subscriptions, but the operator can simply pass this cost on to the consumer, as a government requirement.
Very few will cancel their subscriptions in protest.
That way it can continue carrying SABC channels without having to compensate the public broadcaster.
At last check, eight-million households subscribed to DStv.
That is a cool R160m a month or R1.9bn a year.
That would eliminate the SABC ’ s need for constant bailouts, while allowing payTV operators to continue with current arrangements that work so well for them.
A win-win for everyone.