Streaming Is Not a Justification for a New SABC Tax in 2026
Streaming platforms already charge households that use them.
To be fair, it is important to pause and consider what the SABC’s reasoning might be behind proposing a household or device-based levy.
From what has been suggested in public discourse, the logic appears to be this:
Because people now stream content online instead of watching traditional television, public broadcasting funding must also shift to a digital or device-neutral model.
On the surface, that may sound reasonable. In practice, it isn’t.
Streaming shows using wifi
Streaming does not mean “streaming SABC content.”
South Africans are streaming paid-for, opt-in services. They already pay for WiFi or mobile data. They already pay for Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, YouTube Premium, Apple TV, Spotify, and countless other platforms. These are not public services — they are commercial subscriptions, paid voluntarily in exchange for content people actually choose to watch.
So what, exactly, would a new SABC tax be charging for?
Would it be for:
- Owning a smartphone?
- Owning a laptop?
- Owning a tablet?
- Having an internet connection?
- Being digitally literate?
None of these things equate to consuming SABC content.
A person can own three smartphones, a laptop, a smart TV, and a fibre connection — and never once open an SABC app, stream an SABC programme, or watch an SABC news bulletin. Yet under a device-based levy, that person could still be forced to pay.
That is not a usage fee.
That is a presence penalty.
Consumers Already Pay — Just Not to the SABC
This is the fundamental contradiction in the proposal.
People already pay:
- For connectivity (WiFi, mobile data)
- For platforms (Netflix, Prime, Disney, YouTube Premium)
- For hardware (phones, laptops, smart TVs)
- For content creators, indirectly, through ads, subscriptions, and watch time
The SABC would not be providing the internet.
It would not be providing the platform.
It would not be providing the device.
Yet it would want a cut simply because digital life exists.
That is not modernisation — it is rent-seeking.
There Are Viable Alternatives — Used Worldwide
If the SABC genuinely wants sustainability, the options already exist — and are used successfully by broadcasters and creators globally.
1. Create a Subscription-Based Channel
If there is genuine demand for SABC content, the most honest test would be to place premium content behind a subscription wall — on DStv, on a streaming platform, or via a standalone SABC app. People who value the content will subscribe. People who don’t, won’t.
That is how choice works.
2. Monetise Digitally Like Every Other Content Producer
Thousands of African creators earn revenue through:
- YouTube watch time
- Google AdSense
- Programmatic advertising
- Sponsorships
- Brand integrations
The SABC already uploads content online. If people watch it, adverts generate revenue. If people don’t watch it, that is market feedback — not a justification for taxation.
3. Earn Attention, Then Earn Income
In the digital age, attention precedes revenue. No platform survives by charging first and hoping relevance follows later. Relevance must come first.
Forcing payment does not create viewers.
Creating value does.
A Dangerous Precedent
The most worrying aspect of a household or device levy is not just the cost — it is the precedent.
If a state-owned entity can charge citizens regardless of use, then public accountability erodes. It tells consumers that opting out is not allowed, disengagement is irrelevant, and personal choice is secondary to institutional survival.
That is not how trust is built.
South Africans have already demonstrated how they feel about the current TV licence model. Compliance rates below 20% are not confusion — they are communication.
Streaming SABC via Netflix
The message is clear:
We do not use this service. We do not want to fund it in this way.
The solution is not to widen the net.
The solution is to fix the product.
Until the SABC can clearly answer the question “What exactly am I paying for?” — any new tax, levy, or household charge will feel less like public service funding and more like punishment for living in a digital world.
Public broadcasting cannot be compulsory consumption.
In 2026, relevance is earned — not invoiced.
Note:
This opinion piece forms part of a two-part series examining the SABC’s proposed shift toward a household or device-based funding model. While acknowledging the broadcaster’s financial challenges, the series questions whether compulsory fees are fair or sustainable in an era where most South Africans consume content via global streaming platforms they already pay for. The views expressed are those of the author and aim to contribute to a constructive public discussion on relevance, accountability, and choice in modern media consumption.
What does streaming mean according to Wikipedia?
Share this content:
Post Comment