LOCAL television viewers have hit back at MultiChoice Zimbabwe for declaring that some service providers were illegally offering South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) channels 1-3 and eTV, saying exorbitant prices had forced them to resort to other means. MTHANDAZO NYONI OWN CORRESPONDENT
MultiChoice Zimbabwe last week indicated that it was a prosecutable offence to offer SABC 1,2 and 3 as well as eTV in Zimbabwe and service providers offering them as well as those viewing the channels were doing so illegally and risked arrest.
Viewers who called Southern Eye yesterday said MultiChoice was charging exorbitant subscription fees hence the booming business for alternative dealers.
“MultiChoice Zimbabwe is not as competent as it thinks. Therefore, they should go back to the drawing board and put their house in order,” one caller said.
“It is funny that they rush to say viewing SABC channels is illegal yet they actually don’t have any service to talk about.
“They should offer services of high quality and desist from charging exorbitant subscription fees,” the woman said.
Some viewers said the Information, Media and Broadcasting Services ministry should open up airwaves to other local providers to offer the public more viewing options.
“There is a lack of viable alternatives locally. The government should just open up airwaves to other local content providers so that we have a variety.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
“Right now we just have ZBC (Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation) which is a challenge to view and then there is DStv, which is rather expensive considering the current economic challenges,” another viewer said.
Some questioned the idea that DStv service in Zimbabwe could be sourced only from MultiChoice Zimbabwe, authorised agents and paid through approved financial institutions. They said by doing that, MultiChoice Zimbabwe was just giving away taxes to foreign countries.
“MultiChoice Zimbabwe should just keep quiet, especially with their idea that they allow banks to collect a fee from viewers’ direct deposits. Why should the bank collect a fee considering we are depositing money and there is no collection cost to the company?” queried another viewer.
“It is not like MultiChoice Zimbabwe has any broadcasting outflow. They just collect subscription fees on behalf of MultiChoice in South Africa, so they have no right to tell people what to view and what not to view,” another viewer said.
In July, South African television signal carrier Sentech scrambled the SABC channels to ensure that they could not be broadcast beyond the South African borders.
The move left millions of Zimbabwe television viewers who had switched on to free-to-air decoders stranded as they were left viewing mostly religious channels.
Some dealers then started offering the SABC channels for viewers purchasing new decoders from them for between $35 and $100.
It is still unknown how they manage to register people to access SABC channels, but it is believed that they use South Africa-based individuals to register the smartcards using that country’s identity systems with MultiChoice in South Africa.
