6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
Attention: Ms Tsholofelo Mooketsi Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services Block B, iParioli Office Park, 1166 Park Street, Hatfield, Pretoria Email: [email protected] 31 January 2015
Dear Ms Mooketsi,
Submission by Cape Town TV (CTV) on the National Integrated ICT Policy Discussion Paper
1. Introduction 1.1 CTV submits this document in response to the invitation by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications for comments on the National Integrated ICT Policy Discussion Paper of November 2014. 1.2 CTV is a licensed community television broadcaster which serves the greater Cape Town metropolitan area. The station began broadcasting in September 2008 and currently operates in terms of a seven-year license granted by ICASA. The channel broadcasts on two analogue terrestrial frequencies from Sentech’s Tygerberg transmitter site in Cape Town and is also carried nationally on DStv. CTV is the second-largest community television broadcaster in South Africa and has an audience of around 2.6 million viewers. 1.3 We note that there are now two parallel processes of regulatory development occurring in the field of broadcasting. One is the ICT Policy Review process, of which this Discussion Paper forms a part, while the other is the Broadcasting Policy Review instituted by the Department of Communications. We submit that these dual processes are counterproductive for both stakeholders and policy makers and consequently there should be just one overall process which would be the ICT Policy Review. 1.3.1 In relation to this matter, we believe that it is also counterproductive for South Africa to have two separate government departments operating in the field of communications. 1.3.2 At present there is the Department of Communications as well as the Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services. There are distinct overlaps in their respective areas of responsibility (e.g. broadcasting) which is causing confusion in policy-making processes and in other areas, as well as flying in the face of the phenomenon of convergence which is driving change in all fields pertaining to ICT. 1.3.3 The situation that we are experiencing is confusing and conflicted; the Minister’s contention that “Government and Cabinet act as a single collective” is not translating into coherent policy and decisive action on the ground. Having two separate government departments operating in one area cannot give rise to greater efficiency in any respect – rather one department should be capacitated to manage the overall ICT environment and all its disparate fields of endeavour because in the digital terrain, all data is equal – whether it be in form of content such as email communications, websites, radio or television, or the infrastructure which supports the transmission of such data.
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva
6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
1.3.4 The negative effects of the departmental split are already apparent (for example in further confusion and delays around the migration to DTT) and we contend that it is urgent that this decision on splitting the department be revisited. 1.4 CTV thanks the DOPT for taking forward this policy development process and appreciate the opportunity to put forward a position on ICT policy from the point of view of community television.
2. We will address Section 5 of the Discussion Paper, “Policy Options: Audio and Audio-visual Content Services”, with specific reference to the area of community television broadcasting. 2.1 We support the proposal in Section 5.2.1 “Exclusions”, which proposes that “current exclusions (data or text services and those where the provision of audio-visual and/or audio material is incidental) remain”. 2.2 We agree with the proposal in Section 5.2.2 that “content regulation only applies to: Services which are under the editorial control of a provider (and) Services which provide programming/professional content to the general public”. 2.2.1 Here we support Option Three: Combination. This is because Option One seems best suited to regulating a broadcast environment, while Option Two takes more account of online AV content providers which reach much smaller audiences. 2.2.2 Community broadcasters may not meet the thresholds of audience numbers and high income, as indicated in Australian regulations, particularly in their early phases; but they should nevertheless be subject to regulation, specifically licensing. This is because bandwidth for broadcasting purposes is still limited, even in the digital environment, so stations should be licensed in order to make use of spectrum. 2.2.3 Furthermore the extent to which community broadcasters can deliver “professional content” is dependent largely on the nature and extent of their own production capacities; their content may be produced by learners/trainees and community contributions, which may not necessarily fall within the definition of “professional” content. 2.2.4 There are also online AV streaming providers; regulations such as licensing should not inhibit start- up online providers, but certain regulatory features should be imposed when any such provider reaches a certain threshold of influence – particularly as such providers will increasingly compete with broadcast providers due to convergence. 2.3 In Section 5.2.3 “Grey Areas”, we submit that this should also cover the transmission of ‘broadcasting like’ services in the area of audio-visual content – in other words online television. There are already online television services currently available in South Africa1 and more will follow. Moreover television broadcasters such as CTV can make their channels available online through streaming services, and may elect to create stand-alone online channels. 2.3.1 In answer to the question, “Should existing South African based Internet radio services be licence/authorisation?” our response is that they should not because it is unlikely that they meet any
1 See for example ‘Community Vibes TV’ at http://www.communityvibesradio.com/Tv-Live/.
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva
6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
reasonable threshold of influence at this time. Consequently there is no need to “grandfather” licenses. 2.3.2 We also have to bear in mind that broadband connectivity is necessary in order for users to have much access to AV content, and broadband penetration in SA is relatively low at present. According to the United Nations’ global broadband rankings in 2014, 48.9% of South Africans had access to the Internet while fixed broadband penetration stood at 3.1%. Mobile broadband penetration was not tracked in the 2014 report, but in 2013 it stood at 26%. 2.3.3 The SA government has set ambitious targets for increasing broadband penetration with the National Broadband Policy, also referred to as “South Africa Connect”, of 2014. The first target is to achieve an average user experience speed of 5 Mbps to by 2016 and available to 50% of the population and to 90% by 2020. The development of broadband connectivity will ultimately bring about increases in the number of online AV services that are able to reach South African audiences. 2.4 Under section 5.2.3.2 the question posed is “How, if at all, should policy and regulation best respond to the possible blurring of distinction between traditional broadcasting and on-demand services?” As we point out above, increased availability of broadband connectivity will result in increases in online AV content. The phenomenon of convergence means that this content will increasingly be available to the public on various devices, including their television sets, in both linear and non-linear formats. 2.4.1 There are various reasons to impose regulation on the area of content delivery; these include a) scarcity of infrastructure required to deliver such content – in the broadcasting field this has referred to scarcity of spectrum, particularly in the environment of analogue transmission; b) the need to protect people, particularly children, from harmful content; c) rules around fair competition between providers and lowering barriers to entry for start-ups; and d) the provision of meaningful content which will enhance social development. Regulation must then change in line with the relevance of these drivers to developments in the terrain of AV content delivery. 2.4.2 Advances in technology such as greater variety of viewing platforms (screens), increased bandwidth and enhanced delivery infrastructure (digital broadcasting and the internet), and increased access by users, will all drive regulatory development along with user uptake of services, user engagement and provider numbers. As the terrain changes, so regulation must change to keep pace with such change – but this can mean lowering restrictions as the provision of content increases and the means of delivery overcomes previous scarcities, e.g. spectrum scarcity. 2.4.3 In this changing environment the role of policy and regulation will have to change according to changes on the ground. Here we have to look at two areas of policy – firstly laws pertaining to the general protection of the population, e.g. laws on hate speech, pornography, slander etc.; and secondly laws pertaining specifically to transmission infrastructure and content providers. It is not necessary or desirable to duplicate regulations – for example there is no need to invoke specific rules for broadcasters in the area of slander or invasion of privacy when such matters are covered by other laws. 2.4.4 The blurring of distinctions between traditional broadcasting and online services is taking place because broadcasting has moved into the digital terrain – and that terrain is characterised by the
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva
6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
fact that all data is equal. In other words, all text, pictures, moving images and sound is delivered as digital data, which may be received and interacted with by the user on a variety of devices. 2.4.5 In the very long term, television as a distinct broadcast medium will disappear because a) the means of delivery will be equal across platforms – there will be no difference between delivery over the airwaves and delivery through other mechanisms such as fixed-line or wireless; and b) users will be able to interact with providers through return-path capacity which enables them to choose linear content streams or VOD on a seamless basis across viewing or access platforms. 2.4.6 The above factors demand a regulatory environment that is neutral with regard to the technology used to deliver AV content, but which takes into account the different levels of activity which presently characterise delivery platforms which are still in the early stages of merging. 2.5 Section 5.2.3.3 asks, “How, if at all, should South African policy approach Internet content providers from outside the country?” Our response to this is that no attempt should be made to regulate these providers, save through international agreements on specific areas of general law such as laws against child pornography. The right to receive information is a basic human right. This can be offset against the degree of harm which might arise through the production and reception of certain categories of information, such as child pornography, but essentially this right must be a guiding principle in all regulation. 2.5.1 We must point out that it is very difficult for governments to restrict access by the public to information without becoming authoritarian and repressive, such as the regimes in the People’s Republic of China and the People’s Republic of North Korea. It would be a tragedy if the South African government embarked on programmes to restrict the freedom of access to information that South Africans currently enjoy, which would be the case if attempts are made to restrict the inflow of information and communications from outside the country’s borders. 2.5.2 Despite the licensing and other regulations pertaining to broadcasters in South Africa, which have the effect, amongst others of restricting the number of television broadcasters operating in the country, any South African can have access to a much wider array of broadcasting services. This is achieved through the erection of satellite signal receiving equipment that can access the many international television and radio services distributed by satellites whose footprint covers the territory. There are at present no laws preventing people from erecting such apparatus, which is consistent with the above-mentioned right to information. This right should be respected in the digital environment as well and therefore no content restrictions should be sought or imposed on international internet content providers.
3. Section 5.3 “Focus of regulation” poses two options for regulatory focus. Here we support Option One: Status Quo because we believe that despite the phenomenon of convergence, television providers operate within an overall ecosystem in South Africa and each sector is intimately linked with the other. For example, the SABC and all community television stations are carried both terrestrially and on pay-TV platforms. It is disingenuous to suggest that pay-TV operations are entirely distinct and separate from these public service providers; and in fact the public service providers depend to a greater or lesser extent on carriage on pay-TV platforms to reach audiences across special and economic divides.
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva
6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
3.1 Moreover the content available on pay-TV platforms plays an important role in informing South Africans about their world, both within and without the borders of the country and so should be required to act in their interests through appropriate regulation. 3.2 The dependence of community television broadcasters on pay-TV platforms – principally DStv – suggests that there should be a must-carry obligation on these DTH platforms.
4. Regarding Section 5.4.1.1 Options: Spectrum licences, it seems logical that television broadcasting licenses be linked with bandwidth availability on a multiplex. A radio frequency spectrum licence cannot be issued when various broadcasters are sharing a particular frequency on a MUX, and moreover have no control over how bandwidth is utilized on a MUX which is licensed to a MUX operator. 4.1 ICASA must ensure that sufficient capacity is available for the carriage of a particular channel on a MUX before issuing a license to a broadcaster. 4.1.1 The above point speaks to the fact that it is ICASA which must be responsible for licensing individual broadcast operators or channels on a MUX. In as far as Section 5.4 of the Paper deals with general licensing issues and categories, we insist that ICASA as the broadcast regulator continue to be empowered to adjudicate which operators be available on multiplexes. 4.1.2 ICASA should not devolve such powers to individual broadcasters; while the Authority may allocate a certain amount of bandwidth on a MUX to a particular broadcaster and allow that entity to determine which channels it wishes to broadcast on that MUX, the regulator must ensure that each and every broadcast entity is licensed according to the specific criteria which pertain to its manner of operation (i.e. public service, commercial or community). 4.1.3 The situation at present is confusing; while ICASA has licensed some broadcast operators as community channels, others are operating on satellite spectrum operated by pay-TV operators. Some such entities claim to be “community” channels whereas in fact they are not compliant with ICASA regulations governing the nature of community broadcasters. For example they may be private companies operated for profit rather than non-profit entities operated for the public benefit. 4.1.4 The effects of this situation are already being felt in the body which is supposedly being established to promote the interests of the community TV sector, Act-SA2, which currently has both licensed and unlicensed community TV operators as well as both non-profit and privately-owned entities. These competing interests are being lumped together as “community television” and the resulting incoherence is contributing to stagnation in the formalisation of Act-SA as an industry body which can co-regulate the sector and promote its development in the interests of fulfilling its public service mandate. 4.1.5 Under 5.4.1.4 Options: Process and requirements, we motivate for changing the licence category of non-profit community television broadcasters from ‘class’ to ‘individual’ licenses. 4.1.6 Regulation of the community television sector has been characterised by a ‘light touch’ approach which has allowed a multiplicity of business models to be instituted by licensees. This, together with
2 The Association of Community Television – South Africa.
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva
6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
ICASA’s inability to monitor licensee’s business operations in a thorough manner, has led to the encroachment of commercial operations into this non-profit sector. 4.1.7 In addition, ICASA has adopted a ‘first come, first served’ approach to community license applicants which means that it may not always be the most suitable organisation that wins a broadcast license to serve a particular area. For example many applicants have no experience or skills in the field of non-profit, NGO operations and consequently turn to the private sector for help in setting-up and running operations; there is a concomitant focus on advertising as the main means of income generation, which weakens the station’s public benefit focus and results in the above-mentioned business sector encroachment. 4.1.8 Consequently we argue that ICASA needs to do a better job at screening broadcast license applicants, formulate practical and effective license conditions through research and insight into the sector and ensure compliance and due diligence among licensees. This suggests that a policy of individual licensing be followed where a call is made for applications in a particular area and the best applicant chosen based on a range of appropriate criteria. 4.1.9 The selection process for license applicants should be simple but a more rigorous approach to selection should be instituted. Licenses should not be awarded on a ‘first come, first served’ basis, but instead ICASA should call for licence applications, hold public hearings and award licenses to the strongest applicant. 4.1.10 We note the matter of the public service broadcaster obtaining funding from the collection of television licence fees. Under section 5.6.4.4 Mechanisms, some options are extended for managing the collection of television licence fees. At present these fees are made available solely to the SABC, but we suggest that this is not appropriate in an era where other public benefit channels exist, namely the non-profit community sector. Consequently we propose that the monies from television licence fees be directed into content production funds and that these be made available for public benefit programming that can appear across all the public benefit channels, even commercial channels. 4.1.11 It is also worth considering whether the SABC is the most appropriate organisation to manage the fee collection system. It may in this instance be better if the collection is managed by an independent third party, which then distributes the funds in a fair manner across beneficiaries. This would on the one hand weaken the pressure on the SABC to be accountable to the public because it is no longer the prime beneficiary of license fees, but on the other hand it would take the burden of license fee collection off the Corporation and spread the benefits of fees across stakeholders. 4.1.12 Diverting license fees to a public benefit content fund would also make the payment of such fees more attractive because such content can be made available across platforms, so everyone can benefit from it. This content would not be the exclusive preserve of the SABC and would be available on other channels and digital platforms such websites and mobile. 4.1.13 We caution however that it is likely to be problematic if the definition of the type of equipment that requires a TV licence is expanded to include any device capable of receiving television. This is because convergence means that any digital device is capable of receiving television – i.e. any screen from TV set to PC, smart-phone, tablet, gaming device etc. There is no longer a meaningful
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva
6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
distinction between forms of data delivery because any broadcast stream can be easily redistributed over computer networks, rendering obsolete the necessity to have a broadcast reception mechanism included in viewing equipment. 4.1.13.1 If all devices “capable of receiving television” are taxed through a license fee it would on the one hand vastly extend the revenue-earning potential of the license fee system, but on the other would likely cause resentment among those who would not be using their device for viewing television. The best mechanism to do this would be a once-off levy/tax on the sale of selected devices. 4.1.14 We support the idea of a tax on telecommunications companies and/or advertising and/or commercial broadcasters to contribute towards a public benefit content fund.
5. Section 5.5: The Three-tier system. We agree with the approach outlined in the Discussion Paper. We also agree with the suggestion that a fourth tier be introduced, which would enable national ‘community of interest’ channels. We submit that this tier must also be of a non-profit nature because the majority of bandwidth on the three national multiplexes has been allocated to commercial channels and there is a corresponding need to bolster the amount of bandwidth allocated to channels that are specifically for public benefit purposes. 5.1.1 Furthermore we submit that the fourth tier should specifically exclude religious organisations and faith-based services. There are already many such channels in existence which operate on pay-TV and free-to-air DTH platforms, so there is no need to enable more of the same on the limited capacity of terrestrial multiplexes. 5.1.2 Moreover these channels tend to be exclusive in nature and focus on a narrow range of congruent ideologies. For example a channel run by a Christian denomination might claim to serve all Christians, whereas in fact it only serves those whose particular churches or denominations are ideologically aligned with that of the channel owner. This means that other Christian groups are excluded and marginalised by having their voices silenced, particularly those serving poorer sectors of the population which are not necessarily well-resourced financially. 5.1.3 This does not mean that religious programming on the DTT multiplex will be excluded because it can form part of the content of other public benefit channels, just as it is in the local community television and public service broadcasting models. 5.1.4 There are numerous powerful organisations in the faith sector and these may tend to dominate the broadcasting landscape if they are allowed to enter into the DTT broadcasting terrain. It would be counter-productive were a large number of faith-based organisations come to own bandwidth on the multiplexes and thus exclude other civil society sectors from participating in broadcast operations. 5.1.5 Multiplex bandwidth must be seen in its entirety as carrying an eco-system of broadcast services to serve South Africa’s population. Consequently it is important to allocate bandwidth to provide an even balance between the three tiers of broadcasting; while commercial and public service broadcasters tend to dominate the spectrum, there has been little space allocated for local
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva
6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
community TV channels. It would serve to amplify the public space on the airwaves if provision is made for a national community of interest channels which can create a space developmental communications. It is important to for civil society to have a voice on the national airwaves to match the important role that it plays in the development of our society.
6. Section 5.5 deals with community broadcasting. We support the position of Act-SA on community television broadcasting issues, as set forth in the body’s submission to the first stage of the ICT Policy Review. 6.1 We note the concern by the SABC that community television broadcasters are increasingly competing with other FTA services with the extension of their coverage via satellite (on the DSTV platform and others). 6.1.1 We are extremely surprised at this statement. Firstly because it is strange that the SABC is concerning itself with competition on pay-TV platforms, which typically carry a vast array of channels – of which the SABC channels are generally thought to be the most popular. The presence of the public broadcaster on pay-TV channels is not its primary remit, which is to be available as an FTA broadcaster that is accessible to the general public without the necessity of subscribing to a pay-TV service. The SABC should not therefore be concerned about competition on pay-TV platforms, particularly from the relatively tiny community TV channels. 6.1.2 It does not appear that community channels are hugely threatening to the SABC, with the Corporation massively outperforming them on viewership levels across all platforms. Even on the EPG of DTH platforms the SABC is given pole position while community channels languish at the outer ends, which gives the Corporation an enormous advantage in terms of attracting audiences. It is thus unreasonable that the Corporation is concerned with competition from community broadcasters in the pay-TV environment. 6.1.3 In terms of its FTA presence in the digital environment, the SABC has been granted 85% of the bandwidth on MUX1, while all of the country’s community channels must share the remaining 15%. This capacity amounts to only two or three community channels per province. Given the SABC’s overwhelming presence on this MUX and its dominance of viewing patterns on the pay-TV channels, it is astounding that the broadcaster is concerned with competition from the community sector. 6.1.4 The SABC’s fear of competition from the community is like an elephant being afraid of a mouse. The public broadcaster has an annual budget of over R2 billion, while a community television station such as CTV has an annual budget of around R5 million. This is a vast disparity in resources, which makes it ridiculous that this titanic Corporation is afraid of competition from the minnows of community broadcasting. 6.2 The SABC also claims that increased coverage resulted in community TV services losing their distinctiveness. 6.2.1 We must first point out that survival for channels in the competitive digital environment demands that they have a distinctive brand offering and this puts pressure on community channels to value their distinctiveness.
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva
6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
6.2.2 The prime distinguishing feature of community channels is their local focus and it would be very foolish for any channel to lose contact with the character of its geographic community. To this end it is important for the survival of the channel that it reflects the interests of its licensed community in its content offering before seeking to please wider markets. 6.2.3 Community channels are regulated by ICASA, which sets content quotas as part of the channel’s license conditions. It is therefore incumbent upon the regulator to set licence conditions which will determine the channel’s obligations to carry content which is relevant to the community which it serves and which thus distinguishes it from other channels; and the channel has a corresponding requirement to fulfil such criteria in its content offering. ICASA carries the responsibility of ensuring that channels meet their license conditions and must be capacitated accordingly. 6.3 It is important to bear in mind that a significant market presence is essential to survival in the media environment and that South Africa’s community television sector relies to a very large extent on a presence on pay-TV channels, principally DStv, to deliver sufficient audience share to ensure their sustainability. 6.3.1 Community TV stations are licensed to broadcast terrestrially to reach local audiences, but the fact is that the existing licenses have had limited success in this regard and rely to a large extent on their national presence on pay-TV platforms for audience numbers. As the table below3 shows, some channels obtain almost 90% of their viewership from DStv and all obtain more than 50% of their audience from the pay platform’s national reach.
Cape Tshwane Month Variables \Channel Bay TV Soweto TV 1KZN TV Summary Market Town TV TV October Coverage National 278,453 2,546,261 6,991,997 1,711,037 407,937 11,935,685 2014 DStv 248,413 1,354,573 4,126,638 1,197,254 360,131 7,287,009 Other 30,040 1,191,688 2,865,359 513,783 47,806 4,648,676 Percentage DStv 89% 53% 59% 70% 88% 61%
6.3.2 Some community channels have a presence on more than one pay-TV platform (other platforms include StarSat and OpenView), while there are also community channels that are not licensed by ICASA but which exist only on a pay-TV platform (e.g. Ekhurleni TV). Nevertheless, DStv accounts for the lion’s share of audiences for all community TV channels.
6.3.3 At present the pay-TV providers do not pay the community channels for carriage and in fact the community channels are generally responsible for the costs of getting their signals from point-of- origin to the head-end for uplink to satellite4.
6.3.4 The above facts speak to the need to a) allow for the carriage of community channels on national platforms; and b) the inception of a regulatory environment that includes a “must carry, must pay” component so that pay-TV providers must not only carry community channels as a form of public
3 Figures are from SAARF TAMS, October 2014. 4 CTV is an exception to this rule as DStv pays for the costs of signal transmission from Cape Town to Johannesburg.
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva
6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
service or CSI, but also pay the community channels for the carriage of their content as part of their offering to subscribers.
6.3.5 In the DTT environment, community TV channels should be carried either locally or provincially; but should also be allowed to reach and inform the entire nation through DTH pay-TV providers, including Sentech’s gap-filler service, FreeVision. This geographic constraint in the DTT space will force community channels to structure their content offering around their local or provincial audiences. 6.3.6 At the same time the presence of community channels on national pay-TV platforms will help people around the country who have migrated away from their home region to connect to their cultural and language group roots through watching these channels if they choose to purchase a pay-TV service. In this way community channels connect people across geographic divides as well as informing others about issues and events in their areas of origin, which promotes nation-building and a sense of South African identity. 6.4 Section 5.7.2 suggests that the option of an Open Access television channel be explored. We support this suggestion and believe that such a channel could be useful in the South African context; but this needs to be weighed up against the contributions of the existing community TV broadcasting structure and possible future entrants such as national community of interest channels. More research is needed to evaluate these options. 6.5 With regard to Section 5.7.3 Strengthening licensing and monitoring, we broadly agree with the mechanisms proposed in the Discussion Paper. We have argued that the class licensing system be changed to an individual licensing system and that this would enable the regulator to ensure that the organisation best suited to achieving the objectives of community broadcasting as enacted in the applicable laws and regulations, will win the license. 6.6 Concerning Section 5.7.4 Funding and sustainability, we support the suggestions made in the Discussion Paper and reference the submission by Act-SA as speaking to these ideas. 6.7 In terms of Section 5.10.2 Diversity in news, we support Option Four: Focus on local news. As community broadcasters we know the importance of local news to our audience, but are constrained in our capacity to produce news because of the relatively high cost of this genre. Means should thus be found to fund the production of local news, but news quotas must be benchmarked against the ability of community channels to produce it. News quotas for community channels must be realistic and not unreasonable in their demands on available resources. 6.8 Section 5.12 deals with access to public interest programming and sub-section 5.12.1 with must carry rules. We have mentioned a ‘must carry’ obligation on the part of pay-TV operators to carry community channels and the reasons for this. Consequently we support Option Four: Extend provisions to all FTA broadcasters and Option Five: Allow FTA broadcasters to elect to opt in or out, in as far as they would pertain to the carriage of community television channels and not simply national channels such as the SABC and E.tv. 6.9 We have pointed out above that community television in SA relies to a great extent on its carriage on DStv. While this situation might change in the digital environment, carriage on national pay-TV channels
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva
6-7 Observatory Business Park 18 Lower Scott Road, Observatory P O Box 13863 Mowbray 7905 Tel: +27 21 448 0448 | Fax: +27 86 594 6651 [email protected] www.capetowntv.org
has the benefits outlined above for the sustainability of community television. It is also important to note that community television collectively reaches over 12 million viewers, which is a not inconsiderable proportion of the country’s population. This number will increase in future as the existing channels mature and new ones come on-stream. 6.9.1 We support E.tv’s contention that must-carry regulations will assist the FTA sector to be viable and meet public interest objectives, and that retransmission fees be paid by subscription services/platforms to FTA services. In this regard we support Option Two: Retransmission/ carriage fees, in that “Policy and law would specify that FTA television broadcasters must be fairly compensated for carriage by subscription broadcasters according to the value they add to such networks. The regulator would be tasked with setting out the criteria for determining value.” 7. This brings us to the end of our submission on the Discussion Paper. We thank the Minister and the DOPT for the opportunity of presenting our views on this important policy formulation process. Yours sincerely,
Michael Aldridge Broadcast Manager: CTV
Directors: M Jansen, B Hanekom, M Weinberg, K Thorne, G Hartman, R Maasdorp, R Allie M Louw, A Adams, G Arendse, E Green, J Finye, D Kiva