It truly was the Valentine’s Day massacre.
It is unclear whether any of the officers from the Communications Authority of
Kenya, or the well-armed police who accompanied them, was dressed in red, but
their vision was certainly coloured scarlet as they raided the Limuru
transmission sites and carted away equipment belonging to the Nation Media
Group, the Standard Group and Royal Media Services.
The raids on the three media houses are the
denouement – or at least the end of one phase – of the digital migration
efforts which, in Kenya, have degenerated into the realm of circus and farce.
What was supposed to be a simple process of changing technologies has been
caught up in legal battles and ended up with confused customers. Above all,
however, is the fact that the mess has been caused by ineffective, and
oftentimes petulant, regulation. The story of digital migration – how it
started, how it has (not) been carried out, and how it will end – is an object
lesson on how an uncertain regulator can end up messing up the very industry it
is tasked with regulating.
First things first – I need to declare that
I have a dog in this fight. I work for NTV (my business card says that I’m the
Business Editor for the channel, although I’m often busy moonlighting for this
column). Thus, I do have a direct interest in the outcome of the digital
migration process. My livelihood depends on it.
Digital migration is (or was supposed to
be) an unremarkable process. It is a simple technology change, and one that was
supposed to be largely invisible to television viewers, except for the
requirement that they buy set top boxes. The process of migration was launched
with razzmatazz (or at least with what passes for razzmatazz at the parking lot
of the KBC) by President Kibaki in December 2010.
It was bungled almost immediately
afterwards. First, the budgetary allocation by the government for the process
was woefully inadequate. A process that required 3 billion shillings (for
everything from equipment acquisition, to consumer education) was only
allocated around 650 million shillings.
In addition, the digital migration process
was launched with what was soon to be obsolete technology (named Digital Video
Broadcasting-Terrestrial, or DVB-T, if you must know). Within less than a year,
the government announced that Kenya would be migrating to DVB-T2 technology,
which offered better bang for the digital buck, and would be relevant for years
to come. Nothing wrong with that, you might say. That is if, however, you were
not one of the consumers who rushed out to buy a set top box. These early
adopters were left in the lurch and out of pocket, and with useless digital
boxes crowding their television cabinets.
In addition, since the budget for consumer
education was nowhere near adequate, confusion reigned about which television
model was digital and which wasn’t, and whether if one bought a brand new set,
they would have to buy a set top box.
At the same time, other rules kept chopping
and changing. The original plan was to separate content providers (such as my
employer) from signal distributors. Each entity would be left to do what it did
best, and the country would march into a bright digital dawn.
Again, though, this became a confused mess.
The rules were changed, and content creators were allowed to distribute their
own signals. After the three leading broadcasters were knocked out on a
technicality, the licences for signal distribution were then issued to a
Chinese-fronted company, Pan Africa Network Group, and Signet, a subsidiary of
the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation.
What has followed ever since has led to the
events of Saturday afternoon. The three companies applied for a licence to
broadcast, which they were, grudgingly, granted. This was, however, under such
impossible conditions (they had to design, order, manufacture, ship, market and
sell broadcast equipment and set top boxes in under two weeks) that they
understandably went back to court for a more realistic deadline.
All this time, the PR war has been a
vicious one, with the Communications Authority and the government seeking to
paint the companies as roadblocks to the migration process. The companies, on
their part, say that they support migration, but not under such unrealistic
conditions that they become enablers in the cannibalisation of their own
business.
This is where a prudent regulator should
have played their part well. Digital broadcasting (when it eventually does
happen) is an unalloyed good. Clearer channels, more opportunity and
advancement in technology. However, a regulator who seems hell-bent on negating
the billions of shillings in investment over decades can only be looked at with
suspicion.
Digital migration was never supposed to be
a zero-sum game, with new investors and companies coming in at the expense of
existing ones. The pie was supposed to grow, with new talent, new viewers and
new advertisers joining the party.
The Valentine’s Day raids, however, have
put paid to any remaining goodwill. The regulator has dug trenches, with the
government by its side, and is lobbing vicious salvos at the three media
houses. They, in turn, have had to retreat into a defensive crouch, working
around the clock to defend hard-won liberties and investments.
And the viewer, meanwhile, sits by,
wondering where all the love, and all the television, went on Valentine’s Day.
Also published in the Business Daily on February 17 2015 at http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Opinion-and-Analysis/-/539548/2625506/-/14g7wcfz/-/index.html
Comments
Post a Comment