About two weeks ago, the central East African country of Rwanda became the latest nation on the continent to complete its switch-over to digital terrestrial television broadcast, as the internationally-mandated analogue switch-off date of 17 June 2015 looms ever closer.
It is perhaps interesting to note this is a country whose economy is based mainly on subsistence agriculture, and one that saw large-scale devastation in 1994, when between 500 000 and a million people were systematically murdered during the Rwandan Genocide.
Rwanda's switch-over brings to around 17 the total number of African countries that have completed the process to date, including some that have legacies of socio-economic and political instability, among other challenges.
In comparison, the historical economic powerhouse of Africa seems utterly incapable of organising its way out of the proverbial paper bag when it comes to digital migration, and there are more questions now surrounding South Africa's changeover plans than ever.
It is thus a given that the International Telecommunication Union's deadline - when the protection of analogue services will effectively cease - is well out of reach. What is also clearly out of reach is any notion that South Africa will harness the digital switch-over to establish a meaningful electronics manufacturing sector for new entrants, thus losing out on job creation and the potential to export millions of set-top boxes to the continent.
By now it has become somewhat of a clich'e that the move to digital terrestrial television will greatly benefit the country's costly Internet and telecoms sector by freeing up much-needed spectrum. The anticipated resultant economic and social benefits have taken on almost mythical proportions - with little hope this will ever materialise.
However, given the considerable direct and indirect benefits of digital migration - especially for a country desperately in need of jobs, skills and economic growth - logic would dictate government should be jumping at the chance to wrap up this process as swiftly and efficiently as possible.
Yet, logic seems to have all but disappeared from the digital migration conundrum, and it is becoming harder and harder to ignore that all is not what it seems. In fact, what little we do know about the state and progress of government's migration strategy has been shrouded in mystery, and any attempt to get clarity has been frustrated by obfuscation, double-speak and countless empty promises.
Who's in charge?
Currently, government would have us believe the digital migration policy is with Cabinet for final approval and will be gazetted at some unspecified date, at which point switch-over will commence in earnest. Simple enough, on the face of it, but the devil's in the detail.
For one, this policy was supposed to have been gazetted at the end of July - a point that minister of telecommunications and postal services Siyabonga Cwele was quite adamant about when I interviewed him before this deadline. As we know, that date came and went, and the policy ostensibly disappeared somewhere in the vast void that is Cabinet.
Inexplicably, Cwele and his department have since been less than adamant about explaining this indefinite hold-up. Instead, attempts to elicit a response from the Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services (DTPS) have been met with general disinterest and vague brush-offs from the ministry's spokespeople.
Equally strange, if not totally absurd, is the rumoured turf war that has erupted between the DTPS and the new Department of Communications (DOC) over the final digital migration policy. Half-hearted denials of a power struggle between the DTPS and DOC have been less than convincing. The fact remains that both Cwele and communications minister Faith Muthambi have individually claimed possession of the digital migration process in public utterances and, to date, no official position has been taken on this by government.
It is rather telling that the Democratic Alliance - the official opposition in Parliament - is as confused about this as anyone else, and has yet to get any answers about the respective departments' areas of jurisdiction and oversight.
Notwithstanding government's stated support for new entrants and its desire to see small and medium manufacturers share the spoils of lucrative set-top box contracts, its actions show this is little else than a load of bull.
In fact, the very creation of the DTPS and DOC - in their current format - has been baffling and much criticised by the ICT sector, yet little has been done by government to demonstrate the thinking behind this move.
What we do know is that Muthambi's DOC is essentially mandated to act as a propaganda machine, established to spin positive news about South Africa and, specifically, government's achievements. What we do not know is where the limits of her powers and influence lie, as entities such as the Independent Communications Authority of SA and the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) seem to fall under her department. Her unilateral decision to permanently appoint controversial SABC COO Hlaudi Motsoeneng - in the face of a damning public protector's report - hints that she has some political clout.
Thus, there is seemingly nothing simple about the finalisation of the digital migration policy, and appears government is actually doing everything it can to sow as much confusion and disinformation about this process as possible.
Manufacturing disaster
Another element central to digital migration has been the proposed establishment of a local set-top box manufacturing industry and the opportunities that this would create for previously-disadvantaged small business owners. Yet, this is perhaps one area of the whole process that has been most problematic and raises several red flags.
Notwithstanding government's stated support for new entrants and its desire to see small and medium manufacturers share the spoils of lucrative set-top box contracts, its actions show this is little else than a load of bull.
The rise and fall of several emergent set-top box makers has been well documented in the media, as the manufacturers were forced to close their doors due to the endless delays that continue to plague digital migration. It seems rather callous of government to simply not give a damn about the financial implications suffered by these entrepreneurs, who waited in vain for manufacturing tenders that have - to date - not materialised.
Meanwhile, government stood back and allowed South African broadcasters to squabble about set-top box controls, delaying the process even further. While this debate was allowed to rage unabated, in the interest of a supposed consultative approach to industry stakeholders, it is clear government did not have the slightest concern for the small and medium manufacturers that were hung out to dry.
What raises even more red flags is the emergence of the National Association of Manufacturers in Electronic Components (Namec) - an entity established in 2010 - that punts itself as wanting "to ensure participation of black small businesses in the digital migration process".
Unfortunately, this body has attained little in terms of tangible results and has instead been thrown into disarray by a split in its senior leadership, with each opposing side claiming rightful ownership of the body. In dispute is a R51 million set-top box deal inked by the supposedly rogue faction of Namec, reportedly with local pay-TV provider MultiChoice and Chinese set-top box manufacturer Skyworth Digital, for the potential supply of 15 million boxes, over the next three years.
Other than this ongoing fight, there is little evidence of any real activity by Namec. A recent interview with one of the factions - the side not party to the aforementioned deal - left me with mixed feelings. Aside from sweeping statements and lofty ideals for a manufacturing Utopia, it seems to lack any real direction or desire to lobby government. On the contrary, its representatives' unwavering admiration of government's "leadership" and "vision" for digital migration was decidedly out of place.
Of course, we do have established manufacturers, such as Altech UEC, that could step in and bang out set-top boxes at the drop of a hat, so theoretically manufacturing need not be a major stumbling block for digital migration this late in the game. Sure, emerging players would not benefit, but then that isn't exactly top of mind for government now, is it?
Some will argue there is nothing more nefarious about this digital debacle than the familiar bungling and bureaucratic missteps that we have come to know and expect from government officials. But that would necessitate an improbable and sustained confluence of incompetence, ineptness and negligence on a level that is simply not believable.
A more probable scenario is that there are just too many hands in too small a cookie jar, and digital migration will be held back until such time as the spoils have been divided up among the "worthy". So, just maybe it's time to wake up and admit something stinks to high heaven, lest we become those good men that Edmund Burke warned us about.
Perhaps, as the ICT industry, as a whole, it's time to stop fixating on the "when" of this process. Perhaps it's time to start asking "why?" More specifically, perhaps we should be asking "why not?"
Share