Communications minister Faith Muthambi's increasingly vocal push to "revive" the country's stalled broadcast digital migration process has come under scrutiny, as several of her recent statements - specifically around set-top box (STB) controls - are inaccurate and misleading.
At the centre of Muthambi's efforts to kick-start the digital migration project is the contentious issue of decoder controls, with broadcasters and government butting heads in the past. MultiChoice and the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) strongly oppose STB encryption for free-to-air terrestrial television, while etv has been arguing for it.
However, industry observers have criticised Muthambi for either a lack of understanding of the process, or for purposefully misleading the country about the status of digital terrestrial television (DTTV) migration.
During a recent press conference, on 12 November, Muthambi stated the question of STB controls brought the migration process to a "standstill in December 2013, when a court decision halted the then minister [Yunus Carrim] from proceeding to implement the broadcasting digital migration policy. The court action challenged the minister's authority to determine through policy the management of the control access system on the STBs."
However, market observers point out Muthambi's statement is incorrect, as there never was a court case during Carrim's short tenure as communications minister. In fact, they say, the matter of STB controls was settled in December 2012, when the South Gauteng High Court ruled broadcasters, rather than the Department of Communications (DOC), must make the decision about the type of control function there should be in STBs.
Clear decision
"She is out by a year. However, even given the original court decision, there was no basis for halting the minister from proceeding to implement the policy. The real issue was the unwillingness of MultiChoice to accept a control system being built into the STBs, as they had invested heavily in their own control system to ensure they could manage a subscriber base," says World Wide Worx MD Arthur Goldstuck. "One of their arguments was that a built-in control system would allow other broadcasters to leapfrog this investment and give them an unfair advantage."
Goldstuck says the 2012 court decision made it clear what the respective responsibilities were of government and broadcasters. A threat of a court challenge - as made by the National Association of Manufacturers in Electronic Components, against Carrim in December 2013 - is not the same as an actual court challenge, Goldstuck notes.
He adds Carrim - Muthambi's predecessor - tried to hammer out an agreement that would be acceptable to the free-to-air broadcasters, as well as to MultiChoice, but was unable to get them to agree. "I know that there was great frustration at the DOC at the unwillingness of industry players to reach a compromise, but in the end they should have toughed it out."
ICT veteran Adrian Schofield agrees Muthambi is wrong about the court ruling, as well as about her claims that the court challenge brought the process to a halt.
Yet, Muthambi is adamant the "key to the impasse [in the migration process] was the issue of whether or not to adopt a control access system on the STBs".
"As soon as I began my consultation on this matter, I established that there were very strong contesting positions around this matter. As you well know, the contestation led to the court challenge and decision that brought the then minister to a halt in December 2013," she told journalists earlier this month. "As a result, I am sure you will also understand that to pave a way ahead under those circumstances would require great caution and consultation with all stakeholders and parties involved."
Who's driving?
Meanwhile, the migration process has stalled, as the digital migration policy disappeared into the folds of Cabinet for final approval in July, and no news about its progress has since been forthcoming. This has since given rise to speculation that a turf war has erupted between Muthambi and telecommunications and postal services minister Siyabonga Cwele, who initially earmarked digital migration as a priority project for his newly-established department.
It is understood a presidential proclamation is in the works that will outline which of the two ministries is ultimately responsible for driving the process, but it is not known when it will be finalised. In the meantime, Muthambi has seemingly jumped the gun, publicly taking ownership of the project and talking up the DOC's active role in putting it back on track.
Until then, confusion around the relevant ministry continues to reign - with opinions split as to whether Muthambi or Cwele should drive the digital migration process. Goldstuck argues the digital migration policy now falls under the DOC, saying there is nothing stopping Muthambi from finalising the policy with provision for a control function.
On the other hand, Schofield believes the digital migration process belongs firmly under Cwele's department, and feels the current situation is a result of the reconfiguration of the old DOC by president Jacob Zuma. "Why these two ministers cannot take the advice of their predecessor is a testament to the power of vested interests influencing poorly-advised politicians, who do not understand critical issues."
In response to questions about Muthambi's inaccurate statements, DOC spokesman Ayanda Hollow says: "I've noticed the typo on the judgement, the date should be 2012 and not 2013 as it reflects on the statement. What we should wait for now is the Cabinet statement on the DTTV matter to move South Africa forward."
Despite being sent a specific list of questions by ITWeb, Hollow did not offer any further details. While his response seems to allude to the fact that Muthambi may have meant to refer to the South Gauteng High Court ruling in 2012, after etv took former minister Dina Pule to court, it does not explain why she has seemingly misconstrued the contents of this judgement.
'Bamboozled'
The Democratic Alliance, meanwhile, will push for Muthambi to appear at a joint meeting of the communications and telecoms portfolio committees to explain her "misleading" remarks. "She is obviously creating confusion in the minds of her Cabinet colleagues over what could be a complicated, technical issue and trying to bamboozle them into her misguided way of thinking, so she can grab the DTTV process into her domain," says shadow minister of telecommunications and postal services Marian Shinn.
"There was no such judgment [as referred to by Muthambi] or, indeed, court action, although MultiChoice threatened to go to court. There is nothing stopping Cwele from finalising the digital broadcast policy with provision for a control function. He, in fact, intends to do so, and has been delayed by [Muthambi's] insistence on being consulted.
"What all this means is that Faith, probably unintentionally, misrepresented the situation to Parliament." Shinn notes Carrim's finalisation of the broadcast digital migration policy (tabling it to Cabinet, which would have waved it through) was not delayed by a court decision - there was no court case throughout his term as minister.
"It's empire-building that is being done with such ferocity one wonders whose interests [Muthambi] is working in, because her meddling is causing absolute despair in the industry, delaying the spread of ICTs into the rural areas, inhibiting the developing of products and services that could use the freed-up spectrum, and probably chasing away much-needed investment for infrastructure rollout."