New pay-Television monopoly

Maybe the future of SA really does lie in services such as pushplay.co.za. Dvdsonline.co.za is also awesome in that they pick up AND deliver the movies. Only crap is their limited selection.

But as Madman88 said, when you are faced with a rock and a hard place you have to choose one. :( DSTV will still be the best pay tv service in the country.
 
hahaha the very fact that you NEED a licence for a tech business says enough about this country already
 
They cannot possibly want to regulate what gated communities or anybody else for that matter throw onto their community networks... That Chinese company can go and **** itself if it wants to lay claim on something inside a gated community IMO! **** THEM!!! I would just ignore ICASA if they want to tell us what we can pump on data lines and what not from whoever and so forth. Seriously we should creatively learn to ignore silly rules and regulations. They can go and **** THEMSELVES!!!! :mad:
 
ic said:
It's a good question, I doubt that !CASA knows, however I will hazard a guess that the monopoly license is for any type of "wired" Pay-TV service.
Click to expand...

That is ****ed up and due to the fact that there is no spectrum issues involved, especially in private networks, this should be taken to court and simply thrown out. ICASA will in effect become a content lord instead of managing spectrum... **** THEM!!! :twisted:

They will also be violating their purpose which is to protect ordinary South Africans. This is tantamount to exploitation! This is one field where the market can easily be open to even the smallest of the small companies. We should fight this if it is true!!!
 
Roman4604 said:
Confusing article this, cable != IPTV (by the strictest definition). CATV transmits video (analogue or digital) natively over coax cable, there is no IP involved.

To simultaneously enable the same cable to be used for CATV & IP data (Internet access), the DOCSIS specifications are used, however IP & TV still remain seperate.

Have no idea what ICASA are actually trying to license?
Click to expand...

IPTV = multicast streaming of video over an IP network. I think they are just comparing it to cable, because it is delivered through a cabled network (although it is different technologies) and not through satellite or RF broadcasts. The problem is that we don't have the infrastructure at the moment, to deliver this kind of service over the internet affordably. So how are they going to do it?

Multichoice and partners are focusing on using IPTV in gated communities and apartment blocks with internal IP networks. The signal is still received over satellite and then converted to IP and streamed to all units.
 
Quantum Theory said:
IPTV = multicast streaming of video over an IP network.
Click to expand...
Well, one could argue that anyone in possession of an IECNS+IECS license, e.g. ISPs are already entitled to do that i.e. provide IP based communication infrastructure & services.

So then is it about the origination of (live) video over IP? That ship has sailed, what are they going to do, outlaw all live webcams, webcasts etc. without this new license?

Just can't understand what entitlement this new license would provide that isnt already covered by an IECNS+IECS?
 
Roman4604 said:
Well, one could argue that anyone in possession of an IECNS+IECS license, e.g. ISPs are already entitled to do that i.e. provide IP based communication infrastructure & services.

So then is it about the origination of (live) video over IP? That ship has sailed, what are they going to do, outlaw all live webcams, webcasts etc. without this new license?

Just can't understand what entitlement this new license would provide that isnt already covered by an IECNS+IECS?
Click to expand...

Well, the IPTV provider will have a IPTV set top box with a smartcard and subs. It will be a lot like a Multichoice decoder, but for an IPTV stream.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Theory said:
IPTV set top box with a smartcard and subs.
Click to expand...
Understood, but what's stopping an IECNS+ECS license holder from doing that? Still doesn't answer the question of what the new license (as refered to in the article) allows above and beyond what is currently doable?

BTW technically not much functional diffs between a STB and a PC with a smartcard reader & video output card.
 
Roman4604 said:
Well, one could argue that anyone in possession of an IECNS+IECS license, e.g. ISPs are already entitled to do that i.e. provide IP based communication infrastructure & services.

So then is it about the origination of (live) video over IP? That ship has sailed, what are they going to do, outlaw all live webcams, webcasts etc. without this new license?

Just can't understand what entitlement this new license would provide that isnt already covered by an IECNS+IECS?
Click to expand...

it is the broadcasting service (BS) licence which is required, and i agree that the situation is twisted. SA appears - without any discussion - to have adopted the regulatory model that treats IPTV and mobile TV as falling under broadcasting as opposed to telecommunications regulation. This has been done elsewhere and echoes the sensitivities govts feel about content.

the central problem with this, imo, is that it runs contrary to the reality of content in the digital age.

this, along with copyright, will be one of the big regulatory issues for next year



...SABC as broadcaster mentality still in evidence
 
dominic said:
it is the broadcasting service (BS) licence
Click to expand...
Hi Dom, yeah I understand what their intent is (the real BS), however in the absence of RF spectrum usage, how will they define what a broadcast service is?

This is the crux of the new quagmire ICASA are creating for themsleves.

EDIT: I figured it out ... if any content vaguely resembles a soapie, it can be classified as broadcasting :p
 
Last edited:
So following the regulatory reasoning [or rather lack thereof] employed by !CASA, any website that offers downloadable copyrighted content, must in fact be broadcasting that content to anyone that 'tunes into' that website?
Roman4604 said:
...
EDIT: I figured it out ... if any content vaguely resembles a soapie, it can be classified as broadcasting :p
Click to expand...
IMO soapies are a form of spam that some people are extremely susceptible to.
 
ic said:
So following the regulatory reasoning [or rather lack thereof] employed by !CASA, any website that offers downloadable copyrighted content, must in fact be broadcasting that content to anyone that 'tunes into' that website?
Click to expand...

Not quite. IPTV is not downloads. It is live television simultaneously streamed to all people on a network. It will be encrypted and you will need a STB, s smartcard and fast network. It doesn't matter if there is one person, or a thousand watching, the load on the network will stay the same... Subscription "internet television" on the other hand, is a different thing altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X