The Independent Communications Authority of SA (Icasa) has rejected the SABC’s bid to force pay television providers to cough up for the privilege of carrying the public broadcaster’s channels.<\/p>\n
Last year the SABC proposed that MultiChoice and new players Telkom Media, Walking on Water and On Digital Media should pay for the content of SABC1, SABC2 and SABC3, saying the channels boosted the uptake of subscription services in the market, among other things. <\/p>\n
It pressed Icasa to enforce a "must carry, must pay" policy.<\/p>\n
The move raised speculation that the SABC was seeking to boost its finances after profit for the 2006\/07 financial year fell 52 percent to R83 million. <\/p>\n
But in draft regulations released this week, Icasa has dismissed the public broadcaster’s request and proposed that every operator must continue carrying its own cost. <\/p>\n
MultiChoice carries SABC1, SABC2 and SABC3 on its DStv platform without charge. MultiChoice pays to air SABC Africa.<\/p>\n
In its findings, the regulator says "must carry" obligations should not be imposed as financial support for any broadcaster. The SABC should offer its channels free of charge and deliver its signals to the subscription operators at its own cost. <\/p>\n
Any costs outside the signal delivery and carriage of the channels should be based on commercial negotiations between the parties. <\/p>\n
Under the Electronic Communications Act, subscription broadcasters must carry the public service channels to fulfil universal access obligations.<\/p>\n
During hearings last year, MultiChoice, On Digital Media and Telkom Media argued that they would be helping the SABC to meet its universal access duties by carrying the channels, because the terrestrial signal was weak in some areas. <\/p>\n
Airing the channels on DStv boosted the public broadcaster’s negotiating powers with advertisers, MultiChoice added.<\/p>\n
If Icasa imposed the "must pay" obligation, MultiChoice cautioned, the costs might be passed on to consumers, who would be paying twice for channels as they already had to pay SABC television licence fees. <\/p>\n
There were also concerns that the SABC might not offer channels such as SABC3, which it views as a commercial station, if Icasa did not impose the remuneration obligation.<\/p>\n
The SABC argued that subscription broadcasters were obliged to carry its public service channels, but it was not mandatory for the SABC to offer all of its content to them. <\/p>\n
Icasa’s draft says the SABC will have to make its channels available to all the players on a non-discriminatory basis. <\/p>\n
But free-to-air broadcasters like e.tv will have to negotiate arrangements for access and carriage in commercial agreements with the pay television providers, which are not obliged to carry such services. <\/p>\n
The SABC was not available for comment. Interested parties have until July 4 to respond to the draft regulations.<\/p>\n