![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mybroadband.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/E-TV-headline-.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nBut eMedia disputed this, claiming that its calculations showed MultiChoice had more than enough bandwidth on one of the satellites it has capacity on.<\/p>\n
eMedia alleged MultiChoice held satellite bandwidth broadcast capacity from 23 transponders on Intelsat IS-20 and 28 more on the Intelsat IS-36 satellite.<\/p>\n
MultiChoice’s initial affidavits didn’t reveal which satellite it uses for the four E-tv channels. It also disputed eMedia’s calculations and said\u00a0it had only 21 transponders on IS-20.<\/p>\n
Curiously, it included data on the IS-20 satellite’s capacity to try and support its case, implying that this was the satellite on which E-tv’s channels were broadcast.<\/p>\n
When E-tv’s experts performed calculations based on this input, it worked out that E-tv’s 720p “HD Ready” channels would take up between 3.5Mbps and 5Mbps of capacity.<\/p>\n
That means they would occupy a combined maximum of 20Mbps of bandwidth out of an estimated 1,150Mbps on IS-20 \u2014 or a 1.7% share.<\/p>\n
MultiChoice had claimed that IS-20 could host four more channels for uplink from South Africa.<\/p>\n
Ngcukaitobi also stressed that DStv doesn’t have to carry SABC’s additional channels immediately, but only sometime in the future following negotiations with the SABC.<\/p>\n
Confusion over satellite in question<\/h3>\n
However, MultiChoice subsequently claimed that the channels took up more than 11% of capacity, with each drawing up to 6.5Mbps for 26Mbps in total.<\/p>\n
While DStv did not directly clarify which of the satellites it hosts E-tv’s channels, its new data suggested they were actually broadcast on IS-36.<\/p>\n
Ngcukaitobi repeatedly emphasised that MultiChoice’s first affidavits seemed to completely ignore the broadcaster’s capacity on the IS-36 satellite, continually suggesting that IS-20 was the satellite being used.<\/p>\n
In another affidavit, MultiChoice backtracked on the capacity constraint argument and said it was never told to specify details around bandwidth capacity on the actual satellite used for E-tv’s broadcasts.<\/p>\n
Ngcukaitobi described MultiChoice’s apparent flip-flop as “astonishing” and an attempt to turn the litigation into a game of “catch me if you can”.<\/p>\n
“The only reason why the capacity defence is abandoned is because it has been shown to be unsustainable in their evidence,” Ngcukaitobi stated.<\/p>\n
E-tv needs DStv<\/h3>\n
eMedia contends under the prevailing market dynamics, its channels were dependent on DStv to remain competitive.<\/p>\n
Ngcukaitobi argued presence on the DStv platforms allows E-tv to maintain customer contact, generate advertising revenue, and ensure a high-quality broadcasting service.<\/p>\n
The company has also argued that carrying the four E-tv channels was economically feasible for MultiChoice, as eMedia provided them for free, and two were in DStv’s top 10 most popular channels.<\/p>\n
MultiChoice’s other reasons for denying a carriage renewal agreement included that the channels did not meet its strategic objectives for local content, black empowerment, value propositions, and its aim to decrease the frequency of repeats.<\/p>\n
Ngcukaitobi said MultiChoice’s claims that the decision was based on E-tv not meeting DStv’s strategic objectives were “contrived”.<\/p>\n
He argued two of the four channels were sharply focused on local content, while eMedia was a majority black-owned business.<\/p>\n
He also maintained MultiChoice had not provided evidence it would replace the channels with other offerings that met its criteria.<\/p>\n
Ngcukaitobi surmised that MultiChoice’s action was done from a desire to inflict harm on a potential rival by undercutting its revenue.<\/p>\n
The hearing continued this morning from 10:00.<\/p>\n
\n