Why MultiChoice is challenging e.tv’s TV box victory

When Multichoice say good morning, I go outside to see if the sun is actually coming up. We all know this is to protect M-Net, but then e-tv also want to go into pay tv so yes they talking crap as well.
 
Pretty good argument on dstv's side.

BUT......

Please tell me who is fighting whom in this debate ??

Is e-TV+ MC against the DoC?

Or

MC + DoC against e-TV?

Or is it a free-for all?
 
Last edited:
So Multichoice cares about government expenditure and the plight of the poor? Lol!
 
daniellgr said:
Pretty good argument on dstv's side.

BUT......

Please tell me who is fight whom in this debate ??

Is e-TV+ MC against the DoC?

Or

MC + DoC against e-TV?

Or is it a free-for all?
Click to expand...

The issue is simple. A signal can be free to air and encrypted. Encryption does not necessarily mean access control. Content providers when licensing their latest content or premium content (incl. high resolution) demand that broadcasters encrypt their content to prevent piracy. If broadcasters cannot encrypt they won't have be able to license premium content. Now ask yourself, who benefits from this?
 
I don't normally support Faith Muthambi, Multichoice and ICASA, but in this case they have it right.

1) STB's need to be unencrypted to follow world trends in Digital Broadcasting.
2) This makes STB's affordable and cross platform - many are already built into existing TV's
3) This keeps costs low, allows for cheaper government subsidising, and levels the playing field for every one.
4) Basic access is a right and constitutional privilege for all South Africans. Encryption creates an unnecessary barrier.
5) Pay TV operators can still create their own platforms later for delivery of special content. Such services will run on top of the base level Digital broadcast network.
6) ETV is just trying to get the government (or you and I as tax payers) to pay for their own content distribution system. That should be an opt-in system, not a requirement for everyone.
 
So following on from your points, why then bother at all with a STB? Just have a card in a TV, which is in line with the MC document.

Which means then that pay-tv services even if provided digitally, will be on a separate multiplex from the ones used for government subsidised FTA services. That means e-Tv and MC will have to manufacture their own STBs to implement whatever control they want on their services? How does this stack up with their argument re DTT cards in TVs? MC seems to be at odds with itself here.

Which then means there is no need for a fat cat enrichment process creating a minimal number of local jobs putting together STBs without encryption (equated in the MC document with CA) locally ....

MCs argument is challenging some of the foundation stones on which the entire DTT programme in SA rests ...

Hence, why I ask who is contesting what in the pending court matter?
 
Last edited:
daniellgr said:
So following on from your points, why then bother at all with a STB? Just have a card in a TV, which is in line with MCs document.
Click to expand...

You CAN and SHOULD be able to use digital reception cards built into TV's... but a lot of older TV's won't have those. Hence the need for a cheap and open STB model.
This will be distributed and subsidised for a lot of poor and needy households in SA. The cost should preferably be less than R300.
Not R600 to R1000 for the encrypted boxes.
 
LazyLion said:
I don't normally support Faith Muthambi, Multichoice and ICASA, but in this case they have it right.

1) STB's need to be unencrypted to follow world trends in Digital Broadcasting.
2) This makes STB's affordable and cross platform - many are already built into existing TV's
3) This keeps costs low, allows for cheaper government subsidising, and levels the playing field for every one.
4) Basic access is a right and constitutional privilege for all South Africans. Encryption creates an unnecessary barrier.
5) Pay TV operators can still create their own platforms later for delivery of special content. Such services will run on top of the base level Digital broadcast network.
6) ETV is just trying to get the government (or you and I as tax payers) to pay for their own content distribution system. That should be an opt-in system, not a requirement for everyone.
Click to expand...

1. That's not the trend.
2. The cost per STB is negligible. NAGRA even waived the license fee.
3. See 2. Encryption is optional and doesn't necessarily mean access control.
4. SABC AND E could still broadcast a non encrypted transmission or encrypt the transmission and still allow access.
5. So add more cost and complexity that would not be necessary.
6. It's NOT a content distribution system. Once again, encryption is not necessarily access control. An encrypted broadcast can still be a free broadcast.
 
LazyLion said:
You CAN and SHOULD be able to use digital reception cards built into TV's... but a lot of older TV's won't have those. Hence the need for a cheap and open STB model.
This will be distributed and subsidised for a lot of poor and needy households in SA. The cost should preferably be less than R300.
Not R600 to R1000 for the encrypted boxes.
Click to expand...

The irony is that in many cases, DoC is also giving away TVs together with the free STB, and those TVs are not analogue TVs -----
 
quovadis said:
1. That's not the trend.
2. The cost per STB is negligible. NAGRA even waived the license fee.
3. See 2. Encryption is optional and doesn't necessarily mean access control.
4. SABC AND E could still broadcast a non encrypted transmission or encrypt the transmission and still allow access.
5. So add more cost and complexity that would not be necessary.
6. It's NOT a content distribution system. Once again, encryption is not necessarily access control. An encrypted broadcast can still be a free broadcast.
Click to expand...

Agree, encryption does not imply CA except when convenient in a legal argument .....

But please explain how MC and e-TV will control access to their proposed pay-tv services over the DTT infrastructure? What will they have to do to achieve this?
 
daniellgr said:
Agree, encryption does not imply CA except when convenient in a legal argument .....

But please explain how MC and e-TV will control access to their proposed pay-tv services over the DTT infrastructure? What will they have to do to achieve this?
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. Without encryption no broadcaster on DTT would be able to license and broadcast any premium content whatsoever. It's not necessarily controlling access.
 
quovadis said:
I think you're missing the point. Without encryption no broadcaster on DTT would be able to license and broadcast any premium content whatsoever. It's not necessarily controlling access.
Click to expand...

They can build encryption in on their own devices (which will then also still be capable of receiving the unencrypted channels).
But there is no need to force every person in the country who won't be subscribing to their services to use their encryption standards. It's unnecessary.
Content Distributors should sell and maintain their own boxes... just like it is now.
 
LazyLion said:
They can build encryption in on their own devices (which will then also still be capable of receiving the unencrypted channels).
But there is no need to force every person in the country who won't be subscribing to their services to use their encryption standards. It's unnecessary.
Content Distributors should sell and maintain their own boxes... just like it is now.
Click to expand...

And the masses will never be treated to a FIFA World Cup match live in high definition etc? All for an additional cost of R20 per STB.
 
quovadis said:
And the masses will never be treated to a FIFA World Cup match live in high definition etc? All for an additional cost of R20 per STB.
Click to expand...

Oh, are they getting that now already? Not going to happen without a premium subscription.
And all premium subscriptions are going to be encrypted anyway through their decoders.... just like it is now...
 
LazyLion said:
Um, yes it is. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post since you don't know what you are talking about...
https://www.google.com/search?q=Cle...firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=tDptV8nBH-mo8wfJuYKAAQ
http://avc.com/2012/02/clearqam-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/
Click to expand...

Maybe read your links. The argument is for stopping encryption lobbying because the existing TVs which accept DTT don't have support for encryption. If Encryption is specified at the get-go then that situation is AVOIDED.
 
quovadis said:
And the masses will never be treated to a FIFA World Cup match live in high definition etc? All for an additional cost of R20 per STB.
Click to expand...

Why do you equate HD and Premium content? FTA services are already available in SA in HD -----

I think what this thread is showing is the massive level of confusion about everything related to DTT ......
 
LazyLion said:
Oh, are they getting that now already? Not going to happen without a premium subscription.
And all premium subscriptions are going to be encrypted anyway through their decoders.... just like it is now...
Click to expand...

That's a frankly ludicrous argument. There is a difference between SABC being able to broadcast premium content and SABC being unable to even if they wanted to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X