Confusion over digital migration is becoming a national embarrassment

Over Christmas as I had lunch with my mother at her Karatina home, she asked me what she needs to do come year-end when her analogue TV was to be switched off.

I advised her to do nothing until the actual switch-off happens, after which she should do whatever everyone else would be doing.

Yes, a vague answer because the entire subject of digital migration in Kenya has become very confusing. Those who are supposed to provide answers are apparently part of the confusion.

However, as it turned out, the “do nothing” advice I gave my mother was a safe one as no switch-over happened on December 31. It was one of the many aborted switch-over deadlines – a poor performance for a digitally suave country like Kenya.

Digital migration, the way many Kenyans understood it, should essentially have been a simple and straightforward process.

Existing broadcasters were to establish capacity to transmit digital signals. The TV viewers with analogue sets were to make a one-time investment in a decoder to convert signals from analogue to digital.

Viewers with digital TVs did not need to do anything. All the above was to be done prior to June 2015.

Once viewers fulfilled these obligations, they expected to continue enjoying their favourite programmes on local channels. Even my mother understood this simple process and had set aside cash for a decoder.

But as it later turned out, it mattered which decoder one bought because some commit a viewer to monthly payments, which was my mother’s main worry.

She wanted to know which decoder would allow her to continue viewing her favourite programmes without extra costs. Then came the debate on “Pay-TV” and “Free-to-Air TV”. Explanations by the communications regulator on the two modes of TV transmission were mostly done in court rooms.

The public was never explicitly told that eventually some of them may end up paying monthly TV-viewing bills.

Any digital migration process that results in viewers being “forced” into monthly payments for watching channels that have been free for years will most likely be interpreted as a new “TV tax”, which can be politically sensitive.

The authorities will be at pains to explain why this had to be the case when it was possible to avail free-to-air digital TV all over Kenya.

The government’s overriding responsibility should be to ensure that affordable digital communication is accessible to all parts of Kenya at the least cost to the country and the viewer.

Secondly, it is the government’s responsibility to attract private capital to install and maintain infrastructure and systems to sustain digital communication.

Policies, laws and licensing regulations should reflect and implement this responsibility. If there is any doubt that these regulatory instruments are vague or incapable of efficiently and equitably delivering digital migration to Kenyans’ expectations, then it is not too late to amend the laws and regulations.

Yes, the ongoing commercial and legal disputes between investors and regulators are a perfect study case of multiple regulation gone awfully wrong. Multiple because we have many facets of clashing regulations in this one subject.

We have fair competition, consumer protection, property rights, broadcasting communication, and local content. The way we appear to be moving, all these regulations have potential to derail the digital migration process.

We must not forget that the compelling objective for digital migration was simple and straightforward i.e. to comply with some international protocols and standards by a given date (June 2015).

For some strange reasons, we seem to have over-stretched the process to the detriment of an otherwise simple objective. To the lay, non-technical person, it appears that we failed to honestly answer a number of simple questions in designing the process for digital migration.

What is the least expensive digital conversion business model for the country and viewers? Do the existing Kenyan broadcasting players have sufficient capacity to effect the migration?

If additional capacity is required, how should it be allocated to reflect business efficiency and equity? If indeed new investors are required, how should they be phased in with minimum business disruption?

How should public, business and consumer interests be protected in the entire migration process?

The government may have no option at this late stage but to engage in damage control.

And the interventions should be at higher levels. At the ministerial and regulatory levels, the currency to mediate between various stakeholder interests seems to have been badly and irretrievably depreciated.

Going for international legal interventions is not a good show for Kenya if indeed there exists the remotest chances for local solutions.

Wachira is the director, Petroleum Focus Consultants. [email protected]