[kictanet] Digital Migration Appeal Court Ruling: COFEK Response

Wed Apr 2 14:15:24 EAT 2014

Meanwhile, why has COFEK not rushed to court on the issues affecting the
matatu industry.

If this was truly about consumers, don't more consumers use matatus than
TVs? After all, I saw someone claiming that we are being middle class in
our reasoning that digital migration should go on without making it
affordable for the poor?

Isn't the digital migration of matatus hurting the poor too, Mr. Mutoro?

On Monday, 31 March 2014, Wainaina Mungai <wainaina.mungai at gmail.com> wrote:

> We can make a judgement on CCK/CAK using Section 34 below;.....and decide
> what sort of Regulator we really want, moving forward...
>
> (5) Parliament shall enact legislation that provides for the establishment
> of a body, which shall--
>
> *(a) be independent of control by **government**, **political interests**
> or **commercial interests**;
>
> *(b) reflect the interests of all sections of the society; and
>
> **(c) set media standards and regulate compliance with those standards
>
> Wainaina
>
>
> On Monday, March 31, 2014, Bernard Kioko [Bernsoft Group] <
> bkioko at bernsoft.com> wrote:
> > Ok. I understand.
> >
> >
> >
> > One question, Did the appellant challenge the legality/composition of
> CCK/CAK? I didn't get a chance to find that out.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Wainaina Mungai [mailto:wainaina.mungai at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 12:32 PM
> > To: Bernard Kioko
> > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Digital Migration Appeal Court Ruling: COFEK
> Response
> >
> >
> >
> > Bernard,
> >
> >
> >
> > Feel free to comment...I have no censorship powers. Simply put, let us
> also discuss the important issue of the REGULATOR as it is the composition
> of the regulator that seemed to have brought a "twist"to the whole case. It
> is also where the solution seems to lie as I am privy to the fact that
> CCK/CAK officials do themselves prefer a law that "strengthens them".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Bernard Kioko <bkioko at bernsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Wainana I feel like you are trying to sway us away from the real
> issue...what happened at the courts! Is there any specific reason u r
> attempting to close that particular debate and saying ppl here have little
> objectivity?
> >
> > On 31 Mar 2014 09:23, "Wyne Bar" <wainaina.mungai at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have kept off this debate because of vested interests by several
> parties claiming to be making objective analyses. On this list, there's
> little, if any, objectivity in the matter of Signal Distribution licensing
> and #DigitalMigrationKE as a whole. I will therefore abstain from making
> direct comment on the ruling, STBs, Tenders, BSD licences or the Switch-Off
> date.
> >
> > Instead, I propose we focus on the new regulator. Six years ago, we had
> a somewhat related debate (copied below) about Media Owners versus
> Editorial Freedom.
> >
> > The matter of what really constitutes 'media freedom' came up in 2012/13
> as it did in 2008 around the election period. It came up again during
> debates on Media Laws as media owners presented their grievances. We forget
> to sort out media regulation in fair weather.
> >
> > After the ruling by the Supreme Court enforcing Section 34 of the
> Constitution, what we may want to ensure as "Consumers of media", is that
> the new regulator will be truly "independent" and yet "powerful"...cannot
> be influenced by Media Owners or Government etc and can make & enforce bold
> decisions.
> >
> > If we get the composition, independence and (power) of the new regulator
> wrong, nothing else we debate here about Signal Distribution, investor
> protection or consumer rights will be of any consequence in protecting
> consumers from rogue media or a rogue government.
> >
> > On Broadcasting, the cliché "content is king" still holds and whether or
> not BSD licence goes to local private media, the right to
> access/rebroadcast their FTA content must remain with the Broadcaster. That
> is also true for upcoming content producers who need protection of their
> content from other players along the value chain. As we debate the issues,
> let us remember there are many players in the Digital Broadcasting value
> chain.
> >
> > As the ruling has proved, the REGULATOR is a critical player in the
> industry. Let us all help to put together a regulator that will guarantee
> justice, innovation and all our ICT aspirations as a country.
> >
> > **This is my personal position as a Kenyan consumer of media...and my
> views do not represent any media house; or group of Broadcasters**
> >
> > Have a regulated day,
> >
> > Wainaina
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Wainaina Mungai <wainaina at madeinkenya.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2008
> > Subject: [kictanet] Kenya: The Media is Not Innocent
> > To: wainaina.mungai at gmail.com
> > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <> ________________________________
> >
> > <
> https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/_V1fVUBJF4xt9P678-JpdqM0DjKn7nQ5j0bxeRW8a2DWnVdtH9hd1PaCatcDUpn2FquTpsfH=s0-d-e1-ft#http://bernsoft.com/img/logo.jpg
> >
> >
> > This e-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
> confidential, legally privileged and protected by law and is intended for
> the sole use of the named recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, or
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Any liability (in negligence or
> otherwise) arising from any third party acting, or refraining from acting
> on any information contained in this email is hereby excluded. If you are
> not the intended recipient, please delete the contents and notify the
> sender immediately; do not disclose the contents to any other person, use
> it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. Whilst
> our e-mails are checked for viruses, we cannot guarantee that this message
> or any attachment is virus free, does not contain malicious code or is
> incompatible with your electronic system and the Company does not accept
> liability in respect of viruses, malicious code or any related problems
> that you might experience. For further information about us, please contact
> us at the address indicated below.
> >
> > Bernsoft Interactive Limited - P O Box 15177-00100 Nairobi - Tel: +254
> 722 929192 Email: admin at bernsoft.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','admin at bernsoft.com');>Web:
> www.bernsoft.com

-- 
with Regards:

blog.denniskioko.com <http://www.denniskioko.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20140402/baf52c36/attachment.htm>