[kictanet] Digital Migration Appeal Court Ruling: COFEK Response

Wed Apr 2 15:10:52 EAT 2014

Dear Mr Kioko,

I am directed by the Cofek Secretary General to respond to you as follows;

First, to thank you most sincerely for pointing COFEK in this direction.
Second, to inform you that we have been working with our partners which
partners are already in Court over the matter. We are also following up on
the potential abuse of and on quality and windfall for speed governors
importers. We could not have updated you on this list as our understanding
is that it is restricted to ICT issues. If you need to be subscribed to all
Cofek updates, please make a request to: hotline at cofek.co.ke 

Third, and on ICT, Justice David Majanja is expected to give directions on
the Cofek petition no. 144 of 2014 against irregular appointment of ICTA CEO
contrary to the stipulated process. We will update later. 

We thank you and other listers for keeping us on our toes. Thank you.

Japheth Ogutu

FOR: SECRETARY GENERAL

www.cofek.co.ke 

From: kictanet
[mailto:kictanet-bounces+hotline=cofek.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf
Of Dennis Kioko
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:15 PM
To: The Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek)
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Digital Migration Appeal Court Ruling: COFEK
Response

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-JpdqM0DjKn7nQ5j0b
xeRW8a2DWnVdtH9hd1PaCatcDUpn2FquTpsfH=s0-d-e1-ft#http://bernsoft.com/img/log
o.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/20140402/6e43dcc7/attachment.htm>