Strangely, at a time when South Africans are beginning to benefit from better and cheaper broadband connectivity, our communications regulator is toying with the idea of licensing online video.
The notion smacks of institutional self-interest, of a body in search of a cause to justify its existence. But the irony is that the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) already has more than it can cope with.
A prominent example is the long-dragged out and still uncompleted process of licensing digital broadcasting to cellphones. As a result of Icasa’s delays, South Africa is basically missing the boat that could have been the World Cup. We won’t be catching a vehicle that could have taken us into a new generation of media services. If the licences were issued tomorrow, very few folk indeed would get their hands on a DVB-H enabled phone in time for the mega-sports event. The interest and urgency won’t be the same thereafter.
But no matter about its capacity limits in regard to broadcasting to cellphones, Icasa is instead spending time contemplating whether it is desirable and feasible to regulate video online.
The short answer to the Authority: no, no, no. And no again.
The regulator put out a Discussion Paper floating the issues earlier this year. Reading between the lines, the regulator seems to be itching to expand its powers beyond traditional broadcasting and telephony:
- It envisages “unilinear” online video (which it incorrectly calls IPTV), which goes to subscribers, as requiring a “broadcast licence” under the Electronic Communications Act;
- It envisages online “video on demand” (dubbed as “non-linear”) as requiring an “electronic communications licence” under the same law.
At the same time, Icasa is seeking to distinguish these services from other online video offerings which, presumably, would be allowed to continue unlicensed.
Would the envisaged licensing affect Zoopy or Myvideo? What about online services available in South Africa but hosted elsewhere? YouTube?
These questions highlight the potential regulatory creep that could happen with Icasa’s distinctions, especially because video online seldom tends to be on the “pure” model of Icasa’s so-called IPTV and Video on Demand. In an online universe of hybrid offerings, fragmented consumption patterns and user-generated content, the artificial distinction made by Icasa could lend itself to framing the vast bulk of online video as being subject to licensing.
Icasa’s belated attempt to define a position in relation to online video comes long after Telkom Media was initially licensed to provide subscription TV two years ago. The licence then was apparently “technology neutral”. In other words, Telkom would have been expected to apply for a radio frequency licence if it had then planned to deliver its offering via the airwaves.
But, at the time, the company was not expected to do traditional broadcasting. Instead, the anticipation was that there would be “triple play” — a package of internet, TV and voice services along the same phone lines. At it turned out, however, Telkom got cold feet and sold off the business … which still today has to announce its plans.
In a sense then, the online video (“IPTV”) horse has already left the stable, even though it has yet to get onto the racetrack. If Icasa has its way, however, anyone now wanting to get into serious online video distribution would have to begin from scratch at square one, and apply for a licence of one sort or another.
That gate would be a guarantee of long delays for anyone the regulator deems to fall into the licensing categories. But once licenses are issued, they would likely be pretty meaningless, because of the practical impossibility of Icasa monitoring whether conditions are being met. Internet services can deal in a torrent of content, and Icasa is far from having capacity to check what’s flowing. In other words, there would be a bureaucratic formality that ultimately serves no purpose except to delay or exclude.
More fundamentally, however, the notion of having to get Icasa’s permission per se, to do video online (however categorised) is abhorrent. In fact, it’s entirely against the provisions of the Constitution. There is no case to justify licensing of online video services as there is in traditional broadcasting — because simply there is no scarcity of frequency in the online universe. Not singling out video content data is what the US calls “net neutrality”, and a body like Icasa should take cognisance accordingly.
In the eyes of the authority, the rationale for possible regulation is related to content (not to the scarce frequency factor). But the body itself also acknowledges in its Discussion Paper that there are other bodies such as the Film & Publications Board and the Advertising Standards Authority that deal with problematic content. Quite so.
Furthermore, it is perfectly clear the existing system of online self-regulation is working well, with the help of ISPs, online content distributors and the public itself reporting abuses. Quite why Icasa now seems to want to involve itself in licensing online video is therefore unclear. And unpalatable.
As I’ve written in a submission on the Discussion Document: “Icasa exists to serve the needs of a democracy, and the fundamental principle is freedom as the basic condition of existence, and restraint as the exception.” I hope enough voices make this point so that it is heeded.
The real reason for Icasa wanting to licence internet video is the SABC. The ANC micro-managing minds must realise that now that uncapped ADSL is here, the only restrain is Telkom’s monopoly hold on the last loop – resulting in too-slow-for-streaming feed. When that goes, as it must, there will be nothing to stop “samizdat” broadcasts from independent “stations”.
With the loss of viewers, the cozy days for the fat cat SABC ANC compradors will be over. Already, the digital alternatives (internet, DVDs) are biting, unlimited high-speed internet will be the SA entertainment equivalent of the Berlin Wall’s fall.
Once again a reminder of why this particularly useless but deadly parasite of an organisation is more aptly called “Ikaka” in numerous forums.
Down with the bureacratic robbers, especially Telkom with the help of buddies like ICASA. The most important service delivery they are holding back at the moment is affordable education to rural areas and squatter camps through affordable internet. After all, who wants just anybody to become educated? Certainly not the ANC, which is made plain by their tentacles: Eskom, Telkom, etc. This is one war we all have to fight. First world countries’ kids are streaks ahead because of affordable internet.
Perhaps it’s just me but whenever I read proposals like this I find that they have an element of micromanagement encased in just enough FUD to appear to cover the fact that the people drafting the policy just might not have a full grasp of the true complexity of the matter.
I once worked in a place where they installed a really rubbish ‘bespoke’ system to regulate workflow. Repeated offers of assistance came to nought and the final word ended up being ‘well, you’ll just have to amend your process to fit the system’. That’s what ICASA and the Comms Ministry remind me of at times.
If you don’t understand it, make it fit into your paradigm anyway and who cares if it barely limps along afterwards?
Way back in the ‘auld days when fax machines began their short journey to techno extinction the us postal service passed an edict requiring that all faxes went to the local post office to be delivered… some billions of faxes later the post office found itself just plain ignored and overwhelmed….
Whoever these putative wannabee regulators are they have issues dealing with one enquiry per week [one imagines] if they are anything like all the other crony packed free jobs agencies created over the past decade or so.
Their chances of regulating the online video industry is about as futile as counting drops of water in the ocean with a sieve.
Great article Guy – the Telecom regulator in SA is run by a bunch of incompetents though. They try to make a buck for the state and lose millions in the broader economy because of idiotic policy decisions re: pricing and accessibility of tech services.