Doing some unrelated research and came across this story here http://www.jeffhead.com/usn21/p8.htm Key point "...*However, BAE withdrew from the competition in October 2002, recognizing the political reality that its failure to locate and team with a US-based production partner made the bid unrealistic. * *..."* Relevance, for those advocating that national interest does not matter in *critical procurement* and backing for local firms, even a large conglomerate as BAE with all the backing from Downling Street can't win a large defense contract in the US against US firms. Another interesting read here http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/02/28/how-boeing-won-the-tanker-war... Regards On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Watila Alex <awatila@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
finally accessed the task force report at www.cck.go.ke/about/downloads/ *migration*_*digital*_tv.pdf
the report made the flowing observations & recommendations on the digital signal distribution
- The signal distributors will provide services to broadcasters on an equitable, reasonable, non-preferential and non-discriminatory basis. - *note the distinction between broadcaster &** signal distributor*. *i was unable to find any obligation placed on broadcasters to avail their content to all the signal distributors. the three broadcasters could decide to only provide their content to their signal distribution company. * - The functions of a signal distributor were previously carried out by the broadcasters and a number of challenges come into focus since the existing broadcasters have already made significant investments in infrastructure. There has to be a mechanism to ensure that this investment is not wasted.- *this has been the argument of the three broadcasters.* - The high set-up costs will limit the number of signal distributors. Furthermore, signal distribution services may not penetrate to areas that are not commercially viable. - *limitation of signal distributors seems to have been based on cost of set-up and not the spectrum. according to the three broadcasters, they are able to upgrade their infrastructure to distribute digital signals at a cost that is affordable to them* - In order to reduce the cost of migration, the existing designated transmitting analogue sites and infrastructure will be used for digital transmission. - *this has been the argument of the three broadcasters.* - Based on the government decision to licence KBC as a signal distributor, KBC shall form an independent company to run the signal distribution services in order to avoid conflict of interests or cross subsidies. - *Signet? shouldn't it have been a locally owned company. not sure how Chinese ownership came in* - The current broadcasters will be allowed to form an independent company to run the signal distribution services in order to utilize their existing infrastructure. This company should be independent to avoid conflict of interests or cross subsidies. This company will be given the first preference to a signal distribution licence. *this seems not to have happened as recommended. would have prevented the current acrimony* - Existing broadcasters who own infrastructure will negotiate commercial terms with the licensed signal distribution provider for transfer of ownership of the infrastructure.* the three broadcasters seem unwilling to pursue this as a means of recovering their "40 billion kes" investment * - A time limit be set after which broadcasters will not be allowed to operate unlicensed signal distribution services - *seems the three broadcasters have a grace period to distribute digitally*.
On 12/27/2013 11:18 AM, Watila Alex wrote:
does anyone have a copy of the digital migration task force report that the media houses are referring to in today's appeal?
-- Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
------------------------------ * From: * Watila Alex <awatila@yahoo.co.uk> <awatila@yahoo.co.uk>; * To: * Wambua, Christopher <Wambua@cck.go.ke> <Wambua@cck.go.ke>; * Cc: * Consumer and Public Affairs <CPA@cck.go.ke> <CPA@cck.go.ke>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke><kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>;
* Subject: * Re: [kictanet] 3 Media houses protest Majanja's Digital Migration Ruling * Sent: * Thu, Dec 26, 2013 6:59:06 PM
why was the number of signal distributors limited to two? -- Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
------------------------------ * From: * Wambua, Christopher <Wambua@cck.go.ke> <Wambua@cck.go.ke>; * To: * <awatila@yahoo.co.uk> <awatila@yahoo.co.uk>; * Cc: * Consumer and Public Affairs <CPA@cck.go.ke> <CPA@cck.go.ke>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke><kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>;
* Subject: * Re: [kictanet] 3 Media houses protest Majanja's Digital Migration Ruling * Sent: * Thu, Dec 26, 2013 6:43:55 PM
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngigi%40at.co.ke
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- *Regards,* *Wait**haka Ngigi* Chief Executive Officer | Alliance Technologies | MCK Nairobi Synod Building T + 254 (0) 20 2333 471 |Office Mobile: +254 786 28 28 28 | M + 254 737 811 000 www.at.co.ke