If there is any payment whatsoever, then it ceases to be FTA. John Kariuki. Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: James Mbugua via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: James Mbugua <jgmbugua@gmail.com> Subject: [kictanet] CAN USF BE USED TO SUBSIDIZE FTA TRANSMISSION Listers, Recently, Multichoice has indicated that it may need FTA users of its GOTV service to pay a small annual maintenance fee to cover the cost of transmission. This issue has repeatedly raised hackles because, licensed pay-TV providers like GOTV and Startimes are also required by law to carry FTA channels, the "Must-carry" rule. It is not clear who is supposed to cater for the cost of this transmission. Typically, FTA analogue transmission costs were recouped through advertising. So it would seem that there is an issue that needs resolving here particularly when you consider that if there is any after service required, like a problem with the set top boxes, be it GOTV, Startimes, Safaricom etc you return them for service to the respective platform owner. Which raises the question, given that we have a Universal Service Fund to which Telcos/Broadcaster/Network operators contribute to which is meant to facilitate access to Information and Communication Technology to all, why can't this Fund be used to subsidize access to these FTA channels to those who wish to have them? The CA should consider shielding viewers who want to have FTA channels from other incidental costs by reimbursing platform owners for the cost implications of the "Must-carry" rule. My two cents. JG