Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Coverage of migration licence issue by a few media houses unreasonable
This is a good step by Nation in giving coverage to the "other side" of the debate.....Note also that it is not only media houses that have opposed the decision. Mayfox Company Ltd (one more of the 4 bidders) went on TV today to make their position known. In time, all these little bits of data from concerned parties are beginning to form the building blocks of 'the big picture' we all must be scratching pur heads to unravel. For now, maybe a Q&A session involving media, CCK and civil society on this fora over copious cups of Kenyan arabica coffee or Ketepa at one of our fancy hotels will ease the tension and allow us to have a healthier debate. Any takers? On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru@gmail.com> wrote:
By BITANGE NDEMO 26 July, 2011
I have followed the debate on the failure by a consortium of local media firms to win the award for a digital migration licence with dismay.
The impression created by the media firms is that the award of the licence to a Chinese firm is ill thought-out on the grounds of probity and press freedom.
The facts about digital migration speak for themselves. When Kenya decided to pursue it, the Ministry of Information established a Digital Migration Committee to oversee all processes including the licensing of backbone infrastructure developers.
The committee offered a licence to media owners with interest in the broadcast sub-sector as a means of mitigating their investments.
However, as soon as the licence was offered, the media houses disagreed on how to share this national resource. As a result, a tender process was seen as the best way to address the disagreements.
But even when they disagreed, our doors were wide open, but the media houses decided not to negotiate with the tender committee, opting instead for the competitive tender process.
With the doors thrown wide open to local and international bidders, the Chinese firm that has been the subject of controversy won the contract.
Taken aback, the media houses sought the intervention of the Procurement Appeals Tribunal, which eventually confirmed that the Chinese firm had won fairly.
In the criticism levelled at the government, the media houses have sought to portray the process as riddled with impropriety.
While it is true that corruption has not been completely rooted out of the Kenyan society, there is no iota of evidence to suggest that the licence is not above-board.
If there were any underhand dealings, the media houses should point them out.
Indeed, this latest case of crying foul after losing a competitive bid mirrors what happened a while ago when the selfsame media houses took legal action when a Swedish firm, Smart TV, was allowed to broadcast through the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation.
Eventually, the court ruled there was no irregularity in the process. But the continued attacks on Smart TV led to its exit from the Kenya market.
To say the least, the message being sent to potential investors in the dynamic media sector is that local media have ring-fenced the industry and will do anything to frustrate entry by other players.
The departure of Smart TV will, for instance, deny Kenya 100 jobs, not to mention other economic benefits, all because a few media enterprises want to maintain monopolies.
The articles published and radio programmes broadcast over the last couple of days insinuate that it is China, the country, that won the licence, when the truth is that the licensee is a locally registered company with Chinese origins.
Dragging in the name of a country that enjoys cordial diplomatic relations with Kenya is bad for diplomacy and international relations.
The claim that the Kenyan media will suffer loss of freedom because a Chinese firm has won a backbone infrastructure licence is to suggest that the licence is for content generation or control, which is far from the truth.
If the truth be told, the government has always wanted a situation where there is a multiplicity of channels and voices in the media.
This inclination towards plurality and liberalisation of the media is what is under siege by those opposed to anybody else controlling outlets.
The digital migration era provides a great opportunity for addressing the imbalances in the media sector, where some operatives have a suffocating control of the airwaves.
The media houses seeking to influence public opinion in their favour have refused to acknowledge that the ministry and the Communications Commission of Kenya have agreed to issue another licence for the industry in view of the investments they have made.
Why the focus is not on this window is anybody’s guess. It would appear that our media are utterly averse to fair play and competition.
Sooner or later, we shall be in the era of web broadcasting with very little control by the government, meaning that Kenyans will be able to broadcast even from their bedrooms. Those stuck in the past will be quickly by-passed.
Dr Ndemo is permanent secretary, Ministry of Information and Communications.
www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Coverage+of+migration+licence+issue+unreasonable+/-/440808/1208244/-/item/0/-/uh53l1/-/index.html
-- Sent from my mobile device
_______________________________________________ ke-internetusers mailing list ke-internetusers@bdix.net http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers
-- * Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly and trust in our Creator who loves us. *
On 27 July 2011 00:17, Eng. Wainaina Mungai <wainaina@madeinkenya.org>wrote:
This is a good step by Nation in giving coverage to the "other side" of the debate.....Note also that it is not only media houses that have opposed the decision. Mayfox Company Ltd (one more of the 4 bidders) went on TV today to make their position known. In time, all these little bits of data from concerned parties are beginning to form the building blocks of 'the big picture' we all must be scratching pur heads to unravel.
For now, maybe a Q&A session involving media, CCK and civil society on this fora over copious cups of Kenyan arabica coffee or Ketepa at one of our fancy hotels will ease the tension and allow us to have a healthier debate.
Any takers?
I agree. The NMG, has done great to give an ear to the 'other side' of the debate. The next thing is for MOIC, to convene a Q&A Session so as to make the playing ground level enough. Dakitari, this is not only crucial, but imperative to let us not understand that there is no any form of blackmail!!!
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru@gmail.com> wrote:
By BITANGE NDEMO 26 July, 2011
I have followed the debate on the failure by a consortium of local media firms to win the award for a digital migration licence with dismay.
The impression created by the media firms is that the award of the licence to a Chinese firm is ill thought-out on the grounds of probity and press freedom.
The facts about digital migration speak for themselves. When Kenya decided to pursue it, the Ministry of Information established a Digital Migration Committee to oversee all processes including the licensing of backbone infrastructure developers.
The committee offered a licence to media owners with interest in the broadcast sub-sector as a means of mitigating their investments.
However, as soon as the licence was offered, the media houses disagreed on how to share this national resource. As a result, a tender process was seen as the best way to address the disagreements.
But even when they disagreed, our doors were wide open, but the media houses decided not to negotiate with the tender committee, opting instead for the competitive tender process.
With the doors thrown wide open to local and international bidders, the Chinese firm that has been the subject of controversy won the contract.
Taken aback, the media houses sought the intervention of the Procurement Appeals Tribunal, which eventually confirmed that the Chinese firm had won fairly.
In the criticism levelled at the government, the media houses have sought to portray the process as riddled with impropriety.
While it is true that corruption has not been completely rooted out of the Kenyan society, there is no iota of evidence to suggest that the licence is not above-board.
If there were any underhand dealings, the media houses should point them out.
Indeed, this latest case of crying foul after losing a competitive bid mirrors what happened a while ago when the selfsame media houses took legal action when a Swedish firm, Smart TV, was allowed to broadcast through the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation.
Eventually, the court ruled there was no irregularity in the process. But the continued attacks on Smart TV led to its exit from the Kenya market.
To say the least, the message being sent to potential investors in the dynamic media sector is that local media have ring-fenced the industry and will do anything to frustrate entry by other players.
The departure of Smart TV will, for instance, deny Kenya 100 jobs, not to mention other economic benefits, all because a few media enterprises want to maintain monopolies.
The articles published and radio programmes broadcast over the last couple of days insinuate that it is China, the country, that won the licence, when the truth is that the licensee is a locally registered company with Chinese origins.
Dragging in the name of a country that enjoys cordial diplomatic relations with Kenya is bad for diplomacy and international relations.
The claim that the Kenyan media will suffer loss of freedom because a Chinese firm has won a backbone infrastructure licence is to suggest that the licence is for content generation or control, which is far from the truth.
If the truth be told, the government has always wanted a situation where there is a multiplicity of channels and voices in the media.
This inclination towards plurality and liberalisation of the media is what is under siege by those opposed to anybody else controlling outlets.
The digital migration era provides a great opportunity for addressing the imbalances in the media sector, where some operatives have a suffocating control of the airwaves.
The media houses seeking to influence public opinion in their favour have refused to acknowledge that the ministry and the Communications Commission of Kenya have agreed to issue another licence for the industry in view of the investments they have made.
Why the focus is not on this window is anybody’s guess. It would appear that our media are utterly averse to fair play and competition.
Sooner or later, we shall be in the era of web broadcasting with very little control by the government, meaning that Kenyans will be able to broadcast even from their bedrooms. Those stuck in the past will be quickly by-passed.
Dr Ndemo is permanent secretary, Ministry of Information and Communications.
www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Coverage+of+migration+licence+issue+unreasonable+/-/440808/1208244/-/item/0/-/uh53l1/-/index.html
-- Sent from my mobile device
_______________________________________________ ke-internetusers mailing list ke-internetusers@bdix.net http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers
-- *
Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly and trust in our Creator who loves us. *
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail.com
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.
Solomon, It is actually my right of reply that is in the new constitution which is working but NMG decided to edit my response. The correct record was published by the Star. Regards Ndemo.
On 27 July 2011 00:17, Eng. Wainaina Mungai <wainaina@madeinkenya.org>wrote:
This is a good step by Nation in giving coverage to the "other side" of the debate.....Note also that it is not only media houses that have opposed the decision. Mayfox Company Ltd (one more of the 4 bidders) went on TV today to make their position known. In time, all these little bits of data from concerned parties are beginning to form the building blocks of 'the big picture' we all must be scratching pur heads to unravel.
For now, maybe a Q&A session involving media, CCK and civil society on this fora over copious cups of Kenyan arabica coffee or Ketepa at one of our fancy hotels will ease the tension and allow us to have a healthier debate.
Any takers?
I agree. The NMG, has done great to give an ear to the 'other side' of the debate.
The next thing is for MOIC, to convene a Q&A Session so as to make the playing ground level enough.
Dakitari, this is not only crucial, but imperative to let us not understand that there is no any form of blackmail!!!
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru@gmail.com> wrote:
By BITANGE NDEMO 26 July, 2011
I have followed the debate on the failure by a consortium of local media firms to win the award for a digital migration licence with dismay.
The impression created by the media firms is that the award of the licence to a Chinese firm is ill thought-out on the grounds of probity and press freedom.
The facts about digital migration speak for themselves. When Kenya decided to pursue it, the Ministry of Information established a Digital Migration Committee to oversee all processes including the licensing of backbone infrastructure developers.
The committee offered a licence to media owners with interest in the broadcast sub-sector as a means of mitigating their investments.
However, as soon as the licence was offered, the media houses disagreed on how to share this national resource. As a result, a tender process was seen as the best way to address the disagreements.
But even when they disagreed, our doors were wide open, but the media houses decided not to negotiate with the tender committee, opting instead for the competitive tender process.
With the doors thrown wide open to local and international bidders, the Chinese firm that has been the subject of controversy won the contract.
Taken aback, the media houses sought the intervention of the Procurement Appeals Tribunal, which eventually confirmed that the Chinese firm had won fairly.
In the criticism levelled at the government, the media houses have sought to portray the process as riddled with impropriety.
While it is true that corruption has not been completely rooted out of the Kenyan society, there is no iota of evidence to suggest that the licence is not above-board.
If there were any underhand dealings, the media houses should point them out.
Indeed, this latest case of crying foul after losing a competitive bid mirrors what happened a while ago when the selfsame media houses took legal action when a Swedish firm, Smart TV, was allowed to broadcast through the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation.
Eventually, the court ruled there was no irregularity in the process. But the continued attacks on Smart TV led to its exit from the Kenya market.
To say the least, the message being sent to potential investors in the dynamic media sector is that local media have ring-fenced the industry and will do anything to frustrate entry by other players.
The departure of Smart TV will, for instance, deny Kenya 100 jobs, not to mention other economic benefits, all because a few media enterprises want to maintain monopolies.
The articles published and radio programmes broadcast over the last couple of days insinuate that it is China, the country, that won the licence, when the truth is that the licensee is a locally registered company with Chinese origins.
Dragging in the name of a country that enjoys cordial diplomatic relations with Kenya is bad for diplomacy and international relations.
The claim that the Kenyan media will suffer loss of freedom because a Chinese firm has won a backbone infrastructure licence is to suggest that the licence is for content generation or control, which is far from the truth.
If the truth be told, the government has always wanted a situation where there is a multiplicity of channels and voices in the media.
This inclination towards plurality and liberalisation of the media is what is under siege by those opposed to anybody else controlling outlets.
The digital migration era provides a great opportunity for addressing the imbalances in the media sector, where some operatives have a suffocating control of the airwaves.
The media houses seeking to influence public opinion in their favour have refused to acknowledge that the ministry and the Communications Commission of Kenya have agreed to issue another licence for the industry in view of the investments they have made.
Why the focus is not on this window is anybodys guess. It would appear that our media are utterly averse to fair play and competition.
Sooner or later, we shall be in the era of web broadcasting with very little control by the government, meaning that Kenyans will be able to broadcast even from their bedrooms. Those stuck in the past will be quickly by-passed.
Dr Ndemo is permanent secretary, Ministry of Information and Communications.
www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Coverage+of+migration+licence+issue+unreasonable+/-/440808/1208244/-/item/0/-/uh53l1/-/index.html
-- Sent from my mobile device
_______________________________________________ ke-internetusers mailing list ke-internetusers@bdix.net http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers
-- *
Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly and trust in our Creator who loves us. *
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail.com
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.
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
_______________________________________________ ke-internetusers mailing list ke-internetusers@bdix.net http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
participants (3)
-
bitange＠jambo.co.ke -
Eng. Wainaina Mungai -
Solomon Mbũrũ Kamau