Cofek urges court to extend deadline for digital migration

Politics and policy

June 2015 is the global switch-off date. PHOTO | FILE 

By BRIAN WASUNA

In Summary

• Cofek, an interested party in the suit, expressed concern over the number of households that will be blacked out, saying the deadline could still be pushed further.
• The analogue switch-off date has proven to be one of the least important components of the suit, with censorship and provision of more digital signal distribution licences taking priority.

The Consumer Federation of Kenya (Cofek) has pleaded with the Supreme Court to further extend the September 30 deadline set by the Court of Appeal for digital migration.

 

The Nation Media Group, Royal Media Services and Standard Media Group, however, did not contest the appellate court’s deadline last week during the three-day hearing of a case pitting them against Communications Commission of Kenya (CA) and pay-TV stations.

Cofek, an interested party in the suit, expressed concern over the number of households that will be blacked out, saying the deadline could still be pushed further.

“The June 2015 date is the global switch-off date, but the September 30 one is not cast in stone. The government and media houses should start campaigns to educate people on the migration,” said Cofek lawyer Henry Kurauka.

The analogue switch-off date has proven to be one of the least important components of the suit, with censorship and provision of more digital signal distribution licences taking priority.

READ: Kenya making same mistakes as Tanzania, study finds

The media houses raised concerns on censorship after CA asserted that the signal distributors could be ordered to disrupt broadcast in times of emergency.

CA was responding to accusations that the signal distributor could alter content given by broadcasters.

“No order was given to intercept or rebroadcast their content. But the signal distributor can be ordered to stop distributing content to consumers in case of an emergency,” said CA.

Paul Muite, representing media houses, also told the court to consider the amount of money the firms had invested in infrastructure over the years. This, he said, was to help minimise wastage of resources.