When Sentech announced it would no longer carry the broadcast signal of the SABC because the public broadcaster owes it millions of rands, the country was confronted with a chilling prospect: the possibility that millions of South Africans could lose access to free-to-air public broadcasting, not because of a technical failure, but because of a policy and funding failure of the state. At one level, this is a commercial dispute: Sentech provides a service. The SABC has failed to pay for it, and Sentech, under pressure to remain solvent, is drawing a line.
On another, far more important level, it is a crisis of public policy, media freedom and universal access. Broadcasting the public signal is not the same as supplying office stationery or renting office space. It is an essential democratic service.
If it collapses, the losers will not be politicians, executives or boards; it will be ordinary citizens. To understand how we arrived here, one must revisit the mid-1990s decision to structurally separate Sentech from the SABC. Historically, Sentech was part of the national broadcaster, a technical arm responsible for signal distribution.
Read Full Article on TimesLIVE
[paywall]
The logic of separation was rooted in a global trend to “unbundle” state monopolies, introduce competition and create a commercially disciplined signal distributor that would serve all broadcasters — public, private and community — on an equal basis. In theory, this sounded modern and efficient. In practice, it was ill-informed and poorly adapted to South Africa’s developmental realities.
Unlike wealthy economies where commercial broadcasters can easily absorb transmission costs, South Africa’s broadcasting ecosystem is dominated by a public broadcaster with chronic funding constraints and by dozens of small community radio and TV stations living hand-to-mouth. The separation transformed an internal public service function into a commercial contract relationship between two state-owned entities. Instead of the government funding signal distribution as a public good, the SABC was required to “buy” what it once owned.
The inevitable result was predictable: mounting debt, recurring disputes and now the threat of signal disruption. The SABC is not alone. Community radio and television stations — the heartbeat of local information, culture, languages and accountability — also depend on Sentech’s infrastructure.
They too struggle with unsustainable signal distribution costs that swallow a disproportionate share of their limited budgets. For many community stations, signal fees are the single largest expense, often exceeding staff costs. When payments fall behind, the threat of switch-off hangs over their heads.
The public hears little about these near disasters because stations scramble for bailouts at the last minute. But the financial pressure is relentless and structural. If Sentech is allowed to switch off the SABC, it will set a catastrophic precedent.
It would normalise the idea that public communication can be interrupted by accounting disputes, even when the public interest is clearly at stake. The most sensible, immediate and socially responsible solution is for the government to step in and carry at least part of the Sentech bill — not as a bailout for mismanagement, but as part of its universal access and public communication obligations.
[/paywall]
