MultiChoice to remain monopoly, if it doesn’t collapse

The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) has no plans to introduce an affordable subscription satellite television service provider to compete with MultiChoice.

This despite MultiChoice being accused of being a monopoly and charging subscribers exorbitant fees, while offering repeated content.

Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi recently responded to a parliamentary question regarding the introduction of competition for MultiChoice, where he confirmed that Icasa would not be bringing in a subscription satellite television service anytime soon.

Malatsi said in 2015 Icasa granted and equipped two subscription service licences to Siyaya TV and Close TV.

These licences were deemed valid for 15 years from the issue date. However, the two satellite television service providers were unable to put the licences to use.

“None of the licences have been able to take off due to, among other things, a lack of start-up capital or funding,” said Malatsi.

Rocky future for MultiChoice

MultiChoice’s core pay TV business is struggling. As a result Canal+ chair and CEO Maxime Saada recently said that the company would not be recogniseable in a year or two.

The Randburg company’s struggles can be attributed to immense pressure from competition like Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV+, and Prime Video.

It has been reported that MultiChoice lost almost 500 000 subscribers in SA, which accounts for about 5% of its base.

Further declines of -9% and -8% were recorded by the company on its mid-market segment (Compact and Commercial) and Premium segment (DStv Premium and Compact Plus).

“The drop in the rest of Africa was even greater – this unit lost 13% of its active subscribers (around 1.2 million).”

Gayton goes to war with broadcasters

Minister of Sports, Art and Culture Gayton McKenzie recently condemned MultiChoice’s monopolising of live sport in South Africa.

He said he was prepared to go to war against the broadcaster should it fail to put an end to the said monopoly.

“When we say we are going to war, we are not going to war against Newzroom or against SuperSport. It is not the responsibility of SuperSport to make sure that the people of this country see the game. People have the wrong impression. I am going to war with the broadcaster, [and] us politicians because we must make money available,” McKenzie told the media.

He said he understood that SuperSport had to make money from broadcasting rights, and he did not expect the company to give away their business for free.

This was not the first time McKenzie expressed discontent in live sport not being aired nationally.

The minister, in July, expressed disappointment that the Springbok’s match against Ireland was not broadcast on SABC.

“I enjoyed yesterday’s game but felt anger, disappointment and sadness that so many SAfricans could not watch. We need them to share the Springbok joy. We can’t say we are a pro-poor country but don’t have the Boks on SABC. This needs to change, it MUST change. It’s going to change,” he said on an X post.