“The rules as they are mean that existing players are unable to expand by
taking effective shareholding (as is the case with Naspers in radio, even
though we have on numerous occasions been approached by licensees who are
in serious financial difficulties). Also, new players such as NAIL are
unable to build critical mass as a media company, even where they have
readily available capital to do so.
“ICASA, of course, has to balance a number of interests, such as
diversity, BEE and competition. But we believe that these can still be
achieved if the rules are narrowed, amended or even repealed. There is
some consensus in the industry that while the [current] rules were well
intentioned, they have come back to bite us. There is also a somewhat
unfounded belief that doing away with the rules will benefit only large
companies who would then gobble up different parts of the sector. This
view does not recognise that the Competition Commission would still have
regulatory oversight over the broadcasting market and could effectively
deal with issues of concentration and abuse of dominance. Similarly ICASA,
who has concurrent jurisdiction with the Competition Commission, could in
any licensing or licensing amendment process assess the effect of any
transaction on competition in the sector.”