Sentech Annual Report: briefing

This premium content has been made freely available

Communications and Digital Technologies

02 November 2004
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
2 November 2004
SENTECH ANNUAL REPORT: BRIEFING

Chairperson:

Mr MK Lekgoro (ANC)

Documents handed out:

Sentech Annual Report presentation
Sentech website

SUMMARY
Sentech presented its Annual Report for the financial year of 2003/2004 and shared some of the highlights of its business year, such as it's broadcasting advancements, its international business involvement and it's multimedia business developments. The Committee asked questions about Sentech's request for unrestricted Voice-over-Internet Protocol and about its learnership programmes and School of Technology.

MINUTES

Sentech briefing
Mr G Marumo (Sentech COO) addressed the Committee on the highlights of Sentech's financial year 2003/04. He explained that Sentech sought to spread the broadcasting footprint across South Africa through installing five new television transmitters and supporting the proposed South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) channels four and five. Sentech was moving toward digitisation of broadcasting and its spectrum utilisation was ready to be implemented. The International Business objectives it achieved were the development of business relationships in numerous African countries, the creation of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) channel, the carrying of international traffic for mobile operators and playing an active role in the East African Submarine Cable project. Sentech has launched its wireless Internet connection in three regions and was involved with Gauteng-on-line. Sentech was serious about convergence and was contributing to job creation and poverty alleviation. It had signed a learnership agreement with Information Systems Electronic and Telecom Technologies (ISSET) Sectoral Education and Training Authority (SETA). Sentech had made a loss of R38 million in 2003-04 but this had been budgeted for.

Discussion
Ms N Magazi (ANC) asked for Sentech to elaborate on the issue of municipalities having multi-media licences. She commented that the Minister had liberalised telecommunications to give new companies the opportunity to enter areas that were previously not reached and asked if Sentech intended partnering with the liberalisation of services.

Ms S Vos (IFP) asked if Sentech thought that, given the recent technology developments, the Draft Convergence Bill needed to be revised. She commented that forward cover for satellite space was expensive but necessary and asked if an African satellite was being considered. She asked what the relationship was between Sentech and the Small, Micro and Medium Enterprises (SMME) to which Sentech had given selling licences. She enquired how access to the NEPAD channel was gained, how much it cost and who had developed the programming.

Ms M Smuts (DA) asked for clarity on what Sentech wanted. She commented that in their report they stated that they needed finances for rolling out their projects and the restriction on the Voice-over Internet Protocol (VOIP) lifted and enquired if they intended to become a full scale IP operator. She asked who funded the Gauteng-on-line education services, how they were funded and what form of broadband these services had. She enquired if the 75% rollout had been achieved.

Dr S Mokone-Matabane (Sentech CEO) replied that the NEPAD channel sourced its content from broadcasters around the continent and covered issues such as African elections and matters of community interest. It was accessible via an Avid decoder, but in some countries it was re-broadcast by a local broadcaster. She added that there had been a request that the channel include African sports. One idea was to have one core Public Safety Radio Communications Network, and a committee had been formed to take this forward. The committee had sent out a National Plan that would use all the already existing resources and avoid duplication. Tshwane Municipality had been given its own licence and for just under double what it would cost the municipality to cover Tshwane the whole of South Africa could be covered. She remarked that it was cheaper for all provinces and municipalities to work together and that there needed to be legislation put in place enforcing a National Network.

Mr Marumo answered that Sentech was still saying that it wanted increased investment and its own voice-over IP. It was looking for alternative ways to finance its developments such as Private-Public Partnerships. He responded that the Minister's determinations were not clear enough. He commented that Sentech needed funding for its network rollout. The 75 existing base stations were not enough and it planned to rollout 600 new base stations in the following two years. He commented that the design of the network was not unilateral as it included both terrestrial and satellite elements.

He explained that there were worrying duplications in licensing as municipalities were also licensed to provide telephonic services. He commented that Telkom was a monopoly but that if attempts were being made to liberalise telephonic services, giving licences to municipalities was maintaining government control. He stated that the roles of the different players needed to be clearly defined. He responded that it was easy to tell broadcasters to go to the areas that had not been reached before but the real question was how would they survive financially. He suggested that the government make a determination that these broadcasters get access to infrastructure free or at cost. He said that Sentech was working with companies and municipalities but that there were licenced providers who did not have the necessary facilities. He commented that an instrument needed to be put in place to make these provider operators.

He answered that South Africa was spending billions of dollars on satellite space and that other developing countries were launching their own satellites and South African would be left behind if it did not do the same. He commented that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was equipped and well placed to develop a satellite and that the government needed to be encouraged to begin this development. He responded that the ownership of the space above South African was a political issue and could only be politically decided. At this point Sentech had no choice but to take forward cover.

Mr D Dube (Sentech Executive Manager for Regional and Government Relations) answered that Sentech believed that the Convergence Bill should be technically neutral.

Dr Mokone-Matabane responded that Gauteng-on-line was paying for its connectivity and had paid for the capital outlay.

In reply to the Chairperson asking where the benefiting schools were situated, Dr Mokone-Matabane said that most were in townships and it was considered a status symbol to have Gauteng-on-line.

Ms M Morutoa (ANC) asked in which provinces Sentech was spreading its footprint and if Sentech was also training local broadcasters, not just foreign broadcasters. She asked why Sentech was only active in the East African submarine cable project and not a West Africa project. She enquired which locations Sentech was focusing on for its multi-media growth and if its market empowerment was focusing on the youth and women sections of the population.

Mr A Maziya (ANC) asked what the televisions recently installed in schools were for and if they were working. He commented that MyWireless was very expensive and asked how much had been done in relation to learnerships at Sentech.

Ms Magazi asked for a breakdown of the gender equity of the staff at Sentech, their classifications and the areas in which the re-trained staff had been trained.

The Chairperson commented that Sentech had been fighting to gain Voice-over IP for a long time and that now that it could access it, Sentech was complaining about a technicality. He asked how the Committee would be able to help make Internet access more affordable as this could not be left to the market to determine.

Dr Mokone-Matabane responded that there were numerous cable pipes between the United States and Europe that made bandwidth exceedingly cheap but that Africa did not yet have this infrastructure. She explained that there was already a cable partnership on the West coast of Africa. She repeated that Sentech had signed an agreement with the ISSET SETA for training and that their training showed a bias towards blacks and women. Sentech had increased its number of female technicians by targeting female students for internships.

Mr Marumo responded that Sentech was in all the provinces and was attempting to deal with all provincial legislators. He answered that Sentech did train South Africans and had a School of Technology. He explained that the rollout of multi-media infrastructure was time consuming but that 80% of the South African population would be reached in the following two years. He stated that more than 50% of Sentech employees were historically disadvantaged people and a quarter of the employees were female. He noted that the televisions in schools were the Mindset programmes televisions and that they were working. They showed programming on education and health.

Mr J Raath (Sentech Managing Officer of the CCC) explained that there was a need for a Second National Operator (SNO) in light of the recent technological advances and to give Telkom competition and help drop telephonic prices. He said that Sentech was not anti-competitive and supported the SNO concept. Sentech would carve a market for itself by being excellent in the delivery of its services and by being the state's delivery partner. It would work with the SNO to ensure widespread and cheaper services, especially Internet services.

Mr Marumo explained that Voice-over IP was important but that the Ministers determination did not include the word Sentech, which makes it appear as if Sentech was excluded.

Dr Mokone-Matabane said that Section 32(c) allowed the Minister to lift the voice-over restrictions without coming back to Parliament.

Ms Nkuna asked about the criteria for the School of Technology and if its training programme was ensuring that parts and machinery did not have to go abroad to be fixed.

Ms Magazi enquired if Sentech had plans, programmes and a vision for the 2010 World Soccer Cup.

In reply to Mr Maziya's request for a breakdown of Sentech's workforce in terms of equity, Dr Mokone-Matabane said that it could be found on page 45 of the Annual Report.

Mr Marumo explained that the industry was grappling with technological training and that the School of Technology was started so that Sentech's employees could upgrade their skills. Because it was so effective, other African countries wanted their technicians trained there. He commented that Sentech maintained all of its own equipment.

Mr Nchabaleng (Sentech Government Relations Specialist) answered that the South African Press Agency (SAPA) leadership had approached Sentech about 2010 and that Sentech was already ready. He explained that matches could be watched on cell phones.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Sentech Annual Report 2003/4 (not yet on Sentech website)
 

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: