Tag: DStv

As a people, we like to congratulate ourselves on our infinite hospitability towards strangers or foreigners as the case may be. But a proper scrutiny of our hospitality credential, I am afraid, is a lot less flattering. There exists dormant xenophobia in us and it seeps to the surface once-in-a-while, of course not the violent type that has blighted South Africa’s reputation through some of her misguided citizens. This explains that we are not the most unwelcoming people on the planet. Nationalism is great, its rabid variant is evidently not and I have seen a few occasions that suggest that we are not as warm as we think we are.

A couple of years back, passions were justifiably inflamed following xenophobic attacks on foreigners, including Nigerians, in some South African cities, a development that brought the country and Nigeria close to a diplomatic spat. What was suggested by some Nigerians as the appropriate response to such were attacks on South African business interests in Nigeria. Three of such immediately appeared in the gunsights of those seeking an eye for an eye. These were MultiChoice Nigeria, Shoprite and MTN. MultiChoice was the out-and-out favourite, given that the attacks in South Africa occurred at a time it was increasing its prices for the first time in two years. Long before then, it had been drilled into Nigerians that the company through its DStv and GOtv platforms milked Nigerians for fun, a belief for which no clasping proof was provided.

The last three weeks have witnessed a reboot of the saga. TsTv, a new pay-television operator announced itself on the market and Nigerians’ response has been tinged with mild xenophobia. “This is the end of DStv and South African exploitation”, “They should fold up and go back home” read some of the responses on the social media. There were worse ones that community standards will not allow here. After TsTv launched on 1 October to heightened local expectations and it could not roll out its service, DStv was accused of being behind its failure to do as it had advertised.

Conveniently forgotten by bearers of anti-DStv sentiments was the fact that TsTv, which advertised itself as a wholly Nigerian company and secured a three-year tax break from the Federal Government, had claimed on its website that it was going to broadcast content for which it had not acquired redistribution rights. Three of such content owners, CNN, beIN and Fox, in official communication, warned the new pay-television company to desist from using their channels to promote its brand, as it had no authorisation to do so. TsTv, in apparent response to the complaints, hurriedly removed the channel list consisting the platforms of the disaffected content owners from its website to avoid the threat of litigation.

It also deferred its roll out, initially scheduled for the day of its launch, to 1 November in addition to the suspension of the sale of its hardware.

The response to the deferment here was that DStv (read MultiChoice) had launched a campaign to kill TsTv at infancy. Frenziedly shared social media messages, couched in rabid nationalistic language, stated that MultiChoice had gone to bribe the content owners to prevent a rival from gaining a share of the market.

-Prominently missing from the conversation was the question of how validly acquired rights could be wrested from TsTv without the content owners facing expensive litigation and reputational damage. It was just convenient to blame South Africa. There was also the risible claim that DStv jammed TsTv signal, the reason for which the latter was unable to roll out. To jam a signal, it must first exist. TsTv stated that it was deferring roll out, as such currently has no signal to speak of and therefore, nothing to jam. Would it even not have been cheaper to pay the angry content owners for exclusive rights to their intellectual property than jamming signal and paying tonnes of money, as alleged, in bribes?

In one breath, we want foreign direct investments in the country. In another breath, we are bitter at foreign companies that do well here. Alhaji Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest man, has investments in South Africa and a few other countries on the continent. We are unlikely to be thrilled if he or his company is a target of hate in those places. MultiChoice, though with South African parentage, is a Nigerian company. It is not a strange thing for international companies to have local arms. MultiChoice employs many Nigerians directly and indirectly. Its programming, dominated by Nigerian content, does not suggest it considers Nigeria as insignificant.

Its investment in Nigeria since it arrived in the 90s has been huge. If it considers Nigeria an insignificant country, it would not commit as much resources as it has. The content industry in Nigeria is a beneficiary of MultiChocie’s investment. Nigerian culture is better known across Africa on account of AfricaMagic channels, which takes our movies to homes across the continent. The company makes money in Nigeria as it should. It has earned the right, having invested so much. Its parentage should be of no consideration and should not attract hate. Criticism? Yes. Hate? No. Service, not parentage, is what the yardstick should be.

The demise of HiTv, a once popular operator, was widely blamed on MultiChoice. This wretched narrative has persisted despite the company’s owner, Toyin Zubair, explaining that the death of HiTv was caused by his wrong choice of shareholders. When will this irrational conduct stop?

In the meantime, I join others in waiting for TsTv and hoping it offers the viable alternative it claims to represent.

Adenle, a human rights activist, writes from Ibadan