people say things all the time, with the best intentions, sometimes in the hope that the law and policy closely follows to enforce what was planned. Sometimes this is delayed. for instance the digital migration which is supposed to let us have a go at LTE has been pushed forward again. And yes the reasons might be valid but in the end it is still a delay.<br>
<br>My point being that guys like startimes today are not breaking a law by not showing &#39;free&#39; channels, at least none that I know of, there are no penalties that I know of, I know of proposals. Again, as far as I know (and I don&#39;t know much so please correct me if you have the info) there is no document saying these are the free channels which technically means they can do whatever. They can be discriminatory.<br>
<br>If i were them there is no way I&#39;d categorize a station that makes money off lets say advertisements as free; they would have to pay. And as Areba mentioned on a previous mail so long as someone is paying, the consumer has to pay up.<br>
<br>jgitau<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Okechukwu <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:okechukwu@gmail.com" target="_blank">okechukwu@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Gitau, these guyz are licensed as digital TV service providers, and<br>
there must be something in their licenses that makes the CCK &amp; The PS<br>
say they are breaking the law. I have no idea, but these two cannot<br>
just wake up and say something like this without having some legal<br>
backing. All your are saying about free channels is all in your mind<br>
and not on the dotted lines their signed. maybe thay signed that free<br>
channel is KBC1, I do not know.<br>
<br>
./Ok3ch<br>
</blockquote></div>