• Business model as medicine

    Revisiting your business model is a useful way to revive your business, says Ian Mann.

  • No sugar-coated pill

    The cost of uninformed medical consent runs into billions, says Mandi Smallhorne.

  • Greek tragedy

    Athens' relations with the EU was an accident waiting to happen, says Leopold Scholtz.

See More

Icasa rules against Caxton

Oct 26 2010 19:00 Sapa

Related Articles

Multichoice and e.tv to go mobile

No fines for poor cell networks

Icasa gives nod to rate cuts

Vodacom snubs Icasa, lowers fees

Icasa keeps close eye on MTN

Former Icasa chair joins Vunani

Johannesburg - Broadcasting regulator Icasa has rejected a three-year-old complaint by publishing company Caxton over foreign ownership of MultiChoice and MNet.

Caxton lodged the complaint in August 2007, claiming the broadcasters were in breach of the Electronic Communications Act [ECA].

At the time MultiChoice had applied for a commercial subscription broadcasting licence in terms of the act.

Icasa sought to postpone the probe because MultiChoice had not yet been licensed, but after a series of court rulings, its complaints and compliance committee heard the matter in August this year.

In Tuesday's ruling the committee said Caxton had submitted that MultiChoice and MNet, through their holding company Naspers, had breached section 64 of the act.

The section says no foreigner may have "a financial interest or an interest either in voting shares or paid-up capital in a commercial broadcasting licensee, exceeding 20 percent".

Caxton also claimed a breach of section 65 in that Naspers through Multichoice and MNet "directly or indirectly exercises control over more than one commercial broadcasting service licence.

The committee decided that on the limited information placed before it, foreign shareholders in Naspers did not have a more than 20 percent interest in MultiChoice and MNet voting shares.

The committee said the act defied a financial interest as one that gave the power to control the licensee, or effective say over the affairs of the licensee.

So a large financial interest alone was not enough to constitute "control", the committee said.

"There must clearly be something additional such as an agreement, undertaking or understanding, linked to and based on the financial interest which confers control in the wide sense," it said.

Caxton had not led evidence to this effect.

"For the above reasons the complaint by Caxton in terms of section 64 of the ECA is dismissed," it said.

The complaint that Naspers was operating two broadcasters was dismissed on a technicality.

This point related to exemptions granted to some broadcasters during the transition from the old Independent Broadcasting Authority Act to the Electronic Communications Act.


multichoice  |  mnet  |  icasa



Read Fin24’s Comments Policy

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Add your comment
Comment 0 characters remaining

Company Snapshot

We're talking about:


Fin24 has teamed up with Ian Mann, ace business book reviewer and author of the best-selling book “Managing with Intent,” to host the second Best Business Books Breakfast of the year where Ian will show you how to lead and attract.

Money Clinic

Money Clinic
Do you have a question about your finances? We'll get an expert opinion.
Click here...

Voting Booth

Facebook as a tool for small business is:

Previous results · Suggest a vote