The Department of Communication (DOC) has been mulling as round the imminently approaching deadline for the Switch over to Digital transmission for far too long.
Finally we hear that there is some movement on the ground. Yesterday, Dina Pula announced on an educational roadshow in Northern Cape that the department is targeting the end of December 2013 for “Completion” of the roll out.
The Digital Migration is a complicated process no doubt, but the manner in which it has been handled by those trusted with its deployment is laughable. As Craig Wilson of Techcentral so eloquently put it “Communications minister Dina Pule has promised that digital terrestrial television will commence in SA in December and wants the migration process to completed in just 12 months. Will this be the latest in a long list of missed deadlines?”
Great consideration always has to be taken by the State to ensure that the ‘poor’ are looked after and government will subsidize 70% of the cost of the SetBox Top required to receive the signal. For the rest an estimated cost of R700.
I would say we are dreaming of a December 2012 roll out as planned, government dodgy procurement practices has come to light and it faces a day in court with ETV before any progress will take place. Even then a complete roll out in 12 months is damn near impossible.
Government is using this opportunity to grow skills and jobs in the manufacturing and technical arena. It envisions thousands of jobs to be created, which was primarily the reason for the delay. Did I mention the Post Office has been identified as the primary distributor at present?
A tweetnote presentation is a presentation of sorts. With its heart firmly in social media , a tweetnote as by its name, is a presentation done through Twitter. Pioneered by the MD of World Wide Worx Arthur Goldstuck. His latest one Mobility 2012, sort to bring more clarity on the state of SA Mobile Telecoms industry.
News out yesterday from the UK is that a Judge presiding over one of the numerous Apple vs Samsung Patent disputes found that Samsung did not copy the design of the Apple iPad with their Galaxy range of tablets.
The judge presiding over the case Colin Birss found that the product were distinguishable from each other and he even went as far to say the Samsung designs weren’t as distinctively “cool” as the iPad.
“[The Galaxy tablets] do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool,” Birss said
The order means that Apple will essentially have to run advertisement for Samsung in the UK, a move that may be inherently bad for business. “No company likes to refer to a rival on its website,” Apple lawyer Richard Hacon told the court.
Apple has been involved in a number of Patent dispute throughout the whole most notably with arch rival Samsung. Currently disputes are unsettled in Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S. Earlier this month Apple were reported to have paid a cool $60 million for the “iPad” name in China.
Read more –