45. The petitioner contends further that the respondents have also violated Article 34(3) of the Constitution because the broadcasting signal distribution undertaken by the 2nd respondent is outside the extant licensing regime prescribed by the Kenya Information and Communications Act, and the regulations made thereunder. In addition, it also alleges that the fact that KBC has been granted authority to engage in broadcasting signal distribution services indicates that the licensing procedure is not independent of control by government. 46. The starting point in considering these allegations by the petitioner is to consider the legislative regime and history prior to its enactment. It is common ground that prior to 1998, there was no regulatory regime in broadcasting, and that broadcasting licences were granted by the Minister. It is also common ground that a decision of the ITU was made to emigrate from analogue to digital transmission by 2015, and that Kenya had put in place a Task Force on Migration to guide the migration process and make appropriate recommendations with regard to its migration by December 2012. 47. I have noted that the regulatory regime on broadcasting was set up under the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act, (apparently now the Kenya Information and Communication Act) which came into force on 2nd January 2009. The petitioner alleges violation of its rights under the Constitution consequent upon the failure by the 1st respondent to exercise its mandate under section 46N and 460 of the Act. Section 46N is in the following terms: 46N. (1) Subject to this Act, no person shall provide signal distribution services within Kenya or from Kenya to other countries except in accordance with a licence issued under this Part. (2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both 46O. (1) The Commission may upon an application in the prescribed manner and subject to such conditions as it may deem necessary, grant a licence authorizing any person or persons to provide signal distribution Services. 48. Section 46O(2) sets out the conditions to which a signal distribution licence is subject to. It provides that a signal distribution licence granted under the section may require the licensee to— (a) provide signal distribution services as a common carrier to broadcasting licensees; (b) provide services promptly upon request, in an equitable, reasonable, non-preferential and non- discriminatory manner; (c) provide capability for a diversity of broadcast services and content; (d) provide an open network that is interoperable with other signal distribution networks; and (e) comply with any other conditions that the Commission may determine.(Emphasis added) 49. As I understand it, the petitioner’s grievance against the respondents is in two limbs. First, it is that CCK has failed to exercise its mandate to require that KBC obtains a signal distribution licence as required under Section 46N(1) set out above, and secondly, that it should offer such signal distribution services in a non-discriminatory manner that is consistent with the requirements of section 46O. The petitioner sees the continued preferential treatment of Multi Choice and GoTV by the KBC as violating its rights under the Constitution. It also sees the fact that the KBC/Multi Choice joint venture has allowed GoTV to sell locked set-top boxes which can only receive content from GoTV as being a violation of its right and the rights of the public under Article 33.