MHLANTLA J The Court, whilst mindful of the undertaking, held that it had to consider the slow progress by the state thus far. The High Court further stated: “It would be unconscionable for any of these households to continue to be left behind prior to [analogue switch-off] and there is a significant probability of this happening given the slow installation progress made thus far, especially in the provinces that have already switched off”.21 [19] Regarding the households which have not qualified, the High Court held that the applicants failed to provide the Court with any statistics that these households would qualify for STBs because neither the state nor the applicants have conducted any study to establish whether they qualify.22 The High Court concluded that the offer by the state to register for the STBs is analogous to the offer and acceptance as stated by the minority in KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee; therefore, this is binding on the state.23 The High Court further held that those households which did not register do not qualify for STBs, and that because this was an undetermined number of persons who would be affected by the analogue switch-off, “it would be unreasonable to allow for a situation where this unknown variable is allowed to hold up a process that will eventually benefit all citizens”.24 [20] With respect to the applicants’ argument that the analogue switch-off will infringe the right to freedom of expression of many people, the High Court held that the state has done enough to provide STBs for all qualifying registered households. 25 On the duty to consult, the High Court held that the applicants had failed to show that a further consultation process with them would have ensured a rational, reasonable and 21 Id at para 53. 22 Id at para 54. 23 Id at para 55. 24 Id at paras 56 and 58. 25 Id at para 60. 11