Description

Is the media regulator Ofcom right to rule that Sky must offer its Sky Sports 1 and 2 channels to other broadcasters at a controlled price? Two media experts give their views.BSkyB has announced it will appeal Ofcom's ruling over its Sky Sports channels/nProfessor Tim Luckhurst, Professor of Journalism at the University of Kent: Ofcom has taken a quite unprecedented decision to dictate to a commercial television company how much it should charge rivals to buy its programmes./nInitially that might look like a very good thing for consumers - after all, Sky will only be allowed to charge 23% less than it currently charges rivals for access to Sky Sports 1 and 2 on their packages./nBut the consumer doesn't necessarily benefit because this will have a very significant impact on what companies are prepared to pay the sports organisations for the rights to show their matches, for example, and it might reduce investment in television coverage, so it's not a clear win-win situation for the consumer at all./nThis story goes back three years. The original complaint didn't come from consumers, it came from Sky's commercial rivals. It was Setanta, BT and Virgin Media who wanted Sky to face an Ofcom enquiry and wanted to see Sky ordered to sell its premium sports content for less than it wants to sell it for./nThere is an extent to which Ofcom appears to be solving Sky's commercial rivals' problems for them. After all, the reason Sky has such good sports coverage is because it has invested very heavily./nIt seems to me a little bit of market rigging to insist that the company that has invested so heavily should be obliged to sell at a price that it doesn't regard as commercially realistic./nPeter Bazalgette, media consultant specialising in television and digital entertainment:One has sympathy for BSkyB which is an enormously successful operation and it got there by taking enormous risks./nBut it does now have a dominant position in the ownership of sports rights./nOfcom has a point in that more people could enjoy those sports rights at a better price - and that's what it is trying to achieve. I think Ofcom it is probably going in the right direction./nBSkyB is a massive success story and it would appear it is recession proof. But whether it has got its prices right depends on how many competitors there are in the market. If there's only one person supplying something, you have to pay the price they ask./nOfcom is arguing the price is high but people have nowhere to go because BSkyB has a stranglehold on the football rights. It doesn't mean the price is right./nThrough the Ofcom ruling on the Sky channels, consumers are set to benefit in two ways. One, they can get the channels a bit more cheaply and two, if they go onto Freeview, many more people will be able to get them./nSports rights could suffer - but more people might feel able to bid for them under these circumstances. Certainly if sports rights did go down in value it might mean less money going to the Premier League clubs and that might make quite a big difference. The money goes straight to the clubs, through them, and into the pockets of these famous footballers./nMeanwhile, Ofcom has recognised the argument that Sky says it invests in risk and brings innovation because it says it is not going to control the price of the HD channels, only the basic sports channels. Hazel Tyldesley, Sky News Online

Video URL:
http://www.kideso.co.uk/kvp/video/1268/NEWS-Pay-TV-Row-Is-Ofcoms-Ruling-Fair-March-31-2010


Embed URL
<embed width="452" height="361" quality="high" bgcolor="#000000" wmode="transparent" name="main" id="main" allowfullscreen="false" src="http://www.kideso.co.uk/kvp/player/vPlayer.swf?f=http://www.kideso.co.uk/kvp/player/vConfig.php?vkey=58ea9762904da1a22337" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />