Updated 5 hours ago

12849 products + 14160 members

Sky will fight Ofcom over premium TV

BSKyB will use "all available legal avenues"

June 26th | Tell us what you think [ 3 comments ]

300-pound-gorilla-us-

300 pound gorilla? Us?

<>

Sky will use "all available legal avenues" to fight Ofcom's recommended changes to the way in which premium content like sport and movies are sold to competitors.

An Ofcom report into Pay TV was damning of Sky's motivations in selling on its premium content like the Premier League football and Hollywood movies, suggesting that it was deliberately over-pricing wholesale packages to other platforms such as cable and IPTV services.

However, Sky fundamentally disagrees with the findings, and will fight tooth and nail to ensure that Ofcom does not intervene in the market by setting prices or influencing the distribution of rights.

Disagree fundamentally

"We disagree fundamentally with Ofcom's approach, analysis and conclusions," a spokesman told TechRadar.

"In light of Ofcom's determination to pursue its preferred outcome, we will use all available legal avenues to challenge this unwarranted intervention."

Ofcom's strident comments are not unexpected, but there are many that have already indicated some of the problems with its comments.

Some commentators have pointed out that Sky bids in a open market for all of its premium content and the likes of BT – one of Sky's most open critics – has the kind of financial weight to invest in such content itself should it so desire.

Secondly, as the Telegraph's Damien Reece suggests: "If companies aren't allowed economic control of their own assets, that's hardly conducive to investment. It's one thing to price regulate former state monopolies, such as energy companies, quite another private enterprises."

UPDATE: Sky's chief executive Jeremy Darroch has responded saying:

"Sky invests and takes risks to create television channels of the highest quality. We spend over £1 billion a year so viewers can enjoy the movies and sports coverage they expect. In doing so, we have increased choice for consumers, raised standards across the industry and provided much-needed support for UK sport.

"We want our premium channels to be widely available on other platforms. But we deserve a fair return on the investments which create so much value for other distributors and their customers.

"Forcing Sky to sell its channels for less than their true value is a subsidy for companies that have shown no appetite for investment in programmes.

"BT and Virgin Media do not deserve to be handed a reward at Sky's expense for their repeated failure to invest. It defies belief that Ofcom expects Sky to lower its wholesale prices to compensate for the higher costs of less efficient platforms.

"Ofcom is proposing an unprecedented level of interference in commercial markets. Good regulation does not involve micro-management. Nor does it mean tinkering to re-shape an industry so that it matches a preconceived ideal or a spreadsheet in a regulator's office.

"We reject Ofcom's assumption that it knows better than us how to create value for our business.

"This country needs more companies which innovate for consumers and invest for the long term. Consumers will not benefit if regulators are allowed to intervene to limit the legitimate rewards and opportunities available to successful companies.

"Punishing success has a chilling effect on incentives for investment and undermines the attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business."

Comment on this article
 

Your comments (3) Click to add a new comment

matty


June 26th

3. i dont think Sky are out of line, they have spent a fortune to get the rights to all these things, why should they just give it away on the cheap? Thats like my company sitting back and letting our competition buy the rights to something, then us moaning to the government that its not fair that they have it and want to sell it to us at more than what we could have paid if we bought it...Virgin have no plans to invest further in the infrastructure but Sky can and do, if Virgin bothered to lay extra cable to reach where i live i might be more sympathetic to them.

Alert a moderator

technobrakes


June 26th

2. As of around 11 o'clock this morning i stepped over to the dark side, i am now a sky subscriber i just couldn't deni however much i wanted to that 33 quid for, line rental, broadband, hd receiver and basic hd package. was dame good value, took some ha galling mind you.

Any way Sky are like the supermarkets so big no one can compete. Im afraid they do owe the little guy, even if that little guy is a multi million pound company. there is no real competition to sky, they can invest mega money knowing every one will have to buy off them. BT 134m loss, and sky have the cheek to say they can heavily invest, what planet do they live on (http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/-134m-bt-loss-to-herald-15-000-jobs-cut-598829)

like Microsoft they are aggressive and anti competition, ofcom have a duty to defend the interests of fair competition

that said it was a good deal.

Alert a moderator

tech89


June 26th

1. I don't like the way sky outbids every other competitor to programs however i do amire their deficance against ofcom. VM and BT need to invest more in thier channels if their to gain market share.

Alert a moderator

Tell us what you think

You need to Log in or register to post comments

By submitting this form you agree to our Terms of Use and so are legally responsible for anything you submit. DO NOT submit anything which may violate the Terms of Use or another person's rights including copyrighted or offensive materials.