Options
Ofcom considering the scrapping of 'Must carry' rules?
Richardcoulter
Posts: 30,356 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I was told recently that Ofcom are considering the scrapping of the 'Must Carry' rules.
This person works for Virgin Media, so I'm not sure if he meant just for cable or entirely, but I assume the latter.
I can't find anything online, has anyone else got any further info?
The only thing that comes up is information about a consultation back in 2004/5 that refers to DTT only
It's said to be due to a desire to cut uneccesssary red tape, but I had assumed that they would actually increase the scope of the rule to include HD channels and possibly 4K channels too!
This person works for Virgin Media, so I'm not sure if he meant just for cable or entirely, but I assume the latter.
I can't find anything online, has anyone else got any further info?
The only thing that comes up is information about a consultation back in 2004/5 that refers to DTT only
It's said to be due to a desire to cut uneccesssary red tape, but I had assumed that they would actually increase the scope of the rule to include HD channels and possibly 4K channels too!
0
Comments
This allows Ofcom to set a "must carry" requirement in the licence of a network provider, if their service forms the primary means of watching television, so that they include the PSB channels.
It only really affects cable.
I am not sure if it covers Freeview legally, it probably does, but the nature of the platform makes it irrelevant. And Freesat and Sky do provide their own networks but operate open access platforms, on which they have to rent their own capacity from a satellite owner just like anyone else.
I do not believe IP TV services are covered either as they are usually delivered over the open internet rather than a closed licensed network. And although BT TV used their own network for their multicast channels, that is not the primary way BT households receive TV as it is explicitly an add on to DTT and requires an aerial by design.
I do think platform operators should be required to include PSB channels as a mandatory requirement, to not do so would actually devalue their platform anyway.
There is talk about them getting carriage payments, so the first step is to abolish the must carry, then they can negotiate carriage charges from Sky and Virgin
What do you mean by carriage charges? Sky paying the BBC or the other way around?
Every Sky/Virgin subscriber pays a TV license (or they should) why should their subscription charge pay more to them.
The problem is people make a false equivalence with the situation in the U.S.
There the terrestrial coverage is ad hoc. So in rural areas you may not get coverage, and in cities the skyscrapers interfere with the signal. So cable became popular as a way of receiving the over-the-air channels, the ability to launch extra ones is secondary.
For this reason the owners of the networks and local stations can demand high carriage fees for their channels from platform operators. As many people subscribe specifically to watch the likes of NBC and Fox.
This is obviously not the case in the U.K. where we have an extensive terrestrial transmission network. When people here pay for cable or Sky it is in most cases to receive extra channels.
Similarly false equivalence is drawn by the fact that the PSBs are the most watched channels in the so-called multichannel homes as a way of suggesting they are most valuable to subscription platforms. But very few people pay at least £20 per month for the BBC and ITV.
Also, in the U.S. the different platforms literally retransmit the local channels whereas here only cable operators do. On Sky the broadcasters provide their own transmission, Sky just provide EPG service.
"Retransmission" though is different to the issue of platform contribution charges which are based on audience share. The more popular a channel, the more it is regarded as benefitting from being on a platform, so should share a higher burden in contributing to its costs than smaller channels.
This saw the BBC paying Sky several million pounds per year because of the popularity of their channels. Given the public service obligations placed on the PSBs it is difficult to argue they should be having to pay extra. Although at least the BBC and ITV had their contributions dropped as a result of commercial deals to provide iPlayer and ITV Encore respectively.
I still remember the days when there was no ITV on Sky Digital (as it was then). When you went to 103 on the EPG a banner appeared saying press TV then 3.
I agree now though it would be madness not to carry the main 'terrestrial' channels.
What the point of must carry as must TVs have FREEVIEW built in . Or you can get FREE BOX .
But not everyone with Sky or cable has a terrestrial aerial. Even if they do, it may not be connected or in poor condition or they may wish to use their Sky Plus or TiVo to record the main channels.
The same could have been argued in the days of analogue!
What do you mean by "free box"? If you mean by getting Sky, it isn't free, it's paid for via increased subscriptions as that's their business model.
It might be worth pointing out that, in the US, PSBs such as PBS (officially called "non-commercial educational" broadcasters) are prohibited from charging carriage fees. They are, however, generally entitled to must carry rights on cable and satellite systems.
"ITV and Channel 4 could seek £200m from Sky and Virgin for airing channels"
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/05/itv-channel-4-sky-virgin-digital-economy-bill-retransmission-fees
It claims the government intends to repeal section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This exempts a cable company from copyright infringement if it rebroadcasts a terrestrial signal within the same signal area, or is required to carry a channel by Ofcom.
The Guardian claims this would also open the potential to charge Sky carriage fees, without explaining how a law which they correctly state only applies to cable companies would have such an effect.
The article says:
"The government said that “no convincing case” has been made that would guarantee that PSBs would invest any retransmission fee income into more UK originated TV programmes.
It reiterated its belief that PSBs are already “adequately compensated” under existing licensing arrangements.
This includes guaranteed access to spectrum to broadcast and the best slots on electronic programme guides, in return for making their PSB services available throughout the UK free of charge.
“Government remains of the view… that it wants to see zero net fees between the main platforms and the PSBs for the licensed PSB channels,” it said. “This recognises the benefits to platforms, the PSBs and audiences from being able to access award winning, PSB content.”
So it seems that the repeal of section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is really just a technicality - the Government does not propose to introduce retransmission fees and is not expecting them to be introduced.
Indeed the article goes on to say:
“Government expects that there will continue to be no net payments between all platform operators and the PSBs for carriage of their licensed PSB channels going forward. If this situation appears to be at risk, Government will consider again whether legislative change is required.”
So it looks highly unlikely that ITV is going to get anywhere if it attempts to negotiate a fee with VM.
What the government "expects" and "remains of the view" about is irrelevant though, it is just an opinion. It would have no legal basis if they repeal section 73 (and presumably Ofcom drop "must carry" obligations under section 64 of the Communications Act 2003).
Were they so concerned to want to prevent it they would not be repealing a barrier to it, and would instead be strengthening the law to cover other platforms.
But I do not think it will happen. Subscription platforms here are rarely sold for access to the PSBs and most people can easily switch to the DTT version. So the channels are not essential to the platform operators, but the convenience makes them desirable. And whilst the reach is not essential to the broadcasters, the EPG inclusion and convenience is desirable.
It is a mutually beneficial situation, but where the risk is greater if the broadcasters pull their channels. They cannot earn any extra from it, they only risk losing viewers. Whilst the operators would gain nothing for paying over what they currently get for free.