Originally Posted by popeye13:
“Most of the reason for the Sky wholesale was because they were reluctant to allow Sky Sports on anything other than Sky.
BT Sport is available on Sky, VM, BT-TV etc.. So i don't see BT being forced into wholesale, as they are making their channels available, you just have to get the sub from BT, which is not an issue in the slightest.”
The OFCOM ruling was about Sky's dominance of the Pay TV sports market - and the availability of Sky Sports to other Pay TV retailers at a price where they could retail it competitively. See link below - in particular paragraphs 1.6 and 1.7:
"1.6
Sky exploits its market power by limiting the wholesale distribution of its premium channels, with the effect of restricting competition from retailers on other platforms. This is prejudicial to fair and effective competition, reducing consumer choice and holding back innovation by companies other than Sky. In the case of movies the fact that Sky also owns but barely uses the subscription video-on-demand rights denies competitors the opportunity to develop innovative services.
1.7 We have decided that we should use our powers under section 316 of the Communications Act to
ensure fair and effective competition by requiring Sky to offer the most important sports channels - Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 - to retailers on other platforms"
So it wasn't just about channels being available on platforms - it was about ensuring fair competition between Pay TV retailers.
Anyway, coming back to BT, BT won't be forced to wholesale now as it's not in a dominant position.
But if, hypothetically, BT won 116 PL games to add to CL then it would be in a dominant position - at least as far as football is concerned - and the same competition issues would apply.
But this is all subject to the Court of Appeal verdict anyway - as the CAT has already ruled against the original OFCOM Pay TV ruling.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/con...ytv/statement/