DS Forums

 
 

CAT rejects BT’s appeal against decision to drop Sky Sports wholesale requirement


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-12-2016, 22:13
1andrew1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,981

BT loses competition appeal against Ofcom over Sky pay-tv
21/12/2016
The CAT unanimously rejected BT’s arguments and issued a withering assessment of the telecoms company’s points.
The judgement stated that “it is important to remember that regulation is not a “one-way street”, and it is not only failure to intervene that can be problematic”.

Judgment : http://www.catribunal.org.uk/files/1...ent_211216.pdf
Pay link to FT article https://www.ft.com/content/5a64e484-...2-c1d69cb9857d or Google headline for free access.
1andrew1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-12-2016, 22:23
DUHO
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 604
Regulation certainly IS a one way street in this country. I presume by that ruling Skysports 1 &2 on the BTTV platform isn't long for the world
DUHO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 22:45
popeye13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,692
Regulation certainly IS a one way street in this country. I presume by that ruling Skysports 1 &2 on the BTTV platform isn't long for the world
Depends on what (If any) commercial agreement can be done between them both.
popeye13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 22:49
1andrew1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,981
Depends on what (If any) commercial agreement can be done between them both.
Ofcom is keeping a watching brief on the situation per its spokesman:
"Pay television is an important market for consumers, and we will continue to monitor the availability and distribution of sports content. Our job is to ensure fair and effective competition, and we’re ready to step in if any future concerns arise in the market."
1andrew1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2016, 22:53
Zeropoint1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Derbyshire / UK
Posts: 3,726
Ofcom is keeping a watching brief on the situation per its spokesman:
"Pay television is an important market for consumers, and we will continue to monitor the availability and distribution of sports content. Our job is to ensure fair and effective competition, and we’re ready to step in if any future concerns arise in the market."
Which I assume is OFCOM speak for "We'll let Sky do what they want until it's too late and then claim lessons have been learned"
Zeropoint1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-12-2016, 01:49
mlt11
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,160
This saga has now been going on for almost 10 years - anyone who has followed every twist and turn really does deserve a medal.

A bit of context is required to understand what this latest CAT ruling actually means so in very brief summary events up to now have gone:

January 2007 - Complaint by VM, BT, Setanta and TUTV to OFCOM

[Three year OFCOM investigation including two separate public consultations]

March 2010 - OFCOM "Pay TV ruling" - Imposition of wholesale must offer "WMO" on Sky re SS1 + SS2

[Appeal to CAT; counter appeal to Court of Appeal]

2014 - OFCOM launches own review of 2010 decision (a year later than planned due to above legal action)

November 2015 - OFCOM announces result of review of 2010 decision - OFCOM drops WMO

So what we have today is the CAT's rejection of BT's appeal against the November 2015 OFCOM ruling.

Of course this isn't the end of it - BT can still appeal this CAT ruling to the Court of Appeal.

However (and it's a big however) this is all now pretty academic - for two separate reasons:

1) Sky now has commercial agreements with BT (and TalkTalk etc; and it always had a commercial agreement with VM) for the supply of SS channels outside of the "WMO regime". So Sky contractually can't suddenly stop supplying SS channels anyway.

Of course those agreements will have expiry dates so in theory Sky might not renew them but if Sky considers that option it will be conscious of OFCOM's threat to intervene again.

2) Take-up of SS channels on the BT platform has always been very low anyway - no figure has been reported for quite a long time but when a figure was last reported I think (from memory) it was below 5% - so even if supply did stop the impact on BT's TV business would not be significant anyway. Which in turn means Sky wouldn't gain much in terms of competitive advantage either. Take-up of SS channels on TalkTalk when last reported was even lower.

Take-up of SS channels on VM is much higher (last reported to be a bit under 20%) but supply to VM was always a bit different having been subject to the old OFT ruling back around the turn of the century and now covered by a commercial agreement which it's very, very unlikely Sky would not renew given the magnitude of wholesale revenue that Sky would lose (plus the dynamics with VM are very different given VM doesn't compete against Sky for sports rights).

Conclusion (in summary):

This ruling changes nothing; there is no possible impact on anyone in the short-run; and it's very unlikely there will be any impact on anyone in the long-run either.

But the saga is still very good business for the legal profession.
mlt11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-12-2016, 06:43
Hamlet77
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Liverpool. Champions of Europe
Posts: 15,514
Which I assume is OFCOM speak for "We'll let Sky do what they want until it's too late and then claim lessons have been learned"
Precisely, I'm never sure if OFCOM hate BT or love Sky.
Hamlet77 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-12-2016, 18:31
ds_reader
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,095
Precisely, I'm never sure if OFCOM hate BT or love Sky.
More a case of love BT and hate Sky....

Unnecessary imposition of Sports WMO on Sky..

Then no imposition of WMO on BT Sport.

Little to correct BT's obtuse of their control of Openreach.
ds_reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 21:38
1andrew1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,981
Precisely, I'm never sure if OFCOM hate BT or love Sky.
More a case of love BT and hate Sky....
I think these posts together indicate the correct situation - Ofcom is doing a well balanced job.
1andrew1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 21:50
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
Little to correct BT's obtuse of their control of Openreach.
The changes Ofcom has proposed seem like a good stab at doing just that. Separate board and management, autonomy on decision making and investment, etc. There should be much less tail wagging the dog.

Splitting the two companies apart would be a nightmare for everyone involved.
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 08:48
Ragnarok
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: too close to Hell, Londonistan
Posts: 4,567
I fail to see how Sky sports would do a roaring business on BTTV without all the channels, preferably in HD, that would likely mean sky losing customers though. At least you can get Sky Sports without the base subscription!!!! Unlike Sky.

unfortunately the cheapest way to get it all is to have BT internet and BT sport on BTTV ( with poorer HD channel quality I might add ) and Sky TV, which is what I do.
I might consolidate at some point but I doubt i'd ever goto sky broadband. They likely have a good idea of TV viewing patterns, and be able to gather much info from internet usage too.

I'd like to see ofcom maybe encourage sky to offer the sports and movies on Sky TV without having to take the entertainment TV package and encourage BT and sky to make more comprehensive wholesale deals with each other, without it being an order.

BT's deal with Virgin media really puts Virgin at an advantage, but I don't have any hope in hell of ever being able to even try virgin at home.
Ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:35.