BSkyB deals Ofcom a blow in battle over telly sports prices

Wins right to appeal against meddling of its crown jewels


BSkyB has won a major victory in a five-year battle with the UK competition authorities over its crown jewels: its pay TV sports channels.

Both Ofcom and the Competition Commission had decided that the pay TV market was not serving consumers, ordering Sky to wholesale its premium sports channels to arch rivals Virgin Media and BT, and giving Ofcom the power to set the wholesale price. Sky appealed a 2010 Ofcom pricing decision. But the Competition Appeal Tribunal ripped up those prices, reserving harsh words for Ofcom's reasoning.

The 2010 appeal rapidly turned into a gigantic legal clusterfuck, with Sky questioning Ofcom's authority, and rivals returning fire at Sky. Hearings ran for two months last year and evidence ran to 35,000 pages.

Ofcom had claimed that Sky wasn't a constructive market participant in order to protect its own retail satellite business, at the expense of revenues from the platform. It didn't offer rivals HD or IPTV versions of its sports broadcasts either. Ofcom made the assertion that Sky had been obstructive for "strategic reasons": in other words, Sky had wanted to nobble the market.

This was comprehensively thrown out by the tribunal, after an exhaustive process of evidence gathering and hearings. Sky was not obstructive, it concluded, and the broadcaster withheld its material for practical commercial considerations.

"The tribunal is of the view that Ofcom has, to a significant extent, misinterpreted the evidence of these negotiations, which does not support Ofcom’s conclusion. We have found a significant number of Ofcom’s pivotal findings of fact in the Statement to be inconsistent with the evidence," concluded the tribunal.

"Sky did, on the whole, engage constructively," the ruling adds. "Sky has no theological objection to wholesale supply of its premium channels, and is, in principle, willing to do so where self-retail is not open to it."

A commercial decision requires two to tango, and the tribunal points out that Sky's rivals, who wanted the sports, broke off negotiations in the knowledge they could appeal to a sympathetic regulator. This is called "regulatory gaming".

So what happens next?

What Sky has won is the right to appeal Ofcom's 2010 pricing order. Sky sought to establish that Ofcom didn't have the authority to meddle with retail pricing, and that it shouldn't duplicate the work of the Competition Commission - both these claims were rejected by the tribunal.

Existing commercial contracts will not be overturned. Money has been paid into an escrow account since 2010 in any case. As for current pricing, the tribunal concluded that price wasn't a factor in the adoption of Sky on Virgin Media's cable platform. Ofcom had wanted to reopen the hearing and delay judgment, but the tribunal rejected the request.

A full judgment will follow, and Virgin and BT have reserved their right to appeal.

Ofcom said it was “very surprised and disappointed” with the decision, and adding a reminder of its duty to protect consumers. Aka, intervene in the market. ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • 5G C-band rollout at US airports slowed over radio altimeter safety fears
    Well, they did say from July, now they really mean from July 2023

    America's aviation watchdog has said the rollout of 5G C-band coverage near US airports won't fully start until next year, delaying some travelers' access to better cellular broadband at crowded terminals.

    Acting FAA Administrator Billy Nolen said in a statement this month that its discussions with wireless carriers "have identified a path that will continue to enable aviation and 5G C-band wireless to safely co-exist."

    5G C-band operates between 3.7-3.98GHz, near the 4.2-4.4GHz band used by radio altimeters that are jolly useful for landing planes in limited visibility. There is or was a fear that these cellular signals, such as from cell towers close to airports, could bleed into the frequencies used by aircraft and cause radio altimeters to display an incorrect reading. C-band technology, which promises faster mobile broadband, was supposed to roll out nationwide on Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile US's networks, but some deployments have been paused near airports due to these concerns. 

    Continue reading
  • IBM settles age discrimination case that sought top execs' emails
    Just days after being ordered to provide messages, Big Blue opts out of public trial

    Less than a week after IBM was ordered in an age discrimination lawsuit to produce internal emails in which its former CEO and former SVP of human resources discuss reducing the number of older workers, the IT giant chose to settle the case for an undisclosed sum rather than proceed to trial next month.

    The order, issued on June 9, in Schenfeld v. IBM, describes Exhibit 10, which "contains emails that discuss the effort taken by IBM to increase the number of 'millennial' employees."

    Plaintiff Eugene Schenfeld, who worked as an IBM research scientist when current CEO Arvind Krishna ran IBM's research group, sued IBM for age discrimination in November, 2018. His claim is one of many that followed a March 2018 report by ProPublica and Mother Jones about a concerted effort to de-age IBM and a 2020 finding by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that IBM executives had directed managers to get rid of older workers to make room for younger ones.

    Continue reading
  • FTC urged to probe Apple, Google for enabling ‘intense system of surveillance’
    Ad tracking poses a privacy and security risk in post-Roe America, lawmakers warn

    Democrat lawmakers want the FTC to investigate Apple and Google's online ad trackers, which they say amount to unfair and deceptive business practices and pose a privacy and security risk to people using the tech giants' mobile devices.

    US Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) and House Representative Sara Jacobs (D-CA) requested on Friday that the watchdog launch a probe into Apple and Google, hours before the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, clearing the way for individual states to ban access to abortions. 

    In the days leading up to the court's action, some of these same lawmakers had also introduced data privacy bills, including a proposal that would make it illegal for data brokers to sell sensitive location and health information of individuals' medical treatment.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022