Pay TV phase three document - Stakeholders - Ofcom

Pay TV phase three document – non-confidential version
9.236 We consider that compliance with the existing codes will address many of the
concerns we might have on how Sky may cross promote its channels and services.
We therefore do not intend to introduce specific conditions relating to these activities.
9.237 However, we would expect Sky to ensure that the feeds provided to third party
retailers did not include excessive promotions of services and features which were
not available to consumers on non-Sky platforms which could lead to consumer
confusion or that might degrade the consumers’ perception of the quality of the
service provided by their pay TV retailer.
9.238 Individual retailers would be free to reach commercial agreement with Sky if they
wished to distribute a different version of the Sky channels to those distributed by
Sky on its retail services or advertise on these channels. For example, they may
negotiate running different promotions during promotional air time or inserting
different advertisements.
Complaint handling
9.239 Ofcom has published guidelines on how we will handle complaints that are referred
to us for investigation including complaints regarding conditions set under section
316 of the Communications Act 2003
(http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/eu_directives/guidelines.pdf) 556 .
9.240 Whilst our preference is for prospective retailers and Sky to reach commercial
agreement in relation to supply of the relevant channels and content, in the event that
a complaint is brought to us, we would normally follow these guidelines (or any
subsequently published guidelines) in handling the complaint unless there is a good
reason not to do so.
Review provisions
9.241 In our Second Pay TV Consultation, we stressed that such an intervention should not
have an indefinite life. We suspected that reviewing the regulation after it had been in
force for a period of time – say, three years – might be appropriate.
9.242 [ � ] considered three years as an appropriate time to review. [ � ] also believed
that it should correspond with the duration of the exclusivity of the key content rights
and therefore suggested to review the provision at the time of the next auction.
9.243 The BBC thought that three years seemed “broadly right”, as a shorter period could
not give enough time for wholesale or simulcrypt arrangements to be negotiated and
implemented and for Ofcom and the industry to evaluate their effectiveness. It
pointed out that the review should coincide with the outcome of the next FAPL rights
auction.
9.244 The FAPL said that any wholesale must-offer obligation should be subject to regular
review by Ofcom and should be reviewed in line with changes of ownership of the
programming rights to which any such wholesale remedy applies.
556 These were adopted in 2004 and remain in force, however stakeholders may also consider
Ofcom’s 2006 consultation on revised guidelines which are available at
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/enforcement/
317