31.01.2013 Views

Pay TV phase three document - Stakeholders - Ofcom

Pay TV phase three document - Stakeholders - Ofcom

Pay TV phase three document - Stakeholders - Ofcom

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Pay</strong> <strong>TV</strong> <strong>phase</strong> <strong>three</strong> <strong>document</strong> – non-confidential version<br />

even though these are not viewed as substitutes for television programming in the<br />

eyes of consumers 166 .<br />

Our current view<br />

4.199 While we have broadened our view of the sports that are important in Core Premium<br />

sports channels, we have not changed our view of the relative importance of the<br />

channels themselves. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 4.94 to 4.134 we do not<br />

consider there are close substitutes to these channels. Therefore it remains our view<br />

that direct demand side substitution to alternative channels is unlikely to broaden<br />

markets. We assess the scope for retailers to allocate marketing effort to other<br />

products in section 5 below.<br />

Changes in wholesale prices<br />

Our position in the Second <strong>Pay</strong> <strong>TV</strong> Consultation<br />

4.200 Sky contested the view, expressed in our First <strong>Pay</strong> <strong>TV</strong> consultation 167 , that it had<br />

market power in the markets for premium sports and movies channels, arguing that<br />

flat or falling wholesale carriage prices for its premium channels were “strongly<br />

suggestive that Sky lacks significant market power in relation to the provision of<br />

premium sports and movies channels” 168 . For example it said:<br />

“Trends in wholesale charges for Sky’s premium pay <strong>TV</strong> channels<br />

are set out in [ ] …. Two features of this chart are notable: charges<br />

for a package of all Sky’s premium channels have been broadly flat<br />

in real terms for the past four years; there have been declines in<br />

charges for (a) Dual Movies, and (b) a single Sky sports channel<br />

over the past four years, with the declines for Dual Movies being<br />

particularly pronounced.<br />

Given very significant increases in rights costs, particularly in the<br />

case of sports channels, the obvious implication is that margins<br />

between costs and prices have narrowed in relation to Sky’s<br />

channels at the wholesale level over this period.” 169<br />

4.201 In response, we analysed the changes in wholesale prices of the most popular<br />

wholesale premium sports channel mixes – those taken by some [ � ]% of sports<br />

subscribers 170 . We felt that the price for stand-alone Sky Sports 1 was less relevant<br />

given [ � ]. Our analysis showed that although the wholesale price of the Sky Sports<br />

and Movies Mix [ � ] in real terms since 2005, it was still [ � ] than it was in 2002.<br />

The price of Sky Sports Mix has [ � ] since 2002 and in September 2008 was [ � ]<br />

than it was in 2002.<br />

166<br />

See Sky response to <strong>Ofcom</strong>’s First <strong>Pay</strong> <strong>TV</strong> Consultation paragraph Annex 2 paragraphs 3.120 –<br />

3.126.<br />

167 Paragraph 1.25.<br />

168<br />

Annex 2 to Sky’s non-confidential response to our December 2007 consultation paragraphs 3.131-<br />

3.132.<br />

169 Ibid.<br />

170 Our full analysis is contained in Annex 6 to <strong>Ofcom</strong>’s Second <strong>Pay</strong> <strong>TV</strong> Consultation, Appendix 6.<br />

95

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!