The Great Debate UK
Ofcom summons up courage to tackle BSkyB
- Steven Barnett is professor of communications at the University of Westminster, and a writer and commentator on broadcasting issues. His first book, published in 1990, was on the relationship between television and sport. The opinions expressed are his own.-
Today is a historic day for British television: the first time in its brief six-year history that the supposedly uber powerful Ofcom has been prepared to flex its muscles to tackle the brute force of BSkyB’s overwhelming dominance in pay television.
It is an issue that has blighted the television industry for years, disadvantaged consumers, put companies out of business, and sent competitors, regulators and politicians running for cover.
Finally, after three years of exhaustive analysis, the regulator has had enough: BSkyB has been ordered to lower the prices at which it sells its premium rate channels to other platform operators such as Virgin and BT.
Consumers may even be able to buy sports and movie channels without being forced to pay for a bundle of countless other unwanted channels.
We can now expect a blaze of carefully orchestrated outrage not just from the hugely influential head of BSkyB itself, James Murdoch, but from its formidable number of friends and allies. For the power and influence which this single corporation exerts on British public and political life is quite extraordinary.
We have already heard the first rumblings from powerful sports bodies, threatening legal action and warning of “serious consequences” for sport.
Where I live in North Wales I am unable to get Freeview, so that means I have to subscribe to Sky. Well, if I want more than the basics I have to pay, yet the variety of Freeview stations exceed the stations on Sky unless I am a paid up subscriber! For example Dave is free to air on Freeview and yet on Sky I have to pay.
I could go for FreeSat, but that would involve me splashing out on another box, but again, the channels are limited and I have no option for additional services, so Sky does provide a service, but sadly for the TV that I watch, I am paying through the nose.
What grieves me more is if I was to unsubscribe from Sky (since I have a Sky+ box) if I wanted to use the recording facility on the box that I bought, I have to pay £10 a month! In short, they have me over the metaphorical barrel.
I would welcome a package that allows me to pay for what I watch, say like an electric metre, where you pay per hour. For a 30 day month (at £18 a month) that would equate to 2.5 pence an hour of television viewing, I suppose for prime time viewing, films, sports, they could charge more, say 5 pence a hour… (?)
As for the recording facility, I own the machine, so why should I pay for that? It just like owning a VCR, just a digital version. – That’s what I was told by a Sky employee. Any thoughts there?
I will not pay an extra £10 a month for HD, that’s absurd, nor will I subscribe to Sky’s upcoming 3D service. It’s only TV at the end of the day.
It’s about time Ofcom intervened, some people don’t get a choice of alternative suppliers for TV, telecommunications or broadband without being subjet to additional fees.