General : Sky Sports pricing dispute: appeal ruling looms

[devilincarnate]

Not sure after reading this?

08 August 2012
BSkyB responds to CAT ruling on pay TV appeal
"Sky notes today's announcement by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) of its judgment on the various appeals of Ofcom’s decision to impose a Wholesale Must Offer obligation in respect of Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2.
"We welcome the CAT’s confirmation that Ofcom’s competition concerns in relation to the wholesale supply of Sky Sports are unfounded and that, contrary to Ofcom’s analysis, the evidence shows that Sky has engaged constructively with other distributors over the supply of its premium channels. This finding supports the argument that Sky has been making consistently over the last five years.
"We also welcome the CAT’s conclusion that the existing commercial terms of supply, particularly in relation to Sky’s wholesale rate card, do not obstruct fair and effective competition in the retailing of Sky Sports across platforms.
"At present, Sky has access only to the CAT’s summary of its principal findings and conclusions. Sky will give careful consideration to the full judgment when it is made available."

http://corporate.sky.com/media/press..._pay_tv_appeal

[nstokes]

Originally Posted by denphone

Then the master has failed and perhaps it is time for you to leave your throne.

We cant have that, he is out master. If he leaves the throne we have no master

[Emel]

Originally Posted by denphone

l have just found two quotes from DS and they are as follows.

I don't claim to understand this but are the reports trying to say that OFCOM's concerns about Sky Sports pricing were unfounded but that they do have the right to require Sky to reduce their prices?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Emel

I don't claim to understand this but are the reports trying to say that OFCOM's concerns about Sky Sports pricing were unfounded but that they do have the right to require Sky to reduce their prices?

[muppetman11]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...redirect=false

Clear as mud..

However there maybe some light ahead.OFCOM said...

In a separate investigation, the Competition Commission also very recently concluded that competition in the pay-TV market is not effective. We will therefore immediately consider what further steps we should take to ensure there is effective competition in the pay-TV sector, in line with our duties."

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...redirect=false

I like this part of the article MM?

However, the tribunal did not find in BSkyB's favour on each of the grounds that it contested.

BSkyB was unable to convince the tribunal that Ofcom misinterpreted its powers when it ordered the pay-TV company to reduce its wholesale prices for the two sports channels

[Sirius]

There is more to this than meets the eye and i think there will still be some maneuvering going on behind closed doors

[gj4009]

The link that said Sky lost was the same story by the same mis in-formed reporter Karolin Schaps, just reposted on lots of different new sites. Read the PDF document which can be found on my link on page 2. To summarise Sky won, Sky are not being unfair in thier pricing, Sky were the ones trying to make progress on a deal while others were making things as arkward as they could.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Sirius

There is more to this than meets the eye and i think there will still be some maneuvering going on behind closed doors

lets hope so

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by gj4009

The link that said Sky lost was the same story by the same mis in-formed reporter Karolin Schaps, just reposted on lots of different new sites. Read the PDF document which can be found on my link on page 2. To summarise Sky won, Sky are not being unfair in thier pricing, Sky were the ones trying to make progress on a deal while others were making things as arkward as they could.

I have been following this case since the inception and I same as the reporter that you have quoted I too am confused and will wait for the full and redacted version of the judgement.

Originally Posted by gj4009

The link that said Sky lost was the same story by the same mis in-formed reporter Karolin Schaps, just reposted on lots of different new sites. Read the PDF document which can be found on my link on page 2. To summarise Sky won, Sky are not being unfair in thier pricing, Sky were the ones trying to make progress on a deal while others were making things as arkward as they could.

Direct link to the findings

http://www.catribunal.org.uk/files/1...act_080812.pdf

Summary of the grounds of appeal and of the Tribunal’s conclusions

I refer you to pages 7&8, sections 12-16, which state Sky's appeals are not upheld.

You are referring to the ruling regarding Ofcom's Challenged Findings, Page 9 Section 20, not the appeals.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Direct link to the findings

http://www.catribunal.org.uk/files/1...act_080812.pdf

Summary of the grounds of appeal and of the Tribunal’s conclusions

I refer you to pages 7&8, sections 12-16, which state Sky's appeals are not upheld.

You are referring to the ruling regarding Ofcom's Challenged Findings, Page 9 Section 20, not the appeals.

Doesn't help..I think old age is dulling my IQ.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Doesn't help..I think old age is dulling my IQ.

Come on Maggy 95 is not old age. So that should not dull your IQ

Good summary in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...?newsfeed=true

In a summary judgment handed down after the London stock market closed on Wednesday, the Competition Appeal Tribunal has ruled that Ofcom's core competition concern about the way the pay-TV broadcaster sold its sports channels wholesale to competitors was "unfounded".

The CAT said the media regulator misinterpreted some of the evidence that was before it when it ordered BSkyB to sell Sky Sports 1 and 2 to rivals for up to 23% less than the previous wholesale price in March 2010.

Wednesday's ruling follows a two-year legal challenge by BSkyB over market competition issues.

Mr Justice Barling said in the judgment: "The tribunal has concluded that Ofcom's core competition concern is unfounded. That concern is based on the finding to which we have referred, namely that Sky has deliberately withheld from other retailers wholesale supply of its premium channels, preferring to be entirely absent from those retailers' platforms rather than to give them wholesale access, and that in doing so Sky has been acting on strategic incentives unrelated to normal commercial considerations of revenue/profit maximisation.

"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."

However, the tribunal did not find in BSkyB's favour on each of the grounds that it contested.

BSkyB was unable to convince the tribunal that Ofcom misinterpreted its powers when it ordered the pay-TV company to reduce its wholesale prices for the two sports channels.