LET'S call a spade a spade: No competition exists in Singapore's pay-TV market, only two monopolists.
In deciding to subscribe to a pay-TV service, consumers are driven by their desire for specific content, such as English Premier League (EPL) football and Grand Slam tennis, or channels such as BBC World News and Discovery. How their desired content or channel is transmitted to their TV set, through cable (StarHub) or telephone line (SingTel), is immaterial.
A monopoly exists whenever a product (specific TV content) with no satisfactorily close substitute is sold by only one seller (pay-TV operator).
Even if there were 10 pay-TV operators and each carries exclusive channels and content, they will all have monopoly power because exclusivity triggers monopolistic behaviour. The crux of escalating subscription fees is the monopoly in content provision that pay-TV operators currently enjoy. To best serve Singaporeans, the Media Development Authority (MDA) must remove that monopoly by making every channel accessible, regardless of which pay-TV operator viewers choose.
Contrary to Mr Kenny Ching's contention yesterday ('Why it was wrong to allow competition'), our market is not too small to sustain providers' business without exclusive content.
The telephone company that serves the two western-most Canadian provinces competes with the incumbent pay-TV provider in select cities, without exclusive content.
Those cities' combined population is no more than five million, similar to Singapore's. If, for some bizarre reason, the MDA insists on having content-provision monopoly to serve public interest, then it should at least ensure that the EPL rights holder resells part of its rights to its competitor or free-to-air channels. This is practised in truly competitive pay-TV markets overseas.
Canadian sports channel, The Score, resold part of its 2007-2010 EPL rights to Setanta Sports, which, in turn, is currently collaborating with Rogers Sportsnet on EPL broadcasts. Indonesians get limited EPL access through free-to-air channel TV One, which presumably bought its rights from the EPL rights holder in Indonesia.
A similar move that sees Media-Corp providing even limited weekly EPL telecasts will allow all Singaporeans to enjoy prime English football. EPL telecasts on MediaCorp will enable youngsters from low-income families without pay-TV service to be inspired by the world's elite players to take up a professional football career. (MediaCorp does not broadcast world-class football events, except Olympic football once every four years.)
Michael Ang
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_438995.html
In deciding to subscribe to a pay-TV service, consumers are driven by their desire for specific content, such as English Premier League (EPL) football and Grand Slam tennis, or channels such as BBC World News and Discovery. How their desired content or channel is transmitted to their TV set, through cable (StarHub) or telephone line (SingTel), is immaterial.
A monopoly exists whenever a product (specific TV content) with no satisfactorily close substitute is sold by only one seller (pay-TV operator).
Even if there were 10 pay-TV operators and each carries exclusive channels and content, they will all have monopoly power because exclusivity triggers monopolistic behaviour. The crux of escalating subscription fees is the monopoly in content provision that pay-TV operators currently enjoy. To best serve Singaporeans, the Media Development Authority (MDA) must remove that monopoly by making every channel accessible, regardless of which pay-TV operator viewers choose.
Contrary to Mr Kenny Ching's contention yesterday ('Why it was wrong to allow competition'), our market is not too small to sustain providers' business without exclusive content.
The telephone company that serves the two western-most Canadian provinces competes with the incumbent pay-TV provider in select cities, without exclusive content.
Those cities' combined population is no more than five million, similar to Singapore's. If, for some bizarre reason, the MDA insists on having content-provision monopoly to serve public interest, then it should at least ensure that the EPL rights holder resells part of its rights to its competitor or free-to-air channels. This is practised in truly competitive pay-TV markets overseas.
Canadian sports channel, The Score, resold part of its 2007-2010 EPL rights to Setanta Sports, which, in turn, is currently collaborating with Rogers Sportsnet on EPL broadcasts. Indonesians get limited EPL access through free-to-air channel TV One, which presumably bought its rights from the EPL rights holder in Indonesia.
A similar move that sees Media-Corp providing even limited weekly EPL telecasts will allow all Singaporeans to enjoy prime English football. EPL telecasts on MediaCorp will enable youngsters from low-income families without pay-TV service to be inspired by the world's elite players to take up a professional football career. (MediaCorp does not broadcast world-class football events, except Olympic football once every four years.)
Michael Ang
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_438995.html
