5 new Pay TV players get provisional licences

[QuintonB]

New Pay TV licences granted in SA

Icasa has provisionally granted subscription TV licences to five new applicants

 

[entrepr]

Are they seriously still looking for competition to DSTV in broadcast?

 

[brixton tower]

I don't care for all these new players. You can get all the content you want off the internet, and you can even pay a small fee for some premium content.

My problem with the current pay tv set up in South Africa is that Multichoice (distributor) should be split from DStv (content). They've got one corporate parent (Naspers) and use their leverage to lock up content for years, so any new entrant is not even starting off the backfoot, he's crippled and has to compete against Usain Bolt.

Any new entrant should have access to DSTV's channels...and vice versa

 

[RichardG]

Doesn't look like competition at all! Mindset will cater for schools,colleges,university & probably make use of existing satellites.

We won't ever see true competition anytime soon to take on the big tiger.

DSTV pay royalty for exclusivity! Look at the sports for example - everyone wants a piece of that!

 

[Paul Hjul]

Remember these are broadcast licenses unrelated to carriage so the channels could be carried on DSTV (as a separate bouquet) or by Platco (OpenView) or go an IP base. If I am not mistaken the real tragedy is that Mindset needed to get a PayTV licence because they can't get a free-to-air licence.

The whole IPTV thing needs to get sorted out.

 

[elvis_presley]

I don't care for all these new players. You can get all the content you want off the internet, and you can even pay a small fee for some premium content.

50 million people in South Africa. 1 million fixed line subscribers. A lot of people care for the new players.

Any new entrant should have access to DSTV's channels...and vice versa

Not possible, you can't force the content suppliers to change their broadcast terms - we've learned the hard way from both ANC's efforts, and what's happening in Zimbabwe that trying to force South African "for the poor people" regulations on companies wanting to do business here is a bad thing.

Even local content - DSTV pays billions to get the exclusive rights for local soccer broadcasts, if everyone else had access to that, the content would only be worth a fraction of that, and what's left of our soccer establishment would disintegrate as it'd have no money.

You're right it's not a fair marketplace, but there's no easy solution to it.

 

[Jan]

Remember these are broadcast licenses unrelated to carriage so the channels could be carried on DSTV (as a separate bouquet) or by Platco (OpenView) or go an IP base. If I am not mistaken the real tragedy is that Mindset needed to get a PayTV licence because they can't get a free-to-air licence.

I think Mindset has a F2A license? Otherwise they wouldn't be able to broadcast on OpenView HD.

 

[kianm]

New Pay TV licences granted in SA

Icasa has provisionally granted subscription TV licences to five new applicants

and monochoice stands there with a grin, holding all the sweet tv content rights

 

[Bosvark@]

No sport - SuperSport has these oaks by the Nuts...

No way I am missing my Sharks game tonight!

 

[Fox1]

The OpenView HD decoder has a smart card slot available and it's MPEG-4 and HD ready which makes it more tempting for pay tv operators to come onboard.

 

[Paul Hjul]

I think Mindset has a F2A license? Otherwise they wouldn't be able to broadcast on OpenView HD.

Please check in on this - as I understood the chat on LTG Mindset went for a PayTV licence (which they've now got) because they can't get a proper F2A licence and there argument is that you can be PayTV with a fee of zero.

 

[dominic]

Please check in on this - as I understood the chat on LTG Mindset went for a PayTV licence (which they've now got) because they can't get a proper F2A licence and there argument is that you can be PayTV with a fee of zero.

this is correct. there is no suitable licensing category to accommodate what should be embraced with open arms and facilitated however possible, so fictions need to be constructed....

 

[Paul Hjul]

this is correct. there is no suitable licensing category to accommodate what should be embraced with open arms and facilitated however possible, so fictions need to be constructed....

The category issue though is a MoC, DoC or ICASA one though?

Also surely if DTT is done on unencrypted STBs you won't be able to have fictitious pay tv channels on broadcast ...

 

[HavocXphere]

Pity its all locked in with licensing agreements. Else someone would launch a cheap "just supersport" offering and tear dstv a new one....

 

[covfefe]

Pity its all locked in with licensing agreements. Else someone would launch a cheap "just supersport" offering and tear dstv a new one....

How could anyone but Multichoice offer Supersport? They own it.

 

[DJ...]

50 million people in South Africa. 1 million fixed line subscribers. A lot of people care for the new players.



Not possible, you can't force the content suppliers to change their broadcast terms - we've learned the hard way from both ANC's efforts, and what's happening in Zimbabwe that trying to force South African "for the poor people" regulations on companies wanting to do business here is a bad thing.

Even local content - DSTV pays billions to get the exclusive rights for local soccer broadcasts, if everyone else had access to that, the content would only be worth a fraction of that, and what's left of our soccer establishment would disintegrate as it'd have no money.

You're right it's not a fair marketplace, but there's no easy solution to it.

Wait, you're arguing that monopolies create value further down the chain because competition erodes that value?!

While a premium is paid for exclusivity, that doesn't mean that healthy competition can't attain or surpass those figures. It's not about buying the exclusive rights and allowing other providers access, but more about offering tiered sponsorship and broadcast rights to a healthy, competitive market. I don't know of a single business rule that says that multiple distribution channels harms revenue.

The lack of a premium from exclusivity doesn't preclude shoring that up from another distributor. And it broadens the viewership as well, across multiple LSMs depending on who you partner with. It would be financially ideal to rights owners to offer their content to a healthy, competitive market than a single entity paying a premium. We just don't have a healthy, competitive market yet, is all...

 

[Paul Hjul]

moreover monopolies are not sustainable without coercion, exclusivity over production or distribution for a limited period of time is often a powerful incentive to innovate but when it is "awarded" for a period exeeding its usefulness all sorts of stupidity arises. That is the case with the paytv market in SA

Consider if sport was available from many offerings of different prices but with a "delayed broadcast" (of different degrees) the number of subscribers prepared to pay the current DSTV pricing for the live sport offering would diminish and either Naspers would lower the price or recognizing the change in demand structures offer more value and even potentially increase the price. BUT it would be beneficial for all consumers (more choice and more value) delayed broadcast of Currie Cup on SABC is beneficial delayed broadcast of Super Rugby on TopTV would have changed the game.