MRTPC versus satellite TV channels, versus cable operators, versus consumers

MRTPC versus satellite TV channels, versus cable operators, versus
consumers

i

Without regulation in place, the MRTPC`s efforts to restrict satellite TV channels from increasingly their subscription rates arbitrarily will get nowhere.

The problem with governments and broadcast policy is that the former always talks about the latter but never gets around to implementing it. There are many pressing reasons why there ought to be a broadcast policy in lace but none more compelling that this: regulation is in the interest of the industry as well as the public interest. But are governments governed by the public interest?

A very recent case, illustrates the point without answering it. Last week, the MRTPC Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practises Commission) filed a case against private and satellite TV channels on the grounds that they were arbitrarily increasing their pay channel subscriptions whenever they liked and this was against the public interest.

Most consumers would tend to applaud the move by MRTPC. Most consumers have been confronted by inflated cable TV bills and the cable operators` say it is the fault of TV channels who hike subscription rates. Take it or leave it. But it isn`t quite as simple as that. You cannot leave it: try getting your cable operator to remove a pay channel which you do not wish to subscribe to. He or she will tell you that in the present circumstances, that is impossible.

Subscribers argue _ and quite rightly too _ that if they do not watch particular pay channels why on earth should they pay for them or the increases in subscription rates for them? Why, indeed? Also, how can the TV channel simply increase the subscription rate whenever it pleases?
Cable operators, particularly independent ones, are likely to give MRTPC`s move a slow handclap. Slow on account of their belief that the MRTPC case will get no where.

Slow because they are wedged between the consumer and the TV channels and are being squeezed at both ends. Consumers who refuse to pay for pay TV channels continue to receive those channels because the cable operator is reluctant to cut their connections (which, presently, is the only way to deal with a consumer`s non-cooperation) since a rival cable operator will then take over their customer at competitive subscription rates. Meanwhile, the TV channels demand payment from the cable operator and if they do not pay, the TV channels threaten to withdraw their business from the cable operator and transfer it to a competing operator.

The TV channels have their own justification for the subscription increases: broadly speaking it rests on two counts: first, they have to constantly upgrade transmission quality (an argument cable operators use too) and second, they believe cable operators under-estimate the numbers of their subscribers deliberately to pay less to the TV channels. Rival cable organisations, belonging or linked to rival TV organisations, in particular play such games.

Basically, what you have here is a case of three rights adding up to one wrong. The consumer, the cable operator and the TV channels, each have a justified complaint. But does righteousness brings joy? Consumer, cable operators and TV channels would agree that the only way to
fairly arbitrate the case is to introduce conditional access systems: this technology allows consumers to receive only those TV channels they wish to.It would also settle the dispute over numbers: the conditional access system would indicate just how many subscribers are s