MultiChoice warns Icasa of 'unintended consequences'
African broadcast giant MultiChoice says that attempts by Icasa to level the playing fields among local broadcasters will have unintended consequences. ‘We should not be trying, through regulation, to bring MultiChoice to its knees,’ said MultiChoice Group CEO, Calvo Mawela.
In April 2019, notes a Daily Maverick report, Icasa published its draft findings after an inquiry into subscription TV broadcasting services.
The findings contained Icasa’s remedies to boost competition and lower subscription prices in the pay television market, so that free-to-air broadcasters such as the SABC and eMedia could have a fighting chance against the MultiChoice juggernaut.
Some of these remedies include reducing contract durations, specifically for sports rights, as well as the mandatory splitting of content rights and selling them to more than one broadcaster.
Icasa resolved to hold public hearings on the findings from 12 to 15 January 2021.
Chaired by one of its councillors, Dimakatso Qocha, Icasa also invited MultiChoice, its sports body partners and the SABC and eMedia to make presentations on the matter.
The regulatory authority believes most South Africans should have access to sports broadcasts. However, due to MultiChoice’s deep pockets and exclusive broadcast rights, the free-to-air broadcasters – which cater to the majority of South Africans – are left with the crumbs.
Arguments were presented by all sides, including major sports bodies. It is unclear when the regulatory authority will deliver a verdict.
In a five-hour presentation on Friday, MultiChoice said it had not created barriers to entry in the pay-TV market.
A Fin24 report says the JSE-listed pay-TV operator focused its submission on Icasa's market definition and competition analysis, saying it excluded critical forces of current and future competition.
‘On our reading of section 67 of the Electronic Communications Act, the core economic principles for the market definition have not been applied. The instructions that the analysis must be forward looking instead of backward looking, and that analysis should look at the dynamic rather than static position is not followed. The draft findings look backward and are static,’ said Stephan Malherbe, an economist at Genesis Analytics, which represented MultiChoice at the hearing.
Malherbe added Icasa's market definition left out critical sources of competitive constraints and this rendered the market definition inoperable and misleading as a framework for regulatory decision-making.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
