| |
| |
![]() |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
SINGAPORE : The hornet’s nest was stirred again, when StarHub Cable Vision (SCV) announced on Monday its decision to increase subscription fees for all its channels.
Citing rising content costs, the operator said it “had no choice”. But its decision has left some resigned viewers crying just such a refrain, given the lack of alternatives in the pay-TV market.
While this is the first time SCV is raising its basic subscription fees across the board, it has — as in the past — found itself on the defensive, fending off suggestions of monopolistic behaviour.
SCV maintains it does not enjoy a “true monopoly”. In fact, it counts free-to-air television and other entertainment sources, such as cinemas and the Internet, as its competitors. In a letter to TODAY, StarHub’s senior vice-president of Cable, Fixed & IP Services Thomas Ee states: “In Singapore, we believe that there are already other pay-TV operators, and free-to-air channels have always been an alternative to pay-TV from the perspective of consumers”.
But some — media scholars included — do not agree. Said Dr Ang Peng Hwa of the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information: “In places such as the United States and big cities around the world, it would be regulated like a monopoly, almost like a utility. In Singapore, there are some basic regulatory conditions but there are no regulations on pricing.”
He and media economics lecturer Wayne Fu had argued, in a letter to the press in 2004, that “SCV is no competing substitute to the local channels” in most Singaporean households’ daily viewing.
StarHub has cited the rising cost of content as the chief rationale for the latest fee revisions. Annual revenues for StarHub’s cable TV business — bolstered by the football World Cup telecast — grew 19 per cent last year to $313 million.
SCV coughed up $600 million to lay the cable network across the island. In return, the Government gave it a seven-year exclusive franchise starting from 1995. But according to StarHub, it took a decade for its pay-TV business to break even.
It would be absurd to begrudge the company its concern for its bottomline. Companies exist to maximise profits and cable TV is by no means a necessity. As a private company, StarHub is under no obligation to justify the fee increases beyond what it wishes to communicate to its customers.
But where a firm is suspected of engaging in anti-competitive behaviour or profiteering, it is incumbent on regulators to step in. There have been questions asked, such as whether the Media Development Authority (MDA) had been consulted on the fee hikes. If it wasn’t, why not? If it was, why did it approve the increases? So far, the MDA has been silent.
The steepest hike would be for StarHub’s sports package. But could there have been other ways to defray the huge costs the company incurred to secure the English Premier League (EPL) broadcasting rights?
An estimated 1.4 million viewers here watched EPL matches last season. For the next three seasons, StarHub has acquired exclusive rights to broadcast the matches via cable, the Internet and 3G.
StarHub’s purported US$160-million ($246.8 million) bid was eight times what ESPN paid the last time round.
But rather than raise subscription fees, StarHub could have sub-licensed EPL football programming to the free-to-air television channels. For example, StarHub could sell the broadcasting rights of certain high-profile matches to the terrestrial stations.
By providing value-added segments such as pre-game shows and half-time analyses by experts, StarHub could minimise cannibalising its own telecast, which would also be in high-definition format.
The latest round of hikes will see consumers paying at least $49 monthly for the basic group plus the sports channel. For a similar package in Thailand, True Visions charges 1,412.97 baht ($67) a month. Malaysia’s Astro prices its package at RM54.95 ($24) a month. - TODAY/ra
|
