Gordon Brown stated in 2011 that during his term as prime minister (2007–2010), News Corporation attempted to affect government policy with regard to the BBC in pursuit of BSkyB's own commercial interests.
An attempt by 21st Century Fox (the successor to News Corporation) in December 2016 to acquire the 61% share of Sky that it did not already own[1] led to concerns again being raised as to whether it would give the Murdoch family too dominant an influence over British media.
[2] American media conglomerate Comcast entered a rival bid in April 2018,[3] and after an auction,[4] 21st Century Fox no longer has any stake in the company.
[6] He went further, in a speech in Parliament on 13 July 2011, stating: "Mr James Murdoch, which included his cold assertion that profit not standards was what mattered in the media, underpinned an ever more aggressive News International and BSkyB agenda under his and Mrs Brooks’ leadership that was brutal in its simplicity.
"[7]As a result of the furore over phone hacking – including all main parties in the UK Parliament agreeing on a motion to block the bid[8] and the deal being referred to the Competition Commission[9] – the News Corporation takeover proposal for BSkyB was dropped on 13 July 2011.
[10] In light of the phone hacking revelations, the UK media regulator Ofcom took the decision on 8 July 2011 to be kept informed of the phone hacking investigation and to launch a "fit and proper" test, as a result of BSkyB's majority News Corp ownership (part of its obligations under the UK Broadcasting Act), in order to remain "satisfied that any person (which will include controlling directors and shareholders) holding a broadcasting licence remains fit and proper to hold those licences.
This was followed by the same argument from the Financial Times in an editorial,[17] who stated "a merger would give Mr Murdoch unfettered power to direct its management and cash flows"[18] and that, consequently, this would "lock out challengers and stifle the diversity of debate.
"[18] Lord Puttnam also argued the same thing, referring to the Coalition Government's desire to alter broadcast regulation and its links with News Corporation.
If one visits a flat in Spain where a British person lives, one finds that they mysteriously manage to have a Sky box there even though it is registered to a house in the United Kingdom.
"On 4 August 2010, Ofcom asked the Competition Commission to investigate concerns regarding the sale and distribution of subscription premium Pay TV films.
[32] The media regulator was particularly concerned that Sky's near exclusive control over first-run films from the six major Hollywood studios has given the firm an "incentive and ability to distort competition".
In a provisional decision published on 19 August 2011, the Competition Commission said BSkyB's contracts with the six major Hollywood studios present a significant barrier to entry to potential competitors and that prices charged by Sky are too high.
[35] On 20 April 2012, Ofcom told the Competition Commission to stick to its guns and break Sky's hold on the pay-TV film market, arguing that the arrival of Netflix and LoveFilm had not altered the broadcaster's dominance.
[36] On 23 May 2012, the Competition Commission revised its provisional findings indicating that video on demand rivals such as LoveFilm and Netflix provide a vibrant market for consumers and that BSkyB should face no action from regulators over its monopoly of UK pay-TV film rights.
Ofcom also asked the Competition Commission to address concerns regarding the sale and distribution of subscription video-on-demand premium movie rights.
[40] On 29 April 2010, BSkyB reached an interim agreement with Ofcom to offer its flagship sports channels at a lower wholesale cost to BT Vision, Top Up TV and Virgin Media.
Sky immediately said it would raise its own prices by £3 a month from 1 September, driving up the wholesale cost to BT and potentially forcing it to provide the channels at a loss.
[46] On 8 August 2012, the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled that Ofcom's core competition concern about the way BSkyB sold its sports channels wholesale to competitors was "unfounded", namely that BSkyB had deliberately withheld wholesale supply of its premium channels from other retailers, preferring to be entirely absent and that in doing so had been acting on strategic incentives unrelated to normal commercial considerations of revenue/profit maximisation.