Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment CIL Management Consultants 30 King Street Submission on retransmission fees on behalf of the pay TV Londonoperators T. +44 20 3829 2700 EC2V 8EH W. cilconsultants.com 27 September 2017

CIL Management Consultants 30 King Street London T. +44 20 3829 2700 Private & confidential EC2V 8EH W. cilconsultants.com 1 Remit and Team Context and qualifications

Context Previous clients/employers

• CIL was asked by the pay TV operators to undertake an independent review of the analysis and arguments for and against the introduction of retransmission fees in Ireland.

• The work involved a review of materials submitted by the platform operators and RTÉ to the Houses of the Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Climate Action, and Environment.

• We also reviewed data and analysis of precedents in other geographical markets including the UK and the US.

• The arguments in this document represent the views of the CIL in light of this analysis.

• The CIL team has extensive experience in media policy and regulation:

• Tabitha Elwes has over twenty years’ experience in media policy and strategy, as head of the media practice at Spectrum Strategy Consultants, as a partner at Prospero Strategy Consultants and more recently as Head of Media at CIL;

• Jon Zeff was formerly Director of the BBC Trust in the UK and prior to that held senior roles at the DCMS, including Director of Media.

2 Executive Summary Executive summary

• There is limited international precedent for the retransmission fee arrangements being proposed for Ireland. In the UK, the DCMS explicitly rejected the introduction of retransmission fees, and the BBC has previously stated that it would not seek retransmission fees from Sky as it is already funded by a universal licence fee.

• Replacing the current must carry/must offer with a commercial retransmission regime risks undermining the universal availability of public service broadcasting (PSB) and the licence fee funding model.

• Any retransmission fees are likely to be passed on to consumers (as in the US), leading to a double charge.

• Platforms are likely to negotiate hard and be particularly reluctant to set a negative precedent for other markets.

• Platforms could introduce workarounds (as they have in other markets), giving consumers continued access to PSBs (albeit at some inconvenience) without agreeing retransmission fees.

• As a result, there is a high risk of failure to agree, leading to PSB channels being blacked-out (as in the US) and/or the need for complex regulatory intervention – for which there is no obvious precedent.

• The value relationship between PSBs and platforms is extremely complex; consequently the outcome of any negotiation is unpredictable and could deliver little, no, or negative value to PSBs.

A glossary of terms and abbreviations can be found on p. 16 in the Appendix.

3 Executive Introducing retransmission fees in Ireland could pose significant risks, deliver uncertain Summary value, face major implementation challenges and undermine public service principles.

1. 2. The size and direction of 3. 4. RF could undermine The introduction of RF could A new RF regime could be payments resulting from RF fundamental principles of pose significant risks to and difficult, if not impossible, to negotiations are highly public service broadcasting costs for consumers and PSBs. implement effectively. unpredictable. in Ireland.

Consumer risks/costs: • Value in the RTÉ-platform • International experience shows • The introduction of RF could relationship flows both ways: RF implementation is complex lead to consumers being • RF could lead to price rises for and contentious, and can charged twice for PSB (licence pay TV consumers (as in the US). • Broadcasters derive value from result in legal disputes and fee and broadcaster carriage wider reach and EPG • International precedents suggest a blackouts. fee). prominence; platforms derive high risk of PSB channel value from the presence of the • There is a high likelihood of a • The necessary removal of blackouts. PSB channels. commercial process ending ‘must-offer’/‘must carry’ • In the case of failure to agree up in litigation or dispute obligations for PSBs would • However a number of factors retransmission, workarounds resolution (if a dispute undermine their universal complicate the dynamics: could allow many consumers to resolution mechanism exists). availability obligations. continue accessing PSBs, but at • Consumer workarounds exist, • Any regulatory process is likely • RF would reduce the some inconvenience. and platforms can boost to be complex or potentially transparency and increase these. PSB risks/costs: impossible to deliver, given the the complexity of RTÉ’s • Platforms will want to avoid absence of an established funding model, altering the • Blackouts and workarounds could setting costly retransmission methodology, and the need for balance between its public impact PSB reach and precedents for other markets. multiple determinations. service and commercial economics and the delivery of objectives. public service obligations. • Negative impacts from • Consequently, there is a high blackouts would hit PSBs risk of regulatory error and • RF could increase resentment • The risks to TG4 could be immediately: platform impact litigation, which could delay among consumers, resulting in particularly high, as it is smaller (churn) would be medium term. funding benefits to PSBs by reduced support for the and its cost of negotiation would be years. universal licence fee, and disproportionately higher. • As a result, the outcome of any higher evasion rates. RF negotiation is highly unpredictable and could deliver little or no value to PSBs; it is conceivable that value could flow the other way.

4 1a. Risk/cost to consumers Retransmission fees could lead to price rises for pay TV consumers (as in the US).

• Pay platforms may choose to pass on RF costs to consumers by adding an explicit ‘PSB charge’ in their bills, leading to an additional “tax” on top of the compulsory licence fee. • This is the case in the US (which has a commercial RF regime, though no universal licence fee) and has led to consumer price rises. Example US cable bill with • Many operators explicitly split out a ‘broadcast TV fee’ which passes ‘Broadcast TV Fee’ split out5 at least some RF costs directly on to their subscribers. For example, Comcast introduced a ‘broadcast TV fee’ at $18 p.a. in 2014; this has risen to $84 p.a. in 20171. • Cable end-user prices have risen at an average of 3.8% p.a. above inflation since 2005, with more rapid rises in the past few years2. • “…the costs we are charged to carry popular networks continue to increase significantly, especially broadcast television and sports programming, which are the largest drivers of increases in price adjustments.” Comcast1. • Expert analysis in 2011 and 2012 suggested this precedent would be replicated in the UK. • “We expect platform operators [in the UK] to pass on a substantial part of any charges payable to PSB to their subscribers” (Mediatique, 2012)3. • “The raising of costs to a number of rival [UK] platforms would be more likely to be passed on to consumers, ... the actual rise in price would be likely to reflect ... the fees paid by Virgin Media and [Sky] to the PSB Broadcast TV fee explicitly split out in channels” (Oliver & Ohlbaum 2011)4. consumer bills • If RF were introduced in Ireland, operators could decide to offer channel packages that exclude PSB channels enabling customers who want to to avoid the incremental “PSB charge”. Source: (1) Arstechnica.com; (2) FCC, Report on Cable Industry Prices, 12 October 2016; (3) Mediatique, Carriage of TV Channels in the UK: policy options and implications, July 2012; (4) Oliver & Ohlbaum, PSB Network Platform Re-Transmission and Access Charges in the UK - The Case For Change, June 2011; (5) www.consumerist.com

5 1a. Risk/cost International experience suggest a high risk of PSB channel blackouts, which would be to consumers particularly unpopular given that pay TV homes have already paid the licence fee.

• If a commercial RF regime is introduced in Ireland, international experience suggest there is a significant risk that broadcasters and platform operators will 4 fail to agree terms and that channel blackouts will result. US headlines on retransmission blackouts • The US has seen a growing number of blackouts (where broadcast channels are removed from the pay platform) as a result of deadlocked RF disputes between broadcasters and pay TV operators. • From a mere 8 in 2010, the number of blackouts has risen dramatically, to 193 in 2015, 103 in 2016, and 153 in the first 9 months of 20171. • A total of over 800 blackouts have now occurred since 2010, with an average duration of over 2 weeks1. • These blackouts affect the main US network channels (e.g. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox), often in major cities like Boston, Miami, Atlanta, and Houston1. • Some blackouts have been substantial, e.g. Tribune Broadcasting pulled major channels in 33 cities for 85 days in 2016 in a dispute with the DISH satellite network, affecting millions of viewers1. • Blackouts have now started spilling into non-TV content as well, e.g. CBS recently withheld free online content from Time Warner Cable’s broadband customers2. • Italy has seen a dispute between Sky Italia and RAI, where Sky has refused to pay transmission fees and RAI has, in retaliation, refused to make its PSB channels available3.

Source: (1) American Television Alliance; (2) Variety; (3) Advancedtelevision.com; (4) Variety, RapidTV, Fiercecable.com, Deadline, Wall Street Journal, Broadcasting & Cable

6 1a. Risk/cost In the case of failure to agree retransmission fees, workarounds could allow many to consumers consumers to continue accessing PSBs, but at some inconvenience.

• Many pay TV consumers have access to alternatives that will Operator investment in workarounds to avoid channel enable them to use multiple remote controls to “toggle” blackouts2,3 between platforms in order to access PSB content, if it is not available on the pay platform. • C. 20% of Irish pay TV homes also have Saorview US digital terrestrial television (DTT); in Sky homes, the Pay platforms Variety, Aug. 23 2013 figure is nearly 30%1. distributed free DTT antennas • 25% of homes have Smart TVs as a main set, Variety, Aug. 18 2016 increasingly with integrated DTT tuners1. • Nearly 90% of pay TV homes overall, and 100% of eir Italy and Vodafone homes, have broadband, allowing access Sky Italia to on-demand PSB content (e.g. RTÉ Player)1. introduced a DTT USB • In the case of blackouts, platforms are likely to build on these tuner (and now options and invest in further workarounds to facilitate an integrated DTT STB) subscriber access to PSB content. • This has been the case in other markets, including where commercial retransmission disputes have led to disputes UK BT’s YouView and/or blackouts. Box has an • The availability of such workarounds would mean that pay TV integrated pay customers, while deprived of PSB channels on their primary TV and DTT receiver pay platform, would still be able to access RTÉ and other PSB content, albeit with an additional degree of inconvenience, while pay platforms would avoid the need for RF payments.

Source: (1) B&A: TV Trends - A view from the Establishment Survey 2016, eir; (2) Advancedtelevision.com, Sky; (3) Variety

7 1b. Risk/cost Blackouts and workarounds could impact PSB reach and economics and the delivery of to PSBs public service obligations.

• If RTÉ channels were withdrawn from Irish pay TV platforms, RTÉ could suffer significant negative impact to its reach and commercial revenue. • Pay platforms account for c. 66% of Irish TV households (c. 1.1m)1 and, by carrying RTÉ and other PSBs in the most prominent positions on their EPGs, represent the main window for PSB channels into Irish homes. • RTÉ generates c. €45m in ad revenue2 (c. 50% of its total TV ad revenue)3 from viewing on pay TV platforms. • If RF negotiations result in blackouts, the impact on RTÉ of a reduction in viewing and advertising revenue would be immediate; furthermore, it would undermine RTÉ’s scale-based advertising premium. • Even in the case of consumers using workarounds, the added inconvenience may lead to loss of casual viewing to RTÉ (and a corresponding impact on advertising premiums and revenues). • In addition, removal would undermine RTÉ’s ability to deliver its universal availability obligations and public service objectives. • Currently, all the pay platforms give PSBs prominent positions on their EPGs (Electronic Programme Guides) which generate significant value. • The risks to TG4 could be particularly high, as recognised in their testimony; it is smaller and its cost of negotiation would be disproportionately high.

• “It is not easy for an organisation of the scale of TG4 to negotiate in any meaningful way about large sums of money without knowing that there is something else the big player can do to another part of its activities that may be to its detriment…I am not sure that making the carriage proposal obligatory will necessarily work to the advantage of small broadcasters such as our organisation.”3. Pádhraic Ó Ciardha, Deputy CEO, TG44. • As a result, it is possible that TG4 could end up with a more negative outcome than other PSBs; theoretically this could include having to pay retransmission fees to the pay operators as opposed to the reverse.

Source: (1) ComReg 2017; (2) Communication Chambers, The implications of retransmission fees for Irish broadcasting December 2016; (3) Based on comparing Communications Chambers’ €45m estimate with totals as reported in RTÉ Annual Report ; (4) testimony to the Oireachtas Committee July, 2017

8 2. Complex commercial model Value in the RTÉ-platform relationship currently flows both ways.

Broadcasters derive value from wider carriage and reach, and EPG prominence • With penetration of c. 66% of Irish TV HHs1 pay TV is a key consumer vehicle for PSB channels, and is essential for them to meet their universal availability obligations. • RTÉ generates c. 50% of its TV advertising revenue through viewing on pay platforms (c. €45m, of which c. €32m is generated by viewing on Sky)2. • PSB viewing share and commercial revenue is greatly enhanced by the prominent EPG positions that these channels are given by the pay TV providers.

Platforms derive value from the presence of the largest channels – though this is limited by a number of factors. • Irish PSB channels, as in other countries, attract the greatest share of viewing in the market (even in pay TV homes)3, and it is clear that pay platforms derive value from providing PSBs to customers as part of their portfolio of services. • However, the value that pay TV platforms derive is limited by several factors: • In line with its universal availability objectives, RTÉ content is widely available for free in the Irish market, including on Saorview DTT, covering c. 98% of the country, and in the 81% of TV households with access to broadband3. • Indeed, free-to-air channels are unlikely to be a proactive reason for subscribing to pay TV, apart from the additional convenience provided by the platform technology, such as catchup and on-demand viewing. • In addition, not only is RTÉ’s viewing share on pay platforms lower than on DTT (c. 20% vs. c. 60%), its value to these platforms has been diminishing over time as its share of viewing falls (its main channels have seen their share drop from 39% to 32% from 2011 to 2015)3. • Furthermore, the robust growth of Sky’s pay platform in the UK before 2001, when it was deprived of the presence of ITV1, suggests that pay platforms can survive and even thrive in the absence of major free-to-air channels3.

Source: (1) ComReg 2017; (2) Comm. Chambers 2016, Ibid., Sky, 50% figure derived from comparison with data in RTÉ Annual Report; (3) Comm. Chambers 2016, ibid, ComReg 2017

9 2. Complex commercial The analysis in the Mediatique submission on behalf of RTÉ appears to exclude some of model the material factors that will impact the outcome of any RF negotiation.

Factors apparently included in Mediatique analysis of relationship between pay platforms and PSBs1

Survey on Ad Sales Survey on TV attitude to Performance relative Value of EPG Penetration & absence of & Subscriber importance of position Viewing PSBs on pay Numbers PSBs TV

Factors apparently excluded from Mediatique analysis of relationship between pay platforms and PSBs

Availability of free to air Importance of Timing Financial workarounds not setting differentials in strength and provided by international impact of any relative size platforms precedents dispute of the parties Perceived Decline in Negotiating value of PSB prowess and channels to audience capacity of each party share the parties

Likely outcome of any negotiation is highly unpredictable and complex to forecast See next page Source: (1) Mediatique: Platform-supplier relationships – the case for retransmission fees, July 2017; includes elements cited as part of analysis

10 2. Complex commercial The complexity of dynamics between PSBs and pay platforms means the outcome of any model RF negotiation is highly unpredictable.

Consumer workarounds exist, and platforms can boost these (see page 7). Platforms will want to avoid setting costly retransmission precedents for other, larger markets. • Paying RFs in Ireland would create a precedent for the larger multinational operators which might influence commercial dynamics in other, more valuable markets (e.g. Sky does not currently pay retransmission fees in any of its European markets, including the UK, Germany or Italy1). • As Ireland represents a relatively small proportion of Sky’s and Virgin’s European customer bases (e.g. less than 5% of Sky’s European subscribers1) the wider commercial context will impact any negotiation. Negative impacts from blackouts would hit PSBs immediately, whereas platform impact (churn) would be medium term. • In the case of blackouts, PSB viewing and advertising would be affected immediately with consequent impact on RTÉ’s deficit. • Any negative impact on Pay TV subscribers (through increased churn) would take place over a longer time scale, making the pay TV platforms better placed to weather prolonged disputes. The value of EPG prominence could be compromised. • 2014 UK research by Communications Chambers suggested that there is a c. 14% uplift in viewing to a major entertainment channel if it sits near the top of the first page of pay TV EPGs compared with being placed further down in the listings2. Other factors that will complicate the negotiations and values include: • The perceived value of the channels to each party (in light of the complex interactions identified above). • The declining share of PSB viewing. • The negotiating prowess and capacity of the parties. • The financial strength and relative size of the parties. As a result, the outcome is highly unpredictable, and there is no guarantee that value would flow in either direction, or that RTÉ would see significant (or any) value from a retransmission fee negotiation.

Source: (1) Sky; (2) Communications Chambers, The costs and benefits of the C3 licences, December 2014; the analysis suggested that if ITV were to lose EPG prominence for ITV1, the resulting impact on viewing (accounting for some potential mitigation) would be c. 2.6% on Freeview, 14% on satellite, and 13.6% on cable

11 3. Difficult A new retransmission fee regime could be difficult, if not impossible, to implement implementation effectively.

International precedent shows RF implementation is complex and contentious, and can result in legal disputes and blackouts. • International precedent (e.g. US and Italy) shows that costly and protracted disputes can occur (see page 6). • Significant transaction and overhead costs (e.g. substantial legal fees) would disproportionately impact smaller players like TG4. There is a high likelihood of a commercial process ending up in litigation or dispute resolution (if a dispute resolution mechanism exists). • If a dispute resolution mechanism exists, it likely to become effectively the de facto regulator/price setter (as has been the case with the UK Copyright Tribunal for setting licence fees for the performance of music and records on radio). • However, international precedent suggests the absence of dispute resolution mechanisms that can compel payment from operators in the case of failure to agree. Any regulatory process is likely to be complex, given the absence of an established methodology, and the need for multiple determinations. • There is no sound precedent from international markets or established methodology, which could be relied on to set prices on an objective economically sound basis1. • In a ‘willing buyer/willing seller’ relationship, the market can ‘clear’ at any number of different price points, depending on a large number of variables, some of which are only indirectly linked to the issue of retransmission fees (as noted above). • If prices were set on a regulated basis, separate determinations (e.g. 36 currently) would be needed for each channel-platform combination, leading to further complexity and scope for error and dispute.

Consequently, there is a high risk of regulatory error and litigation. • Given the complexities outlined above, the possibility of serious and harmful regulatory error cannot be ruled out. • Likewise, any regulatory process may be subject to costly and protracted dispute and litigation. • Legal disputes could take several years to resolve, during which time RTÉ would likely be deprived of any potential funding benefits while possibly continuing to incur costs and seeing diminished advertising revenues. • A legal dispute between German cable operators and PSBs (regarding fees flowing from broadcasters to platforms) has been ongoing since 2012, during which time the operators (e.g. Kabel Deutschland) have received no fees2.

Source: (1) Comm. Chambers 2016, Ibid.; (2) Broadband TV News

12 4. Undermining Retransmission fees could undermine fundamental principles of public service public service ecology broadcasting in Ireland.

The introduction of RF could lead to consumers being charged twice for PSB (licence fee and broadcaster carriage fee). • All Irish households, including pay TV homes, are obligated to pay a universal licence fee (currently €160 p.a.). • The introduction of a commercial RF regime could result in pay TV operators increasing fees; possibly, as in the US, through a ‘PSB Tax’; effectively charging consumers twice for their PSB service. • Such a charge could create a perverse outcome, where consumers who watch RTÉ less (RTÉ share is c. 20% in pay TV homes) pay more than those who watch it most (RTÉ share is c. 60% on DTT)1. The necessary removal of ‘must-offer’/‘must carry’ obligations for PSBs would undermine their universal availability obligations. • For negotiated commercial RFs to work properly, current must-carry obligations would need to be abolished. • If only must-offer was removed, RTÉ would be able to demand any fee as some pay TV platforms would still have a must-carry obligation. • However, the removal of most-offer / must-carry obligations would run counter to RTÉ’s (and other PSBs’) universal availability obligations. RF would reduce the transparency and increase the complexity of RTÉ’s funding, shifting the balance between public service and commercial aims. • RTÉ’s current funding mix of licence fee and advertising is relatively transparent; RFs would add significant complexity, and potential confusion. • Introducing direct payments from pay platforms could distort the balance between PSBs' public service objective to maximise reach, and its commercial objective to increase revenue. RF could increase resentment among consumers, resulting in reduced support for the universal licence fee and higher evasion rates. • Potential “double taxation” on one hand or loss of PSB channels to licence fee-paying households (unable to avail themselves of workarounds) could potentially cause resentment and challenge the legitimacy of the licence fee (a risk identified in UK analysis in 2011 and 2012). • “If platform operators explain to audiences that their basic tier fees contain a component associated with providing the BBC channels, the legitimacy of a universal licence fee could be further questioned”2. Mediatique 2012. • “In the UK the BBC would not seek to be paid by Sky for the re-transmission of its content - the BBC is already funded by a universal licence fee”3 BBC 2012. • Ireland already has among the highest rates of licence fee evasion in Europe, and the perception of an additional ‘tax’ on TV consumers may lead to even higher evasion rates. Source: (1) Comm. Chambers 2016, Ibid., TAM Ireland; (2) Mediatique, Carriage of TV Channels in the UK: policy options and implications, July 2012; (3) BBC: Retransmission fees - to pay or not to pay?, 14 December 2012

13 Introducing retransmission fees in Ireland could pose significant risks, deliver uncertain Conclusion value, face major implementation challenges and undermine public service principles.

2. The size and direction of 4. RF could undermine 1. The introduction of RF could 3. A new RF regime could be payments resulting from RF fundamental principles of pose significant risks to and costs difficult, if not impossible, to negotiations are highly public service broadcasting in for consumers and PSBs. implement effectively. unpredictable . Ireland. Consumer risks/costs: • Value in the RTÉ-platform • International experience shows • The introduction of RF could relationship flows both ways: RF implementation is complex lead to consumers being • RF could lead to price rises for and contentious, and can charged twice for PSB (licence pay TV consumers (as in the US). • Broadcasters derive value from result in legal disputes and fee and broadcaster carriage wider reach and EPG • International precedents suggest a blackouts. fee). prominence; platforms derive high risk of PSB channel value from the presence of the • There is a high likelihood of a • The necessary removal of blackouts. PSB channels. commercial process ending ‘must-offer’/‘must carry’ • In the case of failure to agree up in litigation or dispute obligations for PSBs would • However a number of factors retransmission, workarounds resolution (if a dispute undermine their universal complicate the dynamics: could allow many consumers to resolution mechanism exists). availability obligations. continue accessing PSBs, but at • Consumer workarounds exist, • Any regulatory process is likely • RF would reduce the some inconvenience. and platforms can boost to be complex or potentially transparency and increase these. PSB risks/costs: impossible to deliver, given the the complexity of RTÉ’s • Platforms will want to avoid absence of an established funding model, altering the • Blackouts and workarounds could setting costly retransmission methodology, and the need for balance between its public impact PSB reach and precedents for other markets. multiple determinations. service and commercial economics and the delivery of objectives. public service obligations. • Negative impacts from • Consequently, there is a high blackouts would hit PSBs risk of regulatory error and • RF could increase resentment • The risks to TG4 could be immediately: platform impact litigation, which could delay among consumers, resulting in particularly high, as it is smaller (churn) would be medium term. funding benefits to PSBs by reduced support for the and its cost of negotiation would be years. universal licence fee, and disproportionately higher. • As a result, the outcome of any higher evasion rates. RF negotiation is highly unpredictable and could deliver little or no value to PSBs; it is conceivable that value could flow the other way.

14 APPENDIX

15 Glossary

Blackout The removal of one or more TV channels from a particular TV platform for a period of time (typically as the result of a dispute between the broadcaster and platform owner) Cable Platform delivering TV via ‘coaxial’ cables (in conjunction with fibre). Irish cable operators include Virgin Media and Casey Cablevision Carriage fees Fees paid by a broadcaster to a TV platform, to compensate for the cost of carriage of a broadcaster’s channel(s) on that platform DCMS Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The government department responsible for media policy in the UK DTT Digital Terrestrial Television. TV broadcast over the air to consumers, not via satellite or cable. Saorview is the consumer brand of DTT in Ireland EPG Electronic Programme Guide – interface by which a viewer selects channels Freesat UK satellite TV platform, offered free to air Freeview UK DTT platform, offered free to air Free to Air (FTA) A TV service without subscription charges (though there may be an initial cost for equipment or installation of the service) IPTV Television service delivered using internet protocol Must carry A legal obligation on a platform to carry specified channels Must offer A legal obligation on a broadcaster to make specified channels available to specified TV platforms Pay TV A TV service with ongoing (typically monthly) charges, such as eir Vision, Vodafone, Sky and Virgin Media PSB Public Service Broadcaster (or Broadcasting). A broadcaster with obligations to provide types of content deemed to have benefit to citizens, such as news or children’s programming Retransmission Fees Fees paid by a TV platform to broadcasters for the right to retransmit their channel(s) Saorsat Free-to-air satellite platform carrying RTÉ One, RTÉ2 HD, RTÉ News Now, RTÉjr, RTÉ One +1 and TG4 Saorview Free-to-air DTT platform carrying RTÉ One, RTÉ2 HD, RTÉ News Now, RTÉjr, RTÉ One +1, TV3, 3e, be3, TG4 and Oireachtas TV Satellite TV distributed via satellite. Satellite operators available in Ireland include Sky, Saorsat and Freesat TV Platform A delivery system offering a range of TV channels, such as Virgin Media's cable platform or the DTT network (Saorview)

16 1a. Risk/cost to consumers Illustration: US channel blackouts

No. blackouts in US TV market 2010-2017 Average duration (days) per blackout*

36 34

193

25 153 22

119 18 103 15 90 94

68

49 7 42 44 32 34 5 22

8 7 5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (Jan-Sep) (Jan-Sep) No. blackouts Blackouts 14 days +

Note: 1 blackout = 1 TV market (city/metro area) deprived of channel or group of channels for 1 day or more *Arithmetic mean Source: American Television Alliance, CIL analysis

17