It’s ok. we have different views. Glad to have exchanged valuable comments with you. See you in other topics and hope we might share some common views. =)

I think the public transport companies, if they were in other industries, they’d have merged. I think the government is like what you said “pro-business” and did not want them to merge, although I would believe that SBS is making losses in its NEL business and SMRT is losing money in the bus business. If not losing, at least what they call “commercially not viable”. This is probably to keep the market open for the future development of public transport, where they’ve said more bus companies can run public transport routes.

That said, I’d think that the every industry is unique. What works for transport might not work for health or media and vice-versa.

1. The Singapore government is pro-business, i.e. it will most likely let market forces decide on winners and losers.

2. The Singapore government has just recently ruled that content exclusivity is okay and not anti-competitive.

3. The public transport industry did not see the government intervening in the businesses of the two major companies, even though the government admitted failure in injecting competition into the industry. The rumors of SBSTransit and SMRT Corp. merging did not pan out.

But let’s look at it. If the goverment merely approved the merger, they would not have said that the market is too small for competition in the free-to-air market already, right? Anyway, I think trying to dissect what actually happened then will be too hard for even a rocket scientist. Unless, you are a really accurate bomoh of sorts, or a minister.

And I’m not sure I can buy the government’s line that Singapore has too small market for multiple free-to-air channel players. It seems more like a line to continue restricting number of media companies in Singapore.

Anyway, that’s part of my point. I believe that their pulling out was in part due to the already saturated and small market, and maybe partly due to what you said, a wrong strategy adopted. SPH, though obviously not as rich as the mighty Singtel, did have the means to sustain Mediaworks (while in the red), if it had wanted to. But it doesn’t make sense for both Mediacorp and Mediaworks to continue their battle because both had made losses in the 4 years. That was when the government stepped in. It was a lose-lose situation for the media companies, although I thought consumers had a better deal in having a wider variety to choose from. But that wasn’t the best situation.

I hope that our pay-tv market will not suffer the same fate. And certainly, I do not want to see that when the government intervene, its to announce that the market is unsuitable for competition and either SCV or Mio have to pull out.

Riding on our experience in the free-to-air tv market, we can certainly try to make the pay-tv market work. Because at the end of the day, if either company (esp. Singtel) finds it commercially not viable, however deep their pockets are, they’ll pull out before long. And we’d be back to a monopoly. So why not try to have a win-win situation, while we can still possibly make it happen.

It may sound that my petition is just trying to save myself and those who feel like me a few bucks per month, but I’m looking at the bigger picture. Well, some of you may not see it. If the free market in Singapore cable tv do not seem that it will work out, then probably some agency has to step in before it gets too late. Just remind yourself of how SPH Mediaworks could never survive, and the free-to-air market is back to a monopoly. THere is no correct answer, but there is a precedent for us to see. Monopoly may or may not be better. But since we are now trying out a free market, we should not let it die so quickly just because the two companies are blindly incurring exorbitant and unnecessary costs on themselves to secure exclusive rights.

And, I think TOC agreed to carry my letter because it is an issue that concerns many Singaporeans. TOC carry issues that concern lives of Singaporeans, be it pro-gov or anti-gov. As long as the issue is of concern to Singaporeans, I hope that we are able to talk and discuss it on TOC.

Singtel is owned by Temasek Holdings.

So-called “competition” is a show.

Do we really have competition?

I mean, Starhub conveniently didn’t bid for the rights to screen the Champions League.

Coincidence? Or cartel behaviour.

Starhub & Singtel both owned by Temasek Holdings.

You decide.

If there wasn’t one in the first place, then I believe there will be true competition i.e. consumers can then choose which package offered by the operators that suit them the best…

The choice between operators solely depends on the level of service and value offered, not content!

But in the case, we are forced to subscribe to more than 1 operator if we want all the programs we want…

Then again, if we look at the ultimate ownership of these telcos/operators, I am not the least surprised when this situation has been allowed to persist…

protecting consumers’ interests? how about this: if starhub had a monopoly on the cable tv market and all the good channels, who would suffer? the fact that you have to subscribe to two cable companies to get what you could get previously on just one cable company has probably distracted you from the fact that starhub wouldn’t have dared to raise their sports package’s prices at will, if it had faced serious competition in the first place.

and let’s just face this simple fact: that most people can’t find a reasonable justification for protesting, other than how the split hurts their pockets. you don’t want to pay for what you want.

take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cable_companies . We are almost alone in having a cable company with a monopoly on the market – we have been the exception, not the rule. consumers are hardly entitled to get all their favorite entertainment from just one company. the more channels you want, the more companies you sign up with. we’re behaving like a bunch of insulated, backward people.

lastly, i cannot believe that TOC would help publicise this petition. the decision to do that wasn’t well thought out at all, and probably stems from a blind instinct support anything that seems anti-establishment or anti-corporate powers. i expected better from TOC.

However, the market is already regulated by MDA, even when it is a “free market”. There is already a set of rules governing the pay-tv industry and I’m hoping to raise some awareness so that they may consider changing a rule or two from the current list to give both consumers and pay-tv operators a win-win situation. It does not take the setting up of another committee whatsoever to get it going.

The point is, the MDA will just be running as usual, in their normal daily capacity, should they decide to look into the matter. And that is the way things is. They are regulating all contents given to Singaporeans, both on free-to-air and cable channels, sports or non-sports. My campaign, if so successful to be looked into by the MDA, will not create a task that’s brand new in nature that requires extra manpower or much costs (maybe a bit more paper costs). Perhaps, if you feel that taxpayers’ money shouldn’t be used to regulate contents of luxurious nature, the authorities should be made known of this.