Main menu
The news

Justice says that he was legal to turn Canal+ into Four
The concession of Four to Sogecable or, in other words, the conversion of the 6 hours of abierto television in that emitted Canal+ in a abierto channel in of 24 hours, was legal, according to the Supreme Court

The Grouping of Cable Operators had resorted the decision of the Government who, 2005, turned the concession to Sogecable to operate 6 hours in open and the codified rest in (through Canal+) in a channel in abierto the 24 hours (that were called Four).

The decision was taken modifying the contract with the Administration from Sogecable and against it the mentioned grouping with two arguments resorted: on the one hand, there was necessary circumstances nor no public interest that it justified a contract change (as it demands the Law).

And on the other, they were granted to him to Sogecable right exclusive that reinforced their position of dominion in the sector.

The Supreme one gives the reason him to the Government and to Sogecable because, according to it explains in the sentence, “the opening of a channel, that before it emitted in codified only for subscribers, to all the citizens, happening to emit in open”, supposes the extension of a public service.

This in itself has interest public, especially if it considers that foments a greater pluralism from the point of view of the free formation of the public opinion, says.

In addition, the Supreme one admits the argument of the Administration, according to which a new necessity that exists it justifies the modification of the contract, what is the one to impel to the subscribers of Channel + towards the digital television (and in fact some conditions destined to this objective were dominated to him Sogecable).

“The major Could be debatable or smaller effectiveness” of these imposed conditions “to drive the transit to the Terrestrial Digital Television” but not that this impulse “satisfies the public interest”, argues the Supreme one.

The other argument against Gobierno and Sogecable aims at that this one enjoys a dominant position in the pay television that is going to transfer to the television in open, and makes reference to Localia.

“Similar imputation is not based on any fact”, responds the Supreme one, for which “the position of Sogecable in the abierto television in is clearly minority” reason why “in no case the opposed Agreement can give to foot at risk some to create skillfully a position of dominion to the benefit of this society or to foment an abuse”.

In addition the sentence remembers the limitations imposed to operating on the rights of contents “the premium” of controlled cinema or soccer in pay television by Sogecable.

(Efe, 29/04/08)

           Add to Google Reader or homepage
   © 1996-2008