When Prices Feel Like Power: Fix Competition, Not Just DStv
Ghana’s fight with MultiChoice/DStv over subscription fees has been framed as a price dispute. It isn’t. It’s a competition problem wearing the mask of price. When markets are competitive, governments don’t need to cajole firms into behaving. When a single player effectively controls must-have content, every price hike lands like a tax on consumers, and every minister is tempted to play referee, striker, and VAR at once. (Reuters)
Let’s start with the facts. In April, DStv raised Ghanaian prices by roughly 15%. As of today, DStv Premium lists at GHS 865/month ($71.45) in Ghana, while the official Nigeria price for Premium is ₦44,500/month ($29.08). Whatever the detailed cost structure, that spread fuels the public’s sense that Ghanaians are overpaying for a similar basket of channels— especially the premium sports that anchor household demand. (DStv)
Government has reacted accordingly. The National Communications Authority (NCA) has formally initiated suspension proceedings under Section 13 of the Electronic Communications Act, and the Communications Minister, responding to concerns raised by Ghanaian consumers, has set deadlines and demanded reductions. (NCA Ghana, MyJoyOnline)
But here is the core dilemma. Direct price-setting is a blunt instrument. It spooks investors, invites tit-for-tat politics, and rarely solves the root cause: a market so concentrated that “choice” becomes theoretical. The smarter route is a rules-based competition regime that disciplines dominance without turning ministers into pricing managers.
What world-class regulation looks like (and what Ghana can borrow)
- Transparency + guardrails on pricing practices
India’s telecoms and TV regulator (TRAI) didn’t fix prices for every channel. It tackled bundling and opacity, forcing clearer pricing and capping which channels could be bundled into bouquets (e.g., bouquet inclusion caps for higher-priced channels). The goal: stop “take-it-or-leave-it” packaging that extracts surplus from consumers who mainly want a few must-have channels. That’s surgical precision policy using a scalpel, and not a sledgehammer. (Press Information Bureau, BMI)
- Fair access to “bottleneck” content
The UK confronted Sky’s dominance in sports by imposing a “wholesale must-offer” rule for key sports channels, so rivals could buy access at regulated terms and compete on service, features, and price. Years later, as rivals strengthened, Ofcom removed the rule. The lesson here is to use targeted, time-bound remedies to break
a choke-point, then step back when competition is real. (www.ofcom.org.uk, The Guardian)
- Keep iconic events affordable to all
Australia’s long-standing anti-siphoning rules reserve culturally significant sports for free-to-air TV first, recently updated to cover streaming. This protects social access without hawkish price controls on entire platforms. Ghana could tailor a Ghana specific list (e.g., Black Stars qualifiers, AFCON, selected local leagues, etc.). (acma.gov.au)
- Credible consumer-protection enforcement
Nigeria has given a masterclass in asserting consumer and competition authority. Tribunals and the competition agency (FCCPC) have challenged abrupt increases and weak notice periods, even levying penalties and securing concessions, while litigation plays out. Enforcement doesn’t mean price-fixing; it means rules have
teeth. (Reuters)
Ghana’s missing piece: a real competition law
Ghana still lacks a comprehensive competition law. Drafts have circulated for years, yet a full statute and an empowered, independent commission has not crossed the finish line. That vacuum forces sector regulators to stretch their mandates and politicians to improvise in public. It’s bad for consumers, and just as bad for the investment climate. Pass the Competition and Fair-Trade Practices Bill; fund it; staff it; and let it work. (University of Cape Coast Journal, Digital Policy Alert)
A practical playbook for Ghana—now
If we want fairness without scaring off capital, we should replace ad-hoc directives with a stable, rules-based framework. I recommend five moves:
- Mandate price transparency + notice
Require detailed, plain-English justifications for any increase and minimum notice periods before implementation (e.g., 30–60 days). Tie cumulative annual increases to a published formula (e.g., inflation + a narrow margin), unless the firm demonstrates verifiable cost shocks (satellite capacity, rights inflation, taxes). This disciplines behavior without dictating a number.
- Tackle the content bottleneck
Sports rights are the market’s choke-point. Consider a “must-offer” remedy for premium sports channels at fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) wholesale terms for any licensed distributor (including credible local streamers).
Set a sunset clause (e.g., 3–5 years) and review periodically—just as the UK did. Use it to jump-start competition, not to freeze the market in place. (www.ofcom.org.uk)
- Pilot a Ghana-tailored “anti-siphoning” list
Protect a small set of national-interest events for free-to-air or widely accessible tiers. Keep the list tight to avoid chilling rights investment. Australia proves this can be done without throttling the entire market. (acma.gov.au)
- Open interfaces, not just rhetoric
Require interoperability and non-discriminatory access to conditional-access systems and apps where technically feasible, so new entrants can reach consumers without building every layer from scratch. Competition thrives when gatekeepers can’t lock the door.
- Independent dispute resolution
Create a fast-track adjudication channel (within the competition authority) for pricing, access, and quality-of-service disputes. Time-bound decisions (e.g., 60 days) keep both firms and regulators honest.
A word to both sides
To DStv: market power carries responsibilities. When your Ghana Premium price is GHS 865 and the Nigerian Premium price is ₦44,500, consumers will ask hard questions. So will ministers. Transparently justify the differential—rights costs, tax structure, currency exposures, local distribution economics—and be prepared to unbundle high-value sports at reasonable wholesale terms. That’s how you sustain both profits and public legitimacy. (DStv)
To Government: Please focus on fixing the rulebook. The NCA acted within its statute, but continuing by ultimatum is a poor substitute for law. Price edicts look arbitrary, and arbitrary is the enemy of investment. Pass the competition law, adopt targeted sector remedies, and let institutions (not our impulses, as justified as they may be) do the heavy lifting. (NCA Ghana)
The north star: predictable fairness
This isn’t about punishing a specific company. It’s about predictable fairness: rules that protect consumers without turning Ghana into a place where prices move by press conference. The global examples are clear: use transparent pricing rules, targeted access remedies, and a credible competition authority. When you fix competition, prices have a way of fixing themselves.
That’s the balance we should strike: open for business, and fair for citizens.
The author, Dr. Sangu Delle is a Ghanaian entrepreneur, investor, lawyer, and economic anthropologist. He is Chairman and CEO of CarePoint, Founder and Executive Chairman of Golden Palm Investments, and serves as Chair of Ashesi University and on the Board of Overseers at Harvard University.
Sources
- Government ultimatum and regulator action: Reuters; NCA notice invoking Section 13 of ECA, 2008 (Act 775). (Reuters, NCA Ghana)
- Official package pricing: DStv Ghana & DStv Nigeria. (DStv)
- Ghana’s competition-law gap and draft bill history: UCC Law Journal 2025; Digital Policy Alert. (University of Cape Coast Journal, Digital Policy Alert)
- India’s TRAI framework on bouquets and pricing transparency: Government/PIB overview; industry analysis. (Press Information Bureau, BMI)
- UK “wholesale must-offer”: Ofcom review (2015) and subsequent removal noting stronger rivalry. (www.ofcom.org.uk, The Guardian)
- Australia anti-siphoning updates (now covers streaming): ACMA. (acma.gov.au)
- Nigeria enforcement examples: Reuters on tribunal fine/free month; Reuters on FCCPC suit. (Reuters)
