When Prices Feel Like Power: Fix Competition, Not Just DStv 

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) 

1. 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) 

2. 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) 

3. 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) 

4. 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: 

1. 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. 

2. 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) 

3. 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) 

4. 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. 

5. 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)