The most common definitions of the expression “level playing field” are: “a situation that is fair to all; a situation where everyone has the same opportunity. If we started off with a level playing field, everyone would have an equal chance.”

Hmm. . “If we started off with a level playing field, everyone would have an equal chance.”

“If we started off”.

Where, though, is the starting point?

If two persons jump into a race three quarters of the way after it has started and finish level with one who completed the whole course, is it a level playing field?

Your answer will undoubtedly be “No”.

If these same two persons pay a fee to a third party to get the prize and the one who completed the whole course is ordered to pay the same fee, is it a level playing field?

Your answer will most likely again be “No”.

If the person who completed the whole course is further inhibited by having one of his legs shackled by a ball and chain whilst the other two newcomers to the course are not, is it a level playing field?

“No”?

Now let’s change the situation a little.

If I am a television programme supplier and I negotiate with three cable companies who charge their subscribers for my programing and two pay me for the programming but the third one refuses and steals it. Is it a level playing field?

Of course not.

My recourse is to complain to the regulatory authority about the stealing of my programming and ask them to “take appropriate action against [the thief] with a view of ensuring a level playing field”.

Quite right you say.

BUT………

What if it was the regulatory authority that allowed the other two who are paying me to enter the race and complete only a quarter of it and also free of the ball and chain?

It’s not so clear now is it?

I am not at fault. What happened in the past is of no concern of mine. I want paying for something I own and if someone steals it I want appropriate action taken against them.

That’s right, isn’t it?

Let me muddy the waters even more.

What if the government who first appointed the regulatory authority promised the one who completed the whole course that anyone who joined the race would at least have the ball and chain shackled to a leg?

What if a different government that succeeded the previous one did not honour that promise and allowed them to use both legs?

If you were still wearing the ball and chain and completed the whole course wouldn’t you be outraged at my statement that there should be a level playing field with the finger pointed at me as being the offender?

If you were this person who knows that there are other businesses not only stealing my programming but everyone else’s programming but no action is being taken against them because they don’t fall under the regulatory authority, would you think that is a level playing field?

I am referring to our lead story in today’s (11) iNews Cayman “Stop stealing our signals says HBO” where HBO have taken the action of using Cayman’s media by painting WestStar as a thief for using their programming illegally and charging people for it. HBO even took out an advert (we have published it for free with the article) in an effort, I suppose, to shame WestStar and perhaps make them pay up.

The use of the “level playing field” phrase in their press release is unfortunate to say the least. If a level playing field had been used from start to finish with everyone playing by the same rules I expect HBO would have received their due payment.

As part of the original television licenses every cable provider had to also install a local television broadcast channel FREE over the air. The advertising revenue received hardly paid the labour costs. The cable fees customers were charged subsidized and made up the difference for the broadcast station.

This was why the three original license holders, Cayman International Television (Caribbean) Network CITN/Cayman27, Cayman Television Service CTS/Island24, and CiTV Cayman Islands Television (that went out of business soon after CITN started operating) each had their own free over the air broadcast stations – the “ball and chain”.

WestStar, who had originally been employed by CITN and CTS to operate the television stations, eventually bought both companies during the ICTA take-over when the new regulations took away at a broad stroke their major assets.

The Information and Communication Technology Authority (ICTA) came into force in May 2002 and the broadcast station was not mandatory in the new regulations.

However it was said by both ICTA chairman, David Archbold, and the Communications minister (at the time, Linford Pierson), the requirement of a broadcast station would be enforced.

It was relaxed, however, during the previous Bush administration and WestStar decided to turn the CTS channel into a public service/weather channel with little or no programming but rebroadcast music from one of the local radio stations.

LIME and Logic (the latter had bought Westel from WestStar that provided Internet and telephone communications) have been given a license to provide television programming network to Grand Cayman without the loss making provision of a broadcast station.

This what HBO describe as a level playing field.

It’s a playing field but it is hardly level.