# US House panel seeks to raise satellite royalties



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Reuters, 05.06.04, 4:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A House panel Thursday backed a measure that would raise the fees satellite television services like EchoStar Communications Corp.and DirecTV pay to carry some broadcast channels.

In some markets where satellite providers do not offer a national television network affiliate or a local channel is not available, they import the signal from a big market like New York or Los Angeles but have to pay a royalty.

The satellite providers also have to pay the royalty for carrying so-called superstations like Chicago's WGN, a popular independent broadcast network that pay television services often offer subscribers.

The House Judiciary subcommittee on intellectual property approved raising the rates at least 11 percent from the 14.85 cents per subscriber monthly royalty for a network station and 18.9 cents per subscriber for a superstation starting in 2005.

The increase is based on inflation from 2000 to 2004, so far 11 percent according to government statistics. The royalties will go into a fund that compensates the copyright holders of the programs.

*More*


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> The satellite providers also have to pay the royalty for carrying so-called superstations like Chicago's WGN, a popular independent broadcast network that pay television services often offer subscribers.


That's incorrect, I believe. WGN and TBS are defined as cable television channels. They are still broadcast channels, but only in Chicago and Atlanta, respectively.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Why is Con-gress in the business of determining rates one business charges another in the first place? What's next, mandating the price of a six-pack? Those slimey b******s won't be satisfied until they regulate every aspect of our lives.

Con-gress, get out of our business! Let the marketplace prevail.


----------



## speedy882001 (Dec 17, 2002)

Thank you! My thoughts also.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Hey, Congress had to do something to pay back the NAB for all those nice bribes, er donations to their re-election campaigns.....


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

In actuality, the NAB is opposed to this carriage at ANY price. This is a set statutory rate for copyright clearance on a "fair use" basis for distant nets and superstations. It seems like a fair increase to me. 

It becomes a Congressional issue because Congress is given the authority, by us, to set fair rates for copyrights that would be difficult or impossible to manage otehrwise.


----------



## chessmaster1010 (May 29, 2002)

Nick said:


> Why is Con-gress in the business of determining rates one business charges another in the first place? What's next, mandating the price of a six-pack? Those slimey b******s won't be satisfied until they regulate every aspect of our lives.
> 
> Con-gress, get out of our business! Let the marketplace prevail.


Congress granted a _compulsory copyright_ so that you and I, and other satellite subscribers can receive superstations and distant network affiliates if eligible under SHVIA. Since they didn't give the copyright owners any choice about this, they also have to set the royalty rate that D* and E* pay for this retransmission right. In the case of distant networks, no network affiliate would allow D* or E* to rebroadcast their signal at any price, since it would be a violation of their network contract.

So, speaking as a superstation and distant network subscriber on E*, thank you very much you slimey b******s.


----------

