Petition to the European Parliament/ 27 November Discussion

georgekildare

This is to let interested people know that the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament have admitted my petition complaining about Satellite Television Practises within Europe for consideration and scheduled a discussion about it for 27 November.

I ask all those who agree with it to contact the relevant members of the committee:

The members of the Committee can be found on

http://www.europarl.eu.int/committees/peti_home.htm
and clicking on "members"

Below is a summary of my submission and the specific actions that I have requested.

Many thanks.

---

SUMMARY: The European satellite television industry as presently operated, (i) infringes the rights of citizens to receive information across European borders and thereby contravenes several articles of the Treaty of Rome and Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, (ii) has adopted monopolistic practices to restrictively control national markets, thereby depriving EU citizens of freedom of choice. This petition requests that the EU Parliament and Commission take urgent action to safeguard consumers in this matter. Several specific measures are proposed.

---

4. REQUESTED ACTIONS

The present situation regarding the provision of satellite television within the EU operates against the interests of European consumers and is of doubtful legality. I request the EU Parliament and Commission to take steps to implement the following measures as rapidly as possible:

(i) Subscriptions to satellite television packages sold in any country of the EU should be available to consumers resident in all countries of the EU. Pricing should be uniform throughout the EU, taking account of contributions already made by some consumers to national television channels through national television license fees.

(ii) Satellite providers should be compelled to allow all programmes transmitted by them to be available to subscribers everywhere within the EU. All non-copyrighted material (e.g. news and current affairs programmes) should be accessible immediately.

(iii) The rules governing copyright across national borders should be amended as soon as possible to take account of satellite television. Each channel in the bouquet should be paid copyright fees by the satellite providers. Equitable copyright fees would take account of the number of subscribers to the satellite service, independent of location.

(e.g. If a terrestrial programme channel has purchased the copyright for a film within a particular member state, an additional amount would be paid to the film distributor by the satellite provider. This amount could be fixed as a fraction of the cost to the programme channel of the copyrighted material, with the fraction equal to the number of subscribers to the channel divided by the number of consumers that can receive the same programme terrestrially in the country of origin)

(iv) Satellite television providers should be prohibited from imposing restrictions on the design of receivers /decoders enabled to receive their transmitted programmes and from encouraging such restrictions through special subsidies.

(v) Consideration should be given to compelling the providers of satellite television to lease their infrastructure to competitors, who wish to deliver alternative programme bouquets, similar to the measures taken to curb monopolistic practices in the telecom industry.

seano

Nice work mate !

georgekildare

PETITION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

SATELLITE TELEVISION PRACTISES WITHIN EUROPE

George Kildare Miley
Stokroos 23, 2317EM Leiden, The Netherlands
Telephone –31-71-5231672/ Fax –31-71-5275743

freedomsattv@hotmail.com

June 2002

SUMMARY: The European satellite television industry as presently operated, (i) infringes the rights of citizens to receive information across European borders and thereby contravenes several articles of the Treaty of Rome and Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, (ii) has adopted monopolistic practices to restrictively control national markets, thereby depriving EU citizens of freedom of choice. This petition requests that the EU Parliament and Commission take urgent action to safeguard consumers in this matter. Several specific measures are proposed.

1. THE PRESENT SYSTEM: HOW EUROPEAN SATELLITE TELEVISION SERVICES OPERATE

Satellite television services within Europe are presently provided on a national basis. Although satellite signals distributed by the service providers can be received in several European countries simultaneously, the providers will only provide a specific service package to subscribers resident the country for which it is intended. The reason given by the providers for refusing to sell their television packages (bouquets) outside a single country is their need to adhere to restrictions imposed by copyright laws. Because some of the programming material has been purchased by for transmission in a single country, distributing this channel to citizens resident in other member states of the EU would allegedly contravene the laws of copyright. (See Section 2).

The result is that (i) EU citizens are denied access to information from EU member states received by them over the ether (including news and current affairs), purely on the basis of their country of residence (ii) providers of satellite television in most EU countries have become monopolies that use questionable methods to discourage competition, e.g. by strictly control the design and manufacture of electronics that can receive their encoded transmissions.

1.1 National Restrictions. Although such practices exist in EU most member states, an extreme example of such a monopoly is the Sky Digital provider in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Although Sky Digital can be received throughout much of Europe, subscribers are only accepted from within the UK and Ireland. Even within this narrow catchment area, the bouquet of programmes delivered to the subscriber depends on the region where the subscriber allegedly lives (e.g. ITV and many of the BBC channels are blocked for Irish subscribers and the Irish channels are blocked for UK customers). Likewise, a Dane living in France is prevented from receiving the Danish bouquet or an Irishman living in the Netherlands is prevented from receiving the Irish bouquet. European citizens are therefore prevented from watching programmes that are transmitted from within the EU, even though they can receive them and are prepared to pay the relevant subscription to the provider. As pointed out in the appendix, the restrictions on purchasing subscriptions to satellite television bouquets are of doubtful legality as they contravene several articles of the Treaty of Rome, article 4 of the Convention of Human Rights as well as lower-level directives of the EU commissions. On a practical level, such measures are discriminate against expatriates, thereby impeding freedom of movement within the community

Such restrictions are impossible to enforce. With effort it is possible to subscribe to all satellite providers by giving nominal (fictitious) addresses in the relevant member states. This situation has stimulated an undesirable but inevitable “gray market” in selling subscriptions to consumers using fictitious addresses in the catchment area of the satellite provider. However, if the satellite provider is aware that a subscriber that is receiving programmes from outside their catchment area, the provider disconnects the subscriber immediately.

1.2 Monopolistic Practices. Like most European satellite providers, Sky Digital has a monopoly of the delivery of satellite television programmes in its country of operation (UK and Ireland). Sky Digital exploits this monopoly to impose restrictions on the receivers for reception of their programmes. The manufacturers are licensed and the detailed design is specified strictly. The subscription cards are “matched” to the individual registration number of the receivers. These monopolistic practices result in two undesirable consequences for consumers.

First, the specifications of licensed Sky Digital receivers prevent their combination with standard “open” satellite receivers, thereby making it difficult for Sky Digital subscribers to receive “free to air” programmes or programmes from other providers. The specifications of the Sky digibox do not allow control of steerable satellite dishes that can receive programmes from several satellites. Technically the production of a satellite receiver that could receive programmes from both Sky Digital and other providers would be simple, but is prohibited by Sky Digital. The result is to restrict subscribers to the Astra 2 satellite (used by Sky Digital) and prevent them receiving programmes from other satellites broadcasting to Europe such as Astra1 and Hotbird.

Secondly, the allowed Sky Digital receiver prevents the customer giving their favorite programmes preferred channel numbers, thereby steering the listener towards the preferred channel choice of Sky Digital. The programme set by Sky Digital to Channel No. 563 requires more effort to tune in and is less likely to be watched than the programme set to channel 101 (the first channel on the receiver). In this way the Sky digital ensure that subscribers are more likely to watch the programmes preferred by Sky.

At present if somebody in the Netherlands wishes to receive British, Irish and Dutch satellite programmes, this can be done, but 3 separate receivers are needed, a standard satellite receiver to receive the Dutch programmes, a Sky receiver with a UK card matched to a nominal UK address to receive the UK programmes and a sky receiver with a Republic of Ireland card matched to a nominal Irish address for the Irish programmes. Whereas it is clearly in the interests of monopolies such as Sky Digital to make freedom of reception as difficult as possible, this is against the interest of European consumers and against the spirit of freedom of information throughout Europe.

2. NEED TO REVISE OUTDATED NATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAWS.

Although their (encrypted) programmes can be received over several member states, satellite providers refuse to sell subscriptions to their service outside their national catchment areas. The reason given for this is that the providers only have copyright for programmes within national boundaries. They argue that selling a subscription outside these boundaries would be an infringement of copyright on their part.

But why should the copyright laws governing satellite television be different from those governing books and magazines? Every EU citizen can quite rightly purchase copyrighted books, magazines and newspapers from outside their national borders. There is no problem in purchasing subscriptions to magazines and newspapers from abroad. However, these magazines and newspapers frequently have premier copyrighted material (e.g. autobiographies and photos) for which copyright has also been purchased by magazines and newspapers in other countries. As interpreted by the satellite providers the copyright laws are not only inconsistent with the copyright laws for other media, but they would also infringe the right of every EU citizen to freedom of information as is required by the Treaty of Rome (see appendix)

The copyright laws for audiovisual material (as currently interpreted) in which sole rights to programmes are sold within national boundaries has been outdated by technological developments. Further, they take no account of the role of freedom of information within Europe in stimulating mobility of labour.

It should be easy to take account of the satellite television in the implementation of copyright laws, by restricting the present laws to terrestrial services. Satellite providers should pay additional fees for copyright in proportion to the number of subscribers to the programmes.
So to provide service over Europe as a whole, it should not be necessary for providers to purchase sole rights for transmission of programmes over Europe as a whole.

Even if copyright law prevents subscribers from giving access to every programme, it would be technically very simple for providers to block the relevant programmes (e.g. premier sports events and premier films) from being received outside the copyrighted regions. It is unacceptable that Europeans living outside their country of origin be prohibited from purchasing a subscription to a bouquet that would give access to news programmes from home, even though the encrypted transmissions can be received perfectly.

There is another aspect of the matter that is relevant for the EU Parliament in considering what should be done about the national copyright laws. The ability to view television programmes from all of Europe (including news and current affairs) would help educate EU citizens about countries outside their own member states and increase understanding of Europe as a whole.

georgekildare

3. NEED TO CURB MONOPOLISTIC PRACTISES

It is illogical and undesirable that the monopolistic practices described in Section 1.2 are tolerated although strong actions to curb monopolies and cartels are taken by the EU in other related areas (e.g. energy, telephone communications). Satellite television monopolies, such as Sky Digital, are more restrictive for European consumers than the monopolistic practices of Microsoft or of the old telecommunications industry.

* Imagine the outcry if Microsoft were to restrict the Windows operating system only to computers with a Microsoft-sanctioned design via strictly controlled manufacturers. Consumers have the choice of using an alternative operating system than Windows, but there are no alternative satellite providers for a given member state (and language).

* Another analogy would be for a monopoly telephone company to restrict customers to a telephone design that could not process telephone calls made through the system of a competitor. Such practices would no longer be tolerated. The impact on consumers of the satellite television monopolies is just as undesirable.

Monopolistic practices by the European satellite television industry raise larger issues. Satellite television is an increasingly important delivery method for media throughout the world. Because of the enormous power of the media in society, the growth of monopolies in European media and its delivery systems is a matter of great concern. It is undesirable that large international media companies such as Murdoch’s News Corporation, the owner of Sky Digital be allowed to control such powerful sectors of the European media. Just as with telecommunication providers and with energy utility companies, consideration should therefore be given to requiring the providers of satellite television to lease their infrastructure to competitors, and permit the delivery of alternative programme bouquets.

When satellite providers operate on a European-wide basis, the power of the large world-wide media corporations are likely to increase further within the EU. Action is therefore urgently needed to regulate these monopolies.

4. REQUESTED ACTIONS

The present situation regarding the provision of satellite television within the EU operates against the interests of European consumers and is of doubtful legality. I request the EU Parliament and Commission to take steps to implement the following measures as rapidly as possible:

(i) Subscriptions to satellite television packages sold in any country of the EU should be available to consumers resident in all countries of the EU. Pricing should be uniform throughout the EU, taking account of contributions already made by some consumers to national television channels through national television license fees.

(ii) Satellite providers should be compelled to allow all programmes transmitted by them to be available to subscribers everywhere within the EU. All non-copyrighted material (e.g. news and current affairs programmes) should be accessible immediately.

(iii) The rules governing copyright across national borders should be amended as soon as possible to take account of satellite television. Each channel in the bouquet should be paid copyright fees by the satellite providers. Equitable copyright fees would take account of the number of subscribers to the satellite service, independent of location.

(e.g. If a terrestrial programme channel has purchased the copyright for a film within a particular member state, an additional amount would be paid to the film distributor by the satellite provider. This amount could be fixed as a fraction of the cost to the programme channel of the copyrighted material, with the fraction equal to the number of subscribers to the channel divided by the number of consumers that can receive the same programme terrestrially in the country of origin)

(iv) Satellite television providers should be prohibited from imposing restrictions on the design of receivers /decoders enabled to receive their transmitted programmes and from encouraging such restrictions through special subsidies.

(v) Consideration should be given to compelling the providers of satellite television to lease their infrastructure to competitors, who wish to deliver alternative programme bouquets, similar to the measures taken to curb monopolistic practices in the telecom industry.




APPENDIX
DOUBTFUL LEGALITY OF EU SATELLITE TELEVISION PRACTICE

The conduct of satellite television providers within Europe and its operation as presently sanctioned by the European Commission contravene the following articles of the Treaty of Rome:

* Article 3, which states that the activities of the European Community shall include “an internal market characterized by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital”

* Article 3a, which states that economic policy shall be “conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition”.

* Article 9, which states that “the Community shall be based upon a customs union which shall cover all trade in goods”

* Article 59, which states that “restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Community shall be progressively abolished”

* Article 65, which states that “as long as restrictions on freedom to provide services have not been abolished, each Member State shall apply such restrictions without distinction on grounds of nationality or residence to all persons providing services”.

Further, Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, ratified by the Council of Europe in 1950 states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” It continues that “This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises”. However, if the licensing impedes the reception of information across frontiers, it clearly contravenes this article.

At a lower level, the European Convention on Transfrontier Television adopted in 1989 served as a basis for the preparation of the 1989 EU Directive on "Television without Frontiers" guarantees freedom of reception and retransmission. Party’s to the Convention must ensure freedom of reception and not restrict the retransmission on their territories of television programmes which are in conformity with the Convention’s standards. Article 4, which embodies this principle, is therefore one of the fundamental ones in the Convention, since it secures freedom of expression and information.

Several provisions of the EU directive of 3 October 1989 entitled “Television Without Frontiers" are relevant and will be quoted:

“Whereas broadcasts transmitted across frontiers by means of various technologies are one of the ways of pursuing the objectives of the Community; whereas measures should be adopted to permit and ensure the transition from national markets to a common programme production and distribution market and to establish conditions of fair competition without prejudice to the public interest role to be discharged by the television broadcasting services”

“Whereas the Treaty provides for free movement of all services normally provided against payment, without exclusion on grounds of their cultural or other content and without restriction of nationals of Member States established in a Community country other than that of the person for whom the services are intended;”

“Whereas this right as applied to the broadcasting and distribution of television services is also a specific manifestation in Community law of a more general principle, namely the freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ratified by all Member States;”

“Whereas the laws, regulations and administrative measures in Member States concerning the pursuit of activities as television broadcasters and cable operators contain disparities, some of which may impede the free movement of broadcasts within the Community and may distort competition within the common market;”

“Whereas all such restrictions on freedom to provide broadcasting services within the Community must be abolished under the Treaty; “

“Whereas such abolition must go hand in hand with coordination of the applicable laws; whereas this coordination must be aimed at facilitating the pursuit of the professional activities concerned and, more generally, the free movement of information and ideas within the Community;”

“Whereas it is essential for the Member States to ensure the prevention of any acts which may prove detrimental to freedom of movement and trade in television programmes or which may promote the creation of dominant positions which would lead to restrictions on pluralism and
freedom of televised information and of the information sector as a whole;”

In conclusion, it would appear that the present situation regarding the operation of transfrontier satellite television within the EU and in particular the refusal of providers to enroll subscribers outside their national catchment area contravenes the Treaty of Rome, the Convention of Human Rights and several lower level directives of the EU. The provisions of the Treaty of Rome should transcend any provisions of national copyright laws as applied to transfrontier satellite television.

Greenman

In short what would you like us to do? I'm very interested!!!:)

georgekildare

I think that for as many people as possible to contact a few members of the committee personally, expressing support for the petition would not hurt. This is a problem that affects all MEPs and EU civil servants as well.

Mike 1972

This is something that we should try and publicise as much as possible on the various websites, boards and magazines

rlogue

I'll do some work on my website later tonight and post a link then.

Mike 1972

Heres some more info on the committee members

none of the Irish members list their email addresses or websites (just office fax numbers) but some of the UK ones do


Mrs BANOTTI, Mary Elizabeth , Substitute Republic of Ireland European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mr DE ROSSA, Proinsias , Vice-Chairman Republic of Ireland Party of European Socialists
Mr FITZSIMONS, James (Jim) , Member Republic of Ireland Union for Europe of the Nations Group
Mr DAVIES, Chris , Substitute United Kingdom European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party
Mr BALFE, Richard A. , Member rbalfe@europarl.eu.int http://www.richardbalfe.com/ United Kingdom European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mr PERRY, Roy , Vice-Chairman rperry@europarl.eu.int http://www.royperry.org/ United Kingdom European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
The Earl of STOCKTON, , Member United Kingdom European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mr WYN, Eurig , Member United Kingdom Greens/European Free Alliance
Mrs LAMBERT, Jean , Member jeanlambert@greenmeps.org.uk United Kingdom Greens/European Free Alliance
Mr CASHMAN, Michael , Member enquiries@michaelcashmanmep.org.uk http://www.michaelcashmanmep.org.uk/ United Kingdom Party of European Socialists
Mr FORD, Glyn , Member penny_richardson@new.labour.org.uk United Kingdom Party of European Socialists
Herr BÖSCH, Herbert , Member Austria Party of European Socialists
Herr HAGER, Gerhard , Member Austria Non-attached
Herr SICHROVSKY, Peter , Substitute Austria Non-attached
De Heer DHAENE, Jan , Substitute Belgium Greens/European Free Alliance
Herr BRIE, André , Substitute Germany Confederal European United Left/Nordic Green Left
Herr von BOETTICHER, Christian Ulrik , Member Germany European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Herr WIELAND, Rainer , Member Germany European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Frau KESSLER, Margot , Member Germany Party of European Socialists
THORS, Astrid , Vice-Chairman Finland European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party
AALTONEN, Uma , Substitute Finland Greens/European Free Alliance
Mme MATHIEU, Véronique , Member France Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities
Mme DESCAMPS, Marie-Hélène , Member France European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mme FOURTOU, Janelly , Member France European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mme SCHAFFNER, Anne-Marie , Substitute France European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mme STIRBOIS, Marie-France , Member France Non-attached
κ. PAPAYANNAKIS, Mihail , Substitute Greece Confederal European United Left/Nordic Green Left
κ. MARINOS, Ioannis , Member Greece European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
κ. XARCHAKOS, Stavros , Member Greece European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
κ. KOUKIADIS, Ioannis , Member Greece Party of European Socialists
On. DI LELLO FINUOLI, Giuseppe , Member Italy Confederal European United Left/Nordic Green Left
Sig.ra SBARBATI, Luciana , Member Italy European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party
On. GEMELLI, Vitaliano , Chairman Italy European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
On. TAJANI, Antonio , Substitute Italy European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
On. PITTELLA, Giovanni , Substitute Italy Party of European Socialists
On. SACCONI, Guido , Member Italy Party of European Socialists
De Heer van den BOS, Bob , Substitute Netherlands European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party
De Heer WIERSMA, Jan Marinus , Member Netherlands Party of European Socialists
Sr. CANDAL, Carlos , Substitute Portugal Party of European Socialists
Sr. QUEIRÓ, Luís , Substitute Portugal Union for Europe of the Nations Group
Sra. BERGAZ CONESA, María Luisa , Member Spain Confederal European United Left/Nordic Green Left
Sr. CAMISÓN ASENSIO, Felipe , Member Spain European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Sra. SORNOSA MARTÍNEZ, María , Member Spain Party of European Socialists

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125409
http://www.europarl.eu.int/committees/peti_home.htm
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps.short_list?ilg=EN&iorig=committees&ipv=&ipos=&iukconst=&ipolgrp=&icom=C17&idel=&iothbody=&ictry=&ictry=&iukreg=&iaction=search

rlogue

Just wondering though - if RTÉ had make their services Free to Air, would that not make the broadcast rights for imported programmes impossibly expensive for them?

And if so, would it not lead to RTÉ (and probably TV3 and TG4) pulling their channels from digital satellite altogether?

Mike 1972

Shouldnt be an issue for TG4 as they dont show many imported programmes and those they do show are dubbed (Its mainly English language stuff that the copyright mafia get all cranky about because English is an unofficial second language across most of Europe)

RTE would still have the option of encrypting "contentious" programming but letting all their home produced output go FTA after all the whole pont of people outside Ireland wanting to see RTE is for home produced stuff and not US programmes that are more than likely already available on their domestic terrestrial channels

rlogue

That's a fair point Mike, but I would have thought RTÉ could have considered it by now in order to replace Tara TV.

And it's not just imported programmes that RTÉ would have to block - most live sports events would have to go too.

rcunning03

would it be possible to post updates on this thread when you recieve a reply etc

Greenman

I'd be happy with an RTE Overseas FTA like TARA was. I like programmes like The News,Late Late,Primetime etc!!! What effect would that on the rights issue??

watty

* Encryption can easily be switched on a per program basis
* Subscriptions could be sold "overseas" with rights holder payment linked to actual cards sold, not geographic area.

georgekildare

This is to let people know that on Sunday I received the reaction of the Commission to my petition. Below is an unformatted version of the reaction, together with my reaction.

I am presently travelling in the U.S.A. and do not return to Europe until 28 November, so cannot attend the hearing. The EU official
promised to distribute the reaction to all members of the Committee and although the discussion will begin on 27 November, he will try to ensure that I will have an opportunity to talk to the Committee in person (February?) before a decision is made.

---

REACTION TO THE REPLY OF THE COMMISSION TO PETITION 912/2002
SATELLITE TELEVISION PRACTISES WITHIN EUROPE
George Kildare Miley
Stokroos 23, 2317EM Leiden, The Netherlands
Telephone -31-71-5231672/ Fax -31-71-5275743
freedomsattv@hotmail.com
November 2003

The remarks of the Commission about my petition ignore the issues of principle that I raised and are generally unsatisfactory. While recognising that there the petition raises a practical problem, the Commission implies that the problem is too difficult to solve. No convincing reasons are given for this viewpoint. Also, no arguments are presented as to why several of the actions requested in Section 4 of my petition should not and will not be taken.

Below are my detailed comments on the Commission's reply. On the basis of my petition and these comments, I ask the Committee to instruct the Commission to take the following actions:

1. Appoint an (independent) task force to (i) develop proposals for a pan-European copyright system for electronic media, (ii) an equitable system to facilitate pan-European subscription to satellite television packages and (iii) a timetable for the implementation of such a system. This task force and its composition should be driven by the interests of consumers within the EU, not by the interests of the industry.

2. State the intention of the EU to ensure that at some future date (e.g. after 1 January 2006), subscriptions to satellite television packages sold in any country of the EU should be available to consumers resident in all countries of the EU. The pricing of subscriptions should be uniform throughout the EU, taking account of contributions already made by some consumers to national television channels through national television license fees.

3. Compel satellite providers to allow all programmes transmitted by them to be available to subscribers everywhere they can be received within the EU, from 1 January 2006.

4. Compel satellite providers to make all non-copyrighted material (e.g. news and current affairs programmes) accessible immediately to any EU subscriber that can receive them.

5. Compel satellite television providers to provide common access modules for the reception of their programmes on normal non-proprietary satellite receivers and from encouraging proprietary hardware restrictions through special subsidies. (If this is already a consequence of Article 6 of the new electronic framework implemented from 25 July 2003, the measure should be publicised widely and strictly enforced.)

6. Compel satellite television providers that have monopolies in their catchment areas to lease their infrastructure to competitors, who wish to deliver alternative programme bouquets, similar to the measures taken to curb monopolistic practices in the telecom industry.

COMMENTS ON THE REPLY OF THE COMMISSION TO PETITION 912/2002

Below is the reply of the Commission (italics) together with my comments on the reply (normal text).

"The Commission is of the opinion that, within the Internal Market, citizens should be able to receive television services from other Member States, It is therefore far from satisfactory that citizens in one Member State should encounter difficulties in gaming access to programmes broadcast from other Member States via satellite.

Subsequent to the adoption of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (letter known as Directive "Television without frontiers" and which is referred to by the petitioner), which facilitates the cross-border transmission and reception of satellite television programmes, it was acknowledged mat such broadcasts were still being obstructed by the legal uncertainty over certain copyright and related rights.

Hence the adoption of Directive 93/83/EEC which lays down certain rules concerning copyright and related rights applicable in particular to cross-bonder satellite broadcasting. The Directive aims at facilitating cross-border satellite broadcasting, amongst others through harmonised rules on the acquisition of rights and on the relevant applicable law to such acts.

Nevertheless, in the course of the preparation of the report on the applications of that Directive, the Commission was informed about the problems mentioned by the Petitioner and highlighted them in its report adopted on 26 July 2002."

I am pleased that the Commission recognises that there is a problem. The working of the present national copyright laws infringes the rights of EU citizens to receive information across EU borders.

"The follow-up to the report took place in November 2002; representatives of the various interested parties (copyright holders, broadcasting organisations and satellite Operators) gathered in an informal working group in order to examine in greater depth the difficulties arising from contractual relations relating to the transfer of copyright and related rights on films for digital broadcasting for more than one EU territory.

It emerged from the discussion that the royalties to be paid by a broadcaster for the exclusivity of a protected work would vary depending on the type or types of broadcasting concerned (terrestrial, satellite, cable), the language version used, the territories covered, and, last but not least, the commercial value of the film in question (whether it has been successful or not), combined with the differences with respect to the negotiating power of the various parties in the negotiations. One of the main conclusions of the meeting was that broadcasters can acquire the relevant intellectual property rights for their broadcasts on a pan-European level and in accordance with Directive 93/83/EEC but that, in practice, in many instances, it would not seem economically viable to do so for a film for more than one EU territory.

In view of the above, it is not possible to meet the petitioner's requests without compromising the nature of the intellectual property rights owned by the various right holders in relation to their protected works which are covered by exclusive rights in most Member States."

These remarks are disappointing and unconvincing. I do not accept the implication that nothing can be done to deal with the infringement of citizens' rights resulting from the present situation. Let me deal with the point in detail.

First, I note that the "informal working group" that discussed the issue was composed of "copyright holders, broadcasting organisations and satellite operators", and that there were no representatives of consumers present. No supporting arguments are given for the conclusion that "emerged" from this informal meeting, namely that "it would not seem economically viable" for the rights of a film to be sold over more than one EU territory". I do not find this conclusion surprising, in view of the interests represented at the meeting.

Secondly, I reiterate that not only does the system of national copyright laws infringe on basic rights of European citizens, but this system has been been outdated by technological developments and cannot be enforced. I therefore find it surprising that the Commission does not recognise the need to develop a new pan-European copyright system. The fact that the industry is not enthusiastic about such changes is unfortunate, but irrelevant. It is interesting to note that since the submission of my petition, the British Broadcasting Corporation has abandoned encrypting all their programmes (including copyrighted films) and made them freely available by satellite across borders of member states. This is another demonstration that the system of national copyright laws is outdated.

Thirdly, I contend that if an economically viable copyright system that preserves intellectual property rights can be developed for a country as large as the USA, an equitable system can be developed for Europe. As pointed out in my petition, such a system of copyright fees could easily take account of the number of subscribers to a satellite service that live outside the member state for which rights have been purchased. I gave one example of such a system in Section 4.3 of my petition and have elaborated on this in the appendix to my present reaction. The suggested system presented here offers just one of many possible solutions to the problem.

I recognise that such a system cannot be implemented overnight. However, I suggest that Parliament instructs the Commission to set up an (independent) task force to develop proposals for a pan-European copyright system for electronic media and a timetable for its implementation. This task force and its composition should be driven by the interests of consumers within the EU, not by the interests of the industry.

In the meantime, for the reasons outlined in my petition, providers should be forced to make all non-copyrighted material (e.g. news and current affairs programmes) accessible immediately at reasonable subscription rates (taking into account that expensive copyrighted material will be initially unavailable). Such a measure would be easy for the satellite providers to implement technically.

georgekildare

"Regarding Sky Digital's decoder, nothing in Community law requires pay TV operators, such as Sky Digital, to offer a universal receiver capable of receiving signals from all possible satellites, or to support such features as steerable dishes. Sky Digital uses me DVB-S transmission standard2 as do other satellite broadcasters and therefore its receivers conform to that standard. The receiver contains or supports supplementary features, notably conditional access - necessary for pay television in order to support security and ensure payment - and an electronic programme guide."

This misses the point of my petition. I am not complaining about the fact that Sky Digital sell a proprietary receiver, but about Sky Digital's strict control over the hardware necessary to receive its program and its refusal to allow a common access module for its encryption system to be included in normal non-proprietary digital satellite receivers.

"The Commission would like to draw the petitioner's attention to the following provisions Community law which are part of the new electronic communications framework that applies from July 25 2003."

Article 6 of the Access and Interconnection Directive 2002/19/EC imposes on operators of conditional access systems me following obligation:

"When granting licences to manufacturers of consumer equipment, holders of industrial property rights to conditional access products and systems are to ensure that this is done on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Taking into account technical and commercial factors, holders of rights are not to subject me granting of licences to conditions prohibiting, deterring or discouraging the inclusion in the same product of
- a common interface allowing connection .with several access systems, or
- means specific to another access system , provided that the licensee complies with the relevant and reasonable conditions ensuring, as far as he is concerned, the security of transactions of conditional access system operators."

This provision supports interoperability between different conditional access systems and creates the possibility for manufacturers to bundle several conditional access systems into one receiver. The Access and Interconnection Directive offers Member States a number of opportunities for facilitating broadcasters' access to associated facilities such as electronic programme guides controlled by pay TV operators. The Commission has explained these options to the Communications Committee in order to ensure full awareness of these possibilities in Member States."

I am unclear about the significance of these remarks and would like clarification. Are the practices of Sky Digital to prevent a Sky conditional access system being incorporated into normal (non-Sky) satellite receivers now illegal? If so, will the Commission take action against Sky if they continue to prevent their encryption system being incorporated in non-proprietary satellite receivers? Such a measure would satisfy part of my petition and would be very welcome.

"In addition, it is possible for consumers manually to tune to and store other free-to air TV channels, even if these channels have not obtained such a listing from Sky. This meets current requirements under Art 24 of the Universal service and Users' Rights Directive (2002/22/EC), and the second tiret of Annex VI, that consumer equipment capable of descrambling digital television signals must possess the capability to:
- display signals that have been transmitted in clear provided that, in the event that such equipment' is rented, the rentee is in compliance with the relevant rental agreement."

Again, my problem is not with the Sky Satellite Receiver, but with Sky's refusal to let its system be incorporated into non-proprietary receivers. (Although Sky allows other channels to be received, the system is deliberately clumsy, requiring considerable effort and keystrokes before they other programmes can be received.) If the Commission intends to force Sky and other European satellite providers to provide a conditional access module that can be incorporated into a normal non-proprietary satellite receiver, this would takes care of my complaint.

"The positioning of channels in Sky Digital's electronic programme guide is regulated by the UK Independent Television Commission. The Commission recognises that a fixed position and number in a programme guide may offer certain benefits for both TV channels and consumers, who must navigate through hundreds of services."

My problem is with the proprietary electronic programme guide coupled with the monopoly position of Sky. I was under the impression that the misuse of monopoly powers within member states falls under the jurisdiction of the Commission.

"The Commission understands that the matching of subscription smart cards and receivers is necessary in order to ensure compliance with the contractual terms of the subscription as well as to avoid misuse/for example, the possibility that the card of a private individual might be used in commercial premises, for which there is a more costly subscription and a different card."

I have no problems with this, provided a conditional access module for reception of Sky digital programmes is provided to manufacturers of non-proprietary receivers. It would be easy to develop a Sky conditional access module that could be matched to a specific normal receiver in the way that the Windows XP operating system is matched to a specific personal computer, but it is essential that providers be forced to make their conditional access systems freely available.







APPENDIX
TOWARDS A NEW PAN-EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF COPYRIGHT LAWS
FOR SATELLITE TELEVISION

Because the Commission's reply to the Committee implies that it is impossible to develop an economically viable pan-EU copyright system that preserves intellectual property rights, I here elaborate on the example for such a system suggested in my petition. In making this proposal, please recognise that I am a lay person without any legal background. However, I contend that the issues of principle raised in the petition warrant setting up a task force, driven by the interests of EU consumers, to examine the viability of this and alternative proposals for such a system.

1. The goals of a pan-European system of copyright laws for electronic media should be:

(i) to provide EU citizens with equal right to subscribe to satellite television programme packages transmitted from and sold in any of the member states, provided the relevant signal can be received and

(ii) to provide right holders with an equitable compensation for their intellectual property resulting from the wider distribution beyond the member states for which the terrestrial television rights have been purchased necessitated by trans-border reception.

2. Although to achieve the above goals, the new pan-European system must take precedent over national copyright laws, the new system should be crafted to mesh as closely as possible with existing national laws.

3. In making new rights contracts, the rights holders and programme contractors should take account of the total relevant number of subscribers (national terrestrial + European satellite subscribers). In general the numbers of external subscribers will be relatively small compared with the internal national base. The satellite program contractor should therefore not be required to purchase exclusive European rights to a programme.

4. In the case of existing rights contracts, the programme suppliers should pay the rights holders an additional fee, calculated as the original fee multiplied by the fraction of subscribers to the satellite bouquet that is located outside the member state for which rights have been purchased.

Mossy Monk

best of luck with this george

Mike 1972

This is a message ive posted on a few boards
If anyone wants to copy it feel free

For users of Digital satellite TV in UK Ireland and Europe

Are you fed up because of the stranglehold the $ky digital monopoly has over satellite TV in the British Isles ?
Are you fed up because you cant get RTE/TV3/TG4 in the UK (even NI) on a digibox (and even in the Republic without a $ky subscription) ?
Are you fed up because you cant get UTV/Channel 4/Five etc in the Republic and have to pay higher subs than UK residents for an inferior level of service.
Are you fed up with all the faffing about over the FTV card issue and that you have to pay £23 for a card that costs less than £12 to produce and administer
Are you fed up because you cannot recieve either Irish OR UK channels on a digibox outside the British Isles despite the fact that the EU promises us "television without frontiers" ?
Are you fed up with the way $ky abues its monopoly to restrict the choice of equipment on the market to a small number of functionally crippled overpriced digiboxes and makes reception of non-$ky services difficult if not impossible ?
Are you just fed up ?

If so you now have the chance to do something about it
A bloke called George Kildare Miley has complained to the EU parliament about $ky restrictive practices and has got himself a hearing before The European Parliament Committee on Petitions http://www.europarl.eu.int/committees/peti_home.htm on 27 November.

This is an excellent work on his part but we all need to contact the committe members to show that there is public support for the measure

The members of the committee are as follows further contact details
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps.short_list?ilg=EN&iorig=committees&ipv=&ipos=&iukconst=&ipolgrp=&icom=C17&idel=&iothbody=&ictry=&ictry=&iukreg=&iaction=search
Mrs BANOTTI, Mary Elizabeth , Substitute Republic of Ireland European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mr DE ROSSA, Proinsias , Vice-Chairman Republic of Ireland Party of European Socialists
Mr FITZSIMONS, James (Jim) , Member Republic of Ireland Union for Europe of the Nations Group
Mr DAVIES, Chris , Substitute United Kingdom European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party
Mr BALFE, Richard A. , Member rbalfe@europarl.eu.int www.richardbalfe.com/ United Kingdom European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mr PERRY, Roy , Vice-Chairman rperry@europarl.eu.int www.royperry.org/ United Kingdom European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
The Earl of STOCKTON, , Member United Kingdom European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mr WYN, Eurig , Member United Kingdom Greens/European Free Alliance
Mrs LAMBERT, Jean , Member jeanlambert@greenmeps.org.uk United Kingdom Greens/European Free Alliance
Mr CASHMAN, Michael , Member enquiries@michaelcashmanmep.org.uk www.michaelcashmanmep.org.uk/ United Kingdom Party of European Socialists
Mr FORD, Glyn , Member penny_richardson@new.labour.org.uk United Kingdom Party of European Socialists
Herr BÖSCH, Herbert , Member Austria Party of European Socialists
Herr HAGER, Gerhard , Member Austria Non-attached
Herr SICHROVSKY, Peter , Substitute Austria Non-attached
De Heer DHAENE, Jan , Substitute Belgium Greens/European Free Alliance
Herr BRIE, André , Substitute Germany Confederal European United Left/Nordic Green Left
Herr von BOETTICHER, Christian Ulrik , Member Germany European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Herr WIELAND, Rainer , Member Germany European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Frau KESSLER, Margot , Member Germany Party of European Socialists
THORS, Astrid , Vice-Chairman Finland European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party
AALTONEN, Uma , Substitute Finland Greens/European Free Alliance
Mme MATHIEU, Véronique , Member France Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities
Mme DESCAMPS, Marie-Hélène , Member France European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mme FOURTOU, Janelly , Member France European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mme SCHAFFNER, Anne-Marie , Substitute France European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Mme STIRBOIS, Marie-France , Member France Non-attached
κ. PAPAYANNAKIS, Mihail , Substitute Greece Confederal European United Left/Nordic Green Left
κ. MARINOS, Ioannis , Member Greece European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
κ. XARCHAKOS, Stavros , Member Greece European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
κ. KOUKIADIS, Ioannis , Member Greece Party of European Socialists
On. DI LELLO FINUOLI, Giuseppe , Member Italy Confederal European United Left/Nordic Green Left
Sig.ra SBARBATI, Luciana , Member Italy European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party
On. GEMELLI, Vitaliano , Chairman Italy European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
On. TAJANI, Antonio , Substitute Italy European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
On. PITTELLA, Giovanni , Substitute Italy Party of European Socialists
On. SACCONI, Guido , Member Italy Party of European Socialists
De Heer van den BOS, Bob , Substitute Netherlands European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party
De Heer WIERSMA, Jan Marinus , Member Netherlands Party of European Socialists
Sr. CANDAL, Carlos , Substitute Portugal Party of European Socialists
Sr. QUEIRÓ, Luís , Substitute Portugal Union for Europe of the Nations Group
Sra. BERGAZ CONESA, María Luisa , Member Spain Confederal European United Left/Nordic Green Left
Sr. CAMISÓN ASENSIO, Felipe , Member Spain European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
Sra. SORNOSA MARTÍNEZ, María , Member Spain Party of European Socialists

georgekildare

I just happened to come across an interesting item about a report adopted by the EU Parliament in September (see the following internet site: www.rogerhelmer.com/highlights18.shtml)


"Television Without Frontiers - Perry Report

People who live or retire abroad and want to watch UK television channels should be able to do so without any legal problems, according to a report passed by the European Parliament on Thursday.

Current EU laws mean that viewers watching television programmes by satellite from other countries are sometimes technically breaking the law. Satellite companies deal with copyright holders, such as football leagues or film distributors, on the basis of broadcasting in national or linguistic markets only.

The report also calls on the Commission to address access to television for the disabled by promoting more subtitling, sign language presentation and interpretation and audio description and calls for a study on best practice across Europe.

Roy Perry MEP said: "A small but important point in the proposal is that Europe should make it easier for people with either hearing or visual disabilities to watch TV in Europe. I have called for a study to identify best practice and hope in this way we can improve the TV enjoyment of people with sensory impairments.

Just like manufactured goods, television programmes can be exported, so it is important for British television producers that there is a free and open market for television. Legal pitfalls over satellite TV subscriptions need to be tackled if we really are to have television without frontiers."

Since this is a matter that affects MEPs and EU civil servants directly, I am beginning to be optimistic that something will be done. Further my reading of the reaction of the Commission to my petition (see elsewhere on this thread) is that Sky may be forced to make their common access module available for incorporation in non-proprietary satellite receivers.

Further, I talked to the Civil servant responsible for the Committee of Petitions. He told me that the Committee would have a preliminary hearing on 27 November, because some of the program companies wanted to make a presentation. However, they would certainly not conclude the discussion before I have had a chance to make a presentation (probably February).