I know this is going a bit off topic about fees, but the discussion seems to leading away from fees paid from cable companies to TV carriers, to OTA versus cable/satelite.
A little bit of history/re-focus is in order here....
Long before TV came to be, when there was only radio, it was very chaotic, anybody with enough money to buy and set up radio stations did so, and there was much interference when these "broadcasters" grabbed whatever channel they wanted to broadcast on. The government of the day deemed that the "airwaves" belonged to the people, and began regulating the airwaves. Thus creating a whole new industry, but also standardized radio transmissions and reception. When TV came to be, they regulated just as they did with radio. Which is why you don't have radio and TV stations interfering with each other. The main source of revenue for both radio and TV is commercials. Businesses would pay the broadcasters for the airtime that is used to broadcast shows (This program is brought to you by...)
This is why with the current setup, we don't pay for OTA TV transmission, just like when we to listen to AM-FM radio. The price we consumers pay, is that we are forced to listen to the commercials as well. This situation has served everybody well for the last 60 odd years.
Now the cable/sat companies and TV stations are battling each other for what the TV companies falsely consider a very large piece of pie (we want some of your revenue).
This battle is being played out in the public, and we the people are hearing everybody's "spin" on why it should be their way. And now, the media (news?) are helping push their "bosses" agenda (TV companies), causing discussions like, if I have to pay more for my cable, then OTA viewers have to pay too. Remember...we are ALL paying anyway, by watching/listening to commercials!
If somehow, they can manage to have some way of making OTA viewers/listeners pay (as they once did in the UK), TV companies would gladly try to do it. However, I believe this system failed in the UK as technology surpassed their own system of "monitoring" who was watching TV without a license. If someone in this forum knows more about UK TV licensing, please feel free to chime in.
Is this really the way we want to have our TV viewing managed in the future? I for one, will have a problem paying to watch TV (I am an OTA user), and still have to endure TV commercials. Just as I would also have a problem paying to use my radio and still hear commercials there too (hello XM-Sirius).