[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    INTRODUCTION OF THE SATELLITE HOME VIEWER PROTECTION ACT OF 1996

                                 ______


                        HON. CARLOS J. MOORHEAD

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 28, 1996

  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, the Satellite Home Viewer Protection Act 
of 1996 seeks to break the logjam in negotiations between the satellite 
TV industry and network broadcasters created by the Satellite Home 
Viewer Act of 1994, and to provide subscribers with rights and remedies 
with respect to reception of satellite-delivered network signals. The 
Home Viewer Protection Act accomplishes these goals in several ways.
  The bill adds new section 119(a)(2)(D) which requires satellite 
carriers to notify their new and existing subscribers of the network 
signal restrictions of the 1994 Home Viewer Act. Many subscribers have 
complained that they have spent hundreds of dollars on satellite 
equipment without being told that they may not be eligible for service 
of certain network signals. Further, existing subscribers have had 
their network service turned off with little or no explanation or 
information from their satellite carriers. The bill will resolve this 
problem by placing an affirmative duty on satellite carriers to inform 
their potential subscribers of the network restrictions prior to their 
providing service, as well as inform their current subscribers of the 
restrictions by a date certain.
  The bill also provides subscribers, whose service of network signals 
is challenged by their local network affiliates, a direct means of 
determining whether they are still eligible for service. If a local 
affiliate challenges a subscriber in its local service area under the 
1994 act, the satellite carrier must inform the subscriber of the 
challenge in writing. The subscriber then has 30 days to request the 
satellite carrier to conduct a signal intensity measurement at his 
household to determine if he is eligible for service of the network 
signal that is the subject of the challenge. If the subscriber does not 
make a timely written request, then the satellite carrier must 
terminate service. The limits placed on the number of measurements that 
the satellite carrier must conduct, established in the 1994 act, are 
retained.

  If the signal intensity measurement determines that the subscriber is 
an unserved household, then the local network affiliate must reimburse 
the satellite carrier for the cost of the survey. If the measurement 
reveals that the subscriber does not reside in an unserved household, 
then subscriber must reimburse the satellite carrier.
  In order for the new signal intensity measurement procedure to work, 
there must, of course, be accepted standards for the measurement. Both 
satellite carriers and broadcasters agreed in 1994 that they would work 
out the parameters of the measurement under the current law, but they 
have been unable to do so. The bill provides both sides with a short 
negotiation period in which to voluntarily agree to terms and 
conditions, followed by binding arbitration. Arbitration would be 
governed by the provisions of title 9 of the United States Code. 
Whether the signal intensity measurement standards are developed 
through agreement or arbitration, they must be deposited with the 
Register of Copyrights for public inspection and copying.
  Finally, the bill makes two additional changes regarding the signal 
intensity measurement. By deleting section 119(a)(8)(D), the 
measurement is confined to only those subscribers residing within the 
predicted grade B contour, local service area, of the network affiliate 
station issuing the challenge. Under the current law, the network has 
the option of challenging and testing subscribers outside their local 
service area. As a practical matter, however, most broadcast stations' 
advertising rate cards are based upon viewers residing within the 
stations' local service area, so loss of viewership resulting from 
subscribers outside the local service area does not economically harm 
broadcasters. Consequently, there is no reason to vest broadcasters 
with the ability to issue challenges against, and terminate the service 
of, subscribers who do not reside within their local service area.
  The signal intensity measurement procedures of the current law are 
scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Because of the lack of 
industry agreement, the procedures have not functioned as envisioned in 
1994. Consequently, the bill extends the procedures by an additional 
year, so that the network challenge and signal intensity measurement 
regime will not expire until December 31, 1997. I intend to announce a 
hearing date and a date for markup after the Easter/Passover break.

                          ____________________