[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9932-H9937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MULTICHANNEL VIDEO COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1998
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2921) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the
Federal Communications Commission to conduct an inquiry into the
impediments to the development of competition in the market for
multichannel video programming distribution, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2921
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Multichannel Video
Competition and Consumer Protection Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. DIRECT-TO-HOME SATELLITE PIRACY PREVENTION.
Section 705(d)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 605(d)(6)) is amended by inserting ``or direct-to-home
satellite services (as defined in section 303(v))'' after
``satellite cable programming''.
SEC. 3. TEMPORARY STAY OF SATELLITE ROYALTY FEE INCREASE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Copyright
Office shall not before December 31, 1999, implement,
enforce, collect, or award copyright royalty fees pursuant to
the decision of the Librarian of Congress on October 28,
1997, which established a royalty fee of $0.27 per subscriber
per month for the retransmission of distant broadcast signals
by satellite carriers, and no obligation or liability for
copyright royalty fees shall accrue before December 31, 1999,
pursuant to that decision. This section shall not affect
implementing, enforcing, collecting, or awarding copyright
royalty fees pursuant to the royalty fee structure affected
by the decision, as it existed prior to October 28, 1997.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
General Leave
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on this legislation.
[[Page H9933]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today I am delighted to bring to the floor for Members'
consideration H.R. 2921, the Multichannel Video Competition and
Consumer Protection Act of 1998. I want to commend the gentleman from
Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his leadership in bringing this bill to
the floor, and my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey), the ranking member, for his kind and gracious support and
assistance.
I introduced the bill in November of last year to address the
inequitable decision of the Copyright Arbitration Rate Panel to
increase the copyright fees that are paid by the direct broadcast
satellite providers. This decision has resulted in increased rates for
every DBS dish consumer in America.
To date, the bill has garnered 157 cosponsors, representing Members
from all parts of our Nation. The bill has substantially bipartisan
support because it does the right thing, it protects consumers and
promotes competition in the video marketplace.
H.R. 2921 delays the impact of copyright fees that are paid by
satellite providers and ultimately by consumers for distant network
signals and superstations.
The Librarian of Congress made a decision to raise the rates of
satellite services to 27 cents per subscriber for superstation and
distant network signals. This rate compares to the rate of 9.7 cents
per subscriber for superstations, and 2.7 cents for network signals
that cable operators pay.
In effect, the satellite carriers, and thus, their consumers, are
currently paying almost 270 percent more than cable for superstations,
and 900 percent more for network signals. This enormous disparity in
the copyright fees paid for the exact same signals has resulted in
major rate increases for consumers, and has hurt the direct broadcast
satellite industry's ability to compete with cable.
The bill rolls back these copyright rates paid by the DBS service
providers to the rate they were prior to the decision of the court or
the Librarian of Congress' panel. This rollback will extend from the
period beginning January 1, 1998, until December 31, 1999.
Why are we doing this? We have seen the rapid development of the home
satellite industry. Today direct broadcast satellite providers are
offering consumers hundreds of programming channels in various
packages. In part, these DBS companies have helped to keep cable
companies from raising their rates, encourage them to improve their
services, and to upgrade their networks.
I do not have to tell Members how all three are seriously important
to America's consumers. At a time when we need more, not less,
competition in the video marketplace, we should not be burdening the
DBS industry and its consumers with unnecessary and arbitrary
additional costs.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cable rates have risen
three times faster than the rate of inflation since the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. As we approach March 31,
1999, next year, when pursuant to that act cable will be deregulated,
it is becoming increasingly clear that Congress has to consider
legislation to further promote competition for the cable industry.
I find it far preferable to promote true and meaningful competition
for cable, and thus to let competitive marketplaces drive the prices
down for consumers, than it is for us to constantly regulate. That is
why it is so important to pass this bill. This bill declares a time out
on the Librarian's decision until we can determine its impact on
consumers and the video marketplace.
This is an appropriate and measured response to the CARP panel's
decision, and I hope this Congress will move this bill, give us a
chance to make sure that next year we have the opportunity to ensure
that more competition is available, more choice is available to
America's television consumers, so that in fact better prices, better
terms, better services become the wave of the future, rather than
increase prices in a situation where customers have no other choice but
to choose one service provider.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in wholehearted support of this very important
legislation, and I rise first to praise the chairman of our
subcommittee, which my long observation of him has led to I think the
conclusion, not only by me but by everyone who observes this whole area
of telecommunications policy, that he is the leading satellite samurai
warrior in Congress. He of all Members has led the battle to ensure
that the satellite industry will be able to compete and to provide
vigorous competition for the cable industry, the product and the
pricing that revolutionizes the way in which we receive video in this
country.
Now, I give him credit, but I know that the real inspiration is and
always has been his father, who is the original satellite philosopher
of Cajun country. He instilled a philosophy of competition into the
gentleman from Louisiana which I deeply appreciated, and have been
educated to appreciate, since we have about the same number of
satellite dishes in my congressional district as we have hydroelectric
dams. These are phenomenon that we have to have explained to us from
Members in other parts of the country.
Now because of the gentleman from Louisiana, we have been able to
introduce a revolution, a revolution not of 8-foot dishes that we need
a zoning variance to put in our backyards.
{time} 1945
Of course that is possible in Iowa or Louisiana, Oklahoma. But not in
Boston. Not three-decker homes with 8-foot dishes hanging off the back.
That is not going to work.
But the vision was of 18-inch dishes, dishes that could be put
between the petunias out in the backyard, hanging off of the back of
the three-decker. But to do that requires programming that is
available, HBO, ESPN, and programming that is affordable.
Interestingly, and I am sure it comes as somewhat of a mystery to
most Members of Congress and without question to most Americans, it is
the Library of Congress that determines the price that people pay for
this programming. Now, tell me who is going to get that answer on
Jeopardy? I do not think so. I think we could put that question up
almost every other week and continue to stump people.
So, because of the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana, we
bring legislation today that helps to make it possible for us to ensure
that there is a pricing scheme that reflects the fair market.
Now, the Library of Congress says, ``We determine what the fair
market price is.'' And, of course, the response that we make is how can
they determine that? The cable marketplace is a monopoly. There is no
fair market that exists in the cable universe as it exists today.
Now, we hope to reach the point in time where telephone companies and
electric companies and multipoint distribution systems from other
sources provide competition. But while we are waiting, we have to be
very conscious of the fact that we are still devising the mechanism by
which this marketplace is competitive.
The legislation which the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the distinguished member of
both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary,
bringing the wisdom of both committees to this process, helped to
construct out here on the floor, I think helps us, at least over the
next year, to buy the time we need in order to get an honest and fair
resolution of this issue.
It is my hope that in the course of this evening, listening to my
colleagues who are so wise on these issues from the hollows of southern
Virginia to the bayou country in Louisiana, that we can produce a bill
tonight that helps to advance the cause of a truly competitive video
marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I
have been called a lot of things, but John Belushi or not, but I
appreciate
[[Page H9934]]
that reference. The fact of the matter, it was my friend from
Massachusetts who was there by my side, shoulder to shoulder, battling
for the rights of satellite consumers to have the right to programming
in this Chamber in 1992 that gave birth to these small dishes. And he
did so, as he said, when very few of his consumers relied on satellite
reception of television. With so many in Virginia, where the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), my good friend, lives, and those of us in
bayou country, and in Colorado, the State of the gentleman that I am
about to introduce, have to rely on satellite signals live.
It is really a credit to the gentleman from Massachusetts that he
learned how important it was to folks in rural countries like ours to
have satellite television reception. I want to tell my colleagues that
he learned that by coming to my home in Chackbay with me where my
mother fed him a Cajun meal. And I have often threatened, when he was
not with me on a bill, to explain to him what he ate that night and
coerce him to join me in an effort. But he has always been there by our
side on this issue, and I want to commend him and particularly my
friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for his help.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Dan Schaefer), another great friend. But I also want to say, Mr.
Speaker, how sadly our Committee on Commerce is going to miss not only
his friendship, but his service to this country and his incredibly
talented and gifted service to the Committee on Commerce. The gentleman
from Colorado is not just a close personal friend of all of us on both
sides of the aisle, but he has been a great Congressman for his State
and country, and we will miss him dearly.
(Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2921. This is a
situation where a lot of talk has been made about cable television rate
increases. Last year, the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC,
in a report to Congress found that noncable television programmers,
i.e., wireless cable and DBS, continue to experience substantial rates
of growth.
However, the FCC report found that noncable television programmers,
particularly Direct Broadcast Satellite operators, face several
obstacles as they compete for television viewers. One of the most
substantial obstacles is the Copyright Office-mandated increase in the
copyright royalty fees that multichannel video programming operators
pay to retransmit broadcast network and superstation signals to their
consumers.
In September of 1997, the Copyright Arbitration Rate Panel increased
satellite broadcasters' rates, as has already been said, from 6 cents
per subscriber per month for broadcast network signals and 14 cents per
subscriber per month for superstation signals, to 27 cents per
subscriber per month for retransmission of both signals. Meanwhile, the
statutory prescribed rate for cable transmission remains at 2.7 cents
per subscriber per month for network signals and 9.7 cents per
subscriber per month for superstation signals.
Mr. Speaker, I cosponsored this particular piece of legislation and
am a strong supporter of it because it will roll back the copyright
fees paid by satellite broadcasters to its past level. This will give
us time to enact other legislation that will promote competition for
the consumers in this country in the multichannel video programming
industry and give consumers greater choices.
I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding and for this
excellent piece of legislation that has been brought out of our
committee.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the exceptionally
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express appreciation to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his leadership on this
measure and for yielding this time to me. I also want to thank my
friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of our
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, for
his very fine work on this measure. He has contributed substantially to
resolving a major problem, and I want to thank him very much for his
efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation which will
remove a major hindrance that exists today to the arrival of viable
competition in the multichannel video marketplace.
As Members of Congress, we are hearing complaints every day from our
constituents about cable television rates, the high level of those
rates at the present time, and the fact that cable television rates are
going up faster than the price of most of the products and services in
the American economy. In fact, in many communities, cable TV rates are
even increasing faster than the price of health care services.
Many of us believe that while some measure of rate regulation may be
necessary in the interim period in order to address those problems of
rates, over the long-term the right answer, and the best approach to
addressing the concerns of ever-increasing cable television rates, is
to bring competition into that market and make sure that the consumers
of multichannel video services have a choice and have viable
alternatives. Many of us also see the satellite industry as being the
most viable immediate competitor for the cable industry.
Unfortunately, the regulation that was issued last year by the
Copyright Office in the Library of Congress places a major barrier in
the way of the arrival of that competition because it imposes copyright
fees for the delivery of material over satellites that are many times
greater than the fees imposed upon cable systems for the delivery of
exactly the same programming.
In fact, with regard to network signals, the fees will be nine times
greater when imposed upon satellite deliverers of this programming than
upon cable systems, and with regard to superstation signals, the
difference is three times, three times more for the satellite carrier
than for the cable company.
This discrepancy also disproportionately affects the rural consumers
of satellite services because most of the satellite dishes are found in
rural America today. And as a representative of a rural district, that
fact has particular resonance with me.
The amount of this charge per year for every consumer of satellite
services is about $20. That is the amount of the increase imposed by
the Copyright Office, and so it is not an inconsiderable amount of
money.
The legislation before us would impose a freeze on the imposition of
these disproportionate and unwise fees until the end of 1999, and that
gives us an opportunity here in the Congress to establish a mechanism
that will assure that the same fee is imposed upon satellite systems
and cable systems and other providers of multichannel video services so
that we have fairness, we have balance, and through the copyright fees
we do not favor one provider of these services over others.
It is a very wise approach. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana
and the gentleman from Massachusetts for bringing the measure forward,
and I urge its approval by the House.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Burr) from the Committee on Commerce, and a dear
friend.
(Mr. BURR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 2921. This legislation delays for 18 months CARP's
decision to increase royalties paid by satellite carriers on
retransmission of network broadcasts. During this period, we will have
time to examine the impact that an increase will have on consumer rates
and on competition.
While copyright holders certainly deserve compensation for the use of
their signal, rate adjustments should not be used to create competitive
disadvantages. By passing this bill, we will help ensure fairness for
rural viewers who cannot receive over-the-air broadcast and live in
areas not served by cable TV.
[[Page H9935]]
I would also like to take this opportunity to add that we could help
all satellite subscribers by enacting legislation like my SALSA bill,
which allows DBS providers to retransmit local TV stations to their
local markets. This will provide a long-term solution to problems
highlighted by recent court cases.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me urge my colleagues to vote for H.R.
2921, and to continue working on the other outstanding issues facing
the satellite TV industry.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to commend the gentleman's
statement and to pledge to him my continued efforts to see to it that
we do pass local-into-local legislation in the next Congress. That will
give the satellite providers a chance to offer local signals in that
satellite package. That, in essence, would give much more coverage and
competition to rural consumers. I will assist in every way to make that
happen.
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, like
this legislation, that would protect consumers, and I look forward to
additionally protecting consumers with the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just, in conclusion, to compliment the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). This is a part of an overall strategy that we
have to construct if we are, in fact, going to introduce real
competition into the video marketplace.
{time} 2000
The cable company remains largely a monopoly in 97 percent of our
country. The telephone companies, after promising in the 1996
Telecommunications Act that they were going to, by the year 2000,
provide a second wire, second video service in almost every community
in America, have pulled back from that commitment. I think that in this
satellite area, though, we have a real potential to provide an
alternative, not just for rural, not just for the most suburban
communities in America, but for urban America.
And I think that in exploring this whole question of whether or not a
local television station, here in Washington Channel 4, 5, 7, 9, and
50, can be carried by a satellite and beamed right back into the homes
in that viewing area holds the key to whether or not we are going to
give consumers, cable consumers, disgruntled, unhappy cable consumers
across this country, the ability to just disconnect their cable company
and, instead, just subscribe to an 18-inch satellite dish service with
the local broadcast stations as well.
I have introduced, with the leadership of the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher),
legislation that we are hoping that we will be able to move in the
future that will make that possible. Because I know it is very
frustrating to cable consumers across the country to know that if they
disconnect their cable and move to satellite today they lose their
local broadcast stations. That is frustrating to them because they
really do want to disconnect in millions of homes across the country.
And working with the gentleman from Louisiana to create a way in which
we can get those local stations up on satellite, and to deal with this
white area issue, to deal with the issue of who can receive the distant
signals, is something that I think is absolutely critical.
I am pledging my continued assistance to the gentleman from
Louisiana. I have been his partner now for the past 17 or 18 years on
this issue, and I have now become an urban Pioneer.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. I think we could be called urban samurais.
Mr. MARKEY. Well, Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not know what
we would be called there, but I will work with the gentleman to make it
possible.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
just want my colleagues to know that the gentleman makes such an
important statement. Competition to cable is not real until the local
signals are part of the package.
We all know that the local television signals are the part of the
television that is watched the most. They are the programs that people
most desire in that package. And when they cannot get those local
signals from the satellite distributor, they have to receive, instead,
long-distance signals.
Now, the awful truth about what the librarian did was to say to
satellite consumers that not only are they to be penalized by not
having the local signals, but they are going to have to pay more than
the cable subscriber for these long-distance signals, just to hit them
one more time. That is so unfair.
Getting this straightened out in this bill is important, but my
friend makes such a valid point. This is but one of the many pieces of
the puzzle we have to solve in order to make sure that consumers in
America have real choices in true packages that contain both the local
signals and all the other wonderful cable programming that the cable
industry rightfully takes great pride in having provided to America.
I pledge to my friend the same partnership we have enjoyed for many
years to put all those pieces together.
Mr. MARKEY. Once again reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say
in conclusion that I am looking forward to working with the gentleman,
as his urban and suburban samurai sidekick, in making it possible for
us to bring this revolution to every American in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns), another distinguished member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me this time.
I say to my colleagues that we are here, roughly at 8 o'clock at
night, and there are not a lot of people on the House floor, but what
we are doing this evening is extremely important, particularly for
those Americans not just in the suburbs or in the urban areas, but also
in rural parts of the United States, which I represent, who have
satellites. And they are out there trying to get their picture and they
do not realize that this CARP, this Copyright Arbitration Royalty
Panel, increased the royalty charge to the satellite companies so
tremendously, so egregiously, that it almost put them out of business.
So the people in the rural part of the United States, particularly in
central Florida, will be impacted tremendously.
It is fundamentally important that this bill that we are here talking
about tonight go forward, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin)
is doing a whale of a job to make this point. Because what really we
are talking about is government increasing the cost of services and
eliminating competition. And if we did not have this bill tonight, and
we did not put this 18-month moratorium on, then what would happen is
the government would increase this and the share of satellite would go
down.
In fact, I have here a graph that in 1997 the satellite industry had
about 11 percent of the market and they were paying about 22 percent of
the distribution fees. One year later, after CARP, this Copyright
Arbitration Royalty Panel, increases the fees tremendously, the
satellite share is now at 12 percent. Only increased 1 percent, yet
their amount of distribution fees went up to 39 percent.
So I mean there is a clear example of government stepping in,
increasing the cost, with the help and approval of the Librarian of
Congress, as the gentleman mentioned, and so we are going to knock out
all competition for satellite. Simply tripling the royalty fees is
unfair. It was no gradual matter. It just came in in a whoosh, tripled
these royalty fees, and, in the end, people in the rural part of the
United States will not be able to afford satellites because the
satellite companies will pass these charges on.
So Congress basically has to ensure that the satellite services have
a financial foothold in order to make a lasting competitive challenge.
Without this bill, without the efforts of the chairman we would not
have that opportunity tonight.
[[Page H9936]]
We will return next year, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) mentioned, and pass legislation to allow the satellite customer
to get local-to-local service so they can have their local channels
beamed directly to their homes. But I am hoping tonight that we can
move forward and that the Senate, by unanimous consent, will pass this
tomorrow. There is no reason not to. There is no controversy involved
here. We should get this passed so that the competition in the
satellite industry will increase, and I again commend the chairman for
his efforts.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding
to me.
In the course of the debate I did not properly mention the work that
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. John Dingell), on our side, and the
work also done by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Bliley), on the
majority side, to help to formulate this policy, because it has been
long in the making. We still have much more work to do, but we could
not have done it without their able work, as well as the work of our
staffers. We have David Schooler and Andy Levin and Colin Crowell on my
staff; and Justin Lilley and Whitney Fox, it is like an all-time all-
star team on the gentleman's side, that have worked together to make
these policies come to pass.
I just wanted to publicly recognize them for all the excellent work
which they have done.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
Let me indeed indicate that this is but one step. Our staff and our
committee, our chairman and our ranking member, are indeed to be
commended for taking us down the right path. We have much work to do. I
want to pledge to my colleagues as we complete work on this bill that
they will hear and see from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) and I again as we approach the date of March next year when
cable is set to be deregulated.
We will be presenting, hopefully, for this House to consider, various
options on how to make sure competition is really available for the
American consumer, who, in many parts of America, is given one choice
when it comes to cable, take it or leave it. That is not a good
American choice. In a good American marketplace it means various
choices, good prices, better service. That is the kind of marketplace
the Committee on Commerce is committed to developing for the television
consumers of America, and we will not stop until that is done.
Mr. Speaker, would the Chair indicate how much time we have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Tauzin) has 4 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey) has yielded his time back.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who is a new member of our committee and
doing a great job.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. It is
something of an irony that I do, since at my house we do not have
cable, we do not have a satellite dish, and we barely have a
television. But I like this bill because it seems to delay things until
folks can sort out exactly what is fair and what is equitable in order
to enhance competition, which is the American way.
I commend my colleague for bringing this forward and the chairman of
the committee for bringing it forward to increase competition and to
make sure that there is a level playing field for all of those who
provide services to our homes.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, when I was going down the litany of saints
who helped to make the satellite policy possible, I did forget Hugh
Halpern and I forgot to mention Mike O'Rielly. And I think in order for
us to have a complete and definitive list of those who labored in the
vineyards for this competition in the video marketplace, that they all
be listed at this time, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is indeed
gracious in remembering all those who helped us so diligently day and
night to make this bill come true, and we deeply appreciate that.
Let me say in conclusion that this bill is but one step. I want to
make a point that I think all Members of Congress should be aware of,
and that is there is nothing in our policy that in any way denigrates
from the great work that cable has done in bringing new programming, in
bringing extensive and delightful varieties of programming to America.
Indeed, we are very grateful for that.
We are simply saying in this policy that for those who decide to
receive that programming on a satellite transmission rather than over a
cable, or over the air, as in New Orleans, or in Atlanta in a
terrestrial air distribution system, those consumers are entitled to
equal treatment. We should not be putting copyright fees that are three
times and nine times as high on a consumer simply because they choose
to receive that wonderful programming one way or another.
Secondly, we are saying that, in the end, this Congress will be faced
with the choice of either reregulating cable, because it does not have
a competitor, or we will have successfully provided for Americans the
chance to regulate that marketplace by themselves deciding which of the
methods of transmission they prefer, whether satellite, terrestrial
wireless, or cable, or several cable systems in their community. To me,
I hope to all of us, the best solution is to give Americans those
choices.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and our chairman, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and our ranking member, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), are all committed to making sure
that in the end America decides the right way to have more choices and
less regulation in this important marketplace.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2921.
It is important to note that the bill we are considering today is a
short-term fix to a greater problem. The greater problem is how do we
encourage more competition to cable television so consumers can get
more choices and not be held capitive to ever-increasing rates? The
answer to that question is not simple, and it is one the Commerce
Committee continues to grapple with. What is clear, however, is that
emerging alternatives to cable, like satellite television, should not
be put at a competitive disadvantage to incumbent monopolies. That
problem is one that we are attempting to fix, in part, today.
Both cable and satellite television operators are required to pay
copyrights royalties fees for the right to carry distant broadcast
signals at ``superstations.'' Last year, a ruling by the Librarian of
Congress required satellite television operators to pay almost three
times the amount of money that cable operators pay--for the same
programming. Obviously this is unfair, and flies in the face of
Congressional policy to make sure that similar telecommunciations
services are subject to similar rules and regulations.
This bill would freeze the copyright rates at preexisting levels to
that parity continues between these competitors. Of course, the hard
question remains: at what level should the rates be set for both cable
and satellite television operators when the freeze mandated by this
bill expries next December? The answer to that question must be
evaluated in the context of several other important issues, such as
whether satellite operators should be allowed to transmit local
broadcast stations and, if so, whether traditional ``must carry'' rules
should apply.
If we are to achieve the goal of the Telecommunications Act to open
up all markets to competition, and free consumers from the tether of
cable television monopolies in the process, we must address these
issues comprehensively and quickly.
I thank Chairman Bliley and Subcommittee Chairman Tauzin for their
leadership on the rate freeze issue before us today, and look forward
to working with them to resolve these larger competitive concerns next
year.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2921, as amended.
[[Page H9937]]
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to promote
the competitive viability of direct-to-home satellite television
service.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________