Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 58 (Tuesday, April 27, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 58 (Tuesday, April 27, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2312-H2324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SATELLITE COPYRIGHT, COMPETITION, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1554) to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code,
and the Communications Act of 1934, relating to copyright licensing and
carriage of broadcast signals by satellite, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 1554

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 ``Satellite Copyright,
Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999''.

TITLE I--SATELLITE COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Satellite Competition and
Consumer Protection Act''.

SEC. 102. RETRANSMISSION CONSENT.

Section 325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
325(b)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraphs (1) and (2) to read as follows:
``(b)(1) No cable system or other multichannel video
programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a
television broadcast station, or any part thereof, except--
``(A) with the express authority of the originating
station;
``(B) pursuant to section 614, in the case of a station
electing, in accordance with this subsection, to assert the
right to carriage under such section; or
``(C) pursuant to section 338, in the case of a station
electing, in accordance with this subsection, to assert the
right to carriage under such section.
``(2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply--
``(A) to retransmission of the signal of a noncommercial
television broadcast station;
``(B) to retransmission of the signal of a television
broadcast station outside the station's local market by a
satellite carrier directly to its subscribers, if--
``(i) such station was a superstation on May 1, 1991;
``(ii) as of July 1, 1998, such station was retransmitted
by a satellite carrier under the statutory license of section
119 of title 17, United States Code; and
``(iii) the satellite carrier complies with all network
nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout
rules adopted by the Commission pursuant to section 712 of
this Act;
``(C) until 7 months after the date of enactment of the
Satellite Competition and Consumer Protection Act, to
retransmission of the signal of a television network station
directly to a satellite antenna, if the subscriber receiving
the signal is located in an area outside the local market of
such station; or
``(D) to retransmission by a cable operator or other
multichannel video provider, other than a satellite carrier,
of the signal of a television broadcast station outside the
station's local market if such signal was obtained from a
satellite carrier and--
``(i) the originating station was a superstation on May 1,
1991; and
``(ii) as of July 1, 1998, such station was retransmitted
by a satellite carrier under the statutory license of section
119 of title 17, United States Code.'';
(2) by adding at the end of paragraph (3) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Within 45 days after the date of enactment of the
Satellite Competition and Consumer Protection Act, the
Commission shall commence a rulemaking proceeding to revise
the regulations governing the exercise by television
broadcast stations of the right to grant retransmission
consent under this subsection, and such other regulations as
are necessary to administer the limitations contained in
paragraph (2). The Commission shall complete all actions
necessary to prescribe such regulations within one year after
such date of enactment. Such regulations shall--
``(i) establish election time periods that correspond with
those regulations adopted under subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph; and
``(ii) until January 1, 2006, prohibit television broadcast
stations that provide retransmission consent from engaging in
discriminatory practices, understandings, arrangements, and
activities, including exclusive contracts for carriage, that
prevent a multichannel video programming distributor from
obtaining retransmission consent from such stations.'';
(3) in paragraph (4), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``If an originating television station elects
under paragraph (3)(C) to exercise its right to grant
retransmission consent under this subsection with respect to
a satellite carrier, the provisions of section 338 shall not
apply to the carriage of the signal of such station by such
satellite carrier.'';
(4) in paragraph (5), by striking ``614 or 615'' and
inserting ``338, 614, or 615''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term `television
broadcast station' means an over-the-air commercial or
noncommercial television broadcast station licensed by the
Commission under subpart E of part 73 of title 47, Code of
Federal Regulations, except that such term does not include a
low-power or translator television station.''.

SEC. 103. MUST-CARRY FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS RETRANSMITTING
TELEVISION BROADCAST SIGNALS.

Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by
inserting after section 337 (47 U.S.C. 337) the following new
section:

``SEC. 338. CARRIAGE OF LOCAL TELEVISION SIGNALS BY SATELLITE
CARRIERS.

``(a) Carriage Obligations.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the limitations of paragraph
(2), each satellite carrier providing secondary transmissions
to subscribers located within the local market of a
television broadcast station of a primary transmission made
by that station shall carry upon request all television
broadcast stations located within that local market, subject
to section 325(b), by retransmitting the signal or signals of
such stations that are identified by Commission regulations
for purposes of this section.
``(2) Effective date.--No satellite carrier shall be
required to carry local television broadcast stations under
paragraph (1) until January 1, 2002.
``(b) Good Signal Required.--
``(1) Costs.--A television broadcast station asserting its
right to carriage under subsection (a) shall be required to
bear the costs associated with delivering a good quality
signal to the designated local receive facility of the
satellite carrier or to another facility that is acceptable
to at least one-half the stations asserting the right to
carriage in the local market.
``(2) Regulations.--The regulations issued under subsection
(g) shall set forth the obligations necessary to carry out
this subsection.
``(c) Duplication Not Required.--
``(1) Commercial stations.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
a satellite carrier shall not be required to carry upon
request the signal of any local commercial television
broadcast station that substantially duplicates the signal of
another local commercial television broadcast station which
is secondarily transmitted by the satellite carrier

[[Page H2313]]

within the same local market, or to carry upon request the
signals of more than 1 local commercial television broadcast
station in a single local market that is affiliated with a
particular television network.
``(2) Noncommercial stations.--The Commission shall
prescribe regulations limiting the carriage requirements
under subsection (a) of satellite carriers with respect to
the carriage of multiple local noncommercial television
broadcast stations. To the extent possible, such regulations
shall provide the same degree of carriage by satellite
carriers of such multiple stations as is provided by cable
systems under section 615.
``(d) Channel Positioning.--No satellite carrier shall be
required to provide the signal of a local television
broadcast station to subscribers in that station's local
market on any particular channel number or to provide the
signals in any particular order, except that the satellite
carrier shall retransmit the signal of the local television
broadcast stations to subscribers in the stations' local
market on contiguous channels and provide access to such
station's signals at a nondiscriminatory price and in a
nondiscriminatory manner on any navigational device, on-
screen program guide, or menu.
``(e) Compensation for Carriage.--A satellite carrier shall
not accept or request monetary payment or other valuable
consideration in exchange either for carriage of local
television broadcast stations in fulfillment of the
requirements of this section or for channel positioning
rights provided to such stations under this section, except
that any such station may be required to bear the costs
associated with delivering a good quality signal to the local
receive facility of the satellite carrier.
``(f) Remedies.--
``(1) Complaints by broadcast stations.--Whenever a local
television broadcast station believes that a satellite
carrier has failed to meet its obligations under this
section, such station shall notify the carrier, in writing,
of the alleged failure and identify its reasons for believing
that the satellite carrier is obligated to carry upon request
the signal of such station or has otherwise failed to comply
with other requirements of this section. The satellite
carrier shall, within 30 days of such written notification,
respond in writing to such notification and either begin
carrying the signal of such station in accordance with the
terms requested or state its reasons for believing that it is
not obligated to carry such signal or is in compliance with
other requirements of this section, as the case may be. A
local television broadcast station that is denied carriage in
accordance with this section by a satellite carrier or is
otherwise harmed by a response by a satellite carrier that it
is in compliance with other requirements of this section may
obtain review of such denial or response by filing a
complaint with the Commission. Such complaint shall allege
the manner in which such satellite carrier has failed to meet
its obligations and the basis for such allegations.
``(2) Opportunity to respond.--The Commission shall afford
the satellite carrier against which a complaint is filed
under paragraph (1) an opportunity to present data and
arguments to establish that there has been no failure to meet
its obligations under this section.
``(3) Remedial actions; dismissal.--Within 120 days after
the date a complaint is filed under paragraph (1), the
Commission shall determine whether the satellite carrier has
met its obligations under this chapter. If the Commission
determines that the satellite carrier has failed to meet such
obligations, the Commission shall order the satellite
carrier, in the case of an obligation to carry a station, to
begin carriage of the station and to continue such carriage
for at least 12 months, or, in the case of the failure to
meet other obligations under this section, shall take other
appropriate remedial action. If the Commission determines
that the satellite carrier has fully met the requirements of
this chapter, the Commission shall dismiss the complaint.
``(g) Regulations by Commission.--Within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall,
following a rulemaking proceeding, issue regulations
implementing this section.
``(h) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber' means a person
that receives a secondary transmission service by means of a
secondary transmission from a satellite and pays a fee for
the service, directly or indirectly, to the satellite carrier
or to a distributor.
``(2) Distributor.--The term `distributor' means an entity
which contracts to distribute secondary transmissions from a
satellite carrier and, either as a single channel or in a
package with other programming, provides the secondary
transmission either directly to individual subscribers or
indirectly through other program distribution entities.
``(3) Local receive facility.--The term `local receive
facility' means the reception point in each local market
which a satellite carrier designates for delivery of the
signal of the station for purposes of retransmission.
``(4) Television broadcast station.--The term `television
broadcast station' has the meaning given such term in section
325(b)(7).
``(5) Secondary transmission.--The term `secondary
transmission' has the meaning given such term in section
119(d) of title 17, United States Code.''.

SEC. 104. NONDUPLICATION OF PROGRAMMING BROADCAST BY LOCAL
STATIONS.

Section 712 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
612) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 712. NONDUPLICATION OF PROGRAMMING BROADCAST BY LOCAL
STATIONS.

``(a) Extension of Network Nonduplication, Syndicated
Exclusivity, and Sports Blackout to Satellite
Retransmission.--Within 45 days after the date of enactment
of the Satellite Competition and Consumer Protection Act, the
Commission shall commence a single rulemaking proceeding to
establish regulations that apply network nonduplication
protection, syndicated exclusivity protection, and sports
blackout protection to the retransmission of broadcast
signals by satellite carriers to subscribers. To the extent
possible consistent with subsection (b), such regulations
shall provide the same degree of protection against
retransmission of broadcast signals as is provided by the
network nonduplication (47 C.F.R. 76.92), syndicated
exclusivity (47 C.F.R. 151), and sports blackout (47 C.F.R.
76.67) rules applicable to cable television systems. The
Commission shall complete all actions necessary to prescribe
regulations required by this section so that the regulations
shall become effective within 1 year after such date of
enactment.
``(b) Establishment of Network Nonduplication Boundaries.--
``(1) Establishment of signal standard for network
nonduplication required.--The Commission shall establish a
signal intensity standard for purposes of determining the
network nonduplication rights of local television broadcast
stations. Until revised pursuant to subsection (c), such
standard shall be the Grade B field strength standard
prescribed by the Commission in section 73.683 of the
Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.683). For purposes of
this section, the standard established under this paragraph
is referred to as the `Network Nonduplication Signal
Standard'.
``(2) Establishment of improved predictive model
required.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment of the
Satellite Competition and Consumer Protection Act, the
Commission shall take all actions necessary, including any
reconsideration, to develop and prescribe by rule a point-to-
point predictive model for reliably and presumptively
determining the ability of individual locations to receive
signals in accordance with the Network Nonduplication Signal
Standard. In prescribing such model, the Commission shall
ensure that such model takes into account terrain, building
structures, and other land cover variations. The Commission
shall establish procedures for the continued refinement in
the application of the model by the use of additional data as
it becomes available. For purposes of this section, such
model is referred to as the `Network Nonduplication Reception
Model', and the area encompassing locations that are
predicted to have the ability to receive such a signal of a
particular broadcast station is referred to as that station's
`Reception Model Area'.
``(3) Network nonduplication.--The network nonduplication
regulations required under subsection (a) shall allow a
television network station to assert nonduplication rights as
follows:
``(A) If a satellite carrier is retransmitting that
station, or any other television broadcast stations located
in the same local market, to subscribers located in that
station's local market, the television network station may
assert nonduplication rights against the satellite carrier
throughout the area within which that station may assert such
rights under the rules applicable to cable television systems
(47 C.F.R. 76.92).
``(B) If a satellite carrier is not retransmitting any
television broadcast stations located in the television
network station's local market to subscribers located in such
market, the television network station may assert
nonduplication rights against the satellite carrier in the
geographic area that is within such station's Reception Model
Area, but such geographic area shall not extend beyond the
local market of such station.
``(4) Waivers.--A subscriber may request a waiver from
network nonduplication by submitting a request, through such
subscriber's satellite carrier, to the television network
station asserting nonduplication rights. The television
network station shall accept or reject a subscriber's request
for a waiver within 30 days after receipt of the request. The
network nonduplication protection described in paragraph
(3)(B) shall not apply to a subscriber if such station agrees
to the waiver request and files with the satellite carrier a
written waiver with respect to that subscriber allowing the
subscriber to receive satellite retransmission of another
network station affiliated with that same network. The
television network station and the satellite carrier shall
maintain a file available to the public that contains such
waiver requests and the acceptances and rejections
thereof.
``(5) Objective verification.--
``(A) In general.--If a subscriber's request for a waiver
under paragraph (4) is rejected and the subscriber submits to
the subscriber's satellite carrier a request for a test
verifying the subscriber's inability to receive a signal that
meets the Network Nonduplication Signal Standard, the
satellite carrier and the television network station or
stations asserting nonduplication rights with respect to that
subscriber shall select a qualified and independent person to
conduct

[[Page H2314]]

a test in accordance with the provisions of section 73.686(d)
of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor
regulation. Such test shall be conducted within 30 days after
the date the subscriber submits a request for the test. If
the written findings and conclusions of a test conducted in
accordance with the provisions of such section (or any
successor regulation) demonstrate that the subscriber does
not receive a signal that meets or exceeds the Network
Nonduplication Signal Standard, the network nonduplication
rights described in paragraph (3)(B) shall not apply to that
subscriber.
``(B) Designation of testor and allocation of costs.--If
the satellite carrier and the television network station or
stations asserting nonduplication rights are unable to agree
on such a person to conduct the test, the person shall be
designated by an independent and neutral entity designated by
the Commission by rule. Unless the satellite carrier and the
television network station or stations asserting
nonduplication rights otherwise agree, the costs of
conducting the test under this paragraph shall be borne
equally by the satellite carrier and the television network
station or stations asserting nonduplication rights. A
subscriber may not be required to bear any portion of the
cost of such test.
``(6) Recreational vehicle location.--In the case of a
subscriber to a satellite carrier who has installed satellite
reception equipment in a recreational vehicle, and who has
permitted any television network station seeking to assert
network nonduplication rights to verify the motor vehicle
registration, license, and proof of ownership of such
vehicle, the subscriber shall be considered to be outside the
local market and Reception Model Area of such station. For
purposes of this paragraph, the term `recreational vehicle'
does not include any residential manufactured home, as
defined in section 603(6) of the National Manufactured
Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5402(6)).
``(c) Review and Revision of Standards and Model.--
``(1) Ongoing inquiry required.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of the Satellite Competition and
Consumer Protection Act, the Commission shall conduct an
inquiry of the extent to which the Network Nonduplication
Signal Standard, the Network Nonduplication Reception Model,
and the Reception Model Areas of television stations are
adequate to reliably measure the ability of consumers to
receive an acceptable over-the-air television broadcast
signal.
``(2) Data to be considered.--In conducting the inquiry
required by paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider--
``(A) the number of subscribers requesting waivers under
subsection (b)(4), and the number of waivers that are denied;
``(B) the number of subscribers submitting petitions under
subsection (b)(5), and the number of such petitions that are
granted;
``(C) the results of any consumer research study that may
be undertaken to carry out the purposes of this section; and
``(D) the extent to which consumers are not legally
entitled to install broadcast reception devices assumed in
the Commission's standard.
``(3) Report and action.--The Commission shall submit to
the Congress a report on the inquiry required by this
subsection not later than the end of the 2-year period
described in paragraph (1). The Commission shall complete any
actions necessary to revise the Network Nonduplication Signal
Standard, the Network Nonduplication Reception Model, and the
Reception Model Areas of television stations in accordance
with the findings of such inquiry not later than 6 months
after the end of such 2-year period.
``(4) Data submission.--The Commission shall prescribe by
rule the data required to be submitted by television
broadcast stations and by satellite carriers to the
Commission or such designated entity to carry out this
subsection, and the format for submission of such data.''.

SEC. 105. CONSENT OF MEMBERSHIP TO RETRANSMISSION OF PUBLIC
BROADCASTING SERVICE SATELLITE FEED.

Section 396 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
396) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(n) The Public Broadcasting Service shall certify to the
Board on an annual basis that a majority of its membership
supports or does not support the secondary transmission of
the Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed, and provide
notice to each satellite carrier carrying such feed of such
certification.''.

SEC. 106. DEFINITIONS.

Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating--
(A) paragraphs (49) through (52) as paragraphs (52) through
(55), respectively;
(B) paragraphs (39) through (48) as paragraphs (41) through
(50), respectively; and
(C) paragraphs (27) through (38) as paragraph (28) through
(39), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (26) the following new
paragraph:
``(27) Local market.--
``(A) In general.--The term `local market', in the case of
both commercial and noncommercial television broadcast
stations, means the designated market area in which a station
is located, and--
``(i) in the case of a commercial television broadcast
station, all commercial television broadcast stations
licensed to a community within the same designated market
area are within the same local market; and
``(ii) in the case of a noncommercial educational
television broadcast station, the market includes any station
that is licensed to a community within the same designated
market area as the noncommercial educational television
broadcast station.
``(B) County of license.--In addition to the area described
in subparagraph (A), a station's local market includes the
county in which the station's community of license is
located.
``(C) Designated market area.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term `designated market area' means a designated
market area, as determined by Nielsen Media Research and
published in the DMA Market and Demographic Report.'';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (39) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1) of this section) the following new paragraph:
``(40) Satellite carrier.--The term `satellite carrier'
means an entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or
satellite service licensed by the Commission, and operates in
the Fixed-Satellite Service under part 25 of title 47 of the
Code of Federal Regulations or the Direct Broadcast Satellite
Service under part 100 of title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, to establish and operate a channel of
communications for point-to-multipoint distribution of
television station signals, and that owns or leases a
capacity or service on a satellite in order to provide such
point-to-multipoint distribution, except to the extent that
such entity provides such distribution pursuant to tariff
under this Act.''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (50) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1) of this section) the following new paragraph:
``(51) Television network; television network station.--
``(A) Television network.--The term `television network'
means a television network in the United States which offers
an interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15
or more hours per week to at least 25 affiliated broadcast
stations in 10 or more States.
``(B) Television network station.--The term `television
network station' means a television broadcast station that is
owned or operated by, or affiliated with, a television
network.''.

SEC. 107. COMPLETION OF BIENNIAL REGULATORY REVIEW.

Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Commission shall complete the biennial review required by
section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

SEC. 108. RESULT OF LOSS OF NETWORK SERVICE.

Until the Federal Communications Commission issues
regulations under section 712(b)(2) of the Communications Act
of 1934, if a subscriber's network service is terminated as a
result of the provisions of section 119 of title 17, United
States Code, the satellite carrier shall, upon the request of
the subscriber, provide to the subscriber free of charge an
over-the-air television broadcast receiving antenna that will
provide the subscriber with an over-the-air signal of Grade B
intensity for those network stations that were terminated as
a result of such section 119.

SEC. 109. INTERIM PROVISIONS.

Until the Federal Communications Commission issues and
implements regulations under section 712(b)(2) of the
Communications Act of 1934, no subscriber whose household is
located outside the Grade A contour of a network station
shall have his or her satellite service of another network
station affiliated with that same network terminated as a
result of the provisions of section 119 of title 17, United
States Code.

TITLE II--SECONDARY TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE CARRIERS WITHIN LOCAL
MARKETS

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Satellite Copyright
Compulsory License Improvement Act''.

SEC. 202. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS; SECONDARY
TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE CARRIERS WITHIN
LOCAL MARKETS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code,
is amended by adding after section 121 the following new
section:

``Sec. 122. Limitations on exclusive rights; secondary
transmissions by satellite carriers within local markets

``(a) Secondary Transmissions of Television Broadcast
Stations by Satellite Carriers.--A secondary transmission of
a primary transmission of a television broadcast station into
the station's local market shall be subject to statutory
licensing under this section if--
``(1) the secondary transmission is made by a satellite
carrier to the public;
``(2) the satellite carrier is in compliance with the
rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal
Communications Commission governing the carriage of
television broadcast station signals; and
``(3) the satellite carrier makes a direct or indirect
charge for the secondary transmission to--
``(A) each subscriber receiving the secondary transmission;
or
``(B) a distributor that has contracted with the satellite
carrier for direct or indirect delivery of the secondary
transmission to the public.
``(b) Reporting Requirements.--

[[Page H2315]]

``(1) Initial lists.--A satellite carrier that makes
secondary transmissions of a primary transmission made by a
network station under subsection (a) shall, within 90 days
after commencing such secondary transmissions, submit to the
network that owns or is affiliated with the network station a
list identifying (by name in alphabetical order and street
address, including county and zip code) all subscribers to
which the satellite carrier currently makes secondary
transmissions of that primary transmission pursuant to this
section.
``(2) Subsequent lists.--After the list is submitted under
paragraph (1), the satellite carrier shall, on the 15th of
each month, submit to the network a list identifying (by name
in alphabetical order and street address, including county
and zip code) any subscribers who have been added or dropped
as subscribers since the last submission under this
subsection.
``(3) Use of subscriber information.--Subscriber
information submitted by a satellite carrier under this
subsection may be used only for the purposes of monitoring
compliance by the satellite carrier with this section.
``(4) Requirements of stations.--The submission
requirements of this subsection shall apply to a satellite
carrier only if the network to which the submissions are to
be made places on file with the Register of Copyrights a
document identifying the name and address of the person to
whom such submissions are to be made. The Register shall
maintain for public inspection a file of all such documents.
``(c) No Royalty Fee Required.--A satellite carrier whose
secondary transmissions are subject to statutory licensing
under subsection (a) shall have no royalty obligation for
such secondary transmissions.
``(d) Noncompliance With Reporting and Regulatory
Requirements.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the willful or
repeated secondary transmission to the public by a satellite
carrier into the local market of a television broadcast
station of a primary transmission made by that television
broadcast station and embodying a performance or display of a
work is actionable as an act of infringement under section
501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided under
sections 502 through 506 and 509, if the satellite carrier
has not complied with the reporting requirements of
subsection (b) or with the rules, regulations, and
authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission
concerning the carriage of television broadcast signals.
``(e) Willful Alterations.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
the secondary transmission to the public by a satellite
carrier into the local market of a television broadcast
station of a primary transmission made by that television
broadcast station and embodying a performance or display of a
work is actionable as an act of infringement under section
501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by
sections 502 through 506 and sections 509 and 510, if the
content of the particular program in which the performance or
display is embodied, or any commercial advertising or station
announcement transmitted by the primary transmitter during,
or immediately before or after, the transmission of such
program, is in any way willfully altered by the satellite
carrier through changes, deletions, or additions, or is
combined with programming from any other broadcast signal.
``(f) Violation of Territorial Restrictions on Statutory
License for Television Broadcast Stations.--
``(1) Individual violations.--The willful or repeated
secondary transmission to the public by a satellite carrier
of a primary transmission made by a television broadcast
station and embodying a performance or display of a work to a
subscriber who does not reside in that station's local
market, and is not subject to statutory licensing under
section 119, or a private licensing agreement, is actionable
as an act of infringement under section 501 and is fully
subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506
and 509, except that--
``(A) no damages shall be awarded for such act of
infringement if the satellite carrier took corrective action
by promptly withdrawing service from the ineligible
subscriber; and
``(B) any statutory damages shall not exceed $5 for such
subscriber for each month during which the violation
occurred.
``(2) Pattern of violations.--If a satellite carrier
engages in a willful or repeated pattern or practice of
secondarily transmitting to the public a primary transmission
made by a television broadcast station and embodying a
performance or display of a work to subscribers who do not
reside in that station's local market, and are not subject to
statutory licensing under section 119, then in addition to
the remedies under paragraph (1)--
``(A) if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a
substantially nationwide basis, the court shall order a
permanent injunction barring the secondary transmission by
the satellite carrier of the primary transmissions of that
television broadcast station (and if such television
broadcast station is a network station, all other television
broadcast stations affiliated with such network), and the
court may order statutory damages not exceeding $250,000 for
each 6-month period during which the pattern or practice was
carried out; and
``(B) if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a
local or regional basis with respect to more than one
television broadcast station (and if such television
broadcast station is a network station, all other television
broadcast stations affiliated with such network), the court
shall order a permanent injunction barring the secondary
transmission in that locality or region by the satellite
carrier of the primary transmissions of any television
broadcast station, and the court may order statutory damages
not exceeding $250,000 for each 6-month period during which
the pattern or practice was carried out.
``(g) Burden of Proof.--In any action brought under
subsection (d), (e), or (f), the satellite carrier shall have
the burden of proving that its secondary transmission of a
primary transmission by a television broadcast station is
made only to subscribers located within that station's local
market or subscribers being served in compliance with section
119.
``(h) Geographic Limitations on Secondary Transmissions.--
The statutory license created by this section shall apply to
secondary transmissions to locations in the United States,
and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United
States.
``(i) Exclusivity With Respect to Secondary Transmissions
of Broadcast Stations by Satellite to Members of the
Public.--No provision of section 111 or any other law (other
than this section and section 119) shall be construed to
contain any authorization, exemption, or license through
which secondary transmissions by satellite carriers of
programming contained in a primary transmission made by a
television broadcast station may be made without obtaining
the consent of the copyright owner.
``(j) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) Distributor.--The term `distributor' means an entity
which contracts to distribute secondary transmissions from a
satellite carrier and, either as a single channel or in a
package with other programming, provides the secondary
transmission either directly to individual subscribers or
indirectly through other program distribution entities.
``(2) Local market.--The `local market' of a television
broadcast station has the meaning given that term under
section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934.
``(3) Network station; satellite carrier; secondary
transmission.--The terms `network station', `satellite
carrier' and `secondary transmission' have the meanings given
such terms under section 119(d).
``(4) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber' means a person
that receives a secondary transmission service by means of a
secondary transmission from a satellite and pays a fee for
the service, directly or indirectly, to the satellite carrier
or to a distributor.
``(5) Television broadcast station.--The term `television
broadcast station' means an over-the-air, commercial or
noncommercial television broadcast station licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission under subpart E of part 73
of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations.''.
(b) Infringement of Copyright.--Section 501 of title 17,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f) With respect to any secondary transmission that is
made by a satellite carrier of a primary transmission
embodying the performance or display of a work and is
actionable as an act of infringement under section 122, a
television broadcast station holding a copyright or other
license to transmit or perform the same version of that work
shall, for purposes of subsection (b) of this section, be
treated as a legal or beneficial owner if such secondary
transmission occurs within the local market of that
station.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of
sections for chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code, is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 121 the
following:

``122. Limitations on exclusive rights; secondary transmissions by
satellite carriers within local market.''.

SEC. 203. EXTENSION OF EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 119 OF
TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE.

Section 4(a) of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 (17
U.S.C. 119 note; Public Law 103-369; 108 Stat. 3481) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting
``December 31, 2004''.

SEC. 204. COMPUTATION OF ROYALTY FEES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS.

Section 119(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Reduction.--
``(A) Superstation.--The rate of the royalty fee in effect
on January 1, 1998, payable in each case under subsection
(b)(1)(B)(i) shall be reduced by 30 percent.
``(B) Network.--The rate of the royalty fee in effect on
January 1, 1998, payable under subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii) shall
be reduced by 45 percent.
``(5) Public broadcasting service as agent.--For purposes
of section 802, with respect to royalty fees paid by
satellite carriers for retransmitting the Public Broadcasting
Service satellite feed, the Public Broadcasting Service shall
be the agent for all public television copyright claimants
and all Public Broadcasting Service member stations.''.

[[Page H2316]]

SEC. 205. PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE SATELLITE FEED;
DEFINITIONS.

(a) Secondary Transmissions.--Section 119(a)(1) of title
17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting ``(1)
Superstations and pbs satellite feed.--'';
(2) by inserting ``or by the Public Broadcasting Service
satellite feed'' after ``superstation''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of
the Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed, subsequent
to--
``(A) the date when a majority of subscribers to satellite
carriers are able to receive the signal of at least one
noncommercial educational television broadcast station from
their satellite carrier within such stations' local market,
or
``(B) 2 years after the effective date of the Satellite
Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act,

whichever is earlier, the statutory license created by this
section shall be conditioned on certification of support
pursuant to section 396(n) of the Communications Act of
1934.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 119(d) of title 17, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Public broadcasting service satellite feed.--The
term `Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed' means the
national satellite feed distributed by the Public
Broadcasting Service consisting of educational and
informational programming intended for private home viewing,
to which the Public Broadcasting Service holds national
terrestrial broadcast rights.
``(13) Local market.--The term `local market' has the
meaning given that term in section 122(j)(2).
``(14) Television broadcast station.--The term `television
broadcast station' has the meaning given that term in section
122(j)(5).''.

SEC. 206. DISTANT SIGNAL RETRANSMISSIONS.

Section 119 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(6)'' and inserting
``(5)'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking
``(2) Network stations.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to the provisions of
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph and paragraphs
(3), (4), (5), and (6)''
and inserting
``(2) Network stations.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to the provisions of
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph and paragraphs (3), (4),
and (5)''; and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating
subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(2)(C)'' and inserting
``(2)(B)''; and
(D) by striking paragraphs (5), (8), (9), and (10) and
redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (5) and
(6), respectively; and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (10) and
(11).

SEC. 207. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
REGULATIONS.

Section 119(a) of title 17, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the satellite carrier
is in compliance with the rules, regulations, or
authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission
governing the carriage of television broadcast station
signals,'' after ``satellite carrier to the public for
private home viewing,'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``the satellite carrier
is in compliance with the rules, regulations, or
authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission
governing the carriage of television broadcast station
signals,'' after ``satellite carrier to the public for
private home viewing,''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) Statutory license contingent on compliance with fcc
rules and remedial steps.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the willful or repeated secondary
transmission to the public by a satellite carrier of a
primary transmission made by a broadcast station licensed by
the Federal Communications Commission is actionable as an act
of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to
the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509,
if, at the time of such transmission, the satellite carrier
is not in compliance with the rules, regulations, and
authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission
concerning the carriage of television broadcast station
signals.''.

SEC. 208. STUDY ON TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MUST-
CARRY ON DELIVERY OF LOCAL SIGNALS.

Not later than July 1, 2000, the Register of Copyrights and
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information shall submit to the Congress a joint report that
sets forth in detail their findings and conclusions with
respect to the following:
(1) The availability of local television broadcast signals
in small and rural markets as part of a service that competes
with, or supplements, video programming containing
copyrighted material delivered by satellite carriers or cable
operators.
(2) The technical feasibility of imposing the requirements
of section 338 of the Communications Act of 1934 on satellite
carriers that deliver local broadcast station signals
containing copyrighted material pursuant to section 122 of
title 17, United States Code, and the technical and economic
impact of section 338 of the Communications Act of 1934 on
the ability of satellite carriers to serve multiple
television markets with retransmission of local television
broadcast stations, with particular consideration given to
the ability to serve television markets other than the 100
largest television markets in the United States (as
determined by the Nielson Media Research and published in the
DMA market and Demographic Report).
(3) The technological capability of dual satellite dish
technology to receive effectively over-the-air broadcast
transmissions containing copyrighted material from the local
market, the availability of such capability in small and
rural markets, and the affordability of such capability.
(4) The technological capability (including interference),
availability, and affordability of wireless cable (or
terrestrial wireless) delivery of local broadcast station
signals containing copyrighted material pursuant to section
111 of title 17, United States Code, including the
feasibility and desirability of the expedited licensing of
such competitive wireless technologies for rural and small
markets.
(5) The technological capability, availability, and
affordability of a broadcast-only basic tier of cable
service.

SEC. 209. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title and the amendments made by this title shall take
effect on July 1, 1999, except that section 208 and the
amendments made by section 205 shall take effect on the date
of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, both the Committee on Commerce and the
Committee on the Judiciary have shared jurisdiction over H.R. 1554, the
Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act. I would
like to commend both committees for their fine work that they did in
crafting this important consumer protection measure.
I especially want to commend the committee and subcommittee chairmen
who worked out this compromise, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman
Bliley) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and
subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) each
control 10 minutes of debate on this motion, and I further ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) control 10 minutes each
on this motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) each will control 10 minutes for the majority,
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 10 minutes for the
minority.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, oftentimes we come to the Floor of the House of
Representatives and discuss legislation whose impact on our
constituents is somewhat nebulous and uncertain. Today is not one of
those days. H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and
Consumer Protection Act of 1999, will have a beneficial effect on the
citizens of this country, whether they are subscribers to satellite
television or not.
We have all been concerned about the lack of competition in the
multichannel television industry and what that means in terms of prices
and services to our constituents. I have received numerous letters and
calls from my constituents distressed over their satellite service.
Many customers leave the store complaining that they cannot obtain
their local stations through satellite service. Others feel betrayed
when they have their distant network service cut off, having been sold
an illegal package from the outset. Still others may have been outraged
at the cost they pay for the distant network signals.
The time has come to address these concerns and pass legislation
which makes the satellite industry more competitive with cable
television. With

[[Page H2317]]

competition comes better services at lower prices, which makes our
constituents the real winners.
With this competition in mind, the legislation before us makes the
following changes to the Satellite Home Viewers Act. It reauthorizes
the satellite copyright compulsory license for 5 years. It allows new
satellite customers who have received a network signal from a cable
system within the past 3 months to sign up immediately for satellite
services for those signals. This is not allowed today.
It provides a discount for the copyright fees paid by the satellite
carriers. It allows satellite carriers to retransmit a local television
station to households within that station's local market, just like
cable does. It allows satellite carriers to rebroadcast a national
signal of the Public Broadcasting Service.
Finally, it empowers the FCC to conduct a rulemaking to determine
appropriate standards for satellite carriers concerning retransmission
consent, network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports
blackouts.
The manager's amendment makes one correction to the introduced
version of the bill. Language in section 206 of the bill addressing
distant signal transmission has been omitted to reflect the clear
removal of the unserved household definition in title 17, in favor of
the network nonduplication provisions in title 47.
Additionally, I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Bliley) for his assurance that he will work with us to assure
a provision concerning the linking of the section 122 license to the
must-carry provisions of the bill when it is adopted in conference.
The legislation before us today is a balanced approach. We have spent
the better part of 3 years working with representatives of the
broadcast, copyright, satellite, and cable industries fashioning
legislation which is ultimately best for our constituents.
The legislation before us today is not perfect, not unlike most
pieces of legislation, but it is a carefully balanced compromise. It
removes many of the obstacles standing in the way of true competition,
yet does not reward those in the satellite industry for their obvious
illegal activities concerning distant network signals. The real
winners, therefore, are our constituents.
I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the ranking member, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), as well as the subcommittee ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for their support
and leadership throughout this process.
I also want to recognize the contributions of the leadership of the
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley); the ranking member, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who worked with us
tirelessly to bring this to the Floor. I urge all Members to support
this constituent-friendly legislation.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the rivalry between the House
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce. It is a
healthy rivalry, nurtured by jurisdiction.
Some accuse those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary of overly
protecting and promoting good legislative issues relating to copyright,
while others accuse those on the Committee on Commerce of overly
protecting and promoting good legislative issues as it relates to
telecommunications.
To these charges I respond, probably guilty as charged. Jurisdiction
should be warmly embraced by the appropriate committees. Jurisdiction,
conversely, should not be casually discarded by these same committees.
The jurisdictional issues do give rise to rivalry from time to time.
Rivalry on occasion may be the bad news. The good news is this first
legislative step that we are taking today, to the ultimately benefit of
hundreds of thousands of our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1554, a bill to make
substantial and important amendments to the Copyright Act and minor and
tangential amendments to the Telecommunications Act. This bill before
us today will afford more American consumers the opportunity to view
copyrighted programming, a laudable goal that I heartily embrace.
At the same time that I endorse the competitive parity that we seek
to achieve in this legislation between the satellite and cable
industries, it is certainly the case that this bill does so at the
expense of certain principles.
First, I have made no secret in the past of my distaste for
compulsory licenses, yet this bill extends the satellite compulsory
license for another 5 years.
On a related point, I strongly supported the approach in the 1994
Satellite Home Viewer Act amendments; namely, that the royalty fees
paid by satellite services for programming obtained under the satellite
compulsory license should be pegged to a fair market value standard.
Yet, H.R. 1554 discounts the rate set by the Copyright Arbitration
Royalty Panel and upheld earlier this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia.
Having said that, I support the bill before us today because I am a
realist; because I believe that, on balance, the bill goes a long way
towards resolving significant competing policy objectives.
Certainly by allowing satellite carriers to transmit a local
television station to households within that station's local market, we
mark major progress towards the goal of enhancing consumer choice
without undermining the financial viability of local broadcasters.
This new local-to-local authority, which legally empowers the
satellite carriers there to do what developing technologies now enable
them to do, is probably the most important feature of this legislation.
It is my hope that ultimately marketplace negotiations between
broadcasters and satellite providers will serve as a mechanism for
establishing the terms for delivery of that local signal.
Surely my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in particular
would concur that private sector agreements are the ideal means for
arriving at such terms. That is why I am particularly heartened that my
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Commerce, has committed to joining us in conference to
clarify that the ``must carry'' provision in section 103 of the bill
should apply only when a satellite carrier avails itself of the
satellite compulsory license.
By the same token, while it is important that multichannel video
programming distributors have the opportunity to negotiate for
retransmission consent, we do not in this bill subject the price or
other terms and conditions of nonexclusive retransmission consent
agreements to FCC scrutiny.
In the 16 years I have served on the Subcommittee on Intellectual
Property, successive new members of the subcommittee have grappled with
a complex web of compulsory licenses and the artificially-set royalty
rates that accompany such licenses, all in the name of giving a leg up
to so-called ``fledgling industries''.
But increasingly on the dais at subcommittee sessions I hear members
asking why. I think that reaction is appropriate, and I encourage it. I
urge my colleagues today to support H.R. 1554 because it provides the
framework for achieving important policy objectives, and moves the
legislative process forward.
But I hope in conference that we all take pains to make sure that our
legislative product enhances and does not detract from the ability of
the marketplace to achieve the principles of competition and consumer
choice we all endorse.
I thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble)
and his exemplary staff, in fact, the entire subcommittee staff, for
their hard work on this bill. I look forward to working together as we
move this bill to enactment.
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 rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R.
1554. I would like to begin by commending my

[[Page H2318]]

counterpart on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble), and recognizing, indeed, that our competition and
yet our cooperation has yielded today a very excellent product.
Yesterday he and I introduced H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright,
Competition, and Consumer Protection Act, which represents the combined
work of the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary. I
want to thank all colleagues on both committees for working with us to
craft a compromise, and in fact to craft such an important bill.
The bill makes substantial reforms to the telecommunications and
copyright law in order to provide the American consumer with a
stronger, more viable competitor to their incumbent cable operator whom
we just completed the deregulatory process for this March. Cable is
deregulated. It needs a competitor. This important legislation will
provide cable with a real competitor.
Mr. Speaker, we saw similar important legislation on the Floor
before. In 1992 my colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I led the fight to the 1992 Cable Act on
an issue called ``program access.'' That fight was to make sure that we
could critically jumpstart the satellite industry.

{time} 1430

Many noted that the program access amendment that was adopted in that
fight revolutionized the video programming industry and launched the
age of satellite direct-to-home video.
Today, the reforms we are considering are no less revolutionary in
impact. Consumers today are pretty savvy. They now expect, indeed
demand, their video programming distributor, whether it is a satellite
company or a cable company or a broadcaster or whoever it might be,
that they offer video programming that is affordable with exceptional
picture quality.
Today, however, satellite carriers face legal and technological
limitations on their ability to do so. These same limitations put
satellite carriers at a competitive disadvantage to incumbent cable
operators.
Even though broadcasters are experiencing a dramatic reduction in
overall audience share compared to just a few years ago, the
overwhelming number of consumers still want their local programming,
the local television station, to provide services to them. Consumer
surveys conclude that the lack of local broadcasting programming is the
number one reason why consumers are unwilling to subscribe to satellite
service and, therefore, limited to a single competitor, the cable
operator.
The bill today we are considering is designed to put satellite
television providers on that competitive equal footing; to provide
compulsory license to retransmit the local broadcast signal in the
satellite package; to make sure that retransmission consent must-carry
rules apply; that nonduplication syndicated exclusivity and sports
blackout protections are all included. In other words, to put satellite
on equal footing with cable so consumers can have a real choice.
Mr. Speaker, this bill combines the telecom provisions of both the
Save our Satellites Act and the Satellite Television Improvement Act.
We, therefore, believe it is a great bill as a combination of our two
committee efforts.
I want to join my colleagues in thanking the hard work of members on
both committees, particularly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley),
the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, for his excellent
leadership; to the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), who has always worked so well with us; to the ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection, my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey), who is such a good partner with me on these important issues;
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary; to the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Courts and Intellectual Property, the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Coble), and to the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) of the
Committee on the Judiciary, for their extraordinary cooperation.
This is bipartisan, bicommittee, and we are going to solve some
awfully important problems for every American in the country who enjoys
video programming in this country. I am pleased to work with my
colleagues on this compromise and join them in supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I first want to begin by invoking the litany of saints who have
worked on this legislation. No easy task. Many indulgences have been
earned by Members and staff alike that can be cashed in, redeemed at a
later point in their life, as evidence of their good faith in working
together for the betterment of the public in general.
I want to thank the chairman of the full Committee on Commerce, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Bliley); the chairman of the full
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry
Hyde); to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the Michigan duo, who worked together
cooperatively on this project; to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and their staffs
as well.
I would also like to recognize my good friend, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). As he pointed out, going back to 1992 we have
tried to move the universe in a way, first, where the 18-inch dish
satellite industry would be made possible. It was not before 1992,
because this industry did not have access to HBO and Show Time and the
other programming that is necessary to offer real competition to the
incumbent cable monopolies in communities across the country.
If we want these 18-inch dish satellites to move from rural America
and exurban America, the far reaches of suburban American, into
suburban and urban America, so that people buy the dishes and put them
out between the petunias, we have to give them the programming they
want. In most of America they have already got their local TV stations.
They can pick them up on their cable system but they cannot pick them
up on their satellite dishes. They have to take in these national feeds
of CBS, NBC, Fox.
What we do in this legislation, and I think the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) should be congratulated on this, I have worked
with him closely to accomplish the goal, is we make it possible for the
first time for an 18-inch dish satellite owner to get their local TV
stations over their satellite dish. Consumers can pick up their local
channel 4, 5, 7, 25, 38, 68, with their local sports teams over their
satellite dish.
Now, this is in an effort to balance two very important issues,
localism and universal service. On the one hand, we want everyone to
have access to television service, and that is why we were very
flexible in allowing people to pick up over their satellite dishes
these national fees. But as more and more people in the urban areas
disconnected their cable system and bought a satellite dish, that meant
they were disconnecting their local TV stations as well and the
advertising revenues which these local TV stations need.
So here what we try to do is solve the problem using technology,
which means that the local consumer can have universal access to their
local TV stations using a new technology, an 18-inch satellite dish.
Now, that is real progress. And the committees working together, I
think, have formulated a bill which really will work for the overall
betterment of consumers, giving them a competitor to their local cable
system and I think forging a new revolution in technology and consumer
choice in America.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all Members, and I especially
want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, for working
with me on this local-into-local issue, meaning a local TV station gets
fed right back into the local market through their satellite
transmitter, their satellite dish. I think it is going to cause a real
revolution. I thank all involved.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

[[Page H2319]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble) has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
reiterate what the gentleman from California said regarding the staff.
The staff has indeed done exemplary work on this, and I failed to
mention that earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
legislation introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble). This important legislation represents a much-
needed compromise that will enable thousands of folks, many of whom
live in my district, to continue to receive their network signals
through satellite service.
For those who can receive their network signal over the air, this
compromise will ensure that they get the antenna they need to receive a
quality over-the-air signal. Finally, this bill will speed the roll-out
of local-into-local satellite service by requiring a joint study by the
Copyright Office and the Commerce Department on how to best deliver
local-into-local into rural areas.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides a badly needed solution to a
problem that cannot be delayed any longer. I urge my colleagues to
support this important compromise and keep this legislation moving to
provide relief to the hardworking Americans who deserve it.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each of the other three managers have 6
minutes remaining.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a distinguished member of the subcommittee and
a member who has spent a long time working on this issue.
(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 California for yielding me this time. I am pleased to
rise in support of the legislation and I also want to commend the
bipartisan leadership of both the Committee on the Judiciary and
Committee on Commerce and their staffs that have worked effectively in
order to achieve this reform.
Thousands of my constituents and millions of rural residents
throughout the Nation cannot receive an adequate signal from their
local TV station. They typically live in mountainous regions where
their receipt of a good local TV signal is effectively blocked by the
obstructions between their homes and the local TV stations.
In 1988, we enacted the section 119 compulsory license that enables
these residents to receive via satellite the network signals that they
cannot receive from local stations. The legislation that we are
approving today extends that license and creates a better means of
predicting which homes can receive adequate local television signals.
It is my hope that this new standard and this new predictive model
will put to rest the controversy that has long simmered between local
broadcasters on the one hand and the satellite carriers and their
customers on the other over which homes are eligible to receive
satellite-delivered network signals.
The bill achieves another very important objective. It authorizes the
uplink of local stations and the satellite delivery of those stations
back into the market of their origination. This local-into-local
service will enable the satellite industry to become a more viable
competitor to the cable television industry, with Americans receiving
the consequent benefits of market-established rates for multi-channel
video programming. This new service will also increase the ability of
local broadcasters to reach all of the homes within their service
territories.
I am concerned, however, that the business plans of the carriers that
have announced an interest in offering the local-to-local services
extend only to the largest 67 out of 211 local television markets
around the country. Under this plan, most of rural America simply will
not receive the benefit of this local-into-local service.
To address this concern, the bill directs the Copyright Office and
the Department of Commerce to conduct an in-depth study of the
availability of local television signals in rural America. A report to
the Congress with findings and recommendations is directed for the year
2000, and it is my hope that this examination will lead to constructive
steps that, in turn, will assure the ability of more rural residents to
receive high-quality local television signals.
I commend those who have authored this measure. I was pleased to
participate with them both in the Committee on Commerce and the
Committee on the Judiciary as we considered it, and I strongly urge its
passage by the House.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and welcome the chairman and leader of
the full Committee on Commerce.
(Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1554, the Satellite
Copyright, Competition and Consumer Protection Act, as amended.
This bill, as others have said, represents the hard work and
collaboration of the two committees, the Committee on Commerce and the
Committee on the Judiciary, and I would like to express my personal
appreciation to many Members who helped in bringing this legislation to
the floor, including the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) the ranking
member of the full Committee on Commerce; the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection; the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and my
good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Mr. Speaker, this is a significant bill because it will promote
genuine competition in the video programming marketplace. For too long
now consumers have sought competitive choices to their incumbent cable
operators. Consumers today view satellite television as an effective
substitute for incumbent cable system offerings. While satellite
television currently delivers hundreds of channels of high resolution
digital programming, consumers clearly see the lack of local broadcast
programming as a reason not to subscribe. This bill will facilitate
satellite-delivered local broadcast programming and, as such, shift
satellite television into higher gear in its quest to compete with
cable.
The timing of this legislation is particularly important because of
the fact that the cable rate regulation expired on March 31 this year.
I have often said that rate regulation has a sad history, given that
rates continue to go up in spite of rate regulation. This is a better
approach. It is a procompetitive solution to the cable's dominant
market share.
Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank all of my colleagues for their
steadfast support and commitment for enacting this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to suggest to my good friend, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, that
in the future, when we have a difference of opinion between his
subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and
Consumer Protection, that he and I just settle it on the tennis court.

{time} 1445

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The gentleman from
Massachusetts has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the only reason that I seek recognition at this time is
because of an unfortunate omission in my

[[Page H2320]]

original listing of saints that deserve credit and I just want it to be
known that the honorable gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble)
shall be known as ``blessed Howard Coble'' after this proceeding
because of his forbearance and understanding in this entire process.
At the end of the day, this is a very important, high-value public
interest product which is in the well of the House being debated today;
and it is in no small measure because of the work of the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and I just wanted to recognize that
publicly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not express my thanks to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for those generous comments.
I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cannon), a member of the committee.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Satellite Copyright,
Competition, and Consumer Protection Act. The act is important to my
constituents and the people of Utah.
A large number of my constituents cannot receive a clear television
signal in their homes. Many of the rural residents of my district live
in ``B'' grade or ``White'' areas and have long been isolated because
of the geography of the district. They have installed home satellite
dishes so they can receive news, educational, and entertainment
programming that those who live in urban areas take for granted.
Unfortunately, despite available technology, many still do not have
access to local network programming. This means they cannot be informed
about their communities and State without installing an antenna or
other additional equipment, and even then a clear signal is difficult.
Rural residents should have the same convenient access to television
programming as those who live in urban areas.
This bill will allow satellite broadcasters to transmit local
programming to the rural residents of my district and across the
country. Those living in rural areas will finally be able to receive
the same broadcast service as those living in urban areas.
This bill also makes great strides toward increased competition in
the television broadcast signal delivery industry. Satellite carriers
should be allowed to carry the same stations and provide the same
services as cable systems. Increased competition between providers will
mean lower prices and improved service.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1554.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright,
Competition, and Consumer Protection Act. This is legislation which
will stimulate competition, which will make available better service at
better cost to our people.
I commend my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the
chairman of the full committee; the distinguished gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey),
chairman of the subcommittee; our distinguished ranking member; and
their capable staffs for working together in a fashion which they did
to help us achieve enactment of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I note my good friend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) is standing. There is an issue which requires further
clarification, and I would like to engage in a colloquy with my good
friend from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. TAUZIN, I understand that Title I contains telecommunications
provisions in the bill. It provides that a broadcast station cannot
engage in discriminatory practices which prevent multichannel video
programming distributors from obtaining the station's consent to
retransmit its signal. I understand that this provision is intended to
prevent exclusive contracts between a broadcast station and any
particular distributor. Is that correct?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the understanding of the gentleman, as
usual, is correct.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have a further
question of my good friend.
Is this provision also intended to prohibit a broadcast station from
negotiating different terms and conditions, including price terms, with
different distributors?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, no.
The bill goes beyond prohibiting exclusive contracts in only one
respect. In order to prevent refusals by a station to deal with any
particular distributor, the FCC is directed to bar not only exclusive
deals but also any other discriminatory practices, understandings,
arrangements and activities by the station which have the same effect
of preventing any particular distributor from the opportunity to obtain
a retransmission consent arrangement.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, a further question of my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, then is it my understanding and is it correct that a
broadcast station could, for example, negotiate a cash payment from one
video distributor for retransmission consent and reach an agreement
with other distributors operating in the same market that contains
different prices or other terms?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the understanding of the gentleman is
correct. As long as a station does not refuse to deal with any
particular distributor, a station's insistence on different terms and
conditions in retransmission agreements based on marketplace
considerations is not intended to be prohibited by this bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, one further question.
So if a station negotiates in good faith with a distributor, the
failure to reach an agreement with that distributor would not
constitute a discriminatory act that is intended to be barred by this
section?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is again correct.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge enactment of the legislation.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation and
commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) for all their hard work in bringing this pro-competitive bill
before us today.
The matter certainly is a timely one, as many of my rural
constituents have difficulty with the network signals. And this
legislation we are considering lowers copyright fees for distant
network signals, provides for the transition to local-into-local
satellite delivery of local broadcasts and contains other pro-
competitive features.
I am also, Mr. Speaker, concerned that we should, now that we are
passing this pro-competitive bill, make sure that consumers enjoy the
benefits of competition in the market for video services. It is also
vital to the development of competition that will lead the FCC to
proceed with further deregulation of the cable industry by relaxing or
eliminating rules that limit the number of homes that may be passed by
a cable MSO.
The 1992 Cable Act's horizontal ownership limits were imposed in an
era where consumers lacked the kind of choices that they have today. It
is time that the FCC understand that the

[[Page H2321]]

world has changed and makes the appropriate changes as necessary to
provide more competition and at lower cost.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Coble) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
(Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, in December a U.S. District Court decision
in Florida caused thousands of satellite television subscribers
throughout my district up in Washington State to lose network service.
The Federal Communications Commission claims that those subscribers are
located inside an area where they can pick up the signals of their
local broadcast stations with a simple rooftop antenna and do not need
the satellite service.
Not necessarily true. In Washington State we have mountains, large
trees and other obstacles that can block the broadcast signals. My
constituents depend on satellite service for local news, weather, and
local emergency reporting. That is why I commend the sponsors today on
H.R. 1554.
This bill will provide relief for satellite customers by allowing
satellite companies to broadcast local stations into local markets.
Further, it will direct the FCC to develop a new method for determining
television signaling intensity and impose a moratorium on the planned
shutoffs.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) ranking member of the full
committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 3 minutes.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me the time.
My colleagues, the reason we can bring a bill like this, of this
complexity, under the suspension rules is because of the good work of
our staffs and of our colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman) the ranking member, and the other committee and
its leadership all work together quite well. And I also want to
compliment the members of the staff that did this, as well.
Obviously, there were many complexities. I am pleased that the way
things have worked out. We are revising the satellite compulsory
license law to allow companies to retransmit local news, weather,
sports, safety announcements. In other words, local-to-local service
can now be had and will allow the satellite industry, in addition, to
compete with cable to get better services, more choices and lower rates
for consumers.
We also carry the famous ``must carry'' provision, and that will
ensure that satellite companies that choose local-to-local service will
give their customers all and not just some of the local channels,
thereby broadening the choice consumers have in programming.
As we approach the millennium and technology permits satellite and
cable companies to deliver high-quality television programming, it is
important that we in Congress continue to monitor these industries and
make the appropriate reforms to make the playing field level and
competitive and to keep the marketplace dynamic.
I can assure my colleagues that the Committee on the Judiciary is
eager to continue its responsibilities in the area.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 70 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) who is actually a contributor to our committee's
work.
(Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, as a Member who represents what is I
consider the most rural district in the entire Congress, which is the
whole State of Wyoming, I rise in support of H.R. 1554.
I do appreciate that the chairmen of the committees have made
concessions on this rural issue. But there are, however, two measures
that I think need to be addressed to make sure that adequate service is
available to rural satellite viewers.
First of all, I believe that until the FCC adopts a comprehensive
solution or replaces or modifies the 1950 standard for determining
whether a household can receive an acceptable over-the-air picture,
both DBS and C-band subscribers should be allowed to continue to
receive distant network broadcast signals in lieu of the local signal.
The second issue that I am particularly interested in has to do with
providing local-to-local service to rural America. Giving the satellite
industry the right to retransmit local network signals into local areas
will provide competition to cable systems and drive costs down for both
cable and satellite service.
A significant number of constituents that I have do not have the
choice between satellite and cable because the distances between homes
and urban centers are not possible for cable.
So what I would like us to do is look very strongly into ensuring
that we give satellite companies incentives rather than Federal
mandates for providing local-to-local service.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank all of the Members
who have involved themselves with their staffs in this issue, and
everyone else in America who has written and called on this very
important issue of their access to local television stations over their
satellite.

{time} 1500

This is a revolution that we are unleashing in today's legislation.
We are going to make it possible for the first time for people to buy
an 18-inch satellite dish and get their local TV stations over the
dish. They will be able to disconnect their local cable company. For
the first time they will have some other place to go. It will not just
be out in rural America or in the deep suburbs with big backyards. It
is going to be in urban America. This is going to be in house after
house. In the most densely populated parts of our country, people are
going to be able now to buy satellite dishes, 18-inch dishes, and know
they get their local TV stations as well. I cannot imagine a bigger
moment in the history of this video revolution than what we are doing
here today.
I hope that when we get done with this legislative process and the
President signing the bill, that the provisions we have included here
on the House side are included, because the promise of today is
something that is going to revolutionize the way in which America, and
urban America especially, has access to all of the video programming
being produced nationally and at a local television station level
across our country. Again I want to thank all of the Members.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This has been a special day. To all, I am appreciative, both on this
floor and from all corners of this country. To close out, Mr. Speaker,
to sum up, we are here because we are giving a break to the satellite
carriers in order to help them compete. Under this bill these carriers
no longer have to clear permission from copyright owners to retransmit
their programming. They can retransmit without permission by availing
themselves of a compulsory government license.
Normally, Mr. Speaker, I am averse to government license. But in this
case to encourage competition, I endorse a limited license. In closing,
I want to say that I join with the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) in hoping for a return to the free market for copyright and a
repeal of all these licenses in the future after competition has been
assured.
Again, I thank all parties who have contributed, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr), himself a leader in the fight to get local
television into satellite programming.
(Mr. BURR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)

[[Page H2322]]

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank
my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the
Judiciary for bringing this legislation to the floor. My interest in
DBS technology began really last August when I first introduced a
local-to-local bill. It appeared to me then as it does now that once
the new technologies designed to facilitate transmission of local TV
signals to their local markets are up and running, satellite television
will provide a swift and viable competition to cable television. This
in turn will allow customers to take full advantage of the open
multichannel video programming market that is being created with cable
deregulation. The bill we have before us today will not only bring this
much needed competition to the market but it will alleviate some of the
problems satellite TV viewers are experiencing as a result of the court
decisions.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey),
the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble). I am truly excited about the possibilities that
can happen from this piece of legislation. This is truly a piece of
legislation written with the American people in mind.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I commend the Speaker pro tempore, first of all, whom I know wanted
to speak from the House floor in support of this legislation for his
handling of this matter today. I again thank the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble) for his excellent cooperation as he has always
exhibited with me and the members of our subcommittee and to thank the
staff. We sometimes fail to do that. I want to make sure that both the
minority staff and the majority staff on both committees are
highlighted today because so much of this technical work is their hard
work and product. I want to thank them for it. Finally, to join the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in his exhortation that this
indeed is a revolutionary moment in video programming. I want to thank
all of my colleagues for coming together to make this happen, not for
the satellite or cable companies but for the consumers of America
because this truly is one of the best consumer protection bills we have
passed in a good long while.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with an unfortunate and
false choice between two evils. The false choice is whether the
government should ban voluntary exchange or regulate it--as though
these were the only two options. More specifically, today's choice is
whether government should continue to maintain its ban on satellite
provision of network programming to television consumers or replace
that ban by expanding an anti-market, anti-consumer regulatory regime
to the entire satellite television industry.
H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer
Protection Act of 1999, the bill before us today, repeals the strict
prohibition of local network programming via satellite to local
subscribers BUT in so doing is chock full of private sector mandates
and bureaucracy expanding provisions. H.R. 1554, for example, requires
Satellite carriers to divulge to networks lists of subscribers, expands
the current arbitrary, anti-market, government royalty scheme to
network broadcast programming, undermines existing contracts between
cable companies and network program owners, violates freedom of
contract principles, imposes anti-consumer ``must-carry'' regulations
upon satellite service providers, creates new authority for the FCC to
``re-map the country'' and further empowers the National
Telecommunications Information administration (NTIA) to ``study the
impact'' of this very legislation on rural and small TV markets.
This bill's title includes the word ``competition'' but ignores the
market processes' inherent and fundamental cornerstones of property
rights (to include intellectual property rights) and voluntary exchange
unfettered by government technocrats. Instead, we have a so-called
marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable
companies are granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local
level. Congresses have previously intervened to invalidate exclusive
dealings contracts between private parties (cable service providers and
program creators), and have most recently assumed the role of price
setter--determining prices at which program suppliers must make their
programs available to satellite programing service providers under the
``compulsory license.''
Unfortunately, this bill expands the government's role to set the so-
called just price for satellite programming. This, of course, is
inherently impossible outside the market process of voluntary exchange
and has, not surprisingly, resulted instead in ``competition'' among
service providers for government favor rather than consumer-benefiting
competition inherent to the genuine market.
While it is within the Constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress
to ``promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries,'' operating a clearinghouse for
the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting
a just price or instilling competition seems not to be an economically
prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This can
only be achieved within the market process itself.
I introduced what I believe is the most pro-consumer, competition-
friendly legislation to address the current government barrier to
competition in television program provision. My bill, the Television
Consumer Freedom Act, would repeal federal regulations which interfere
with consumers' ability to avail themselves of desired television
programming. It repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite
service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for just
the programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is
now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs
via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This
market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to
negotiations that should currently be taking place between network
program owners and satellite service providers. Additionally, rather
than imposing the burdensome and anti-consumer ``must-carry''
regulations on satellite service providers to ``keep the playing field
level,'' my bill allows bona fide competition by repealing the must-
carry from the already over-regulated cable industry.
Genuine competition is a market process and, in a world of scarce
resources, it alone best protects the consumer. It is unfortunate that
this bill ignores that option. It is also unfortunate that our only
choice with H.R. 1554 is to trade one form of government intervention
for another--``ban voluntarily exchange or bureaucratically regulate
it?'' Unfortunate, indeed.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of
H.R. 1554, the ``Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer
Protection Act.'' This bill is the first step towards ensuring
competition among the different telecommunications providers--including
satellite, cable, and broadcasting. Under this bill, satellite
companies are no longer banned from retransmitting local network
signals back into local markets, providing customers with local news,
sports, and entertainment.
Unfortunately, due to cost and a lack of technology, satellite
companies are prevented from offering local service or spot beaming
signals to all television markets. Assuming the satellite companies
will move into the largest and most lucrative markets, rural areas will
not benefit from this bill, and will not be able to receive their local
networks via their satellite. With few options, satellite customers who
live in rural areas will be forced to rely on T.V. top or giant roof
top antennas to receive their local programming from the broadcast
stations. Though these antennas receive quality signals for some
people, I am very concerned about those individuals who live outside of
a Grade ``A'' area or are prevented from receiving their signal for
some other reason. Under this bill, this issue is partially addressed
by instructing the FCC to determine whether new regulations are needed
to gage signal strength. This bill also provides for a speedy review
for individuals who contest that they cannot receive an adequate signal
by antenna. However, while this bill does establish a moratorium on
further signal shut-offs until December 31st of this year, I am
concerned about the thousands of individuals in my District who are
presently without broadcast television. This bill does not address
their plight. While I appreciate the hard work that both the Judiciary
and Commerce Committees have done, it is my hope that we can work
together with the Senate to devise an equitable solution that will
assist these consumer.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1554, the
Satellite Home Viewer Act. Satellite television subscribers should have
the same rights as cable subscribers when it comes to receiving network
broadcast signals.
The Satellite Home Viewer Act will give satellite carriers the right
to air local television broadcasts. This is very important to my
district, where many citizens have to revert to purchasing a satellite
dish for better reception. Without H.R. 1554, many still can't water
their local news. They should be allowed to receive local television
signals with a dish, just like they can with cable.
H.R. 1554 will provide a discount on copyright fees for network
programming. This levels the playing field between satellite and

[[Page H2323]]

cable industries, in turn promoting competition and lowering the prices
for consumers.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1554. It is time we open up the
way for true cable competition and remove anti-customer barriers.
Consumers have a right to greater choice of quality television
programming.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises to support H.R. 1554,
the Satellite Copyright, Competition and Consumer Protection Act, but
that support is accompanied by reservations.
There are many good reasons to support this bill. It provides a way
for satellite companies to carry local stations in rural areas and
metropolitan areas. It requires satellite companies to accept the must
carry provisions. It will expedite the waiver process for customers who
do not receive local signals. And, it will encourage the increased
competition that is necessary for all Americans to more fully benefit
from the revolution in telecommunications.
This Member has heard from many Nebraskans who are frustrated about
the restrictions in the Satellite Home Viewer Act that compel satellite
carriers to stop transmitting network signals to their customers. We
must provide a way for residents of rural areas to receive network
satellite service. At present, satellites offer the best opportunity
for increased competition with cable television systems.
Unfortunately, this bill includes a provision that will further an
injustice that cable customers in some of our small, rural communities
are already experiencing. For years, because of the Federal
Communications Commission's enforcement of syndicated exclusivity and
non-duplication rules, cable customers in certain small communities
located in some state border areas have not been able to watch
television programs produced by stations in their own state. Their
cable systems are prohibited from transmitting the news and other
programming that relates to the customer's own state. This bill applies
those same restrictions to satellite companies, and makes no provision
or exception for those small communities near state borders that are
``blacked out'' of their own state's news and sports.
In 1992, when the 102nd Congress considered the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act, this Member supported an
amendment introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle)
that would have provided an exception for those few, but very
important, communities.That amendment was withdrawn when the then-
Chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee agreed to revisit the
issue. Now, almost seven years later, those communities have not seen
relief, and we are acting on legislation that will perpetuate their
problem.
We must resolve the current satellite problems and this measure is
intended to do that. But, those state-border communities have yet to
see their problem resolved, and this Member assures them that he is
preparing a bill that addresses that problem.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for this
legislation and to say it is long overdue. I have received hundreds of
calls and letters from my constituents who are irate that they have
lost their CBS and FOX stations from their satellites. It amazes me
that the two industries involved could not resolve this issue between
themselves. Both of them provide a service to consumers and they seem
to have forgotten how to treat their customers.
The recent decision to remove network signals from at least 700,000
homes was poor judgment on the part of the industries involved and I
believe they will suffer the anger of the many rural consumers who were
victims of the battle between the broadcasters and satellite providers.
No one has taken into consideration the thousands of rural households
that simply cannot receive signals from their local networks with an
antenna. It is not reasonable to expect rural consumers to settle for
poor reception based on an arcane definition of who can and cannot
receive local signals, when they are willing to pay extra for a better
quality picture from their satellite provider.
That is why I believe that this legislation is a step in the right
direction. The provisions that allow satellites to provide local
network signals will protect local networks and allow rural consumers
to receive quality signals. I am also happy to see a provision that
requires the FCC to develop a new standard for determining whether a TV
viewer can receive local station signals, and requires the satellite
providers and broadcasters to bear the cost of on-site tests of viewer
reception quality.
When I am disappointed that network signals will not be returned to
the households which lost them, I do support this bill and hope that
the Senate will take action similar legislation so that we can get
network signals back to my constituents.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Satellite
Home Viewer Act. Many people deserve credit for their efforts in
getting this bill to the House floor, especially my chairman in the
House Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mr. Tauzin, and the ranking
Member in the Subcommittee, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Coble also deserves many thanks for his work producing this bill.
As our colleagues in the House know, all of our constituents who
subscribe to satellite services rightfully expert to receive their
local television programming one way or another through their satellite
carrier. Until today, our constituents have not had the ability to do
so because satellite providers have not had the proper copyright
authority to retransmit those signals.
The heart of this legislation gives the satellite provider the legal
authority to carry the local television signals directly into consumers
homes.
The other focus point of this legislation is how we manage the
transition from today, where no consumers receive their local signals,
to when they can. As our colleagues are aware, many consumers had been
receiving network channels from television markets in other areas of
the country because they could not receive their local signals.
Unfortunately, many if not most were receiving those signals
illegally because they were within the reach of receiving an over-the-
air signal from their local stations. Under current law, as was upheld
in federal court, satellite customers can only receive a distant
network signals if they reside outside a Grade B signal area for local
markets or if they cannot receive a local signal because of
topographical barriers.
But frankly, in our ever evolving high-tech world, being limited to
yesterday's television technology is an anachronistic means of
entertainment. The average viewer expects and demands to receive the
clearest television picture and audio available. Over-the-air reception
does not meet those expectations. That is why this legislation is
critical for Americans subscribing to satellite programming.
I have two concerns remaining with the legislation, one that is dealt
with and one that will hopefully be dealt with.
The first: If satellite providers started providing local signals
today to consumers, they would not be close to being able to deliver
every local channel in every local market. In fact, I believe that
providers with their current satellite capacity would be able to
deliver all the local channels in just a small handful of markets.
These providers would basically have to pick and choose which local
markets to serve, which will likely result in rural consumers not being
able to receive their local channels.
This legislation tries to ease this carriage burden by granting
satellite carriers a transition period until January 1, 2002 to comply
with must-carry rules, which requires providers to carry all local
channels in markets they choose to delivery local signals.
I think must-carry is a fair burden for satellite providers because
cable operators have to exist under the same conditions. My fear stems
from a worry that come January 1, 2002, if these satellite providers
continue to lack the capacity to serve every market in the country,
they will choose to ignore the smaller and more rural television
markets, such as my sixth congressional district in North Central
Florida.
With the efforts of Chairman Tauzin, this legislation includes a
requirement that the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary
of Commerce for Communications and Information shall conduct a study
and report to Congress no later than July 1, 2000 primarily whether
small and rural markets are being effectively served by their local
signals.
I thank Mr. Tauzin for including this study language and requiring
them to report back to Congress by July 1 of next year, which will
hopefully allow us time to make any necessary changes to aid consumers
in these type of markets.
My final concern is in regard to satellite consumers who own C-Band
dishes. A C-Band dish is the big satellite dishes we often see in rural
areas. These were the first consumer satellite dishes on the market.
Unfortunately, these dish owners are not granted a similar moratorium
date that will be given to other satellite consumers to have until the
end of this year before they lose their distant network signals.
There are over 70,000 C-Band owners in Florida alone and over a
million nationwide. I hope as we move to Conference or before the bill
returns to the House, this anomaly is corrected to allow an even
moratorium for all satellite consumers.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of
this bill, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer
Protection Act of 1999, which redefines the role of part of our
telecommunications industry.
This bill is an important one for several reasons. First, because it
provides the rules and regulations that will allow satellite service
providers, like Prime Star and Direct TV, to compete for television
services in areas that have

[[Page H2324]]

until now, been traditionally dominated by cable companies.
This is because up until now, satellite service providers, unlike
their land-based competitors, have not be allowed to rebroadcast local
television signals. The result of this inequity has seriously
undermined the ability of dish providers to provide meaningful
competition to cable, notwithstanding the development of small dish-
based systems that are more affordable than ever before. This inequity
has only been further highlighted by cable companies, who in the spirit
of American advertising, have waged a successful marketing war against
satellite-based systems by point out the fact that even those customers
with the finest satellite systems are still destined to be encumbered
by old-fashioned ``rabbit ear'' antennas if they wanted to receive
their regular local programming.
This bill rectifies this situation, by finally allowing satellite
system providers to provide local television programming to their
customers. This means that my constituents in Houston will be able to
select between at least two services to satisfy their television
needs--something that many of us have looked forward to for a long
time. The fact that we are giving dish-providers the ability to
rebroadcast local signals, however, does not come without additional
responsibility. Under this bill, dish-providers will not be able to
carry only those signals that stand to earn them a great deal of
profit--they must also carry all of those local signals that are
required of the cable companies. After all, this bill was designed in
order to erase inequities, not further them.
Another mechanism in this bill that provides for an equal footing is
the non-discrimination clause, which tells broadcasters that they must
make their signals available for rebroadcast by cable and satellite
companies. This prevents broadcasters from altering the landscape of
competition in their markets by tipping the scales in favor of one side
over the other by allowing them to choose whom will have the rights to
rebroadcast their signals.
Having said that, although the debate on this bill, which came out of
both the Commerce and Judiciary Committees, has been feverish at times,
I believe we have reached an amicable situation to each of the
interested parties involved. Most of all, however, I am convinced that
we are addressing a topic that is vital to the comfortable living of
our constituents. During debate on several of the more controversial
provisions, we have received a great deal of mail from constituents,
both satellite and cable customers, asking us to address this issue in
earnest. I feel that with this bill, I can go back to Houston and
reassure my community that relief is on the way.
I urge each of you to support this legislation, and to support
meaningful competition for our constituents.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity
to thank my colleagues from the Commerce and Judiciary Committees for
dedicating so much of their valuable time to this legislation.
Over the past few months I have received an overwhelming number of
phone calls and letters from constituents who are outraged over the
loss of their television stations. These families live in rural New
York, among the peaks and valleys of the Catskill Mountains. They
turned to the satellite industry to provide them with broadcast signals
because cable service was not an option. Moreover, satellite service
offered them the clear, unobstructed signal they could not receive from
a rooftop antenna. These hard working families do not deserve to lose
the quality of the only service they have the option of enjoying.
As a cosponsor of the original legislation, I support H.R. 1554,
``The Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of
1999.'' I watched the development of this bill closely and I am very
grateful to the Members who have worked together to bring this
legislation to the floor. H.R. 1554 is more than a quick fix; by
focusing on competition rather than regulation, this legislation
addresses the heart and future of this market.
Each year more Americans subscribe to satellite service. However,
these Americans can-not always access their local news, weather, or
community stations. H.R. 1554 brings to the table the same ``must
carry'' requirements that Congress implemented on the cable industry.
Local broadcasting serves a ``public good'' by providing community
programming and local information. If satellite service is to become an
equal competitor in the broadcast market, they must be held to the same
set of standards as their competition.
Moreover, this legislation addresses the discrepancies in the present
``graded contour system,'' which fails to recognize the topography of
certain regions. This system has unfairly prohibited many of my
constituents from continuing to receive certain broadcast signals
because of the location of their home. Thankfully, this legislation
will require the FCC to review and reconstruct this outdated system and
return service to the those who rely on this service.
Once again, I want to thank Chairman Bliley, Chairman Hyde, and all
the members of the Commerce and Judiciary Committees for bringing this
bill to the floor of the House.

General Leave

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R.
1554.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 1554, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________