[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10357-S10358]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               INCREASING SATELLITE AND CABLE COMPETITION

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago, I started raising 
serious concerns about the need to increase competition between cable 
and satellite TV providers and the need to allow satellite dish owners 
to receive local network stations. I felt then, and I feel now, that 
the best way to reduce the cable and satellite rate increases and to 
protect satellite dish owners is to have satellite television compete 
on a level playing field with cable.
  I was thus very pleased when, finally, on May 20, the Senate passed a 
bill that I sponsored, without objection, which protects satellite dish 
owners and would offer them more television stations. I worked on this 
bill with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and 
several other Senators.
  The bill would restore satellite TV service to those who lost it, and 
it would prevent thousands of additional cutoffs.
  Also, over time, it would permit satellite carriers to offer many 
more stations to home satellite dish owners. Unfortunately, even though 
the Senate passed the bill on May 20, we have been unable to set up a 
Conference with the other chamber. On June 8, the Senate approved the 
list of Senators--the Conferees--to negotiate the final bill with the 
House of Representatives.
  The August recess is about to start. Thousands of Vermonters, and I 
am one of them, will continue to get minimal TV service because this 
bill was not able to be presented to the President for signature. I 
want to assure Vermonters that I will continue to work to get this bill 
before the President.
  I also have been meeting with satellite company officials 
representing companies that will be able to offer a whole range of 
local stations, movie channels, sports, weather, history, PBS, 
superstations, and the like, to Vermonters via satellite. I want to 
make sure that Vermonters will be offered the full range of TV service 
over satellite once we can negotiate the final bill.
  I am in the same situation as many Vermonters. At my home in 
Middlesex, Vermont, I only receive one local network channel clearly 
with my rooftop antenna.
  I was very worried three years ago that satellite dish owners would 
start losing their ability to receive distant network signals. 
Unfortunately, my fears have come to pass. Many other Members of 
Congress have also been concerned about this issue.
  The Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act, S. 247, which I sponsored 
with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, the 
Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, the ranking member 
of our antitrust subcommittee, Senator Kohl, and the Majority Leader of 
the Senate, Senator Lott, offered the way to promote head-to-head 
competition between cable and satellite providers--and lower rates and 
provide more services for consumers.
  In November of 1997, we held a full Committee hearing on satellite 
issues. I agreed with Chairman Hatch to work together on a bill to try 
to avoid needless cutoffs of satellite TV service while, at the same 
time, working to protect the local affiliate broadcast system and 
increase competition.
  In March of last year we introduced a bill but were unable to get it 
to the President for signature. That version was reported out of the 
Judiciary Committee unanimously on October 1, 1998. That bill, as with 
the bill I am trying to get to the President's desk this year, was also 
designed to permit local TV signals, as opposed to distant out-of-state 
network signals, to be offered to viewers via satellite; to increase 
competition between cable and satellite TV providers; to provide more 
PBS programming by also offering a national feed as well as local 
programming; and to reduce rates charged to consumers.
  In the midst of all these legislative efforts, a federal district 
court judge in Florida found that PrimeTime 24 was offering distant CBS 
and Fox television signals to more than one million households in the 
U.S. in a manner inconsistent with its compulsory license that allows 
them to offer distant network signals. This development further 
complicated the situation.
  Under a preliminary injunction, the satellite service of CBS and Fox 
networks was to be terminated on October

[[Page S10358]]

8, 1998 for thousands of households in Vermont and other states who had 
signed up after March 11, 1997, the date the action was filed.
  I was pleased that we worked together in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee to avoid these immediate cutoffs of satellite TV service in 
Vermont and other states. The parties agreed to request an extension 
which was granted until February 28, 1999. This extension was also 
designed to give the FCC time to address this problem faced by 
satellite dish owners.
  In December, I sent a comment to the FCC and criticized their 
proposals on how to define the ``white area''--the area not included in 
either the Grade A or Grade B signal intensity areas. My view was that 
the FCC proposal would cut off households from receiving distant 
signals based on ``unwarranted assumptions'' in a manner inconsistent 
with the law and the clear intent of the Congress. I complained about 
entire towns in Vermont which were to be inappropriately cut off when 
no one could receive signals over the air.
  The Florida district court filed a final order which also required 
that households signed up for satellite service before March 11, 1997, 
be subject to termination of CBS and Fox distant signals on April 30, 
1999, if they lived in areas where they are likely to receive a grade B 
intensity signal and are unable to get the local CBS or Fox affiliate 
to consent to receipt of the distant signal.
  In the meantime, further Court and other developments have resulted 
in cutoffs of thousands of satellite dish owners. This situation is 
unacceptable, and I will continue to work to fix this problem.

                          ____________________