[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 116 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   STELA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2014

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 22, 2014

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 4572, the 
Satellite Reauthorization Act or ``STELA Act.''
  First, I would like to thank Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Nadler 
for holding two Judiciary Committee hearings in the past year where we 
have examined the laws and related issues relating to satellite 
television codified in Title 17 of the United States Code.
  The relevant part of STELA expires at the end of the year but I am 
sure that those in the industry would have us do something before then, 
preferably before the lame duck session after November.
  I would note the inclusion of a provision in this bill which some 
consumer groups find objectionable because it repeals the integration 
ban which deprives consumers of choice.
  This is from the Energy and Commerce Committee--though hopefully it 
will be worked out before the President signs--because consumers must 
not be deprived of choices.
  And now that the Supreme Court has decided the Aereo case, we have 
another set of variables on the table.
  I mention the Aereo case because it is the seminal case due to its 
timing but it also reminds us of how ephemeral our work can be in this 
Committee and this Congress.
  Back in 1992 and through all of the other reauthorizations of STELA 
and the concurrent surge of innovation from the late 1990s until 
present day--who could have contemplated the existence of an Aereo, 
HULU, Netflix, or Pandora?
  In doing so we are able to take a walk down the memory lane of analog 
and digital television, the role of cable and satellite providers, vis-
a-vis their network partners.
  It is useful to note that in the 18th Congressional District of Texas 
my constituents are able to avail themselves of DISH, Comcast, ATT, and 
even Phonoscope which I believe is one of the oldest in the nation and 
a Houston, Texas company since 1953.
  In looking at these laws, we must note the role of the Copyright 
Office which released a widely-read report on the Satellite Television 
Extension and Localism Act in August 2011 as ordered by the last 
reauthorization, and the GAO report which focused on consumer issues.
  Americans from Houston, Texas, Chicago, New York, the Bay Area, and 
all across this great nation benefit from a broadcast system which 
consists of the laws which undergird the system, buffeted by the policy 
and practices by which transmitters, providers, artists, writers, 
musicians, and other creators of all stripes benefit.
  The system stands on principles of balance and fairness which allow 
for continued innovation while not infringing on the property rights of 
others.
  In my state, I see satellite dishes in urban and rural areas but it 
seems like a higher percentage of rural homes have DISH or DIRECTV than 
in the cities and towns. Is that an accurate observation and if so, 
why?
  What is the justification for a 30-foot outdoor rooftop antenna being 
the standard for measuring whether a home can get a broadcaster over-
the-air signal?
  Who has 30-foot antennas on their rooftops these days? Can folks even 
go out and buy those and install them easily?
  Shouldn't the standard reflect the consumer realities and be changed 
to a regular indoor antenna that can be picked up at most electronics 
stores?
  What are the criteria for a household to be considered ``unserved''? 
Does the current definition of unserved households adequately account 
for those homes that do not receive over-the-air signals?
  This will be the 6th reauthorization of STELA but to my knowledge 
there has never before been a discussion of these blackouts, because 
they simply didn't happen in the past like they do today. We've gone 
from zero blackouts to 12 in 2010 and now 127 in 2013.
  Viewers in my state have experienced their fair share of blackouts 
and I stand with them in saying: we don't like them.
  We must all agree that blackouts must stop.
  The statutory framework for the retransmission of broadcast 
television signals has been based on a distinction between local and 
distant signals.
  The signals of significantly viewed stations and the signals of in-
state, out-of-market stations in the four states that satellite 
operators were allowed to import into orphan counties under the 
exceptions in SHVERA, originate outside the market into which they are 
imported; in that regard, they are distant signals and they have been 
subject to the Section 119 distant signal statutory copyright license.
  Since significantly viewed stations and the ``exception'' stations 
can be presumed to be providing programming of local or state-wide 
interest to counties in particular local markets, arguably that content 
could be viewed as local to the counties into which they are imported 
and should be treated accordingly.
  STELA modified the Copyright Act to treat those signals as local, 
moving the relevant provisions from Section 119 to Section 122.
  If a broadcaster opts to negotiate a retransmission consent 
agreement, cable companies are no longer required to broadcast that 
signal pursuant to the must-carry requirement.
  Furthermore, if negotiations for retransmission consent fail, cable 
companies are not permitted to retransmit the broadcast signals that 
they have not been granted a license to retransmit. This is precisely 
what has happened in the dispute between Time Warner Cable and CBS 
Broadcasting.
  My concern is that when retransmission consent negotiations fail, 
consumers often look to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to 
mediate the dispute. However, the FCC actually has very little 
authority over retransmission consent negotiations.
  The Communications Act requires that programming be offered on a non-
discriminatory basis, and that the negotiations be conducted in good 
faith.
  The FCC has the authority to enforce both of these requirements, but 
does not appear to have the authority to force the companies to reach 
an agreement, or the ability to order the companies to continue to 
provide programming to consumers who have lost access while the dispute 
is being resolved.
  Therefore, as was seen in the debacle that was the TWC-CBS 
negotiation, unless negotiations are not occurring in ``good faith'' 
the FCC has little power over retransmission consent agreements.
  STELA clarified that a significantly viewed signal may only be 
provided in high definition format if the satellite carrier is passing 
through all of the high definition programming of the corresponding 
local station in high definition format as well; if the local station 
is not providing programming in high definition format, then the 
satellite operator is not restricted from providing the significantly 
viewed station's signal in high definition format.
  The United States Copyright Office has proposed that Congress abolish 
Sections 111 and 119 of the Copyright Law, arguing that the statutory 
licensing systems created by these provisions result in lower payments 
to copyright holders than would be made if compensation were left to 
market negotiations.
  According to the Copyright Office, the cable and satellite industries 
no longer are nascent entities in need of government subsidies, have 
substantial market power, and are able to negotiate private agreements 
with copyright owners for programming carried on distant broadcast 
signals.
  Congress must have a role in the broadcasting space but whether that 
is doing away with compulsory licensing or becoming even more involved 
is what needs to be discussed.

                          ____________________