[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10490-10496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 SATELLITE HOME VIEWERS IMPROVEMENT ACT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 24, S. 247.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 247) to amend title 17, United States Code, to 
     reform the copyright law with respect to satellite 
     retransmissions of broadcast signals, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill 
which had been reported from the Committee

[[Page 10491]]

on the Judiciary with amendments, as follows:
  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown 
in italic.)

                                 S. 247

       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 Home Viewers 
     Improvements Act''.

     SEC. 2. 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 secondary transmission is permissible under the 
     rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal 
     Communications Commission; 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.--
       ``(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 that 
     station a list identifying (by name and street address, 
     including county and zip code) all subscribers to which the 
     satellite carrier currently makes secondary transmissions of 
     that primary transmission.
       ``(2) Subsequent lists.--After the list is submitted under 
     paragraph (1), the satellite carrier shall, on the 15th of 
     each month, submit to the station a list identifying (by name 
     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 station to whom 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 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).
       ``(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, 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.
       ``(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) 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) The term `local market' for a television broadcast 
     station has the meaning given that term under rules, 
     regulations, and authorizations of the Federal Communications 
     Commission relating to carriage of television broadcast 
     signals by satellite carriers.
       ``(3) The terms `network station', `satellite carrier' and 
     `secondary transmission' have the meaning given such terms 
     under section 119(d).
       ``(4) The term `subscriber' means an entity 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) 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) 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.''.

[[Page 10492]]



     SEC. 3. 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. 4. 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 payable 
     in each case under subsection (b)(1)(B)(i) as adjusted by a 
     royalty fee established under paragraph (2) or (3) of this 
     subsection shall be reduced by 30 percent.
       [``(B) Network.--The rate of the royalty fee payable under 
     subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii) as adjusted by a royalty fee 
     established under paragraph (2) or (3) of this subsection 
     shall be reduced by 45 percent.]
       ``(A) Superstation.--The rate of the royalty fee in effect 
     on January 1, 1998 payble 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 susection (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.''.

     [SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       [Section 119(d) of title 17, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       [(1) by striking paragraph (10) and inserting the 
     following:]

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 119(d) of title 17, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (10) and inserting the following:
       ``(10) Unserved household.--The term `unserved household', 
     with respect to a particular television network, means a 
     household that cannot receive, through the use of a 
     conventional outdoor rooftop receiving antenna, an over-the-
     air signal of grade B intensity (as defined by the Federal 
     Communications Commission) of a primary network station 
     affiliated with that network.''.[; and
       [(2) by adding at the end the following:
       [``(12) Local network station.--The term `local network 
     station' means a network station that is secondarily 
     transmitted to subscribers who reside within the local market 
     in which the network station is located.''.]

     SEC. 6. PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE SATELLITE FEED.

       (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 
     January 1, 2001, or the date on which local retransmissions 
     of broadcast signals are offered to the public, whichever is 
     earlier, the statutory license created by this section shall 
     be conditioned on the Public Broadcasting Service certifying 
     to the Copyright Office on an annual basis that its 
     membership supports the secondary transmission of the Public 
     Broadcasting Service satellite feed, and providing notice to 
     the satellite carrier of such certification.''.
       (b) Definition.--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.''.

     SEC. 7. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
                   REGULATIONS.

       Section 119(a) of title 17, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``is permissible under 
     the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Federal 
     Communications Commission,'' after ``satellite carrier to the 
     public for private home viewing,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``is permissible under 
     the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Federal 
     Communications Commission,'' after ``satellite carrier to the 
     public for private home viewing,''.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on January 1, 1999, except the amendments made by 
     section 4 shall take effect on July 1, 1999.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
amendments be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate considers legislation that 
will help provide for greater consumer choice and competition in 
television services, S. 247, ``The Satellite Home Viewers Improvements 
Act of 1999.'' The bill before us is a model of bipartisanship and 
cross-Committee cooperation. The cosponsors of this bill include, first 
and foremost, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Leahy, with whom I have worked closely on this 
legislation; the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the minority 
leader, Senator Daschle; the chairman and ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee, Senators DeWine and Kohl; 
and the distinguished chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, 
Senator McCain. We have all worked together with many others of our 
colleagues to bring this important legislation along on behalf of our 
constituents.
  The options consumers have for viewing television entertainment have 
vastly increased since that fateful day in September 1927 when 
television inventor and Utah native Philo T. Farnsworth, together with 
his wife and colleagues, viewed the first television transmission in 
the Farnsworth's home workshop: a single black line rotated from 
vertical to horizontal. Both the forms of entertainment and the 
technologies for delivering that entertainment have proliferated over 
the 70 years since that day. In the 1940s and 50s, televisions began 
arriving in an increasing number of homes to pick up entertainment 
being broadcast into a growing number of cities and towns.
  In the late 1960s and early 1970s, cable television began offering 
communities more television choices by initially providing community 
antenna systems for receiving broadcast television signals, and later 
by offering new created-for-cable entertainment. The development of 
cable television made dramatic strides with the enactment of the cable 
compulsory license in 1976, providing an efficient way of clearing 
copyright rights for the retransmission of broadcast signals over cable 
systems.
  In the 1980s, television viewers began to be able to receive 
television entertainment with their own home satellite equipment, and 
the enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Act in 1988 helped develop a 
system of providing options for television service to Americans who 
lived in areas too remote to receive television signals over the air or 
via cable.
  Much has changed since the original Satellite Home Viewer Act was 
adopted in 1988. The Satellite Home Viewer Act was originally intended 
to ensure that households that could not get television in any other 
way, traditionally provided through broadcast or cable, would be able 
to get television signals via satellite. The market and the satellite 
industry has changed substantially since 1988. Many of the difficulties 
and controversies associated with the satellite license have been at 
least partly a product of the satellite business attempting to move 
from a predominately need-based rural niche service to a full service 
video delivery competitor in all markets, urban and rural.
  Now, many market advocates both in and out of Congress are looking to 
satellite carriers to compete directly with cable companies for 
viewership, because we believe that an increasingly competitive market 
is better for consumers both in terms of cost and the diversity of 
programming available. The bill we consider today will move us toward 
that kind of robust competition.
  In short, this bill is focused on changes that we can make this year 
to move the satellite television industry to the next level, making it 
a full competitor in the multi-channel video delivery market. It has 
been said time and again that a major, and perhaps the biggest, 
impediment to satellite's ability to be a strong competitor to cable is 
its current inability to provide local broadcast signals to its 
subscribers. (See, e.g., Business Week (22

[[Page 10493]]

Dec. 1997) p. 84.) In fact, marketing research by one firm found that 
86 percent of those consumers who consider subscribing to satellite but 
ultimately do not do so, decide against satellite service because the 
local television signals are not available. (U.S. Satellite 
Broadcasting, ``Research Summary for Thomson Electronics,'' Aug. 1997, 
p. 6.) This problem has been partly technological and partly legal.
  As we speak, the technological hurdles to satellite retransmission of 
local broadcast signals are being lowered substantially. Emerging 
technology is not enabling the satellite industry to begin to offer 
television viewers their own local programming of news, weather, 
sports, and entertainment, with digital quality picture and sound. This 
will mean that viewers in the remoter areas of my large home state of 
Utah will be able to watch television programming originating in Salt 
Lake City, rather than New York or California. In fact, one satellite 
carrier is already providing such a service in Utah.
  Today, with this bill, we hope to remove the legal impediments to use 
of this emerging technology to make local retransmission of broadcast 
signals a reality for all subscribers. The most important result will 
be that the constituents of all my colleagues will finally have a 
choice for full service multi-channel video programming: They will be 
able to choose cable or one of a number of satellite carriers. This 
should foster an environment of proliferating choice and lowered 
prices, all to the benefit of consumers, our constituents.
  To that end, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act'' makes the 
following changes in the copyright law governing satellite television 
transmissions:
  It creates a new copyright license which allows satellite carriers to 
retransmit a local television station to households and businesses 
throughout that station's local market, just as cable does, and sets a 
zero copyright rate for providing this service.
  It extends the satellite compulsory licenses for both local and 
distant signals, which are now set to expire at the end of the year, 
until 2004.
  It cuts the copyright rates paid for distant signals by 30 or 45 
percent, depending on the type of signal.
  It allows consumers to switch from cable to satellite service for 
network signals without waiting 90-day period now required in the law.
  It allows for a national Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed.
  Many of my colleagues in this Chamber will recognize this legislation 
as substantively identical to a bill reported unanimously by the 
Judiciary Committee last year. It passed the Judiciary Committee this 
year again with unanimous support. I am pleased with the degree of 
cooperation and consensus we have been able to forge with respect to 
this legislation, and I am pleased that we have been able to bring this 
bill before the Senate for swift consideration and approval.
  Let me explain how we will proceed. As I have indicated earlier, the 
bill we have before us is the copyright portion of a comprehensive 
reform package crafted in conjunction with our colleagues on the 
Commerce Committee. As the Judiciary Committee has moved forward with 
consideration of the copyright legislation embodied in S. 247, the 
Commerce Committee proceeded simultaneously to consider separate 
legislation introduced by Chairman McCain, S. 303, to address related 
communications amendments, including important ares such as the must-
carry and retransmission consent requirements for satellite carriers 
upon which the copyright licenses will be conditioned, and the FCC's 
distant television signal eligibility process. It is our joint 
intention to combine our respective work product as two titles of the 
same bill in a way that will clearly delineate the work product of each 
committee, but combine them in the seamless whole necessary to make the 
licenses work for consumers and the affected industries. To do that, 
Chairman McCain will today offer the text of his committee's companion 
legislation as an amendment to the Judiciary Committee's underlying 
copyright bill. Upon adoption of this amendment, we will offer a 
manager's package of technical and conforming amendments to more fully 
meld the bills into a comprehensive, pro-consumer package that we can 
offer to the House for their consideration in a conference.
  I am glad we are taking up this legislation today. We need to act 
quickly on this legislation. The Satellite Home Viewer Act sunsets at 
the end of this year, placing at risk the service of many of the 11 
million satellite subscribers nationwide. Many of our constituents are 
confused about the status of satellite service in February and April to 
as many as 2.5 million subscribers nationally who have been adjudged 
ineligible for distant signal service under current law. The granting 
of the local license, together with some resolution of the eligibility 
rules for distant signals and a more consumer-friendly process, can 
help bring clarity to these consumers, and greater competition in price 
and service for all subscription television viewers.
  I again thank the majority leader for his interest in and leadership 
with respect to these issues, and the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee for his collegiality and cooperation in this process. I also 
thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who have worked on this 
legislation. This bill is a product of a bipartisan effort with 
Senators Leahy, DeWine, and Kohl, and I have been pleased to work 
closely with each of them every step of the way. Finally, I thank the 
Register of Copyrights, Ms. Marybeth Peters, and Bill Roberts of her 
staff in particular, for their assistance and expertise throughout this 
process. The Senate process has been a more informed one, and the 
product of our efforts more sound as a result of their advice and 
recommendations.
  In closing, I look forward to our consideration of this important 
legislation today, and to continued collaboration with my colleagues to 
help hasten more vigorous competition in the television delivery market 
and the ever-widening consumer choice that will follow it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is able 
to pass the Hatch-Leahy Satellite Home Viewers Improvements Act. This 
bill will provide viewers with more choices and will greatly increase 
competition regarding network and other video programming.
  For some time, I have been concerned about the lack of competition 
with cable TV and escalating cable rates. This bill will allow 
satellite TV providers to compete directly with cable and will give 
consumers a choice. It
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to express my 
strong support for S. 303, the Satellite Home Viewers Act. This 
legislation will enable many more consumers in Massachusetts and across 
the nation to receive network signals by satellite.
  The Act achieves a fairer balance between the interests of satellite 
TV firms, local broadcasters and cable firms. It reverses a federal 
court decision that has caused millions of satellite TV subscribers 
throughout the country, including in many rural areas of Massachusetts, 
to lose their access to network television stations. Consumers will be 
major winners with the passage of this legislation. It means greater 
choice, particularly to those in rural areas.
  This legislation will also promote competition between the satellite 
and cable industries by enabling satellite providers to offer local 
broadcast signals in the same local market. In recent years, ``must 
carry'' rules have protected small broadcasters from being left by the 
wayside during the rapid growth of the cable industry. Similarly, this 
bill protects small broadcasters by requiring satellite carriers re-
transmitting local signals to the local market to comply with the 
``must carry'' rules by January 1, 2002.
  Consumers everywhere will benefit from the passage of the Satellite 
Home Viewers Act. I commend Senator McCain and Senator Burns for their 
leadership in providing more choices and better service to consumers. 
Also avoids needless cutoffs of satellite TV service and protects local 
TV affiliates.

[[Page 10494]]

  The Judiciary Committee had a full committee hearing on these 
satellite issues on November 12, 1997, and Chairman Hatch and I agreed 
to work together on this bill. On March 5, 1998, the Hatch-Leahy bill, 
S. 1720, was introduced and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee 
unanimously on October 1, 1998. It permits local TV signals, as opposed 
to distant out-of-State networks signals, to be offered to viewers via 
satellite; increase competition between cable and satellite TV 
providers; and provide more PBS programming by also offering a national 
feed as well as local programming; and reduce rates charged to 
consumers.
  We have been racing against the clock because court orders have 
required the cutoffs of distant CBS and Fox television signals to over 
a million households in the U.S.
  Under a preliminary injunction, satellite service to thousands of 
households in Vermont and other states was to be terminated on October 
8, 1998, for CBS and Fox distant network signals for households signed 
up after March 11, 1997, the date the action was filed.
  This bill will allow satellite TV to operate just like cable TV with 
local channels, movies, local weather, sports, CNN, news, 
superstations, and the like. It allows for local TV stations to be 
received over satellite, permanently, and could reduce satellite rates.
  It ends the cable subscriber 90-day waiting period for those wanting 
to switch from cable to satellite--which has been a needless barrier to 
competition.
  The bill extends distant network service to allow for a phase-in to 
local- into-local TV service and creates a national PBS feed, and also 
will offer the local PBS.
  It also restores all lost distant stations, if the satellite provider 
is willing to restore service, and delays cutoffs of all other distant 
signals until December 31 of this year and only for a much smaller 
number of dish owners.
  Ultimately, in 2002, the bill will impose ``must carry'' rules on 
satellite providers just like the ``must carry'' rules for cable TV 
which permits a phase-in of local-to-local service.
  The chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee, Senator DeWine, and the 
ranking member, Senator Kohl, also worked hard on this issue.
  It is absurd that home dish owners--whether they live in Vermont, 
Utah or California--have to watch network stations imported from 
distant states.
  This committee has worked together to protect the local broadcast 
system and to provide the satellite industry with a way to compete with 
cable.
  Cable TV now offers a full range of local programming as well as 
programming regarding sports, politics, national weather, education, 
and a range of movies.
  Yet, cable rates keep increasing--I want satellite TV to directly 
compete with cable TV. The only way they can do that is to be able to 
offer local TV stations.
  We heard testimony in 1997 and 1998 that the major reason consumers 
do not sign up for satellite service is that they cannot get local 
programming. I want satellite carriers to be able to offer the full 
range of local programming.
  We should be encouraging this so-called ``local-into-local'' service. 
Local broadcast stations contribute to our sense of community.
  We should be encouraging competition through local-into-local 
service. Instead, the current policy fosters confusion-into-more-
confusion service and lots of litigation.
  By striking a burdensome and flawed limitation on satellite 
providers, we will be prescribing fairness for dish owners and 
injecting some much-needed competition into the television market.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues at conference.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to express my 
strong support for S. 303, the Satellite Home Viewers Act. This 
legislation will enable many more consumers in Massachusetts and across 
the nation to receive network signals by satellite.
  The Act achieves a fairer balance between the interests of satellite 
TV firms, local broadcasters and cable firms. It reverses a federal 
court decision that has caused millions of satellite TV subscribers 
throughout the country, including in many rural areas of Massachusetts, 
to lose their access to network television stations. Consumers will be 
major winners with the passage of this legislation. It means greater 
choice, particularly to those in rural areas.
  This legislation will also promote competition between the satellite 
and cable industries by enabling satellite providers to offer local 
broadcast signals in the same local market. In recent years, ``must 
carry'' rules have protected small broadcasters from being left by the 
wayside during the rapid growth of the cable industry. Similarly, this 
bill protects small broadcasters by requiring satellite carriers re-
transmitting local signals to the local market to comply with the 
``must carry'' rules by January 1, 2002.
  Consumers everywhere will benefit from the passage of the Satellite 
Home Viewers Act. I commend Senator McCain and Senator Burns for their 
leadership in providing more choices and better service to consumers.


                           Amendment No. 372

   (Purpose: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to enhance the 
  ability of direct broadcast satellite and other multichannel video 
providers to compete effectively with cable television systems, and for 
                            other purposes)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator McCain has an amendment at the 
desk, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. McCain, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 372.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.)


                 Amendment No. 373 to Amendment No. 372

(Purpose: To strike certain provisions amending title 17, United States 
                                 Code)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk to the 
McCain amendment, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself and Mr. 
     Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 373 to amendment No. 
     372.

  The amendment follows:

       On page 17, strike line 4 through page 18, line 4 and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 208. DEFINITIONS.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 373) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
372, as amended, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 372), as amended, was agreed to.


                       Amendment Nos. 374 and 375

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there are two technical amendments at the 
desk, submitted by myself and Senator Leahy, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 374 and 375) were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 374

 (Purpose: To provide a manager's amendment to make certain technical 
           and conforming amendments, and for other purposes)

       On page 3, line 9, strike ``that station'' and insert ``the 
     network that owns or is affiliated with the network 
     station''.
       On page 3, lines 16 and 17, strike ``the station'' and 
     insert ``the network''.

[[Page 10495]]

       On page 4, line 3, strike ``the station'' and insert ``the 
     network''.
       On page 12, beginning with line 19, strike all through line 
     5 on page 13 and insert the following:
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of 
     the Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed, the 
     compulsory license shall be effective until January 1, 
     2002.''.
       On page 13, strike lines 6 through 8 and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Definitions.--Section 119(d) of title 17, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (9) to read as follows:
       ``(9) Superstation.--The term `superstation'--
       ``(A) means a television broadcast station, other than a 
     network station, licensed by the Federal Communications 
     Commission that is secondarily transmitted by a satellite 
     carrier; and
       ``(B) includes the Public Broadcasting Service satellite 
     feed.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       On page 13, line 25, strike ``and''.
       On page 14, line 5, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon and ``and''.
       On page 14, insert between lines 5 and 6 the following:
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) Statutory license contingent on compliance with fcc 
     rules and remedial steps.--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. 8. TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION STANDING.

       Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(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.''.
       On page 14, line 6, strike ``SEC. 8.'' and insert ``SEC. 
     9.''.


                           amendment no. 375

(Purpose: To modify the definition of unserved household, provide for a 
       moratorium on copyright liability, and for other purposes)

       On page 12, line 4, insert after ``network'' the following: 
     ``or is not otherwise eligible to receive directly from a 
     satellite carrier a signal of that television network (other 
     than a signal provided under section 122) in accordance with 
     section 338 of the Communications Act of 1934.''.
       On page 14, insert between lines 5 and 6 the following:

     SEC. 8. MORATORIUM ON COPYRIGHT LIABILITY.

       Until December 31, 1999, no subscriber, as defined under 
     section 119(d)(8) of title 17, United States Code, located 
     within the predicted Grade B contour of a local network 
     television broadcast station shall have satellite service of 
     a distant network signal affiliated with the same network 
     terminated, if that subscriber received satellite service of 
     such network signal before July 11, 1998, as a result of 
     section 119 of title 17, United States Code.
       On page 14, line 6, strike ``SEC. 8.'' and insert ``SEC. 
     9.''.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to engage my good friend from 
Arizona, our chairman of the Commerce Committee, in a colloquy 
concerning an issue I raised in committee on signal reception 
standards.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be happy to accommodate the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, consumers who live in small and rural 
markets deserve access to network television service via satellite and 
the competition with cable it provides just as much as their fellow 
citizens living in urban markets. The local-into-local service that 
will be made possible by the legislation we are considering today will 
provide this much-needed service to consumers, thereby enhancing 
competition to cable in many urban markets. Unfortunately, because 
local-into-local will not be available in small and rural markets in 
the immediate future, consumers who live there must depend on satellite 
delivery of network signals from distant markets. Recent court-imposed 
limitations on the delivery of distant network signals, however, will 
affect households that cannot receive viewable local network signals 
over-the-air.
  To correct this imbalance, we should grant the Federal Communications 
Commission the authority to set a modern television signal reception 
standard. If the new signal reception standard is set at a level that 
will provide consumers with a viewable picture, then the new standard 
will produce a more realistic and accurate separation between 
``served'' and ``unserved'' households for purposes of SHVA. In 
addition, such a standard would provide consumers who do not qualify to 
receive distant network signals with a reasonable expectation that, if 
they go to the trouble and expense of installing a ``conventional'' 
rooftop antenna, they will be able to receive a television picture they 
can actually watch.
  To make application of the new standard more consumer friendly, I 
also urge that we give the FCC the authority to establish the most 
accurate point-to-point predictive model. Such a model would enable a 
consumer to know whether or not he or she will be able to receive a 
signal of the strength established by the rulemaking quickly, 
accurately, and without expensive testing.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think my colleague for his work on this very sensitive 
but important subject. The senator is absolutely correct. With the 
passage of this bill, the issue of setting an appropriate signal 
reception standard and predictive model is more important than ever. 
Consumers are frustrated today by the current situation with distant 
network signals because they are being told by local broadcasters they 
must receive their local signals over-the-air, though in many cases 
traditional antennas do not provide an adequate picture. If the law 
tells consumers they must get a local signal but they aren't able to 
get a decent picture, what alternative does a consumer have? 
Unfortunately, we are dealing here with an antiquated law that needs 
updating for the twenty first century.
  Mr. BRYAN. If this law isn't revised we can expect more consumer 
confusion and frustration. The ``Grade B'' standard that is used as the 
signal reception standard today measures the amount of signal intensity 
that a consumer must receive at his or her rooftop antenna to produce 
what is considered an ``acceptable'' television picture. Unfortunately, 
this was a determination made in 1952. Consumer expectations of what 
constitutes an ``acceptable'' picture have increased substantially in 
the past 50 years. What constituted an acceptable picture to a focus 
group in 1951 watching black and white television would almost 
certainly not be a picture that modern consumers would want to watch on 
state-of-the-art color sets.
  In addition, interference has increased substantially since the early 
1950's. Background noise produced by aircraft, automobile and truck 
traffic, power lines, and the like, and electronic interference 
produced by computers, cell phones, and other electronic equipment 
interfere with signal propagation. Because of this increased 
interference, consumers need higher signal intensity in order to 
receive a viewable television picture.
  Mr. McCAIN. I concur with your concerns over this situation. If we 
are going to enforce the law and enforce a standard, we need to make 
sure that consumers can rely on the standard. Today, that is clearly 
not the case. In addition, since the purpose of the bill before us 
today is to give satellite television the tools it needs to become more 
viable competitors to cable, we have to evaluate each of the ways in 
which cable and satellite are compared. For example, the viewing 
standard that you discussed is based on three ``grades'' of television 
picture--``fine,'' ``good,'' and ``acceptable,'' in descending order of 
quality. Currently, cable viewing standards are based on a ``good'' 
picture. Satellite's standard is ``acceptable,'' which is a grade below 
``good.'' Why wouldn't we want the reception standards between these 
two competing industries to be equivalent? If we are to provide true 
competition

[[Page 10496]]

between cable and satellite, an increase of the standard and a 
corresponding increase in signal intensity model is necessary.
  Mr. BRYAN. Even though the language mandating a new signal standard 
and predictive model was not adopted in committee, I think the chairman 
would agree that such language needs to be incorporated into a final 
measure. Many of my colleagues have been stunned to learn of the crazy 
circumstance that is facing many of our rural constituents as they 
attempt to get a network signal that they can actually watch. We 
shouldn's be making it more difficult for them to get this valuable 
service.
  Mr. McCAIN. I can assure my colleague from Nevada, we will attempt to 
address this in conference and rectify a very troubling inconsistency 
in the law.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to support S. 247, the Satellite 
Home Viewers Improvement Act. This legislation represents a first step 
towards providing a viable competitor to cable in the multichannel 
video programming marketplace. Significantly, S. 247 permits direct-to-
home satellite providers to transmit local broadcast signals into local 
markets, and eliminates the 90 day waiting period for existing cable 
subscribers who wish to switch to satellite service. These critical 
changes in the law will substantially help satellite providers compete 
with their cable counterparts.
  I also support, for the most part, the inclusion in S. 247 of the 
floor amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, 
Amendment No. 372. This amendment is identical to the text of the 
committee reported amendment to S. 303, the Satellite Television Act of 
1999, which was reported favorably by the Senate Commerce, Science and 
Transportation Committee, Senate Report No. 106-51. With one 
reservation, which I will explain shortly, I am pleased that the work 
product of the Commerce Committee will be included in the Satellite 
Home Viewers Improvement Act, S. 247, as passed by the Senate.
  As reported by our committee, S. 303 complements S. 247 by removing 
additional statutory impediments that thwart the ability of direct-to-
home satellite service providers to compete with cable television. S. 
303 authorizes direct-to-home satellite service providers to offer 
their subscribers local television station broadcasts, but requires 
those providers to comply with the must-carry and retransmission 
consent rules that apply to cable television operators. In addition, S. 
303 requires the Federal Communications Commission to use the 
Individual Location Longely-Rice Methodology to better determine who 
should be receiving distant network signals and who should not. 
Finally, the legislation requires the FCC to implement a waiver process 
to give consumers with unsatisfactory local television reception a 
timely process in which to have their concerns addressed.
  While I support moving S. 247, as amended, out of the Senate, I must 
note one concern with the legislation. I oppose provisions in S. 303 
that sanction the illegal behavior of direct broadcast satellite 
service providers. Those provisions permanently grandfathered the 
transmission of distant network signals to subscribers residing outside 
of their local station's Grade A contour, but within the Grade B 
contour, regardless of whether those subscribers are actually able to 
receive the signals of their local stations. My opposition to this 
approach is explained in greater detail in the minority views filed 
with the Committee Report. In brief, I will say that the provisions I 
opposed put the legislation squarely in the position of sanctioning 
illegal behavior. As a law and order man, that is not an approach I am 
willing to support.
  Otherwise, I am extremely pleased that the Senate has been able to 
act so quickly on this important issue. By passing legislation so early 
in the 106th Congress, we have gone a long way toward ensuring greater 
competition in the video programming marketplace.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation 
because it will increase competition between satellite and cable. 
Senators McCain, Hatch, Leahy, Hollings, DeWine and others deserve 
credit for moving this measure so quickly this term, especially when we 
came so close last year.
  Mr. President, when the Judiciary and Commerce bills are combined as 
one, it creates a good, comprehensive measure. Satellite companies will 
finally be allowed to legally broadcast local stations to local 
viewers--so-called ``local into local.'' The strange anomaly that 
restricted satellite from providing local signals will be a thing of 
the past. And to be balanced, satellite companies will also be subject 
to ``must-carry'' obligations, just like cable. This bill will also 
reduce the royalty fees for those local signals to a level closer to 
that paid by cable companies. All of this moves us towards parity 
between satellite and cable, and it is a huge step forward for 
consumers. Let me tell you why.
  Increased competition will discipline the cable marketplace which, in 
turn, will create lower prices, increased choice, and wider 
availability of television programming for all Americans, no matter how 
remote. And we do this in the best way possible, by promoting 
competition, not increasing regulation. Moreover, it won't be at the 
expense of our local television stations, which provide a valuable 
community benefit in the form of local news, weather, sports and 
various forms of public service.
  One of the hardest questions to address, of course, is which viewers 
should be entitled to receive ``distant network'' signals, especially 
in rural states like mine. Authorizing ``local into local'' is a 
crucial first step and, eventually, when technology advances and more 
satellites are launched, we will see ``local into local'' almost 
everywhere. So, this bill goes a long way to ensure that every viewer 
will receive one signal of each of the major television networks--this 
is a marked improvement over the current situation.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
measure which will permit satellite companies to compete on a more 
level playing field with cable. We have our work cut out for us at 
conference because the House version is quite different from ours. But 
there is no excuse for not enacting this pro-competition, pro-consumer 
legislation this year. Let's get to conference and get this bill done.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time, and that the Senate proceed to Calendar 
No. 93, H.R. 1554. I further ask unanimous consent that all after the 
enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 247, as amended, be 
inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time and 
passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that 
any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in 
the Record. I finally ask unanimous consent that S. 247 then be placed 
back on the Calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 1554), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________