[Congressional Record: May 20, 1999 (Senate)]
[Page S5775-S5780]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr20my99-186]


                 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 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.

[[Page S5776]]

       ``(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.''.

     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

[[Page S5777]]

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 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 also avoids needless cutoffs of satellite TV
service and protects local TV affiliates.
  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-

[[Page S5778]]

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.

                           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''.
       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

[[Page S5779]]

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 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.

[[Page S5780]]

  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.

                          ____________________
