STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the STELA.

First, I would like to thank Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Nadler for holding two Judiciary Committee hearings in the past year where we have examined the laws in the satellite television arena in Title 17 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), and related issues.

The relevant part of STELA expires at the end of the year but I am sure that those in the industry would have us do something before then and preferably before the lame duck session after November.

I would note the inclusion of a provision in this bill which some consumer groups find objectionable because it repeals the integration ban which deprives consumers of choice. This is from the Energy and Commerce Committee--though hopefully it will be worked out before the President signs--because consumers must not be deprived of choices.

And now that the Supreme Court has decided the Aereo case, we have another set of variables on the table.

I mention the Aereo case because it is the seminal case due to its timing but it also reminds us of how ephemeral our work can be in this Committee and this Congress.

Back in 1992 and through all of the other reauthorizations of STELA and the concurrent surge of innovation from the late 1990's until present day--who could have contemplated the existence of an Aereo, HULU, Netflix, or Pandora?

In doing so we are able to take a walk down the memory lane of analog and digital television, the role of cable and satellite providers, vis- a-vis their network partners.

It is useful to note that in the 18th Congressional District my constituents are able to avail themselves of DISH, Comcast, ATT, and even Phonoscope which I believe is one of the oldest in the nation and a Houston, Texas company since 1953.

In looking at these laws, we must note the role of the Copyright Office which released a widely-read report on the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act in August 2011 as ordered by the last reauthorization, and the GAO report which focused on consumer issues.

Americans from Houston, Texas, Chicago, New York, the Bay Area, and all across this great nation benefit from a broadcast system which consists of the laws which undergird the system, buffeted by the policy and practices by which transmitters, providers, artists, writers, musicians, and other creators of all stripes benefit.

The system stands on principles of balance and fairness which allow for continued innovation while not infringing on the property rights of others.

In my state, I see satellite dishes in urban and rural areas but it seems like a higher percentage of rural homes have DISH or DIRECTV than in the cities and towns. Is that an accurate observation and if so, why?

What is the justification for a 30 foot outdoor rooftop antenna being the standard for measuring whether a home can get a broadcaster over- the-air signal?

Who has 30 foot antennas on their rooftops these days? Can folks even go out and buy those and install them easily?

Shouldn't the standard reflect the consumer realities and be changed to a regular indoor antenna that can be picked up at most electronics stores?

What are the criteria for a household to be considered `unserved'? Does the current definition of unserved households adequately account for those homes that do not receive over-the-air signals?

This will be the 6th reauthorization of STELA but to my knowledge there has never before been a discussion of these blackouts, because they simply didn't happen in the past like they do today. We've gone from zero blackouts to 12 in 2010 and now 127 in 2013.

Viewers in my state have experienced their fair share of blackouts and I stand with them in saying: we don't like them.

We must all agree that blackouts must stop.

The statutory framework for the retransmission of broadcast television signals has been based on a distinction between local and distant signals.

The signals of significantly viewed stations and the signals of in- state, out-of-market stations in the four states that satellite operators were allowed to import into orphan counties under the exceptions in SHVERA, originate outside the market into which they are imported; in that regard, they are distant signals and they have been subject to the Section 119 distant signal statutory copyright license.

Since significantly viewed stations and the ``exception'' stations can be presumed to be providing programming of local or state-wide interest to counties in particular local markets, arguably that content could be viewed as local to the counties into which they are imported and should be treated accordingly.

STELA modified the Copyright Act to treat those signals as local, moving the relevant provisions from Section 119 to Section 122.

If a broadcaster opts to negotiate a retransmission consent agreement, cable companies are no longer required to broadcast that signal pursuant to the must-carry requirement. Furthermore, if negotiations for retransmission consent fail, cable companies are not permitted to retransmit the broadcast signals that they have not been granted a license to retransmit. This is precisely what has happened in the dispute between Time Warner Cable and CBS Broadcasting.

My concern is that when retransmission consent negotiations fail, consumers often look to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to mediate the dispute. However, the FCC actually has very little authority over retransmission consent negotiations. The Communications Act requires that programming be offered on a non-discriminatory basis, and that the negotiations be conducted in good faith.

The FCC has the authority to enforce both of these requirements, but does not appear to have the authority to force the companies to reach an agreement, or the ability to order the companies to continue to provide programming to consumers who have lost access while the dispute is being resolved. Therefore, as was seen in the debacle that was the TWC-CBS negotiation, unless negotiations are not occurring in ``good faith'' the FCC has little power over retransmission consent agreements.

STELA clarified that a significantly viewed signal may only be provided in high definition format if the satellite carrier is passing through all of the high definition programming of the corresponding local station in high definition format as well; if the local station is not providing programming in high definition format, then the satellite operator is not restricted from providing the significantly viewed station's signal in high definition format.

Studying What the Impact Would Be If the Statutory Licensing System for Satellite and Cable Retransmission of Distant Broadcast Signals Were Eliminated

The United States Copyright Office has proposed that Congress abolish Sections 111 and 119 of the Copyright Law, arguing that the statutory licensing systems created by these provisions result in lower payments to copyright holders than would be made if compensation were left to market negotiations. According to the Copyright Office, the cable and satellite industries no longer are nascent entities in need of government subsidies, have substantial market power, and are able to negotiate private agreements with copyright owners for programming carried on distant broadcast signals.

Congress must have a role in the broadcasting space but whether that is doing away with compulsory licensing or becoming even more involved is what needs to be discussed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 4572, the Satellite Reauthorization Act or ``STELA Act.''

First, I would like to thank Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Nadler for holding two Judiciary Committee hearings in the past year where we have examined the laws and related issues relating to satellite television codified in Title 17 of the United States Code.

The relevant part of STELA expires at the end of the year but I am sure that those in the industry would have us do something before then, preferably before the lame duck session after November.

I would note the inclusion of a provision in this bill which some consumer groups find objectionable because it repeals the integration ban which deprives consumers of choice.

This is from the Energy and Commerce Committee--though hopefully it will be worked out before the President signs--because consumers must not be deprived of choices.

And now that the Supreme Court has decided the Aereo case, we have another set of variables on the table.

I mention the Aereo case because it is the seminal case due to its timing but it also reminds us of how ephemeral our work can be in this Committee and this Congress.

Back in 1992 and through all of the other reauthorizations of STELA and the concurrent surge of innovation from the late 1990s until present day--who could have contemplated the existence of an Aereo, HULU, Netflix, or Pandora?

In doing so we are able to take a walk down the memory lane of analog and digital television, the role of cable and satellite providers, vis- a-vis their network partners.

It is useful to note that in the 18th Congressional District of Texas my constituents are able to avail themselves of DISH, Comcast, ATT, and even Phonoscope which I believe is one of the oldest in the nation and a Houston, Texas company since 1953.

In looking at these laws, we must note the role of the Copyright Office which released a widely-read report on the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act in August 2011 as ordered by the last reauthorization, and the GAO report which focused on consumer issues.

Americans from Houston, Texas, Chicago, New York, the Bay Area, and all across this great nation benefit from a broadcast system which consists of the laws which undergird the system, buffeted by the policy and practices by which transmitters, providers, artists, writers, musicians, and other creators of all stripes benefit.

The system stands on principles of balance and fairness which allow for continued innovation while not infringing on the property rights of others.

In my state, I see satellite dishes in urban and rural areas but it seems like a higher percentage of rural homes have DISH or DIRECTV than in the cities and towns. Is that an accurate observation and if so, why?

What is the justification for a 30-foot outdoor rooftop antenna being the standard for measuring whether a home can get a broadcaster over- the-air signal?

Who has 30-foot antennas on their rooftops these days? Can folks even go out and buy those and install them easily?

Shouldn't the standard reflect the consumer realities and be changed to a regular indoor antenna that can be picked up at most electronics stores?

What are the criteria for a household to be considered ``unserved''? Does the current definition of unserved households adequately account for those homes that do not receive over-the-air signals?

This will be the 6th reauthorization of STELA but to my knowledge there has never before been a discussion of these blackouts, because they simply didn't happen in the past like they do today. We've gone from zero blackouts to 12 in 2010 and now 127 in 2013.

Viewers in my state have experienced their fair share of blackouts and I stand with them in saying: we don't like them.

We must all agree that blackouts must stop.

The statutory framework for the retransmission of broadcast television signals has been based on a distinction between local and distant signals.

The signals of significantly viewed stations and the signals of in- state, out-of-market stations in the four states that satellite operators were allowed to import into orphan counties under the exceptions in SHVERA, originate outside the market into which they are imported; in that regard, they are distant signals and they have been subject to the Section 119 distant signal statutory copyright license.

Since significantly viewed stations and the ``exception'' stations can be presumed to be providing programming of local or state-wide interest to counties in particular local markets, arguably that content could be viewed as local to the counties into which they are imported and should be treated accordingly.

STELA modified the Copyright Act to treat those signals as local, moving the relevant provisions from Section 119 to Section 122.

If a broadcaster opts to negotiate a retransmission consent agreement, cable companies are no longer required to broadcast that signal pursuant to the must-carry requirement.

Furthermore, if negotiations for retransmission consent fail, cable companies are not permitted to retransmit the broadcast signals that they have not been granted a license to retransmit. This is precisely what has happened in the dispute between Time Warner Cable and CBS Broadcasting.

My concern is that when retransmission consent negotiations fail, consumers often look to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to mediate the dispute. However, the FCC actually has very little authority over retransmission consent negotiations.

The Communications Act requires that programming be offered on a non- discriminatory basis, and that the negotiations be conducted in good faith.

The FCC has the authority to enforce both of these requirements, but does not appear to have the authority to force the companies to reach an agreement, or the ability to order the companies to continue to provide programming to consumers who have lost access while the dispute is being resolved.

Therefore, as was seen in the debacle that was the TWC-CBS negotiation, unless negotiations are not occurring in ``good faith'' the FCC has little power over retransmission consent agreements.

STELA clarified that a significantly viewed signal may only be provided in high definition format if the satellite carrier is passing through all of the high definition programming of the corresponding local station in high definition format as well; if the local station is not providing programming in high definition format, then the satellite operator is not restricted from providing the significantly viewed station's signal in high definition format.

The United States Copyright Office has proposed that Congress abolish Sections 111 and 119 of the Copyright Law, arguing that the statutory licensing systems created by these provisions result in lower payments to copyright holders than would be made if compensation were left to market negotiations.

According to the Copyright Office, the cable and satellite industries no longer are nascent entities in need of government subsidies, have substantial market power, and are able to negotiate private agreements with copyright owners for programming carried on distant broadcast signals.

Congress must have a role in the broadcasting space but whether that is doing away with compulsory licensing or becoming even more involved is what needs to be discussed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5728) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 and title 17, United States Code, to extend expiring provisions relating to the retransmission of signals of television broadcast stations, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on the bill into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer yet another outstanding example of bipartisanship and thoughtful policymaking from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The STELA Reauthorization Act is an important piece of legislation that ensures that millions of satellite TV subscribers continue to receive broadcast TV programming from their chosen satellite provider.

We have reached across party lines and across the two houses of Congress to craft a compromise for this must-pass legislation that will improve the video marketplace for TV viewers across the country.

In addition to reauthorizing the distant signals offered by satellite providers, we were able to include targeted reforms that in fact will enhance the video marketplace and allow consumers to access the programming that they want when they want it.

These reforms are prime examples of the kinds of deregulatory changes that we are looking at as we work to replace the 80-year-old Communications Act. They are going to spur investment in communications networks, promote competition, and, yes, create needed American jobs.

For example, the bill eliminates the costly CableCARD integration ban that has increased the cost of cable-leased set-top boxes and makes them less energy efficient. Ultimately, this is a double whammy for consumers because, after being forced to pay for an unnecessary and antiquated technology, consumers then have to pay a penalty in the form of higher electric bills.

Although we eliminated the whole mandate in our original bill that we passed through our committee, we worked with our Senate colleagues and agreed to sunset the provision in 1 year.

This will provide time for the FCC to hold a working group on successor solutions to CableCARD without unduly delaying the benefits to consumers who choose to lease equipment from their cable provider.

The bill also evens the playing field for all video providers. It seeks regulatory parity for cable and satellite providers when it comes to protecting broadcast signals during Nielsen sweeps. It also provides satellite operators and broadcasters with the opportunity to modify local markets, like cable operators already have the ability to do.

We hope that in our updated Communications Act that we can find additional ways to eliminate regulatory differences that no longer serve a meaningful, technical purpose or that distort business and consumer incentives.

The bill provides other positive, bipartisan reforms, and it is our intent that as we update the Communications Act in the coming Congress that it continue along that very same path. That being said, the matter before us is the reauthorization of these provisions for the millions of satellite viewer subscribers that depend on them. The clock is ticking, and the bill will ensure when folks flip on their TVs, yes, their favorite show will be available when they want to watch it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote for the bill as this Congress is quickly drawing to a close.

I particularly want to thank Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Greg Walden, Ranking Members Henry Waxman and Anna Eshoo, and Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, as well as our respective staffs for their bipartisan and hard work on this very important legislation. I also want to thank our Senate colleagues Jay Rockefeller and John Thune for their willingness to work with us to find common ground.

I am proud of our committee's record of bipartisan results. As we work toward the Communications Act update next year to modernize our Nation's communication laws for the innovation era, continued cooperation will be critical to that success. Without this bill, without this reauthorization being moved forward, satellite viewers-- millions of Americans--will have those sets turned off. It is important that we reauthorize this bill, and I am pleased to do so in a very bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the distinguished chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip and a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), the vice chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4572) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend expiring provisions relating to the retransmission of signals of television broadcast stations, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are offering a bill that will ensure that 1.5 million subscribers in hard-to-reach areas, including many in my home State of Oregon, will continue to receive vital news and information through the television. The STELA Reauthorization Act extends the copyright and retransmission consent provisions for distant signals retransmitted by commercial satellite providers for 5 years.

Our committee has worked hard on this bill. We have engaged members of industry and consumer groups, and we have talked about the difficult policy matters that affect all consumers when it comes to video programming. Every member of our committee, on both sides of the aisle, has engaged with industry and consumers to figure out the right policy and to get to the right outcome, which we bring to you today.

Our bill not only reauthorizes the compulsory copyright and retransmission exemption for 5 years, but it also targets and, in some areas, gives much-needed reforms to our communications law.

Specifically, this bill repeals the FCC's integration ban on cable- leased set-top boxes. That clears the way for innovation and investment by lifting an unnecessary regulatory burden that has cost the cable industry and its consumers who pay the $1 billion--$1 billion, Mr. Speaker--since 2007.

I especially want to thank my friend, the extraordinary, terrific vice chair of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mr. Latta of Ohio, and my Democratic colleague from Texas, Gene Green, who brought this issue to our attention and helped us in this bipartisan lift to get rid of the integration ban.

Our bill also evens the playing field for cable operators and broadcasters during sweeps weeks by removing a government restriction on cable's ability to drop broadcast signals during the Nielsen sweeps.

Additionally, broadcast stations in a single market will no longer be able to negotiate jointly with pay-TV providers. Pay-TV subscribers will no longer have to worry about losing more than one signal should a programming distributor be unable to reach its retransmission consent agreement with a broadcast station.

These can be very contentious matters, Mr. Speaker. I am proud to say that the STELA Reauthorization Act is yet another example of working together, getting true bipartisanship, with support from all sectors of the communications industry.

This type of collaboration has long been the hallmark of our subcommittee and full committee, and I am pleased to see this legislative result. I can only urge the Senate to act swiftly and pass this bill into law before the end of the year.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the leader of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont for his kind words and his good work on this legislation. Certainly, I recognize our counterparts on the Democratic side, Mr. Waxman and Ms. Eshoo, who have worked tirelessly on this bill, as well as their staff: Shawn Chang, Margaret McCarthy, and David Grossman. Also, our staff, David Redl; my senior policy adviser, Ray Baum; and Grace Koh, all of whom have spent a lot of time working this through.

It seems interesting that we get to this point and it kind of goes naturally, but there is a lot of work that went in to getting it to this point. So I thank our staff and the Members who worked with us in a very good-spirited way.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to approve this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, last July the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4572, the STELA Reauthorization Act, by unanimous vote. Today, after extensive consultation with our colleagues in the Senate, we are offering a second version of STELA's reauthorization, which will extend the copyright and retransmission consent provisions for distant signals retransmitted by commercial satellite providers for 5 years. Now, if we don't act to extend these provisions by the end of this Congress, there will be 1.5 million subscribers to satellite television, including many in my home State of Oregon, that just won't have access to broadcast network programming come New Year's Day.

This bill represents the best of how Congress can work together and get things done. Today's version of STELAR is a compromise bill that incorporates the previously passed provisions--these were passed unanimously by the House earlier this year--with the provisions that passed by voice vote out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Now, by coming together to produce legislation with strong, bipartisan, bicameral support, we have demonstrated our clear commitment to the continued availability of broadcast programming to millions of subscribers and to some targeted and, in some cases, much- needed reforms to our communications laws.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this bill sets a date for the sunset of the FCC's integration ban on cable-leased set-top boxes. That clears the way for innovation and new investment by lifting an unnecessary regulatory burden that has cost the cable industry and its consumers $1 billion. One billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, since 2007 it has cost.

I especially want to thank Vice Chairman Bob Latta, who is right here, and my Democratic colleague from Texas, Gene Green, whom you have just heard from, for their thoughtful, bipartisan work on lifting the integration ban.

Now, the bill offers a glide path for those companies that currently rely on CableCARD and urges the consumer electronics manufacturers and MVPDs to work together to find a next-generation solution for a competitive set-top box market.

Our bill also opens up the ability for satellite operators and broadcasters to modify local markets so that consumers can receive programming that is relevant to their communities. Broadcasters have long had the ability to reach such agreements with cable systems, and this bill creates parity, allowing broadcasters to ensure their programming is reaching the right communities via satellite, regardless of DMA boundaries. Our bill also provides parity by removing a government restriction on cable's ability to drop broadcast signals during the Nielsen sweeps. Additionally, the bill ensures that consumers will be able to access locally relevant broadcasts from outside their local markets without interference from local broadcasters.

Mr. Speaker, we have also sought to stabilize the retransmission consent regime. This bill prohibits broadcast stations in single markets from negotiating jointly with cable and satellite operators. The bill also seeks to allow policymakers to gather more information on retransmission consent by requiring cable operators to report annually on their payments for broadcast programming. This bill also asks the FCC to reexamine the meaning of ``good faith'' in retransmission consent negotiations, but, importantly, it does not predetermine any outcomes for that rulemaking.

The STELA Reauthorization Act is yet another example of true bipartisanship with support from all sectors of the communications industry. This type of collaboration has long been the hallmark of our committee, and I am pleased to see the legislative result before us today. As this Congress is drawing to a close quickly, I urge my colleagues to join me in getting this important legislation onto the President's desk and signed into law before the authorization ends at the end of the year.

Now, it takes many hands to make light work, and this bill is no different. In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the staff from the House Commerce Committee's staff, David Redl, Ray Baum, Grace Koh, Shawn Chang, Margaret McCarthy, and David Grossman; as well as Senate Commerce staff Ellen Doneski, John Branscome, Shawn Bone, David Quinalty, and Hap Rigby. They spent many hours working to find common ground on this bill, Mr. Speaker, and their effort has paid off for consumers.