Television Satellite and Cable Retransmission of Broadcast Video Programming Under the Copyright Act’s Compulsory Licenses

Congressional research reportOct 5, 1998

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

98-320 A

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Television Satellite and Cable

Retransmission of Broadcast Video

Programming Under the Copyright Act’s

Compulsory Licenses

Updated October 5, 1998

Dorothy Schrader

Senior Specialist

American Law Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT

This report reviews the history and background of the cable and television satellite licenses

of the Copyright Act (title 17 U.S.C., sections 111(c)-(f) and 119, respectively), reviews the

Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994, and notes recent developments, including: the 1997

satellite license rate adjustment; pending bills relating to the compulsory licenses

(H.R.3210, H.R.2921, H.R. 4449, S.1720, S.1422, and S. 2494); and the August 1997 report

of the Copyright Office on these licenses.

Television Satellite and Cable

Retransmission of Broadcast Video Programming Under the

Summary

The cable and satellite compulsory licenses of the Copyright Act require

rightsholders to permit the retransmission of certain broadcast signals by cable

systems and “wireless cable” in the case of the §111 license and by satellite providers

(including direct broadcasting entities) in the case of the §119 license. The licenses

have some common features (such as rate adjustment and distribution proceedings).

The licenses differ markedly, however, in their overall structure, signal coverage,

conditions of carriage, and copyright royalty payment mechanisms.

The satellite carrier license of the Copyright Act authorizes retransmission of

“superstation” and network television programming by satellite carriers to home

satellite “dish” owners, upon payment of a copyright royalty of 27 cents per signal

per subscriber each month and compliance with other statutory conditions. The

license, which is codified as section 119 of title 17 U.S. Code, applies only for

purposes of private home viewing.

Legislation creating the license was originally enacted for 6 years, effective

January 1, 1989. Before its expiration, the satellite carrier license was extended for

another 5 years by the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 (“SHVA of 1994"), Public

Law 103-369. The §119 license expires December 31, 1999, unless Congress acts

to extend it.

The cable compulsory license of §111 of the Copyright Act permits

retransmission of any broadcast signals by wired or “wireless” cable systems, subject

to the payment of copyright royalties essentially for signals “distant” to the

community served by the cable system. The cable license is permanent law.

Recent developments relating to the satellite and cable licenses include: the

1997 satellite license rate adjustment proceeding; introduction of S. 1422 and H.R.

2921, which would delay implementation of the new 27 cent rate; an August 1997

Report to Congress by the Copyright Office, which reviews policy issues relating to

both licenses and recommends new legislation; the introduction of H.R. 3210 and

S. 1720, which would reform the rate adjustment and royalty distribution mechanism

for the compulsory licenses and apply the retransmission consent and must-carry

provisions of the Communications Act to satellite carriers; enactment of Public Law

105-80, which makes technical corrections to the satellite license; and the

introduction of S. 2494 and H.R. 4449, which would authorize retransmission of

local signals under the section 119 license and generally apply the Federal

Communications Commission’s cable signal carriage rules to retransmission of

broadcast signals by satellite service providers.

This report summarizes the main features of the satellite and cable licenses,

reviews the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994, and discusses recent developments,

including proposals for amendment of these licenses.

Contents

Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Satellite Carrier License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Cable Compulsory License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Statutory License and Arbitration Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Network Station Redefined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Unserved Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Direct Broadcasting Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Fair Market Value Royalty Adjustment Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Local Signals Under the Cable License. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Legislative Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1997 Rate Adjustment and Proposals to Stay Its Implementation . . . . 21

Signal Measurement and Termination of Satellite Service: Determination

of “Unserved” Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Local Signals:

Expansion of the Satellite License To Permit

Retransmission of Any Local Broadcast Signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

PBS Satellite Feed Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Review of Cable and Satellite Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Brief Summary of H.R. 3210 and S. 1720 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Brief Summary of H.R. 4449 and S. 2494 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Television Satellite and Cable Retransmission of

Broadcast Video Programming Under the

Most Recent Developments

New copyright policy issues have arisen regarding the television satellite carrier1

and cable2 compulsory licenses of the Copyright Act.3 H.R. 3210 and the Senate

companion bill (S. 1720) — known as the “Copyright Compulsory License

Improvement Act” — would revise the satellite and cable licenses of the Copyright

Act in an attempt to create more parity in the operation of the licenses.

These bills would: 1) reform the system for rate adjustment and distribution of

Arbitration Royalty Panels (“CARPs”) with a Board composed of 3 or more

administrative law judges; 2) make the satellite license permanent, allow new

satellite subscribers to receive network signals without the existing 3 month delay if

they dropped cable service, and allow satellite providers to retransmit local signals

and the national satellite feed of the Public Broadcasting Service (“PBS”); 3) apply

the retransmission consent provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 to carriage

of network signals by satellite providers; 4) amend the Communications Act to

impose “must-carry” requirements on satellite carriers who retransmit local signals;

5) require the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to conduct a

rulemaking proceeding and apply its cable carriage rules concerning network

nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackouts to satellite carriers; and

6) make technical amendments to each of the copyright compulsory licenses.

Another pair of similar but different bills — S. 2494 and H.R. 4449 — would

also generally apply the FCC’s signal carriage rules to satellite services, in an attempt

to create parity between the satellite and cable licenses and promote competition in

multichannel video programming services. These bills would also authorize local-tolocal retransmission of network signals by direct-to-home satellite services.

The copyright royalty rate paid by satellite carriers for the privilege of

retransmitting copyrighted broadcast programming was adjusted by the Librarian of

Congress in October 1997 (effective January 1, 1998) based on the recommendations

of a duly constituted Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (“CARP”). The new

17 U.S.C. §119.

17 U.S.C. §111(c)-(f).

Title 17 of the United States Code, §§101 et seq.

CRS-2

monthly rate of 27 cents per signal per subscriber is under appeal to the Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia. Bills were introduced at the end of the first

session of the 105th Congress (S. 14224 and H.R. 2921) which, if enacted, would

delay implementation of this rate increase.

H.R. 672, which corrected certain technical errors in the existing satellite

license law, was enacted as Public Law 105-90 on November 13, 1997.

On the administrative-regulatory front, the Copyright Office submitted a report

to Congress on August 1, 1997 entitled “A Review of the Copyright Licensing

Regimes Covering Retransmission of Broadcast Signals,” which, as requested by the

Senate Judiciary Committee, included policy recommendations for reform of the

cable and satellite licenses.5 The Copyright Office also 1) initiated a separate Notice

of Inquiry public proceeding to determine if the satellite license permits the

retransmission of network programming to subscribers in the local markets of

network affiliates (“local signals inquiry”)6 and 2) closed its public proceeding

concerning the eligibility of open video systems of the telephone companies for the

cable compulsory license.7

Satellite service providers and their subscribers continue to press for

amendments of the §119 license to clarify what is a viewable network signal in

determining whether or not a household is “unserved” by a network.

The

transitional provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994,8 which were

intended to address the viewable signal issue, have expired.9 Satellite service

providers generally terminate service of a signal if reception of the signal by a given

household is challenged by the network or its affiliate. Broadcasting entities have

The Senate Commerce Committee favorably reported S. 1422 on March 12. 1998.

Oversight hearings were held on the Copyright Office report and the policy issues

concerning the cable and satellite compulsory licenses in 1997 by committees in the House

and the Senate. House hearings were held on October 30, 1997 before the Subcommittee

on Courts and Intellectual Property. Senate hearings were held on November 12, 1997

before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

63 Fed. Reg. 3685 (January 26, 1998).

The open video proceeding had been published at 61 Fed. Reg. 20197 (May 6, 1996). The

notice of termination was published at 62 Fed. Reg. 25213 (May 8, 1997). In closing this

proceeding, the Copyright Office said that these issues would be considered as part of the

report on the cable and satellite licenses that had been requested by the Senate Judiciary

Committee, which, as noted, was submitted to the Congress in August 1997.

Pub. L. 103-369, 108 Stat. 3477, Act of October 18, 1994 (Hereafter, the “SHVA of 1994"),

which extended the section 119 satellite license for another five years.

Clause (8) of 17 U.S.C. §119(a), captioned the “transitional signal intensity measurement

procedures.” This clause was in effect only from enactment in October 1994 through the

end of 1996. The statutory procedures were never fully implemented because the private

sector parties never reached an agreement, as contemplated, concerning the standards for

determining what is a viewable signal and how to measure signal intensity.

CRS-3

filed copyright infringement lawsuits against satellite service providers if challenged

service is not terminated.10

In one of their lawsuits against a satellite provider — ABC v. PrimeTime 24 —11

broadcasters have prevailed. A district court has issued an injunction against the

satellite service defendant for violation of section 119's restrictions on retransmission

of network signals to ineligible households. By agreement of the parties to the

litigation, enforcement of the injunction against existing subscriber-households will

be delayed until February 28, 1999.12

In a development that implicates the §111 cable compulsory license, the

Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision13 upheld the constitutionality of the statutory mustcarry rules enacted by the 1992 Cable Act14 (which amended the existing

Communications Act of 1934).

This report summarizes the main features of the satellite and cable compulsory

licenses; reviews the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 (“SHVA of 1994") and

other recent developments affecting the satellite and cable licenses; and briefly

summarizes the pending bills to revise the copyright compulsory licenses (H.R. 3210,

S. 1720, H.R. 4449, and S. 2494) and the bills intended to delay implementation of

the 1997 satellite license rate increase (S. 1422 and H.R. 2921).

Background

Satellite Carrier License. The satellite carrier license of the Copyright Act

authorizes retransmission of “superstation” and network television programming by

satellite carriers to satellite home “dish” owners upon payment of a copyright royalty

and compliance with other statutory conditions.

The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (“SHVA of 1988"),15 which created the

satellite carrier license, was scheduled to “sunset” on December 31, 1994. Congress

In the 104th Congress, legislation was considered but not enacted that would have

addressed the viewable network signal issue. H.R. 3192 would have required satellite

carriers, broadcast networks, and their affiliated stations to agree upon signal intensity

measurement procedures or, failing agreement, compel arbitration of the issue.

__ F. Supp. 2d __, 1998 WL 544297 (M.D.N.C. August 19, 1998).

“Joint Press Statement of NAB and SBCA,” NAB Press Release (September 21, 1998).

The parties have agreed jointly to file a stipulation with the district court, delaying

enforcement until after February 28, 1999. They have also agreed on procedures for

notifying existing subscribers of possible termination of satellite network service, including

information about options for receiving the network signal and possible waivers of the

“unserved household” restriction by the broadcast station.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission,

117 S. Ct. 1174 (1997).

Pub. L. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, Act of October 5, 1992.

Act of November 16, 1988, Title II of Pub. L. 100-667, 102 Stat. 3949.

(Hereafter the “SHVA of 1988").

CRS-4

extended the life of the satellite carrier license through December 31, 1999 by

passage of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 (“SHVA of 1994").16

Congress originally enacted the satellite carrier statutory license, section 119 of

the Copyright Act,17 effective January 1, 1989, to facilitate access to “superstation”

and network programming through reception by home satellite “dish” owners. The

license applies only for purposes of private home viewing. The section 119 license

does not authorize retransmission of television broadcasts to bars, hotels, restaurants,

and similar commercial establishments.18

Satellite carriers19 must meet special conditions for the retransmission of

network programming. Since this programming reaches a high percentage of

television households by direct transmission, the statutory license applies to network

If Congress had not extended the satellite carrier license, presumably the satellite carriers

would have been able to retransmit broadcast television programming to their home “dish”

owner subscribers after 1994 only if the carriers had negotiated voluntary licensing

agreements with every copyright owner of the works embodied in the broadcast

programming. But see the later discussion concerning the satellite carriers’ argument that

they might qualify for the 17 U.S.C. §111 cable license.

The Copyright Act is codified as title 17 of the United States Code, sections 101 et. Seq.

The Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-553, Act of October 19, 1976, is the most recent

general revision of the copyright law. The 1976 Act went into effect January l, 1978.

Other provisions of the Copyright Act may authorize retransmission to commercial

establishments, either under an exemption to the rights of the owner of copyright, or under

the cable compulsory license of section 111. Section 111(a)(1) exempts a local

retransmission to the private rooms of hotels, if no direct charge is made for the guest to see

or hear the retransmission. Cable systems may retransmit local and distant broadcasts to

paying subscribers, including bars, restaurants, hotels, and other commercial establishments

under the cable license of section 111(c)-(f). Also, public reception of the primary

transmission by a commercial establishment may be exempt under section 110(5), if

reception occurs via a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes,

no direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission, and there is no further transmission

to the public. With respect to the section 110(5) exemption, however, satellite receiving

equipment would not qualify as an “apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes,”

according to several lower court decisions.

Satellite carriers are entities authorized by the Federal Communications Commission

(“FCC”) to use a satellite in the point-to-multipoint distribution of television signals. They

are essentially common carriers but have been exempted by the FCC from regulation as

ordinary common carriers.

CRS-5

signals only for their retransmission to households “unserved”20 by the networks and

their affiliate stations.21

“Superstations” are independent broadcast stations, like WTBS-Atlanta, WORNew York, and WGN-Chicago, not affiliated with any of the commercial networks.

The over-the-air signal of these independent stations is retransmitted on an essentially

nationwide basis, principally by wired cable services under the authority of the

separate cable compulsory license of section 111 of the Copyright Act.

The section 119 satellite carrier license requires a monthly royalty payment for

each broadcast station retransmitted, based on the number of subscribers to the signal

multiplied by the statutory rate for that type of station. The current rate if 27 cents per

month per signal per subscriber, for both superstation and network signals.22

Unserved households are those that fall into the so-called “white areas.” Originally this

phrase referred to the approximately one to two percent of the television households in the

United States which could not receive one or more of the three major commercial networks

(ABC, CBS, and NBC). These households were located primarily in remote, rural areas

where terrain or distance from the nearest transmitter (whether primary or translator station)

make over-the-air reception of a viewable signal not feasible. In some cases, cable service

is available to retransmit a viewable signal. The satellite carrier license does not apply to

a household that subscribed to cable service within 90 days before starting satellite carrier

service. As discussed later, the expansion of the definition of “network station” to include

the Fox stations (and probably United Paramount and Warner Brothers stations) also

expands the reach of the satellite carrier license to areas outside the traditional “white

areas.” Of course, this expansion only relates to these smaller networks, which do not have

the number of affiliates and nationwide coverage that the three major networks have.

The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (“SHVA of 1988") incorporated several key

definitions from the section 111 cable license, including the definition of network station.

Under this definition, neither PBS member stations nor Fox Broadcasting affiliates clearly

qualified as network stations. The absence of a fully nationwide television service excluded

the Fox affiliates. Their noncommercial status apparently excluded PBS stations from the

“network” category under the SHVA of 1988, notwithstanding a reference in the legislative

history of the SHVA of 1988 which referred to PBS as a network. H.R. REP. 887 (Part 2),

100th Cong., 2d Sess. 19 (1988). (The Copyright Office, however, did not refuse to accept

satellite license statements of account that characterized PBS stations as “network” signals.)

As discussed later, the SHVA of 1994 clarified the status of PBS stations and also

broadened the definition of “network” to include the Fox network and new smaller

“networks.”

The current rate took effect January 1, 1998. The former rates were 6 cents for network

signals and 17.5 or 14 cents per month per signal per subscriber for superstation signals,

depending upon whether or not the broadcast station was entitled to protection under the

FCC’s “syndicated exclusivity” rules. Syndicated television programming is off-network or

post-network programming licensed directly to individual broadcast stations. The FCC’s

rules basically require respect for the contractual rights obtained by broadcasters in the

syndicated programming. Superstation programming subject to these rules must be “blacked

out” upon request in areas where other stations hold exclusive rights, unless the superstation

has obtained nationwide rights in the same programming, in which case, the other station’s

rights would be nonexclusive.

CRS-6

The compulsory phase of the satellite carrier law applied for the first four years

after enactment (that is, from 1989 through 1992). For the last 2 years of the SHVA

of 1988 (1993-94), the satellite retransmission license could have been obtained

either through voluntary negotiations between copyright owners and satellite carrier

systems, or through arbitration. In fact, since voluntary negotiations did not lead to

a licensing agreement in 1992, the former Copyright Royalty Tribunal23 (“CRT”)

convened an arbitration panel, which ultimately set the current royalty rates.

Satellite carrier operators report to the Copyright Office by January 31 and July

31 each year regarding their signal carriage and subscribers for the preceding 6month period. The carriers remit payment of the appropriate royalties at that time.

Originally, the former Copyright Royalty Tribunal distributed to copyright

owners the royalties received by the Copyright Office and deposited with the United

States Treasury in interest-bearing accounts, pending their distribution. With the

abolition of the CRT in December 1993, its distribution function was transferred to

ad hoc arbitration panels, which are convened and supervised by the Copyright

Office, under the direction of the Librarian of Congress. The Librarian also now

convenes any arbitration panel for purposes of adjusting the satellite license rates.24

To justify carriage of network programming, the satellite carrier submits to each

network, within 90 days after commencing retransmission, the names and addresses

of its subscribers. The networks and their affiliates can use this list to determine

whether the subscriber resides in an “unserved household,” which is a condition of

the license as applied to network programming. A household is “unserved” by a

particular network if (i) it cannot receive the signal of a primary network station of

that network over-the-air (at Grade B intensity, as defined by the FCC), or (ii)

within 90 days before the date service begins to that household, the household has

not received the signal through subscription to a cable system.

A network or one of its affiliate stations can challenge reception of its signal on

the ground the household is not “unserved” by the network. Upon receiving an

objection, the satellite service provider can either conduct a signal measurement test

to prove the household is unserved, terminate the service, or risk that the network

or affiliate station will sue for copyright infringement.

The Copyright Royalty Tribunal Reform Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-198 (December 17,

1993) abolished the Tribunal and replaced it with a system of ad hoc copyright arbitration

royalty panels (CARP’s), administered by the Copyright Office under the direction of the

Librarian of Congress.

The first rate adjustment proceeding by a CARP under the new procedures was conducted

in 1997. The Librarian of Congress confirmed the basic recommendation of the CARP,

setting the new rate of 27 cents per signal per month per subscriber, in an Order published

in the Federal Register on October 28, 1997. 62 Fed. Reg. 55742. The new rate took effect

on January 1, 1998. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is considering an

appeal of the rate adjustment, but has refused to stay the fee increase pending appeal.

CRS-7

The Cable Compulsory License. The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 also

addressed the eligibility for the separate section 111 cable compulsory license of

another video retransmission service — multichannel, multipoint distribution

services (“MMDS”; also known as “wireless cable”).25

The cable compulsory license is set out in section 111(c)-(f) of the Copyright

Act, title 17 U.S.C. It was enacted in the Copyright Act of 1976,26 effective January

1, 1978, to compensate copyright owners for cable retransmission of their works

embodied in broadcast programming and to facilitate access by wired cable systems

to broadcast programming under reasonable rates and conditions for the benefit of

cable subscribers and the public.

Early History of Cable Television. Cable television systems began as

community-based, reception-enhancing services in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Known originally as “community antenna television (CATV),” cable systems

initially provided a simple antenna service that improved reception of over-the-air

local broadcast signals. Very soon, however, cable system technology was used to

“import” distant broadcast stations not available over-the-air in the cable system’s

service area. Premium or “pay cable” programming services also were developed by

the early 1970s. Cable operators purchased transmission rights for the premium/pay

cable programming from their copyright owners. Cable operators paid nothing to

broadcasters for retransmission of broadcast signals and did not obtain any voluntary

Broadcast stations were concerned about the competitive impact of cable

technology and the unauthorized use of their broadcast programming without any

payment of royalties. Broadcasters strenuously objected to importation of distant

signals. Throughout the 1960s, broadcasters sought administrative relief through

regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), petitioned

Congress to make cable systems liable for copyright infringement by amendment of

the copyright law, and challenged in court the legality of cable carriage of broadcast

signals. When it became possible to count cable viewership for ratings purposes,

some broadcasters preferred mandatory cable carriage of local signals to copyright

relief and the FCC obliged the broadcasters by issuing must-carry rules in 1972.

The networks and most commercial broadcasters (both network affiliates and

independent stations) remained strongly opposed to importation of distant broadcast

signals. They felt the distant signals cost the local broadcaster viewers and diluted

the value of their programming, for which they had paid significant sums to obtain

exclusive rights in their own television market. In the 1960s, the distant broadcast

station itself could not generally sell advertisements directed to the distant television

The SHVA of 1994 did not, however, address the cable compulsory license eligibility of

satellite master antenna systems (“SMATVs,” also known as “private cable”) or video

telephone services. The Copyright Office has addressed the status of SMATVs in its

regulations. The Office ruled that SMATVs are eligible for the cable license, essentially

under the same conditions as those applied to traditional wired cable systems. 62 Fed. Reg.

18705, April 1, 1997.

Pub. L. 94-553, Act of October 19, 1976, codified as title 17 U.S.C.

CRS-8

market because many of its advertisers did not conduct business in the distant

television market.27 Copyright owners, who licensed broadcast rights to broadcasters,

also strongly objected to cable retransmission of distant signals because it eroded

their ability to license exclusive broadcast rights in a given television market.28

In order to protect broadcasters from the perceived unfair use by cable systems

of broadcast signals, the FCC in 1966 asserted jurisdiction over cable systems.29 At

first, the FCC required cable systems to obtain FCC approval in a full administrative

hearing for importation of distant signals into a major television market. This rule

had the practical effect of “freezing” distant signal importation (except for

“grandfathered” signals). In late 1968, after the Supreme Court ruled against

with “retransmission consent.” The FCC proposed rules, which were implemented

experimentally but never adopted in final form, requiring cable systems to obtain

retransmission consent from the broadcaster to carry new signals.31 (The FCC, as

it generally does, “grandfathered” existing cable carriage.) The retransmission

consent mechanism proved unworkable: the broadcasters with few exceptions

The economic situation changed later for some distant stations as national or regional

advertisers became aware of the possibilities of advertising on broadcast stations imported

into distant television markets. With the advent of satellite technology and the creation of

the “superstation,” national and regional advertisers could place ads at rates less than

network rates and still reach a large national (or regional) audience. Except for station

WTBS (Atlanta) (a “willing” superstation, which from its inception as a superstation sought

to sell ads nationally), the independent broadcast stations that were turned into

“superstations” without their permission continued to join the networks and their affiliates

in opposing uncompensated retransmission of their broadcast programming by cable

systems.

which the networks paid large sums of money. Because broadcast stations (both network

affiliates and independents) operate in the specific television markets they are authorized

by the FCC to serve, copyright owners were able (before the advent of cable retransmission)

to market exclusive rights in their works in each television market. That is, the same movie

or syndicated television program could be licensed “exclusively” in Los Angeles, Chicago,

New York, Wichita, Peoria, etc. The broadcast networks purchased nationwide rights for

limited times and repeat showings. When those rights expired, the copyright owner could

license the work “exclusively” to stations in each separate television market. Cable system

importation and retransmission of distant signals threatened to dilute and perhaps

significantly erode the value of these television market rights.

Second Report and Order in Docket No. 15971, 2 FCC 725 (1966). The Supreme Court

upheld the FCC’s assertion of cable jurisdiction (within limits) and the 1966 Order

specifically in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968).

Fortnightly Corp. V. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968).

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry in Docket 18397, 15 FCC 2d 417

(1968).

CRS-9

refused consent to allow cable retransmission.32 Following this experiment, the FCC

in 1972 promulgated its major body of cable carriage rules.33

In the Congress, the copyright liability of cable systems became a stumbling

block in the effort to enact a general revision of the copyright law. The last general

revision had been enacted in 1909. No legislation was passed in the 1960s, as

broadcasters and copyright owners attempted to obtain judicial relief by suing cable

operators for copyright infringement under the existing 1909 Act.34 While

broadcasters/copyright owners won some lower court cases, the cable operators

ultimately prevailed before the Supreme Court in two historic copyright cases.

In Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.,35 the Court applied a

“functional” test to determine whether cable operators “performed” copyrighted

works in retransmitting those works as embodied in broadcast signals. Noting that

broadcasters “perform” in transmitting works and asserting that viewers do not

“perform” in receiving works embodied in signals,36 the Court found cable systems

in the 1960s functioned as viewers and had no copyright liability for retransmission

of essentially local broadcast signals. When the issue of distant signal importation

finally came before the Supreme Court in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.

Teleprompter Corp.,37 broadcasters lost and cable systems prevailed again. The

Court said that the “reception and rechanneling of these [broadcast] signals for

simultaneous viewing is essentially a viewer function, irrespective of the distance

between the broadcasting station and the ultimate viewer.”38

The Fortnightly-Teleprompter decisions gave cable systems complete

exemption from copyright liability for retransmission of broadcast signals. The

practical effect was not to end the policy debate, which now returned to the

legislative forum (since the general revision of the 1909 Act was yet pending), but

See, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Docket No. 18397-A, 24 FCC 2d

580 (1970).

Cable Television Report and Order (issued February 2, 1972), 36 FCC 2d 143 (1972).

392 U.S. 390 (1968).

While recognizing the analytical difficulties of applying the 1909 Copyright Act to a new

technology like wired cable, copyright experts generally criticized the Court’s assertion that

viewers do not “perform” when receiving works on ordinary home television sets.

engage in a private performance; the copyright law restricts public performances of works.

Lower appellate courts had so ruled. If the Supreme Court had followed this principle, cable

operators would probably have been held liable for retransmission of broadcast

programming. (Alternatively, the Court could have decided that the term “perform” in the

1909 Act could not be stretched to cover a technology not even contemplated when the 1909

Act was passed.)

415 U.S. 394 (1974).

415 U.S. at 408.

CRS-10

to place the cable operators in a strong position in forging a compromise concerning

their copyright liability under the proposed revision.39

1976 Copyright Revision. Congress legislated the cable compulsory license in

1976 to resolve the copyright policy issues stemming from retransmission of

copyrighted works by wired cable systems. Since the FCC had engaged in substantial

regulation of wired cable, the Congress employed the fabric of FCC regulations to

shape the contours of the cable compulsory license. In essence, the FCC’s cable

regulations infused the copyright law and were incorporated by reference almost

bodily into the copyright law. These regulations included the distant signal carriage

rules,40 the syndicated exclusivity rules,41 the network nonduplication rules,42 the

must-carry rules,43 and originally the anti-leapfrogging44 and anti-siphoning rules.45

Indeed, copyright owners were in the weakest posture of any of the contending interests

among cable operators, broadcasters, and rightsholders. Cable operators had prevailed in

court. Broadcasters had prevailed before the FCC, whose 1972 rules seriously restricted

cable carriage of distant signals but required carriage of local signals. Rightsholders were

not getting any money from cable for retransmission and would have difficulty negotiating

increased payments from broadcasters. Rightsholders could not get regulatory relief; they

had to obtain relief from the Congress through an amendment of the copyright law.

The distant signal rules governed the permissibility of importing broadcast signals from

a distant television market into the service area of the cable system. The rules established

rigid quotas for the number of distant independent station signals (that is, commercial nonnetwork signals) that could be carried by a cable system based on the division of television

markets into top-50, lower-50, “smaller market,” and “outside all markets” categories. The

“distant signal” demarcation was drawn by application of the must-carry rules: if the

broadcast station could insist upon cable carriage, the signal was local; all other signals

were distant. These rules were eliminated by the FCC, effective June 25, 1981, but remain

highly significant under the Copyright Act for calculation of the copyright royalties payable

by cable systems.

The syndicated exclusivity rules allowed a broadcast station to object to cable carriage of

specific nonnetwork programming for which the broadcast station had purchased exclusive

transmission rights within its television market. Most of this programming was

“syndicated,” that is, marketed by independent producers to one broadcast station in each

television market under an exclusive license. These rules remain in effect on a modified

basis.

The network nonduplication rules prohibit cable importation of a network signal into a

service area already served by that network. For example, if an NBC affiliate station

operates in the television market served by the cable system, the system may not duplicate

the network programming by importing another NBC station (whether a network owned and

operated station or an affiliate station) into that television market. The signal can be

imported to retransmit the nonnetwork portion of the broadcast day (i.e., local news, local

television shows, and syndicated programming). These rules remain in effect.

The must-carry rules in effect on April 15, 1976 were incorporated by reference into the

transmitter,” which essentially defines “local” signals.” Under these rules, a broadcast

station licensed to operate in a particular community served by a cable system could insist

upon carriage by that system, within certain limits. The principal criteria were: i) geography

— must-carry rights applied within a 35-mile radius from the transmitter site; ii)

(continued...)

CRS-11

Above all, the FCC’s former cable regulations form an integral part of the

calculation of the amount of royalties that must be paid for cable retransmission

under the cable compulsory license.46

Recognizing that many local broadcasters now wanted to be carried by the cable

system operating in the local television market, the cable compulsory license defined

local signals by employing the FCC’s must-carry rules as the demarcation between

local and distant. Since cable carriage of local signals was mandatory, in general,

cable operators would not have to pay copyright royalties for carriage of local signals

generally. Copyright royalties are paid for distant signals primarily. Royalties are

paid twice a year at six-month filing periods.

At the present time, small cable systems (with gross receipts of $146,000 or less

for the six month filing period) pay a flat fee of $28 every six months. Medium-sized

systems (with gross receipts above $146,000 but less than $292,0900 for the filing

(...continued)

significantly viewed status —that the signal was viewed by 5 percent of television

households, as demonstrated by rating surveys. The original must-carry rules were held

unconstitutional in Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1985), but the

same court noted that the 1976 must-carry rules remain viable for purposes of the Copyright

Act’s cable compulsory license. In the 1992 Cable Act, Pub. L. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460,

Congress adopted statutory must-carry rules. The Supreme Court initially vacated a district

court grant of summary judgment holding the must-carry rules valid and remanded the case

for further findings on the justification for the carriage regulations. Turner Broadcasting

System, Inc. v. FCC, 114 S.Ct. 2445 (1994). The Court indicated that an intermediate level

of scrutiny is appropriate for the must-carry rules. The Government must show, however,

that the remedy adopted does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to

further its legitimate interests. On remand, a divided district court again upheld the

constitutionality of the must-carry rules. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 910 F.

Supp. 734 (D.D.C. 1995). On its second look, the Supreme Court recently upheld the

constitutionality of the statutory must-carry rules in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v.

FCC, 117 S. Ct. 1174 (1997).

Originally, the distant signal rules prioritized signals and required importation of the

nearest distant signal of a given category (independent or network). The cable system was

prohibited from “leapfrogging” the closer station to import a more distant one. The FCC

withdrew the “anti-leapfrogging” rules in 1977.

The former anti-siphoning rules restricted the migration of television programming from

“free” over-the-air television to subscriber-based cable systems. These rules were

invalidated by the courts in 1977. Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir.

1977).

The “distant signal equivalent” value, which is a critical component of the royalty formula,

is defined by the terms of FCC regulations in effect on either April 15, 1976 (the must-carry

rules) or October 19, 1976 (the date of enactment of the 1976 Copyright Act). The royalty

rates vary in accordance with the number of “distant signal equivalents” attributable to cable

carriage of broadcast programming. In simple terms, a value of one is assigned to carriage

of independent broadcast stations and a value of one-quarter is assigned to carriage of

network stations and noncommercial stations. These values are further qualified depending

upon the FCC’s rules governing substitution of programming (e.g., in “black out”

situations), part time carriage of late night or specialty programming, and part time carriage

because of lack of channel capacity to carry all the authorized signals.

CRS-12

period) pay a fee that is a percentage of their gross receipts from broadcast

retransmissions (0.5 of 1 percentum of any gross receipts up to $146,000 plus 1

percentum of the gross receipts in excess of $146,000 but less than $292,000),

regardless of the number of distant signals carried. Large systems pay in accordance

with a complex statutory formula which has three components: “gross receipts from

secondary transmissions,” the number of “distant signal equivalents” carried by the

system, and the royalty rate (which is a percentage amount for different distant

signals).

Like the satellite license, the royalties fees due under the cable compulsory

license are paid into the Copyright Office and deposited with the United States

Treasury in interest-bearing accounts, pending their distribution to those entitled to

compensation under the §111 license. The distribution proceedings are conducted

by ad hoc arbitration panels, which are convened and supervised by the Copyright

Office, under the direction of the Librarian of Congress.

The royalty rates and gross receipt limitations that define small, medium, and

large systems are subject to adjustment for inflation at five-year intervals. The rates

are also subject to adjustment following an FCC rule change that impacts the cable

carriage of broadcast signals. To adjust the rates or gross receipt limitations, the

Wireless Cable. In 1976, satellite transmission of television programming was

in its infancy. For example, the FCC did not authorize the operations of the first

satellite resale carriers (the predecessors of satellite carriers) until December 1976 —

after passage of the 1976 Copyright Act. When the cable compulsory license was

created, satellite transmission was not used to deliver broadcast signals.47

(Terrestrial microwave was used by many cable systems to import signals not

receivable with over-the-air reception equipment.) “Wireless cable” and SMATVs

(also known as “private cable”) did not exist. (One or two channel multipoint

distribution systems —”MDS”— did exist, but they lacked the multichannel capacity

that was developed later and given FCC authorization in the mid-1980's. In 1976,

MDS was a pay broadcast service.) Telephone services were prohibited by FCC

regulations from providing video retransmissions until recently.48 This limited FCC

authorization for video telephone service has been superseded now by passage of the

A pay cable service, Home Box Office (HBO), began using a domestic communications

satellite (Western Union’s Westar) to distribute programming to its cable system customers.

Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate Comm. On

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 11 (1991) (Statement of

Charles C. Hewitt, President, Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association).

By 1993, the FCC had begun to experiment with video dial tone service. Bell Atlantic was

authorized to offer this interactive video service to New Jersey viewers. According to press

accounts, Bell Atlantic offered selected viewers 60 channels of service at prices 20% less

than competing cable systems. Baby Bells Branch Out, Time, July 18, 1994, col. 1, page

15. The Copyright Office opened a public notice of inquiry proceeding to consider the

eligibility of “open video telephone” systems for the cable license, but terminated the

proceeding without reaching any decision on eligibility when the Senate tasked the

Fed. Reg. 25213 (May 8, 1997).

CRS-13

Communications Act of 1996,49 which removes most of the regulatory constraints

on telephone video services.

During the mid-1980's, the Copyright Office began to receive cable statements

of account and royalty payments from video retransmission services other than wired

cable.50 These new video retransmission services claimed eligibility under the

section 111 cable license either because they were unable to obtain voluntary licenses

from copyright owners or could not meet the price demanded for voluntary licenses.

In order to do business, they asserted that the cable compulsory license could be

interpreted as applicable to them.51

The Copyright Office conducted a public rulemaking proceeding to clarify

whether or not the section 111 compulsory license applies to entities other than

traditional wired cable systems, regulated as such by the FCC.

While this

rulemaking proceeding was pending, a television network, the National Broadcasting

Company, and an affiliate sued a satellite carrier for copyright infringement. The

district court ruled in NBC’s favor in 1988, finding that satellite carriers are not

eligible for the cable compulsory license. Pacific & Southern Co., Inc. v. Satellite

Broadcast Network, Inc.,(SBN) 694 F. Supp. 1565 (N.D. Ga. 1988).

Pub. L. 104-66, Act of February 8, 1996. This historic revision of the communications law

will have an enormous impact on competition in video services. The changes wrought by

the 1996 Telecommunications Act are beyond the scope of this Report, except to note a few

points. Although the Telecommunications Act removes most of the regulatory constraints

from the telephone companies in providing video services, the telephone companies

presumably will not have the privilege of the cable and satellite carrier compulsory licenses

of the Copyright Act for carriage of broadcast programming absent further legislation. The

telephone companies may seek access to these licenses by merger with cable or satellite

service providers that are eligible for the compulsory licenses, or by obtaining a local

government franchise to operate as a cable system. Those telephone companies that do not

gain access to the compulsory licenses will be at a serious competitive disadvantage in

providing video services. It is not likely that they could obtain the right to retransmit the

broadcast programming through voluntary negotiations, except possibly in the case of

superstations. For further information about the 1996 Telecommunications Act, see A.

Gilroy, Telecommunications Regulatory Reform: Issue Brief, IB95067.

At different time periods, these retransmission services included SMATVs, wireless cable,

and satellite carriers.

Before the advent of signal scrambling technology, satellite carriers operated free of

conditions of that exemption are that the carrier have “no direct or indirect control over the

content or selection of the primary transmission or over the particular recipients of the

secondary transmission.” After the mid-1980's, satellite carriers elected to scramble some

of their signals. The 1984 amendments to the Communications Act had legalized home

“dish” reception of unscrambled satellite signals (unless the program owner had a licensingmarketing plan to which the public could subscribe). The satellite carriers and many

program owners scrambled their transmissions to assert proprietary control over them. By

scrambling their signals, satellite carriers were able to “control... the particular recipients

of the secondary transmission,” which violated the conditions of the section 111(a)(3)

passive carrier exemption. Satellite carriers were no longer “passive.” At this point, they

asserted their eligibility for the cable license.

CRS-14

In response to the SBN decision, Congress created the satellite carrier statutory

license by enacting the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988.

In July 1991, the Copyright Office issued a Policy Decision and proposed

regulations consistent with the SBN district court opinion.52 Before final regulations

were issued, however, the 11th Circuit reversed and held satellite carriers were

eligible for the cable compulsory license. National Broadcasting Company, Inc. v.

Satellite Broadcast Networks, Inc., 940 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1991).

After careful evaluation of the Copyright Act of 1976, its legislative history, and

the 11th Circuit’s SBN decision, the Copyright Office ruled in 1992 that video

retransmission services other than wired cable and certain SMATVs53 are ineligible

for the cable compulsory license,54 notwithstanding the initial contrary opinion of the

11th Circuit in the SBN case. Ultimately, after judicial review of the Copyright

Office’s regulation, the 11th Circuit deferred to agency expertise and upheld the

validity of the regulation.55

Wireless cable operators, in particular, petitioned Congress to provide

legislative relief from the impact of the 1992 Copyright Office regulation56 by

amendment of section 111 of the Copyright Act.

The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994

The Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) of 1994 extended for 5 years the 17

U.S.C. §119 statutory license for retransmission of superstation and network signals

56 Fed. Reg. 31580 (July 11, 1991).

The eligible SMATVs are those regulated by the FCC as cable systems. In its 1990 Report

and Order in Docket No. 89-35, Definition of a Cable System, the FCC ruled that SMATVs

may become cable systems if operate in multiple buildings interconnected by cable except

where the buildings are commonly owned, controlled or managed and there is no crossing

of a public right-of-way to install the wires. 1990 Cable Report and Order at 4.

57 Fed. Reg. 3284 (January 29, 1992). The effective date of the regulation was postponed

twice, however, to allow time for amendment of the Copyright Act to resolve the status of

video service providers other than wired cable systems.

Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association of America v. Oman, 17 F.3d 344

(11th Cir. 1994).

The Copyright Office’s regulation defining “cable systems” for purposes of the 17

U.S.C.§111 license also had great significance in the legislative consideration of the satellite

carrier license extension. Satellite carriers have been granted a separate, but only temporary,

license in 17 U.S.C.§119. While the section 119 license is available, it is clear that satellite

carriers are excluded from the section 111 cable license, in accordance with 17 U.S.C.

§119(e). The satellite carriers argue, however, that if the section 119 license is allowed to

lapse by the Congress, then the carriers are eligible for the cable license. The Copyright

Office’s rule, however, excludes satellite carriers from access to the cable license by

declaring they do not satisfy the statutory definition of a “cable system.” Application of the

regulation to satellite carriers is now mooted by extension of the section 119 license by the

SHVA of 1994, but the issue could arise again at the end of this decade, when extension of

the section 119 license after the year 1999 will inevitably be presented to the Congress.

CRS-15

by satellite carriers for purposes of private home viewing via home satellite receiving

equipment.

With respect to the section 119 license, the Act also redefined the phrase

“network station,” established a statutory burden of proof for determining which

households are “unserved” by one or more networks, established transitional

procedures for determining viewability of broadcast signals over-the-air, established

the eligibility of direct broadcasting services for the section 119 license, and

identified fair market value criteria for setting royalty rates through arbitration.

With respect to the section 111 cable license, the SHVA of 1994 made wireless

cable eligible for the cable compulsory license. The Act also amended the definition

of local signals in 17 U.S.C. §111(f) to make those broadcast signals that are mustcarry signals under the 1992 Cable Act local signals under the cable compulsory

license of the Copyright Act.

Statutory License and Arbitration Phases. The SHVA of 1994 retained the

bifurcated statutory scheme of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, but

established a new date (July 1, 1996) to begin the voluntary negotiations to adjust the

rates. These negotiations were not successful. Consequently, the rates were adjusted

in 1997 by a copyright arbitration royalty panel (CARP) under the auspices of the

Network Station Redefined. The term “network station” was redefined in the

SHVA of 1994 to clarify the status of noncommercial educational stations (members

of the public broadcasting network —”PBS”) and of the affiliates of the Fox

Broadcasting “network.”58 This new definition replaced one that simply incorporated

the 17 U.S.C. §111(f) definition of a network station into the section 119 license.

Under the SHVA of 1988 it had been unclear whether the superstation royalty rate

or the network rate (and the other network station restrictions) applied to PBS

stations and Fox affiliates. PBS and Fox are probably not considered “networks”

(for different reasons) for purposes of the cable license.59

The Panel set the rate for both superstation and network signals at 27 cents per subscriber

per signal per month. The Librarian of Congress confirmed the new rate in an Order

published on October 18, 1997 in the Federal Register. 62 Fed. Reg. 55742. The rate

decision is under appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Since the

court declined to stay the rate increase pending appeal, the new rate took effect on January

1, 1998. Unless it is changed by a court decision or affected by new legislation, the 27 cent

rate remains in effect until the satellite license sunsets at the end of 1999. For further details

about the background of, and justification for, the 1997 rate adjustment, see an American

Law Division, CRS, general distribution memorandum by Dorothy Schrader entitled

“Satellite Television License (17 U.S.C.§119) and the 1997 Rate Adjustment.”

At the time the satellite license extension bills were under consideration in 1994, the

status of PBS and Fox stations as “network” stations was doubtful.

The section 111(f) definitions of the cable license divide broadcast stations into three,

separately defined, mutually exclusive categories: independent stations, network stations,

and noncommercial educational stations. Fox stations presumably fail to meet the section

(continued...)

CRS-16

The SHVA of 1994 provided that any PBS member station is a “network

station.”

Under the SHVA of 1994, commercial network stations are those that are owned

or operated by, or affiliated with, one of the television networks in the United States.

Networks are defined as entities offering an interconnected program service on a

regular basis for 15 hours or more per week to at least 25 affiliated television

licensees in 10 or more states. The definition also includes any translator station or

terrestrial satellite station that rebroadcasts all or substantially all of the programming

of a primary network station. Under this definition, Fox affiliates would clearly be

network stations.60

Unserved Households. The SHVA of 1994 established special procedures for

ascertaining if an existing subscriber to a satellite carrier service resides in an

“unserved household.” These provisions were intended to facilitate nonjudicial

enforcement of section 119(a)(5) — the territorial restriction on the satellite carrier

license as applied to network stations.61 Also, in any action to enforce the territorial

restriction, satellite carriers will bear the burden of proving the household is

unserved by the particular broadcast network.

Transitional signal intensity measurement. The transitional signal intensity

measurement provisions established procedures for testing the viewability of signals

to determine whether a particular household is served by a particular network. The

procedures distinguished between signals that are within or without the station’s

predicted Grade B contour.62 The procedures were in effect only in 1995 and 1996.

(...continued)

111(f) definition of “network station” because Fox Broadcasting does not provide fully

nationwide service. Since “noncommercial broadcast stations” are separately defined in

section 111(f), it has seemed clear that the “network station” definition of the cable license

applies only to commercial broadcast stations. In the case of the satellite carrier license,

however, the status of PBS stations was doubtful because of a comment in H.R. REP. 103703 (Part II), 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 19 (1988), which referred to PBS stations as subject to

the network royalty rate. Because of this reference in the legislative history, the Copyright

Office accepted filings from satellite carriers that applied the network royalty rate to PBS

station signals. PBS, however, apparently did not acknowledge that the “white areas”

restrictions for “network signals” applied to its stations.

Since the enactment of the SHVA of 1994, additional commercial networks have arisen

that probably also meet the Act’s amended definition of a network. These include the

United Paramount Network and the Warner Brothers Network.

In essence, satellite carriers are not permitted under the section 119 license to retransmit

network stations except to provide service in the so-called “white areas.” Originally, this

phrase referred to the one to two percent of the television households unserved by one or

more of the three major national television networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC). Under the

1994 SHVA’s new definition of network station, the satellite carrier license will be more

broadly available for carriage of Fox, United Paramount, Warner, and PBS member stations.

The predicated Grade B contour of a broadcast station is a technical standard established

by the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to assure

compliance with appropriate broadcast service standards. The required signal strength is

(continued...)

CRS-17

The Senate Judiciary Committee report stated the “provisions are designed to be a

mechanism for resolving disputes, without litigation, over whether existing

subscribers are unserved within the meaning of the act.”63

Within the predicted Grade B contour, the satellite carrier had the burden of

conducting a signal intensity measurement to determine whether the household was

unserved, if the network station challenged the satellite service. If the test had

shown the household was not unserved, the carrier immediately had to deauthorize

the service. If, however, the test showed the household was unserved, the

broadcast affiliate challenging the service had to reimburse the carrier for the cost of

the signal measurement within 45 days of receiving the bill.64

Within the predicted Grade B contour, a network affiliate could have conducted

its own signal intensity measurement. If the household was not unserved, the carrier

immediately had to deauthorize service and reimburse the affiliate for the cost of the

test.

Outside the station’s predicted Grade B contour, a network affiliate had the

burden of conducting the signal intensity measurement. If the household was not

unserved, the satellite carrier immediately had to deauthorize service and reimburse

the affiliate for the cost of the test within 45 days of billing. If, however, the

household was unserved, the affiliate would have paid the cost of the test.

The transitional signal intensity measurement clause of the SHVA of 1994 is

now a “dead letter.” The policy issue of determining what is a viewable network

signal remains, however. Unless there is legislative action, the issue may be

litigated and some clarification of “viewable signal” may be provided by the courts.

Burden of proof. In any civil action litigating the status of the household

receiving the network signal, the satellite carrier bears the burden of proving that the

retransmission of the network signal is for private home viewing to an unserved

(...continued)

intended to provide a certain level of viewability for the public receiving the signal and to

prevent interference with other broadcast stations.

S.REP. 103-407, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1994).

Signal intensity measurements were not in fact conducted as envisioned by the SHVA of

1994. Congress expected that the satellite carriers and the broadcasters would agree among

themselves about the detailed procedures and standards for the signal intensity test. For

example, where will the measurement be taken — inside the household or on the rooftop

antennae; how high must the antennae be; where must the antennae be located; how will the

measurement be taken for condominiums and other multiple dwellings? The negotiations

did not result in any agreement, and the bill in the 104th Congress, H.R. 3192, which would

have compelled arbitration, was not enacted. Consequently, if satellite carrier delivery of

a network signal is challenged within the station’s predicted Grade B contour, the satellite

carrier ordinarily deactivates service for that signal. The householder is then left with the

options of receiving the signal over the air, if possible; of subscribing to a cable service,

if it is available; or of doing without the signal.

CRS-18

household. The losing party must pay for the costs of any signal intensity

measurement tests.

This burden of proof provision took effect January 1, 1997,65 with respect to

actions relating to subscribers who subscribed to satellite service as an unserved

household before October 18, 1994 — the effective date of the SHVA of 1994. The

now obsolete transitional intensity measurement procedures were intended to

complement the burden of proof clarification.

ABC v. PrimeTime case. A federal district court in North Carolina recently

held a satellite carrier liable to violation of the “unserved household” restriction of

the section 119 license.66 The defendant, according to the court, exceeded the scope

of the license through a pattern of willful or repeated retransmissions of network

signals to ineligible subscribers. The satellite carrier was permanently enjoined from

retransmitting the particular signal within the broadcast station’s predicted Grade B

contour (which was a circular area with a radius of about 75 miles).

As a result of an agreement by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB),

the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association (SBCA), and the parties

to the litigation, enforcement has been delayed until after February 28, 1999. The

agreement also includes procedures for notifying existing subscribers of possible

termination of their network signals. The notification will provide information about

options for receiving the network signals and about possible waivers of the “unserved

household” restriction by the broadcast station.67

Direct Broadcasting Services. The SHVA of 1994 redefined “satellite

carriers” to mean carriers who operate in the Fixed Satellite Service or the Direct

Broadcast Satellite Service, parts 25 and 100 respectively, of the FCC’s regulations.

This revised definition established for the first time the eligibility of direct

broadcasting services for the section 119 license.

Fair Market Value Royalty Adjustment Criteria. Under the SHVA of 1988,

absent voluntary agreements, the statutory royalty rates could be adjusted by an

arbitration procedure. The law included some general criteria to guide the discretion

of the arbiters in adjusting the rates.68 These criteria were revised by the SHVA of

1994.

The coming into effect of the burden of proof provision may trigger litigation over alleged

infringing satellite transmissions to home satellite “dish” owners.

ABC v. PrimeTime 24, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 1998 WL 544297 (M.D.N.C. 1998).

“Joint Press Statement of NAB and SBCA,” (NAB Press Release, September 21, 1998;

Washington, D.C.) (Online at “www.nab.org/).

The criteria were originally set forth in 17 U.S.C. §119(c)(3)(D). As a result of

amendments made by the statute abolishing the Copyright Royalty Tribunal [Pub. L. 103198, 107 Stat. 2304, Act of December 17, 1993), this provision was redesignated

§119(c)(3)(B).

CRS-19

The arbitration panel shall establish royalty rates that “most clearly represent the

fair market value” of the superstation and network signals retransmitted by satellite

carriers. The CARP shall base its decision on “economic, competitive, and

programming information presented by the parties,” including three specific factors:

the competitive environment, the cost of signals in similar private and compulsory

marketplaces, and the special features of the retransmission marketplace; the impact

of the rates on continued availability of the satellite service to the public; and the

economic impact on copyright owners and satellite carriers.

Wireless Cable. The SHVA of 1994 amended the term “cable system” in

section 111(f) of the Copyright Act by inserting the word “microwave” in between

“wires” and “cables.” The purpose of this change was to make MMDS or “wireless

cable” systems eligible for the cable compulsory license.

The question arose, however, about computation of the royalties payable by

wireless cable under the cable license. As noted earlier, wireless cable was not

subject to the FCC’s cable carriage regulations since most of the regulations had been

abolished by the FCC before wireless cable became operational in the mid-1980's.

Yet, these FCC cable carriage regulations are indispensable to the computation of

the cable royalties.

Congress resolved this dilemma not by statutory text but by comments in the

committee reports. The Senate Judiciary Committee report says the “committee

intends `wireless’ cable and traditional wired cable systems to be placed on equal

footing with respect to their royalty obligations under the cable compulsory license,

so that one not have an unfair advantage over the other due to differences in their

regulatory status under FCC rules.”69 The Senate Report therefore directed the

FCC rules and regulations that are applicable to wired cable systems, and `wireless’

cable systems must file their royalty payments and statements of account accordingly,

in order to qualify for the section 111 license.”70

Local Signals Under the Cable License.. The SHVA of 1994 made one other

adjustment to the section 111 cable compulsory license. The definition of “local

service area of a primary transmitter” — that is, the definition of local signals71 —

was amended. The change, in essence, expanded the concept of local signals to

include not only signals entitled to “must-carry” status under the FCC’s 1976 rules

(the former law), but also those entitled to must-carry status under the statutory rules

S. REP. 103-407 at 14.

Ibid.

The concept of “local signals” originally applied only to the cable license. It had no

application or relevance to the satellite license. The SHVA of 1994 did temporarily add a

definition of “local market” since this term was used in the transitional signal intensity

measurement clause [17 U.S.C. §119(a)(8)], which was in effect during 1995 and 1996. The

clause has expired and the term “local market” is obsolete. Recently, certain direct

broadcasting services have sought expansion of the satellite license to permit carriage of

“local” broadcast signals by DBS services. See the discussion under legislative proposals

in a later section of this report.

CRS-20

enacted by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 199272

(“1992 Cable Act”), which amended the Communications Act of 1934.

The 1992 Cable Act created statutory must-carry provisions and directed the

FCC to issue regulations governing mandatory carriage of certain broadcast signals

by cable systems, at the election of the broadcast station. Before passage of the

SHVA of 1994, if the station requesting cable carriage was considered a distant

signal under the Copyright Act (because it fell outside the range of the 1976 mustcarry rules), the broadcast station had to reimburse the cable system for the copyright

costs of the requested carriage.73

The SHVA of 1994 expanded the area of local signals (and decreased the

number of distant signals, as a result)74 under the cable compulsory license of the

signals” to the definition in the 1992 Cable Act. Broadcast stations are now relieved

of any copyright costs when they request cable carriage pursuant to either the 1976

FCC rules or the statutory must-carry provisions since the signal is considered

“local.”75

The must-carry provisions of the 1992 Cable Act have been the subject of a

lawsuit, challenging their constitutionality. On its second look at the must-carry

provisions, the Supreme Court recently upheld their constitutionality in a 5-4

decision.76 The Court analyzed the First Amendment issues under the “intermediate

Pub. L. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, October 5, 1992. Congress overrode a presidential veto

to pass the legislation.

This obligation existed only between the effective date of the statutory must-carry rules

(apparently December 4, 1992) and passage of the SHVA of 1994 on October 18, 1994. The

obligation was largely theoretical since a broadcast station was unlikely to insist upon

carriage if the carriage meant the station had to reimburse the cable operator for copyright

royalty fees attributable to the difference between the two statutory definitions of local

signals. In lieu of must-carry, the 1992 Cable Act gave a broadcast station the right to grant

or deny its consent to retransmission of its signal by cable systems (“retransmission

consent”). To date, this broadcaster right has also been largely theoretical. Cable systems

have refused to pay money for the privilege of carrying non-must carry signals. Some

broadcast networks may have obtained non-monetary benefits, such as additional cable

channels or favorable channel positions, in exchange for their retransmission consent.

Under the cable compulsory license, a broadcast signal is either local or distant. The

definition of “local service area of a primary transmitter” governs the demarcation between

local and distant. If a broadcast signal is not local, it is distant.

In essence, no copyright royalties are paid by cable systems for carriage of local signals

under the section 111 cable license. Copyright royalties are paid only for distant signals,

except for small systems who pay a nominal or small fee as a percentage of gross receipts

and the minimum payment for those large systems that carry no distant signals, if any such

systems exist.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., et al. V. Federal Communications Commission et al.,

117 S. Ct. 1174 (1997). An analysis of the specific must-carry rules is beyond the scope of

this Report, except to note a few main requirements: cable systems with more than 12 usable

(continued...)

CRS-21

scrutiny” test of United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), as it had announced

it would in an earlier phase of this litigation.77 The majority ruled that Congress “has

an independent interest in preserving a multiplicity of broadcasters to ensure that all

households have access to information and entertainment on an equal footing with

those who subscribe to cable.”78 The “Congress could conclude from the substantial

body of evidence before it that `absent legislative action, the free local off-air

broadcast system is endangered.’”79 Given this compelling governmental interest in

preserving a national system of “local” broadcast television, the must-carry

provisions were upheld notwithstanding their burden on the free speech of cable

systems and programmers since the rules are “narrowly tailored to preserve a

multiplicity of broadcast stations for the 40 percent of American households without

cable.”80

Legislative Policy Issues

1997 Rate Adjustment and Proposals to Stay Its Implementation. The first

and only rate adjustment proceeding by a CARP under the 1993 amendments (which

abolished the Copyright Royalty Tribunal and replaced the Tribunal with Copyright

Arbitration Royalty Panels) has proved controversial. The CARP also applied for the

first time the new rate adjustment criteria legislated by the SHVA of 1994. Under

the original adjustment criteria of the 1988 Act, comparability of cable and satellite

licensing rates was the key criterion. Under the SHVA of 1994, however, the “fair

market value” of the retransmitted broadcasts became the key criterion.

In setting a new rate of 27 cents per subscriber per signal per month, the CARP

looked primarily to the royalty fees paid for cable origination networks (such as

(...continued)

channels must use up to one-third of their channel capacity to carry qualifying full service

local commercial broadcast stations; systems with 13-36 channels must also carry up to

three local noncommercial broadcast stations; systems with more than 36 channels must

carry all non-duplicating local noncommercial stations; any cable system must generally

“grandfather” carriage of any local noncommercial stations it carried as of March 29, 1990

(unless 30 day notice is given to drop the stations or change its channel position).

In that first phase, the Supreme Court remanded the case to a special three-judge district

court, ruling that the panel erred in granting summary judgment to the government based on

the record before it. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., et al. V. Federal Communications

Commission et al., 114 S.Ct. 2445 (1994). The Court found, that the must-carry provisions

are subject only to an intermediate level of First Amendment scrutiny, but it also found the

record inadequate at that time to assess their speech-restriction impact, even under the lesser

standard applied to content-neutral regulations. On remand, a divided three-judge district

court panel received further evidence into the record and again upheld the constitutionality

of the statutory must-carry rules, as implemented by the FCC. Turner Broadcasting System,

Inc. v. FCC, 910 F. Supp. 734 (D.D.C. 1995).

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 117 S. Ct. 1174 (1997) (Slip Op. At 11).

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, Slip Op. At 27.

Turner v. FCC, Slip Op. At 34. At this time, cable now serves about 67 percent of

television households; the must-carry rules protect one-third of the viewing public.

CRS-22

USA, ESPN, CNN, A & E, etc.) rather than the fees paid under the cable

compulsory license for broadcast retransmissions.

Pending bills (S. 1422 and H.R. 2921 would postpone implementation of the 27

cent rate for one year or pending proceedings by the Federal Communications

Commission.81

Signal Measurement and Termination of Satellite Service: Determination

of “Unserved” Status. H.R. 3192 in the 104th Congress would have responded to

the failure of private sector interests to agree on implementation of the transitional

signal intensity measurement procedure enacted by the SHVA of 1994.

The bill would have amended the satellite carrier license to require satellite

carrier notification to subscribers of the statutory limits on network service; require

the satellite carriers and network broadcasters to agree on signal measurement

procedures within 30 days after enactment or submit the issues to binding arbitration;

require that the subscriber decides whether or not to measure the signal intensity of

the network signal within the station’s predicted grade B contour; if no test was

conducted, service had to be terminated; if a test was conducted, the objecting

broadcaster would have paid if the test showed the household was unserved; if the

test showed the household was not “unserved,” the subscriber would have paid the

cost of the test.

Satellite providers and members of the public interested in receiving satellite

television continue to seek legislative action to resolve this policy issue. Pending a

legislative solution or a private sector agreement, broadcasters have filed copyright

infringement suits for violation of the section 119 license.

Local Signals:

Expansion of the Satellite License To Permit

Retransmission of Any Local Broadcast Signal. The satellite license, in contrast

to the cable license, does not permit retransmission of every local broadcast signal.82

Satellite providers offer nationwide services ordinarily; cable systems serve specific

communities (in accordance with FCC and local regulation). Until recently, it has

not been technologically feasible to consider satellite retransmission of a large

number of “local” signals.83 Recent technological developments hold the promise that

For additional details concerning the October 1997 rate adjustment and the bills to

postpone its implementation, see, D. Schrader, Satellite Television License of the Copyright

Act (17 U.S.C. 119) and the 1997 Rate Adjustment, CRS Report 98-140 A.

The reasons for the distinctions are in part historical and in part relate to the nature,

technology, and economic structures of the satellite and cable industries. Cable began as

a terrestrial, local community service, which added satellite technology after developing its

structure through cable, telephone leased lines, and microwave technologies. Even with the

proliferation of multiple system ownership (“MSOs”), cable remains a fundamentally

community-based service, subject to some regulation by local franchising authorities as well

as the FCC. The satellite television industry is fundamentally a nationwide programming

service, which is subject to FCC regulation but is not regulated locally.

The potential pool of “local” signals is huge since there are now approximately 1500

(continued...)

CRS-23

satellite providers can deliver 300-500 programming “channels.”84 Distribution

systems have improved; channel capacity has increased.

In 1997 hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation, DBS entities testified about their request for a broadened

compulsory license to allow DBS retransmission of any local broadcast signal.85

“Local signals” for any DBS provider would have been defined in relation to the

subscriber’s county of residence and the ADI (“area of dominant influence”) of the

broadcast stations serving that county.

The Copyright Office opened a notice of inquiry public proceeding in January

1998 to determine if the satellite license can be interpreted to permit satellite service

of local signals, without enacting amendatory legislation.86 The Copyright Office

will apparently defer to possible legislative action on this issue. As discussed later,

pending bills (H.R. 3210 and S. 1720; H.R. 4449 and S. 2494) would amend the

satellite license of the Copyright Act to permit satellite retransmission of local signals

and amend the Communications Act to subject satellite providers to the must-carry,

retransmission consent, network nonduplication, and other FCC signal carriage rules.

PBS Satellite Feed Proposal. The Public Broadcasting Service (“PBS”) is

seeking an amendment of the satellite license to allow PBS to offer its own national

satellite feed to a DBS service for further national distribution. PBS says that the

purpose of the proposal is to facilitate universal access to PBS programming. PBS

has begun the process of clearing national DBS rights through voluntary negotiations

with program owners, but has encountered legal “gray” areas and difficulties in

updating contracts negotiated years ago.

H.R. 3210 and S. 1720 would amend the Copyright Act to allow PBS to make

its national satellite feed available to commercial satellite services.

Review of Cable and Satellite Licenses. The Senate Judiciary Committee, in

a letter of February 6, 1997, requested a report from the Copyright Office of the

Library of Congress about issues and reforms related to the cable and satellite

compulsory licenses of the Copyright Act. The Copyright Office submitted its report

on August 1, 1997 on the following issues:

(...continued)

broadcast stations in the United States, any one of which is “local” to a given community.

According to testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation, there are 328 local broadcast stations in the top 20 television markets alone.

Statement of Stanley S. Hubbard, Chairman of the Board, United States Satellite

Broadcasting Company, Before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (April 10, 1997)(unpublished statement at 8).

Mega-channel cable systems are also being built.

Hearing on Multi-Channel Video Competition Before the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transp Statement of Rupert Murdoch, CEO of American Sky Broadcasting and

the Fox Broadcasting Network. ortation, U.S. Senate, 105th Cong., 1st. Sess. (April 10, 1997).

63 Fed. Reg. 3685 (January 26, 1998)

CRS-24

! possible extension of the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA);

! disputes about application of the SHVA, such as the determination of which

households are “unserved;”

! harmonization of the satellite and cable compulsory licenses;

! application of the licenses to new spot beam technology and new markets for

public television;

! the applicability of the licenses to the Internet; and

! the eligibility of telephone companies’ “open video systems” for the licenses.87

Senate hearings were held on the Copyright Office’s Report and the policy

issues and recommendations discussed in the Report on November 12, 1997.

Brief Summary of H.R. 3210 and S. 1720

H.R. 3210 and S. 1720, the “Copyright Compulsory License Improvement

Act,” are nearly identical bills that would reform the cable, satellite, and other

compulsory licenses of the Copyright Act, especially with respect to the mechanism

for adjusting the royalty rates and for distribution of royalties collected by the

following:

! reform the structure of the administrative body that adjusts compulsory license

rates and distributes copyright royalties to copyright owners, by replacing the

! make the satellite license permanent;

! allow satellite service subscribers who terminate cable service to receive

network signals immediately from the satellite service without waiting 90

days, as required by existing law;

! allow satellite service providers to retransmit a local television station to

subscribers within the station’s local market;88

! allow satellite service providers to retransmit the national satellite feed of the

Public Broadcasting Service; and

Report of the Register of Copyrights entitled “A Review of the Copyright Licensing

Regimes Covering Retransmission of Broadcast Signals.” U.S. Copyright Office, August

1, 1997.

The “local market” of a broadcast station would be defined as the station’s “Designated

Market Area” (DMA), as determined by the Nielsen Media Research television market

research company.

CRS-25

! in order to achieve regulatory parity between the cable and satellite licenses,

apply the must-carry rules, retransmission consent requirements, network

nonduplication rules, syndicated exclusivity rules, and sports blackout rules

of the Communications Act or the Federal Communications Commission rules

to satellite service providers.

The first five of the above changes would be effected by amendments to the

administrative structure for rate adjustments, no changes are proposed in the

statutory criteria for the cable and satellite license rate adjustments. In the case of the

satellite license, this means that the “fair market value” of the secondary

transmissions is the guiding principle for adjusting the rate. The cable license rates,

however, can only be adjusted for national monetary inflation or deflation, or in

response to changes in the cable carriage rules of the Federal Communications

Commission (“FCC”).

The changes noted in item 6 above would be made by amendment of the

Communications Act of 1934 and through FCC rulemaking. Satellite providers who

retransmit local signals must obtain retransmission consent for network signals or,

at the option of the network station, retransmit subject to the must-carry rules. The

retransmission consent requirement does not apply to superstations in existence on

January 1, 1998 or to noncommercial broadcast stations, however. Also, once the

network nonduplication provisions are applied to satellite providers, network

stations not subject to the nonduplication rules will also be exempt from the

retransmission consent requirement.

The FCC would be directed to commence rulemaking proceedings within 45

days of enactment to adjust its rules concerning retransmission consent, must-carry,

network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout protection to

satellite retransmission for private home viewing.

Brief Summary of H.R. 4449 and S. 2494

H.R. 4449 and S. 2494 are similar but different bills that share the common

purposes of promoting multichannel video programming competition and also of

authorizing local-to-local retransmission of broadcast signals by satellite distributors.

The “Satellite Access to Local Stations Act” (H.R. 4449) would amend both the

of broadcast signals by satellite carriers and generally subject the satellite carriers to

either the must carry or retransmission consent requirements of the communications

law, as well as other FCC signal carriage rules.

A new statutory license for retransmission of local signals would be added in

a new section 122 of the Copyright Act, title 17 U.S.C. The new license applies to

local-to-local retransmissions by a satellite carrier to the public if the retransmission

if permissible under the FCC’s rules and the satellite carrier makes a direct or indirect

charge to each subscriber, or if the distributor has contracted with a satellite carrier

to retransmit to the public. No royalty fee is paid for local signal retransmissions, but

CRS-26

the satellite carrier must report its signal carriage to the Copyright Office twice a

year.

Satellite carriers cannot invoke the proposed section 122 license to retransmit

local signals unless they carry all local signals that the broadcasters want to be

carried.

The “Multichannel Video Competition Act of 1998" (S. 2494) would amend

only the Communications Act. A new Section 337 of title 47 U.S.C. would

essentially mandate local-to-local retransmission of broadcast signals by direct-tohome satellite distributors through the “must carry” provisions of the

Communications Act. In recognition of existing technical limitations on satellite

carriage of all local signals, S. 2494 establishes an interim regime requiring

compensation for non-carriage of local stations, pursuant to a formula to be

developed by the FCC. The full mandatory carriage provisions of 47 U.S.C. 614

would apply to satellite distributors no later than January 1, 2002.89

Conclusion

The cable and satellite compulsory licenses of the Copyright Act require

rightsholders to permit the retransmission of certain broadcast signals by cable

systems and “wireless cable” in the case of the §111 license and by satellite providers

(including direct broadcasting entities) in the case of the §119 license. The licenses

have some common features (such as rate adjustment and distribution of royalties

under ad hoc arbitration panels supervised by the Copyright Office and the Librarian

of Congress). The licenses differ markedly, however, in their overall structure,

signal coverage, conditions of carriage, and copyright royalty payment mechanisms.

The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 (“SHVA of 1994") amended both the

satellite and cable licenses. It extended the life of the §119 satellite license for 5

years, until December 31, 1999.

The extended satellite license begins with a compulsory phase (royalty rates set

by statute), which is followed by a voluntary negotiation-arbitration phase (royalty

rates set by voluntary agreement or, as a last resort, by compulsory arbitration). A

1997 public proceeding by a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel adjusted the

satellite rates and fixed the new rate at 27 cents per month per signal per subscriber.

The Panel applied the statutory criterion of the “fair market value” of the

retransmitted signals.

Under the SHVA of 1994, satellite carriers have the burden of proving that a

household is unserved by a given network to justify the §119 license. Special

transitional procedures in effect for 2 years have now expired. They were intended

to facilitate nonjudicial enforcement of the satellite license’s restriction to “white

areas” for retransmission of network programming, but were never implemented

For further details concerning H.R. 4449 and S. 2494, see, D. Schrader, Satellite

Television License of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 119) and the 1997 Rate Adjustment, CRS

Report 98-140 A.

CRS-27

because no agreement was reached on signal measurement standards and procedures.

Restriction of satellite service to “unserved” households, determination of

“unserved” status, and termination of service to “served” households continue to

engender public discussion and debate.

An amendment to the definition of “satellite carrier” in the SHVA of 1994

qualified direct broadcasting services (DBS) for the satellite license for the first time.

More recently, the Public Broadcasting Service has sought amendment of the §119

satellite license to allow national distribution by direct broadcasting entities of PBS’

own satellite feed. Some DBS entities seek expansion of the §119 license to allow

them to retransmit “local” broadcast signals.

Other recent developments include: submission to Congress by the Copyright

Office of a report in August 1997 reviewing the cable and satellite licenses;

adjustment of the royalty rates by a CARP proceeding, which was confirmed by an

order of the Librarian of Congress in October 1997; introduction of S. 1422 and H.R.

2921 to delay implementation of the new 27 cent rate for the satellite license;

introduction of H.R. 3210 and S. 1720 to reform the administrative mechanism for

adjusting certain royalty rates and distributing the royalty fees under the Copyright

Act’s compulsory licenses and to make other changes affecting the cable and satellite

licenses; enactment of Public Law 105-80, which made technical corrections to the

satellite license; the opening by the Copyright Office of a rulemaking proceeding

concerning satellite retransmission of local signals; broadcaster enforcement of the

“unserved household” restriction through litigation; and introduction of H.R. 4449

and S. 2494 to authorize local-to-local retransmission of network signals under the

satellite license and generally to subject satellite carriers to the FCC’s signal carriage

regulations such as the must carry, retransmission consent, and network

nonduplication rules

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.