U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–800 PDF 2014

COMPULSORY VIDEO LICENSES OF TITLE 17 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 8, 2014 

Serial No. 113–89 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

HEATHER SAWYER, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 8, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania, and Vice-Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 11 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and 

Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet .. 12 

WITNESSES 

William J. Roberts, Jr., Acting Associate Register of Copyrights and Director 

of Public Information & Education 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

R. Stanton Dodge, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, DISH 

Network L.L.C. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24 

Marci Burdick, Senior Vice President of Broadcasting, Schurz Communications, Inc., on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 52 

Matthew M. Polka, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Cable 

Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 62 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 64 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ........................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of Sandra M. Aistars, Chief Executive Officer, the Copyright Alliance ........................................................................................................ 96 

Prepared Statement of the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA) ..... 104 

Prepared Statement of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. ............ 110 

Letter from Brad Ramsey, President, Virginia Association of Broadcasters, 

and President & General Manager, WVEC-TV ................................................. 114 

(1) 

COMPULSORY VIDEO LICENSES OF TITLE 17 

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Tom Marino (ViceChairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Marino, Goodlatte, Smith of Texas, 

Chabot, Chaffetz, Farenthold, Holding, Collins, Smith of Missouri, 

Nadler, Conyers, Chu, Richmond, DelBene, Jeffries, Cicilline, and 

Lofgren. 

Staff present: (Majority) Joe Keeley, Chief Counsel; Olivia Lee, 

Clerk; (Minority) Heather Sawyer, Counsel; Jason Everett, Counsel; and Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. MARINO. The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, 

and the Internet will come to order. Without objection, the Chair 

is authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any time. 

We welcome all of our witnesses here today. And just to give you 

a little heads up, we are going to be voting somewhere around the 

2:30 mark. I apologize. It will be better than, I think, 30 minutes 

on the voting, maybe a little longer. I beg your indulgence. And we 

will get right back here as soon as votes are over. 

And I will now read my opening statement. Good afternoon, and 

welcome to today’s Subcommittee hearing on the compulsory video 

licenses contained in Title 17 of the United States Code. Unfortunately, Mr. Coble has a conflicting schedule for today and is unable 

to join the hearing, and has graciously asked me to sit in his place. 

Big shoes to follow. 

Some of the more complex portions of Title 17 concern compulsory video licenses used by cable and satellite companies. Although 

these are very complex issues, make no mistake about it, all my 

constituents understand when a video licensing agreement has 

gone awry. This is, of course, the moment when one of their favorite stations suddenly goes dark and they are unable to watch the 

regularly scheduled content, such as football games, to which they 

have grown accustomed. 

I think I can speak for all Members of Congress when I say our 

constituents are very quick to call and demand answers when this 
2 

happens. And although I empathize with them, their frustration, 

there is little I can do in those moments. And fact of the matter 

is that we Americans love our television just as much as baseball 

games and ice cream sundaes. 

Just as with any other product, consumers in this country want 

to have as many choices available at the lowest price. Fortunately, 

the number of choices available to consumers for content has exploded over the years. Some might say that this is due to the compulsory licenses we have today, while others might say this is the 

case in spite of these same licenses. Determining which view is correct may be an interesting academic exercise, but it overlooks an 

important issue: whether or not these licenses are still required 

today. 

Although one of the licenses expires in 8 months, the others are 

permanent. This Subcommittee would like to better understand 

whether these licenses still serve either their original purpose or 

some other important purposes today, and, therefore, whether Congress should reauthorize the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, otherwise known as STELA. With such a complex area 

of copyright law, I am pleased by our talented and qualified panel 

of witnesses who are participating in today’s hearing, and I look 

forward to their testimony. 

With that, I recognize the distinguished gentleman from New 

York, Ranking Member Congressman Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we continue our 

examination of the cable and satellite compulsory licenses contained in the Copyright Act. Broadly speaking, these licenses permit cable and satellite providers to retransmit copyrighted broadcast content without having to negotiate with creators and content 

owners to do so. 

Of the three statutory licenses in Title 17, the satellite distantinto-local license contained in Section 119 is set to sunset on December 31 of this year unless reauthorized by Congress. Among 

other things, that license allows satellite carriers to provide an outof-market station to customers who are not served by local television broadcasts. The other two licenses, Section 111 for cable providers and Section 122 for satellite retransmission of local broadcast programming in local markets, are permanent. 

Enacted in 1988—I am sorry—enacted in 1988 when the satellite 

industry was in its infancy, the Section 119 license was intended 

to foster competition with the cable industry and also to increase 

service to unserved households, those subscribers who had not received an over-the-air signal from a local network. In 2010, and as 

was the case on three prior occasions, Congress extended the Section 119 license for another 5 years as part of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, STELA. 

STELA includes provisions of the Copyright Act, which fall within this Committee’s jurisdiction, and broadcast signal retransmission consent provisions that fall under the Communications Act 

are within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Just today, Energy and Commerce marked up a bill reauthorizing the retransmission consent provisions of the Communications Act with some adjustments. I am interested in the views of 

our witnesses on how, if it all, the Energy and Commerce bill 
3 

should impact our potential reauthorization of the Section 119 license. 

In granting cable and satellite providers their statutory right to 

retransmit copyrighted content at a government regulated rate, 

Congress created an exception to the general rule that creators 

have exclusive rights to their works, including the right to determine when and how to distribute them. This licensing signal replaces the free market, something we are generally reluctant to do. 

And when we did so for cable and satellite providers, these industries were just starting up, and the licenses were intended to encourage growth, foster competition, and enhance customer access. 

On these fronts, the system has been a tremendous success. It 

is estimated that nearly 90 percent of American households now 

subscribe to a pay TV service provided by multi-channel video programming distributors, in most cases cable or satellite operators, 

and nearly all households have a choice of at least three different 

providers. At the same time, broadcast TV continues to lead the 

way on programming content with 97 of the top 100 most watched 

shows in the recent television season aired on broadcast stations. 

The dramatic change in marketplace dynamics as well as technological advances that continue to revolutionize ways of distributing 

video programming content raise legitimate questions about whether the statutory licensing scheme in the Copyright Act is still needed. This is not a new question. 10 years ago, we tasked the Copyright Office with reporting on whether the compulsory licensing 

scheme was still justified. The Office recommended that Congress 

move toward abolishing the licenses. As part of the 2010 reauthorization, we then asked for recommendations on how to phase out 

the statutory licensing scheme. 

In an August 2011 report, the Copyright Office suggested a range 

of licensing alternatives, including a sublicensing system to which 

broadcast stations would act as marketplace intermediaries between rights holders and cable and satellite providers. And in last 

September’s Subcommittee hearings on satellite television laws in 

Title 17, Preston Padden, the former President of ABC Television 

Network and former Executive Vice President of Walt Disney Company, made an impassioned plea for repeal of the existing statutory 

licenses. 

One common refrain in the calls for repeal is the desire to allow 

the creators of program content, who may not receive compensation 

under the existing and limited royalty system, to develop marketplace licensing options and negotiate in the open market for the 

rights to their works. Whether we address the overarching licensing systems at this time, however, we must still decide whether to 

reauthorize the Section 119 distant-into-local satellite license by 

the end of the year. 

The satellite industry estimates that approximately one and a 

half million customers, mostly in rural areas, would lose one or 

more of the four major network channels if Section 119 were not 

renewed. And both the cable and satellite industries seek additional changes as part of this reauthorization process to address 

blackouts of local channels during retransmission content consent 

disputes. 
4 

On the other side of this equation, the broadcast industry and 

others, including the Writers Guild of America, the International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the Teamsters Union, 

whose letters will be submitted for the record, have questioned the 

need to renew this particular license, and object to additional 

changes that are intended to impact retransmission consent negotiations. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

Mr. NADLER. Under the Communications Act, retransmission 

consent rules require cable and satellite providers to negotiate with 

broadcasters in order to carry their broadcast signals. These are 

only a few of the broad policy questions that will arise as we continue to consider whether to reauthorize Section 119. As always, as 

we do so, our goal must be to try to ensure a framework within 

content providers and distributors old and new are appropriately 

compensated and incentivized in a way that provides a competitive 

environment for American consumers. 

We have an impressive and diverse group of expert witnesses 

today who have very different views on how this marketplace 

works, how it has developed since our passage of STELA in 2010, 

and what should be done going forward. I look forward to their testimony and continuing this discussion in the future. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman Nadler. I now recognize 

the full Committee Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia, the 

distinguished Mr. Goodlatte, for his opening statement. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since television was 

first invented, Americans have been large consumers of video content. While some Americans still rely on over-the-air antennas for 

watching video content from network channels, the majority of 

Americans today subscribe to satellite and cable services where 

they have access to the same network channels in addition to several hundred more channels of their choosing. 

According to the FCC’s latest competition report, in addition to 

free over-the-air broadcast content, 100 percent of Americans have 

access to two satellite services, 98 percent have access to these two 

satellite services and one local alternative, and 35 percent have access to two satellite services and two local alternatives. Combined 

with the large number of channels carried by satellite and cable 

systems, these statistics reflect how the video marketplace has 

grown from the original three over-the-air channels from decades 

ago. 

In recent years, a growing number of Americans have also subscribed to services such as Amazon, Hulu, and RedBox to either 

supplement or replace their satellite and cable subscriptions. It 

also has resulted in the creation of two new terms—‘‘cord shavers’’ 

and ‘‘cord cutters’’—that are used to describe those who reduce or 

eliminate traditional subscriptions. There are three compulsory 

video licenses in Title 17, one of which expires at the end of this 

year. Although these licenses are important by themselves, we cannot overlook the fact that a television with no signal is simply a 

collection of components with minimal interest to consumers. 

It is the content displayed on a television that is of interest to 

subscribers. This content is created by copyright owners who depend upon licensing revenue to fund the creation of programs that 

are of interest to Americans. This Committee is always concerned 

about ensuring competition in the marketplace both for the content 

and the networks that deliver it. Consumers and intermediaries 

benefit where there is robust competition. 

This Committee held a hearing just this morning on a major 

merger in the video marketplace. And I might note that Mr. Polka 

has a rare distinction of testifying in two hearings in 1 day in this 
12 

Committee with two different Subcommittees. Congratulations. 

[Laughter.] 

Finally, I would note that several Members have market-specific 

issues in which their constituents are unable to watch local channels due to what could best be described as line drawing exercises 

over designated market areas gone astray. In my own congressional district, my Page County constituents, who are satellite subscribers, watch Washington, D.C. channels when there are local 

channels in nearby Harrisonburg readily available and which provide local news and emergency information better tailored to that 

region. 

In fact, the over-the-air antenna used to broadcast the Harrisonburg channels is actually located in Page County. Under the current law, if satellite companies provide these local channels, royalties would be due to both the Washington, D.C. and Harrisonburg 

channels, even if my constituents only want to subscribe to Harrisonburg channels. I look forward to resolving these market-specific 

issues going forward as we determine whether the current video 

compulsory license system is working for the digital era. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize the full 

Committee Ranking Member, the distinguished gentleman from 

Michigan, Congressman Conyers, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our 

distinguished witnesses. The purpose of this hearing is to continue 

to examine the issues as we consider the reauthorizing and updating of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act. Should 

we repeal it, should we extend it, or should we let it expire? And 

I look to you for your candid comments based upon your knowledge 

and experience. 

The provisions that fall under the Copyright Act include Section 

119, the Distant Signal Compulsory License that is set to expire at 

the end of this year. And it allows satellite carriers to provide an 

out-of-market station to consumers that are unserved by their local 

broadcaster. And so, we must ask whether Section 119 has outlived 

its purpose, whether we should extend it again, or how long it 

should be extended as well. 

And as we analyze these questions, we must ensure incentives 

remain in place to protect copyright. Copyright owners must be 

protected because it is their property that forms the basis for this 

entire system. Compulsory licenses are generally not favored by 

copyright owners because they distort the marketplace and result 

in big old market rates being paid to the content owners. Copyright 

owners assert that they would fare better in private marketplace 

negotiations, and that the licenses are no longer needed now that 

there is healthy competition in the cable and satellite industries. 

And I would like the witnesses to feel free to give me their best 

thoughts on that subject as well. 

Now, assuming we decide to extend Section 119 licenses, we 

should consider whether any other issues should be addressed. 

Among them is the impact that blackouts of local channels during 

disputed retransmission consent negotiations have on consumers, 

as well as the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the current 

statutory and regulatory system established in the Copyright and 
13 

Communications Act. We have seen that blackouts of major television networks are affecting consumers, and they seem to be occurring with greater frequency. I would like to hear how they believe that this issue might be addressed with an eye toward ensuring adequate compensation for creativity and providing healthy 

competition. 

I would like to hear witnesses discuss the possible change to the 

law that would allow interim carriage authority which would temporarily permit a distant signal to be imported during a retransmission consent dispute. I believe that anything that we do must 

protect consumers and safeguard competition. Consumers generally 

benefit from increased competition because more competition produces lower prices and more variety and options. Consumers want 

to watch programming on their choice of television sets, phones, 

and tablets, no matter where they are. 

We should ask what, if anything, we should be doing with regard 

to the compulsory licenses that do not expire—Section 111, cable 

license, and Section 122, satellite local into local license. Section 

302 of STELA required the Copyright Office to deliver a report that 

considered alternatives to the statutory licensing provisions in Section 119, 111, and 122 of the Copyright Act. These sections govern 

the retransmission of distant and local television broadcast signals 

by cable operators as well as satellite carriers. 

The Copyright Office issued the 302-page report in August 2011, 

and the report recommended replacement of the existing statutory 

regime with sublicensing, collective licensing, and/or direct licensing as feasible alternatives to securing public performance rights 

necessary to retransmit copyrighted content. And I am sure our 

witness from the Copyright Office will speak about these marketbased alternatives to statutory licensing, and I would be interested 

in hearing what other witnesses have to say about this issue as 

well. 

And as we consider these issues, we want to continue to support 

innovation and ensure that we increase consumer choice. We must 

focus on the principles of localism. There is still a high value placed 

on local news and sports, and the need for local channels to deliver 

community service and emergency information still exists. I also 

recognize that people who subscribe to cable or satellite television 

have so many programming options. There is never a shortage of 

something to watch on television, and we want these options to 

continue to grow. 

I know that there will be circumstances in which these principles, some of them, will conflict, and I look forward to working 

to ensure that the public interest can best be served through satellite carriage of broadcast television signals. And I will consider 

each of these options that will be discussed today by witnesses, and 

want to take a broad and expansive look at the different possibilities. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and continuing to work with all of you on this complex issue. I thank the 

Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Ranking Member Conyers. And without 

objection, other Members’ opening statements will be made part of 

the record. 
14 

We have a very high-recognized panel today, and we will begin 

by swearing in our witnesses before introducing them. And if you 

would please all rise and raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. MARINO. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. And you may be seated. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety. I ask that each witness summarize his 

or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. We are on a very tight schedule today, and to help you stay within that time, there is a timing 

light on the table, several timing lights. When the light switches 

from green to yellow—and I have no idea what that is because I 

am color blind—you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. 

When the light turns red, it signals that the witness’ time has expired. And since I cannot tell colors, I just know on your right 

when that light lights up, your time is up, and I will politely tap 

the hammer to see if you can conclude your testimony. And I thank 

you for that. 

Our first witness this morning is Mr. William Roberts, Acting Associate Register of Copyrights. He returned to the Office last year 

having served as Judge on the Copyright Royalty Board. Mr. Roberts has worked in the area of statutory licensing for 25 years and 

has actively participated in many of the reauthorizations of the 

statutory license for satellite television. He received his J.D. from 

the University of Virginia School of Law and his undergraduate degree from the College of the Holy Cross. Good afternoon. 

Our second witness is Mr. Stanton Dodge, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of DISH Network. In his position, Mr. 

Dodge is responsible for all legal and government affairs for DISH 

and its subsidiaries. He received his J.D. from Suffolk University 

Law School and his bachelor of science degree in accounting from 

the University of Vermont. It is a pleasure to have you here, sir. 

Our third witness is Ms. Marci Burdick—did I pronounce that 

right? 

Ms. BURDICK. You did. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. Senior Vice President of Broadcasting 

at Shurz Communications, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters. In her position at Shurz Communications, Ms. Burdick is responsible for 13 radio stations, two cable 

companies, and eight television stations. Ms. Burdick received her 

degree from South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. It is 

good to see you. 

Our fourth and final witness today is Mr. Matthew Polka, President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Cable Association, an association of 850 independent and medium-sized cable 

businesses. Prior to joining ACA, Mr. Polka served as Vice President and General Counsel of Star Cable Associates. He received his 

J.D. from Duquesne University School of Law and his undergraduate degree in journalism from West Virginia University. 

Welcome to all, and we will start with you, Mr. Roberts, for your 

opening statement. And I have been notified that we are going to 

be called shortly, and we may be out over an hour for voting. So 

once again, I apologize for making you wait, but we will get right 

back. Mr. Roberts, please. 
15 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. ROBERTS, JR., ACTING ASSOCIATE 

REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INFORMATION & EDUCATION 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, and I will try to go as fast as I can. 

Vice Chairman Marino, Ranking Member Nadler, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you today and share some observations and recommendations of 

the United States Copyright Office regarding the future of the 

cable and satellite statutory licenses. 

As you may recall, in enacting the Satellite Television Extension 

and Localism Act of 2010, or as it commonly referred to as STELA, 

Congress directed the Copyright Office to prepare a report addressing possible mechanisms, methods, and recommendations for phasing out the statutory licenses set forth in Sections 111, 119, and 

122 of the Copyright Office which are applicable to the retransmission of over-the-air broadcast stations by cable and satellite television providers. 

The Office delivered the report to this Subcommittee on August 

29, 2011, after extensive input from and conversation with the 

stakeholders affected by the licenses, including the Federal Communications Commission. The purpose of the report was to inform 

your discussions and deliberations as you consider the expiration 

of STELA at the end of this year. In my brief statement today, I 

would like to highlight the key aspects of that report. 

First, although statutory licensing has ensured the efficient and 

cost effective delivery of television programming in the United 

States, starting over 38 years ago, it was created in an earlier era 

where evidence of marketplace failure was present. In the present 

time, copyright owners working with broadcasters, cable operators, 

satellite carriers, and other licensees should be permitted to develop marketplace licensing options to replace the provisions of Section 111, 119, and 122. 

Second, the Copyright Office recommends that Congress provide 

a date specific trigger for the phase-out and eventual repeal of the 

distant signal licenses contained in Sections 111 and 119, but leave 

the repeal of the local signal licenses in Section 111 and 122 for 

a later time. This approach will provide stakeholders with an opportunity to test new business models with the least likelihood of 

disruption to consumers, and give Congress the advantage of drawing on that experience when considering how and when to address 

the licensing of local stations. 

Third, in determining a date specific trigger and transition period for the phase-out of the distant signal licenses, the Office recommends that Congress consider the circumstances and concerns of 

stakeholders who operate with limited resources in the broadcast 

programming distribution chain, such as small producers and small 

cable operators, and determine whether special accommodations 

are warranted. 

Finally, it is important to note that while the statutory licenses 

are codified in the copyright law, they do interact with equally complex provisions in the communications law and regulations, and attention must be paid. The Office, therefore, recommends that Congress consider and, as appropriate, address these provisions in tandem with the recommendations specified in our report to assure a 
16 

harmonious regulatory scheme in the delivery of broadcast programming to consumers. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. We at the Copyright 

Office look forward to assisting the Committee as it continues this 

process of review. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Dodge, please? 

TESTIMONY OF R. STANTON DODGE, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, DISH NETWORK L.L.C. 

Mr. DODGE. Chairman Goodlatte, Vice Chairman Marino, Ranking Member Conyers and Nadler, and Members of the Committee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is Stanton 

Dodge, and I am the Executive Vice President and General Counsel 

of DISH Network, the Nation’s third largest pay TV provider, and 

the only provider of local television service in all 210 markets. 

Should STELA be authorized? Of course. If not, over 1.5 million 

customers, mostly in rural areas, will lose one or more of the big 

four network channels. But just extending the act for another 5 

years is not enough. A so-called clean reauthorization would ignore 

the number one problem facing consumers today: the increasing 

threat of blackouts. There were 12 blackouts in 2010 and more 

than 10 times as many in 2013, a record breaking 127. 

We believe that there are at least two possible solutions to end 

blackouts and ensure that consumers have continuous access to 

network program from the pay TV provider of their choice. First, 

during the retransmission consent impasse, a mandatory standstill 

should be in place to ensure that broadcast signals stay up. If the 

parties are unable to agree upon carriage terms, they should proceed to so-called baseball arbitration where a neutral arbitrator 

chosen by the parties will evaluate each party’s best offer and select the one that most accurately reflects a fair market price. In all 

cases, we suggest that the final rate would apply retroactively, ensuring that the broadcaster is fairly compensated. But most importantly, the consumer would remain unharmed. 

Second, a more limited solution would allow pay TV providers to 

import a distant network signal when the local network affiliate 

withholds its signal during a retransmission consent dispute. This 

solution would still leave consumers without access to certain local 

programming, including local news, sports, and weather, but at 

least it would provide network programming content during the 

dispute. 

As this Committee knows, the television landscape has changed 

dramatically from when the Cable Act of 1992 first established the 

current system of retransmission consent. In those early days, the 

broadcaster negotiated with a single cable company that was likely 

the only pay TV provider in the same market. Today, cable operators no longer enjoy local monopolies, and broadcasters pit multiple 

pay TV providers against one another, all to the customer’s detriment. This is not free market. 

Meanwhile, mom and pop local broadcasters continue to disappear as broadcaster conglomeration accelerates. In 2013 alone, 

there were three large broadcaster mergers. Not surprisingly, these 

market developments have led to a dramatic increase in local channel blackouts, but fortunately Congress can do something about it. 

On behalf of DISH’s 22,000 employees and more than 14 million 

subscribers across the Nation, I strongly encourage the Committee 

to seize this opportunity and update the law to reflect marketplace 
24 

realities and better protect consumers. Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodge follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

APPENDIX A 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Dodge. 

Ms. Burdick? 

TESTIMONY OF MARCI BURDICK, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF 

BROADCASTING, SCHURZ COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS 

Ms. BURDICK. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Marino and 

Goodlatte, Ranking Members Nadler and Conyers, and Members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Marci Burdick, Senior Vice President for 

Shurz Communications. A bit updated from the bio you have. We 

actually own 11 television stations, and we have operating partnerships with two others. I am a mom and pop broadcaster. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the National Association of 

Broadcasters and our more than 1,300 free local over-the-air television station members from across the country. While I am happy 

to answer questions on the video compulsory licenses in Title 17, 

my focus today is on the expiring distant signal satellite license, 

commonly referred to as STELA. 

NAB’s position on the STELA reauthorization is simple. First, 

given the technological advancements and licensing alternatives, 

we ask that this Committee take a hard look at whether the distant signal license continues to benefit consumers and whether it 

should be allowed to sunset as originally intended. Second, should 

this Committee conclude that this satellite compulsory license is 

still warranted, NAB supports a narrow temporary reauthorization 

that does nothing to expand the scope of the license or undermine 

broadcasters’ ability to be compensated for our programming or to 

serve our local communications. 

26 years ago at a time when Rain Man topped the box office and 

CDs outsold vinyl records for the first time ever, Congress created 

the distant signal satellite television compulsory license in the Satellite Home Viewer Act as a means to spur competition against the 

big incumbent cable monopolies. SHVA and successive extensions 

also aim to enhance localism by promoting the broad availability of 

locally focused broadcast television without undermining the viability of its unique free business model. 

It is clear this Committee’s work was a success. The satellite 

companies have evolved into the country’s second and third largest 

pay TV providers, and broadcast television is as popular as ever. 

97 of the top 100 most watched primetime shows in the last TV 

season aired on our channels. 

Today, there are no technological reasons preventing any market 

from receiving local into local broadcast service, as DISH has demonstrated. More than 98 percent of all United States TV households can view their local network affiliates by satellite. This legal 

framework allows local TV stations to deliver high quality local 

news, weather, sports, and emergency services to communities 

across the country. In 2013, for example, our station, WDBJ in Roanoke, Virginia, added jobs and resources by investing in a new 

local news bureau in Forest, Virginia, just as it had done previously in Danville and will again this year in Martinsville. But 

Shurz is not alone. The local TV stations serving the Commonwealth of Virginia produced over 57,000 hours of original live local 
51 

newscasts in 2013. That marked an increase for the fourth consecutive year. 

To encourage localism, this Committee should identify the precise number and nature of households that the distant satellite license continues to serve, and whether those households could be 

more effectively served by the local license. NAB is also attentive 

to the needs of viewers who reside in communities located in outof-state designated market areas, or DMAs, but desire to receive 

in-State broadcast programming. NAB is committed to making inState broadcast programming available through existing statutory 

remedies and to finding marketplace solutions for carriage of nonduplicative in-State broadcast programming. 

We caution the Subcommittee against legislating new exceptions 

to copyright law when in many instances cable, and particularly 

satellite providers, are not taking full advantage of existing and 

available statutory or marketplace options. We also urge you to reject calls from pay TV seeking additional exceptions that would 

permit a satellite carrier to import a distant signal during a contractual impasse, not based on need, but based on a need to gain 

unfair market leverage in a retransmission consent negotiation. 

That would be contrary to decades of congressional policy aimed to 

promote localism. 

In conclusion, if this Committee decides to once again reauthorize the distant signal satellite license, that is an effort NAB supports. But with that support, we ask you to take a hard look at 

whether Section 119 continues to serve consumers and to reject 

calls from satellite providers to expand the scope of the compulsory 

119 license to give them a leg up in market-based negotiations. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burdick follows:] 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Ms. Burdick. 

Mr. Polka? 

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW M. POLKA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. POLKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed an honor to 

be here again with you today, and thank you for having me. I am 

here today on behalf of the small- and medium-sized cable operators of the American Cable Association, who provide video, 

broadband, and voice services in local markets in 50 States to nearly 7 million video subscribers. ACA members serve several important functions in our communications markets and societies, such 

as providing broadband in rural areas, competition and choice in 

urban areas, services to communicate institutions and businesses 

in underserved areas. 

It has been too long since Congress conducted a comprehensive 

review of the laws governing the cable industry. If Congress were 

to conduct such a review, we would expect many laws to be preserved or slightly updated and others to be significantly updated or 

even eliminated. One set of rules and many that others believe 

should remain unchanged is the cable compulsory license. It continues to serve its goal in compensating copyright holders for the 

retransmission of their work. If Congress were to repeal this license, it would be extremely burdensome for operators to anticipate 

all of the copyrighted works that would need to be cleared before 

they aired on a broadcast station. Moreover, the repeal would create greater uncertainty in the marketplace for our members and 

our customers. Should Congress reach a different conclusion, 

changes to the existing license must coincide with reform to broadcast carriage rules, such as retransmission consent, because they 

are legally intertwined. 

Within the category of rules that need to be updated or eliminated, ACA would include retransmission consent rules. Modernization is needed to address three key areas. First, existing 

rules fail to protect consumers from broadcasters pulling their signals during negotiating impasses. Second, current rules do not prevent a broadcaster and its affiliated network from blocking access 

to their online content that is otherwise freely available to a pay 

TV provider’s broadband subscribers while that pay TV provider 

and station are in a negotiation dispute. CBS did this to Time Warner Cable last year. Third, current rules require cable subscribers 

to purchase broadcast stations that elect retransmission consent, 

even if they do not want to receive those stations via their subscription service. Each issue can be addressed through narrowlytailored amendments to existing rules, and we encourage Congress 

to act on these matters this year. 

Looking toward the future, with consumers increasingly watching video content online, and a growing number of consumers 

choosing online video over pay TV service, Congress needs to begin 

having a separate discussion about the future of online video. It is 

an important complex subject, and one that cannot be ignored. 

Currently, the online video marketplace is one in which online 

content and edge providers sell access to their content directly to 

consumers. Nearly all content and edge providers employ this busi-
63 

ness model. This model provides consumers with significant choice 

in the online video content they pay to receive. However, it is not 

pre-ordained that all content and edge providers will continue to 

sell their content in this way. 

The online video marketplace might develop into one resembling 

the current cable model where the content or edge provider receives fees directly from internet service providers, who impose the 

charge on all of their broadband customers, whether or not the customer wants to receive the content. This is not a hypothetical. 

ESPN 3 currently uses this model. Increasingly, other power online 

video content providers are testing the market by charging 

broadband providers rather than establishing a direct relationship 

with the consumers. 

For example, Viacom is currently blocking access to its websites 

by broadband internet subscribers who are served by dozens of 

smaller broadband internet service providers. Viacom is unwilling 

to allow these smaller providers and their customers to access its 

content unless the provider meets Viacom’s financial demands. If 

the cableization of the internet sounds even a bit troublesome, and 

it does to us, ACA believes that Congress should review issues like 

whether content and edge providers should be able to block access 

to their freely available content on the internet to certain users. 

In conclusion, it is clear that there are a host of issues that need 

attention. Given the significant changes in the marketplace, I hope 

that the reforms to the retransmission consent rules that I discussed will be considered this year as part of Congress’s reauthorization of the satellite TV license. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Polka follows:] 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Polka. We will now proceed under 

the 5-minute rule with questions as is the practice. I will defer my 

questions and recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Congressman Goodlatte. And I have just been advised that we are 

going to be in recess on the Floor until 3:30, and then we have four 

votes. The House—excuse me—will be in recess until 3:30, and so 

we will proceed, and we could finish before we vote. So, Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank all of you for your testimony and welcome you here today. 

Ms. Burdick, I appreciated—I am sure it was totally random—the 

shout out for WDBJ in Roanoke, Virginia, my hometown. They are 

a great television station and a very prominent one in our community, and we thank you for that. 

Ms. BURDICK. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to ask all of you about new video entrants that are bringing greater competition to the marketplace. 

What legislation, if any, should Congress consider to encourage the 

growth of such competition? We will start with you, Mr. Roberts. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. With respect to new services, it is certainly important to understand a little bit of the history of statutory licensing and the way that Congress has treated the cable industry and the satellite industry. Different services experience different regulatory regimes, and principally that is through the communications law so that the cable industry is regulated in a very 

different fashion than the satellite industry. And the statutory licenses for cable and satellite reflect those differences. 

With respect to new entrants, it is the position of the Copyright 

Office that great care should be given and examination to the special circumstances of those new services. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me interrupt you for a second. I am going 

to have two questions I am going to ask each of four people, so that 

is eight questions in 5 minutes. So you have got to sum it up. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Fair enough. And so, in other words, there should 

be careful examination of the differences between the different 

types of services before statutory licenses are extended to them. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Great, thank you. Mr. Dodge? 

Mr. DODGE. So we welcome competition. We view online video, 

for example, as an area we need to evolve and adapt. And our simplistic view of this is as we testified when we were helping the 

Copyright Office with their report, we favor a unitary type license 

where all competitors are treated roughly equally, recognizing that 

there are some differences that need to be recognized. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Ms. Burdick? 

Ms. BURDICK. Local broadcasters are working with our networks 

to explore new models to get content to as many consumers as possible. We also as a local broadcaster are developing mobile online 

resources for the rights to the content that we create ourselves, and 

that has been an emerging fast-growing line of business for us. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And does that rights issue contemplate any legislation on the part of the Congress? 

Ms. BURDICK. I do not think we see any significant barriers in 

the marketplace today to the development of those new business 

models and trying to determine how they are monetized into the 

future. 
76 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Great. Mr. Polka 

Mr. POLKA. Our members report that broadband usage is doubling every 2 years. Online video usage is exploding through 

Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and others. And so, as a result, it is extremely important for this Committee to look ahead in addition to 

looking at current copyright licenses. As I mentioned in my testimony, we have to be mindful of how content is delivered and to ensure that consumers can receive the content that they want over 

the internet. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. As I mentioned in my opening statement, several Members have issues related to significantly reviewed stations in their districts. Mine is in Page County, Virginia, 

toward the northern end of my district. My constituents in Page 

County are better served with both local news and emergency information by the more local Harrisonburg station than the Washington, D.C. stations. Yet the satellite companies do not yet provide 

these more local Harrisonburg channels in Page County. 

So let me ask you each, what do you think is inhibiting the satellite companies and local station from making arrangements to 

provide these significantly viewed stations to consumers, and what 

solutions can you offer today, including possible changes to the law, 

to provide more incentives for these stations to be provided via satellite to consumers that happen to be just outside of the DMA for 

these stations? In Page County, cable and other alternatives are 

not often available, so satellite is a prime interest to them. Mr. 

Roberts? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. This was an issue that was presented 

when Congress considered and adopted STELA, and specific provisions were adopted to address that. The Office does not have a position as to whether further provisions are required, and I would 

defer to my colleagues on the panel for their opinions on that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Dodge? 

Mr. DODGE. So I would say they are significantly viewed as two 

significant flaws, if you will. One, it would require providers such 

as us to pay double retran. So you have to pay retrans to the market into which the signal is being imported and for the imported 

signal. A simple fix there—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. That is the way it works under current law, 

right? 

Mr. DODGE. Yes, correct. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. 

Mr. DODGE. And a simple fix for that might be that we pay a distant signal royalty for the station being imported. The second is the 

market into which the signal is being imported in many cases, our 

retransmission consent agreements do not allow us to import or require us to waive our right to import a significantly viewed station. 

And one suggestion we have for that is to abolish those types of 

provisions in retransmission consent agreements, or at least factor 

that into whether or not they have met their good faith standard 

under FCC rules. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So that would pass it right over to Ms. Burdick. 

Ms. BURDICK. Well, I would commend, I think, in Page County 

specifically local broadcasters who are significantly viewed, have 

extended those rights and negotiated agreements with cable opera-
77 

tors, who are also to be commended in Page County. Notoriously 

absent from any of those carriage solutions which exist today are 

DISH Network and largely, I think with the exception of one case, 

DirecTV, there is a fix today. They choose not to participate in that 

as a business or other reason. Cable has decided to do it to serve 

its customers better. So I would again defer back to Mr. Dodge as 

to why it is not a good business practice. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Does cable face the same issue they do about 

the double royalty issue? 

Ms. BURDICK. The negotiation is the same. It is a negotiation, 

and as an example, I live in Michigan. My backyard is in Indiana. 

So I vote in Michigan, but I view South Bend television. We as a 

CBS affiliate have an agreement with the MSO in Michigan to 

allow the CBS affiliate in Michigan to carry unduplicated programming. And I imagine that is at either no fee or significantly less 

fee, although I am not privy to their business negotiations. The fact 

is, it is possible today. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. So you live in the Chairman of the 

other Committee’s district who has an interest in this issue, Mr. 

Upton. 

Ms. BURDICK. I do. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Polka? 

Mr. POLKA. Thank you, sir. I would agree with Mr. Dodge as it 

relates to sometimes the difficulty of negotiating retransmission 

consent for either significantly viewed stations or even out-of-market stations, and this gets into some of the orphan DMA issues. We 

also encounter as cable operators, and your question was focused 

on satellite, but as cable operators, we also encounter the problems 

where in many cases our members are legally permitted under the 

law to carry an out-of-market station because they are far enough 

away from the local station. But provisions and network affiliation 

agreements prohibit the out-of-market station, which is actually 

the local in-State station from being carried. So there are lots of 

issues like that that prevent what the stations that viewers want 

to watch from being actually watched. 

Ms. BURDICK. If I could correct, I do not think that is quite right. 

It prohibits the network content, not the local content. 

Mr. POLKA. And that is true. And when you have 8 or 10 hours 

of blank content, that is not what consumers want. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. POLKA. Particularly when the law allows you to carry that 

signal. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from New York, Congressman Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Dodge first. We obviously have to consider the necessity or a lack of necessity of renewing Section 119. And I want to 

put that into context and have you help define the scope of the 

problem. So first, you estimated that about a million and a half 

households could lose access to network broadcasting if the Section 

119 license is not reauthorized, correct? 

Mr. DODGE. Yes, sir. 
78 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. If that license were to expire, how many 

households could be brought in? How many of those one and a half 

million could be brought in through local retransmission because of 

advances in satellite capacities? 

Mr. DODGE. I must admit as I sit here today, I do not know the 

answer to that. That 1.5 million number is an aggregated number 

between us and DirecTV that we provided the data to our industry. 

Mr. NADLER. All right. Could you find that out and let us know 

after the hearing? 

Mr. DODGE. I can certainly look into it. 

But there are certain folks I would say who there is no fix for. 

There are folks in short market where there is no—— 

Mr. NADLER. Yes. What we are trying to figure is how many of 

the one and a half million, how many would have no fix and how 

many could be handled some other way. If 98 percent could be handled in some other way, it is not a big problem. If 98 percent could 

not, it is obviously a big problem. 

Can you give us a sense of how many households are grandfather 

subscribers, meaning customers who come under the Section 119 license for reasons other than being in unserved households that at 

least at the time the license was enacted, did not get local broadcasts? 

Mr. DODGE. DISH does not have any grandfathered subscribers, 

so I do not know the answer to that. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Does anybody else know the answer to that? 

[No response.] 

All right. I am doing pretty well so far. [Laughter.] 

With regard to grandfathered as opposed to unserved households, 

would those households also lose access to network broadcasting if 

Section 119 is not renewed? 

Mr. DODGE. That is something that I am going to have to look 

into in response to the first question. I do not know the answer. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. And is there an opportunity, in your opinion, 

in the absence of a statutory license to simply cure the problem by 

negotiating with rights holders or possibly broadcasters as intermediaries to obtain the needed copyrighted content? 

Mr. DODGE. I don’t think so. For example, the best example 

would be short markets where no one has stepped up to actually—— 

Mr. NADLER. What do you mean by a ‘‘short market?′′ 

Mr. DODGE. A short market is a market where there are one or 

more missing local affiliates. In those markets, no one has stepped 

up to actually take a broadcast license to broadcast the programming. So in order for someone in those markets, for example, to get 

the latest version of 24 and see Jack Bauer, we have to import a 

distant Fox for those people to watch the programming. 

Mr. NADLER. Does anybody disagree with that? 

Ms. BURDICK. I would say, Congressman, it is a problem that decreases every year. With digital technology we now have digital 

sub-channels. Many of those short market problems are being 

taken care of with digital sub-channels. 

Mr. NADLER. What is a ‘‘digital sub-channel?′′ 

Ms. BURDICK. So you have your big network signal, and then you 

can transmit in the stream as many as two others technologically. 
79 

Mr. NADLER. Oh, okay. 

Ms. BURDICK. And so, where there is not an over-the-air station, 

you are seeing more cases of a network affiliate start to carry a second where it does not exist in that market. 

Mr. DODGE. And we do carry those digital subcarriers, but the 

fact remains that there are 18 of these markets across—— 

Mr. NADLER. Eighteen what? 

Mr. DODGE. Eighteen of these short markets across the country 

today, and they are in the most rural areas. Without access to a 

distant signal—— 

Mr. NADLER. There are only 18 short markets in the whole country? 

Mr. DODGE. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. And how many people would you say? How many 

households are there? 

Mr. DODGE. That I do not know, but they are the most rural 

areas of the country where without this, they would have no access 

to that network programming without distant signals. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Mr. Roberts, you testified that the majority 

of stakeholders consulted by the Copyright Office for its 2011 report took the position that the existing statutory regime should remain in place. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. How has the landscape changed since then? And to 

the extent that key stakeholders are against the plan, how might 

we address their key concerns? 

Mr. ROBERTS. It would seem that the stakeholders are still of the 

same opinion that generally the licenses should stay in place. With 

respect to our 302 report, we were directed to consider to how to 

phase them out, and that is why we came up with the particular 

recommendations that we did. Specifically, our particular recommendation was sublicensing by the broadcast stations, but that 

that would have to be phased in over a period of time. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. And lastly, because my time is about to run 

out, if we do not address the overall statutory licensing scheme or 

do not get to it by the end of the year, should we reauthorize, in 

your opinion, the Section 119 license or allow it to expire? And if 

we reauthorize it, should we do so for another 5 years, or would 

you recommend that we consider a different term? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, the Office does not have a position as to how 

many years it should be renewed. I would point out—— 

Mr. NADLER. Do you think 5 is a good number or is too long, too 

short? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I would say that if phase-out is the intention of the 

Congress of the licenses, then perhaps something that is less than 

5 years. And the reason in saying that is that this is the fifth time 

that the license has been up for reauthorization. 

Mr. NADLER. All right. The other half of the question is, if we do 

not get to the entire scheme this year, should we reauthorize Section 119 or allow it to expire? 

Mr. ROBERTS. We recommend that it be reauthorized, but phased 

out over a shorter term so that we would phase out the distant signal license, but retain the local license. 

Mr. NADLER. Even if we do not get to the entire question. 
80 

Mr. ROBERTS. Even if you do not, yes, it would be to phase it out. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman Nadler. The Chair recognizes the congressman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the opportunity to discuss legislation that literally affects millions of 

Americans. TV enjoyment is very important to them. 

Just in my district, which is the 1st District of Ohio, Cincinnati 

and the Greater Cincinnati area, and north almost up to Dayton, 

there are over 64,000 satellite TV subscribers. The STELA legislation that is currently on the books has effectively facilitated the 

satellite television industry for a number of years. But as we look 

toward reauthorization, we should be realistic in understanding 

that the current law is old. It is outdated, and it needs to be 

changed in some manner certainly. 

The industry and the technology have experienced great change 

since the original law was passed. And while we need to do our job 

and pass STELA, we should use these discussions to move toward 

a more modern and free market approach to how Americans receive their television. We need to use these hearings and discussions to find a solution that protects the consumers, intellectual 

property, of course, as well as our local broadcasters and small 

market providers as the market becomes increasingly consolidated. 

And just a couple of questions. I will begin with you, if I could, 

Mr. Polka. There have been an increasing number of signal blackouts over the years—I believe 127 in 2013 compared to only 12 

back in 2010. What has changed in the market that has caused a 

dramatic increase, and what should we do about it? 

Mr. POLKA. It is the question as we consider STELA reauthorization and perhaps what the Committee can do. Let me say, too, just 

to start that none of us at the American Cable Association dispute 

that broadcast content is valuable. Where we have a problem is in 

the negotiation of retransmission consent, which was passed in 

1992 at a much different time when only smaller broadcasters and 

a growing industry existed compared to the industry that we live 

in today with satellite companies, with Netflix, with Hulu, with 

AT&T, FiOS, U-verse, and the like. 

The marketplace has changed, but the rules have not, such as 

rules that grant broadcasters exclusivity in a market, but do not 

allow competition. And because of that inability to seek more competition for consumers, as well as the demand by networks who 

back in 1992 said they would never get involved in the retransmission consent process, we now have a reverse scheme of retransmission content where networks are demanding money from their 

affiliates in what is called reverse compensation, which in turn 

drives up the price demanded by the local broadcaster for retransmission consent. 

So what we have here is a fundamental shift in the marketplace 

where large corporate interests are looking for revenue for sports 

programming, for other programming, and the like. And consequently, what happens at the end of that is the price for that 

local broadcast station rises to the consumers. And with prices escalating like they are, cable operators and satellite providers across 
81 

the country are saying, no, we are not going to raise our prices for 

our consumers to that extent. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Ms. Burdick, let me turn to you next. 

Local broadcasters play a very important role, in Cincinnati, for example. Companies like yours make investments and are very active 

in the local community and provide a critical public service. How 

are local broadcasters adjusting to stay competitive with the increased competition in the marketplace? And do you think any dramatic changes to STELA could impact the investments that are 

made in the various communities around the country? 

Ms. BURDICK. Thank you, Congressman, for your kind words 

about local broadcasters. Of all of the program providers that are 

out there today receiving compensation for their works, local broadcasters are the only ones reinvesting it back in local communities 

through local news, weather, sports, and public service. If this distant signal was expanded or is used more liberally, our concern is 

that that underpins all of the conversations about retransmission 

consent, and 85 to 90 percent of our revenue still comes from advertising. And anything that divides our local market and creates 

a situation where I can generate less money means the only place 

I have to take it is out of local news, weather, or sports. 

If I could take a minute, I did want to address your comment 

about the blackouts unless you want to move on. 

Mr. CHABOT. I will tell you what. Yes, I have one last question, 

and I would run out of time. 

Ms. BURDICK. We can come back. 

Mr. CHABOT. All right. Thank you very much. Smaller cable companies are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to programming negotiations, particularly when competing with one of the national companies due to size and scale. What accommodations could 

be made to recognize this competitive disadvantage? Mr. Polka, you 

might be in the best position, but if anybody else wanted to respond quickly, but I have only got—— 

Mr. POLKA. Sure. From a standpoint of broadcast carriage, I 

think we have to look at the consumer first. What consumers do 

not like, what no one likes, are blackouts, and we are seeing them 

at an increasing historical pace. So consequently, regardless of 

sometimes the business issue that occurs, the consumer has to be 

put first. So consequently, whether we are talking about considering an interim carriage rule, whether we are considering allowing 

consumers to choose, or whether they want to actually receive a 

broadcast signal rather than having it mandated in the local basic 

tier, giving consumers some more choice or even allowing in a dispute the signal to be carried while the parties continue to negotiate. What we have to focus on is not so much the business issue, 

but the consumer to ensure that we are eliminating blackouts. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me, first of all, welcome Mr. Polka back. He has been in many Judiciary hearings as 

I have today. [Laughter.] 
82 

And in both settings, we appreciated your comments very much, 

sir. Mr. Roberts, with regard to the replacement of the existing 

statutory system, which you say there is some controversy. The 

sublicensing model that has been recommended, what is the debate 

around that? Can you summarize it? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Certainly. Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution to this. The Office looked at sublicensing which is when the 

broadcaster would do the negotiations with the multi-channel video 

provider. Also collective licensing and then direct licensing. 

With sublicensing, we recognize that there are certain concerns, 

particularly amongst non-commercial broadcast stations and some 

smaller broadcasters who do not have the resources to conduct effective negotiations. And some sort of consideration and accommodation for them is appropriate, and that is why we have recommended a phased-in period retaining the local statutory license 

component of both 111 and 122 to accommodate those concerns. 

Mr. CONYERS. Has that received any support or approval from organizations? 

Mr. ROBERTS. It has. I believe the broadcasters, and I do not 

mean to presumptively speak for them, but I believe that the 

broadcasters are certainly in favor of eliminating the distant signal 

license, but retaining the local license on a going forward basis for 

the time being to address—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Did you want to comment on that, Ms. Burdick? 

Ms. BURDICK. I absolutely agree with what he said. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. Thank you. Let us go to DISH. Mr. 

Dodge, why do you believe that Congress should fix local channel 

blackouts during retransmission disputes? There was a record-setting 127 last year, so how should we approach that from our point 

of view? 

Mr. DODGE. Well, it is an escalating problem, there is no question, from only 10 blackouts in 2010 to 140 last year. When I was 

preparing for this hearing, I did a little research, and as it turns 

out, 22 out of the 26 Members of the Subcommittee have had blackouts in their districts. 73 percent of those have had multiple blackouts in their districts. And only one Member of the Subcommittee 

has not had a blackout in their district or State—Congressman 

Chaffetz. So I think that speaks volumes to the fact that this is 

touching a lot of people, and it is getting worse every day. 

Mr. CONYERS. So what is an approach that you would recommend for those who legislate? 

Mr. DODGE. So we have suggested two approaches, the first of 

which is the focus here should be on the consumers. The consumers 

have access to key network programming and are not used as 

pawns in negotiations. So the simple solution is keep the signals 

up during retransmission consent negotiations, and if the parties 

are not able to agree, they can appoint a party agreed and approved arbitrator to decide what a fair rate is based on baseball arbitration, which, as people know, each party has to come forth with 

their best number. Gives everyone an incentive to actually be reasonable. 

Mr. CONYERS. Right. 

Mr. DODGE. The arbitrator has to pick between one of the two. 
83 

Mr. CONYERS. Let me ask Ms. Burdick. Would you have a comment on that? 

Ms. BURDICK. Thank you. I absolutely would. Let us face reality 

for a second. I operate in seven television markets and have to 

compete against major MVPDs, like DISH Network. The top four 

MVPDs control 60 percent of the country. The top 10 control 91 

percent. The only leverage I have to get a deal done is to pull the 

signal. Now, at the end of the day, do I want to do that? Absolutely 

not. We have done it in one small case for a short period of time 

only as a last ditch effort. 

Of the outages that have occurred, 90 percent have happened 

with DISH, Direct, and Time Warner. 50 percent have happened 

with DISH alone. So I would suggest to you that perhaps there is 

a business strategy afoot here. At the end of the day, we share that 

customer and that consumer, and we do not want a disruption. 

And I would remind the Committee we are never off the air. We 

are always on the air. We may have a contractual dispute with 

DISH, and the only thing that prevents their customer from moving is their contracts that require significant early termination 

fees. 

So what could Congress do? Well, we should all do a better job 

about educating people about free over-the-air television, number 

one. Number two, we could do a better job of warning customers 

about the potential of a dispute. Third, early termination fees 

should go away if a customer wants to move, or they should get rebates if they are not getting all the channels they paid for. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks so much. I yield back any time remaining, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman. The Chair recognizes the 

former U.S. attorney, Mr. Holding from North Carolina. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I am concerned about the blackouts. I have kindly been provided the precise 

number of DISH subscribers in my district, which is about 84,000, 

and there are about 1.3 million in North Carolina. And those folks, 

you know, they see a blackout, and they wonder why they are involved in it. You know, why have I gotten caught up in this? Mr. 

Dodge, you went through a number of proposed, I guess, negotiation arrangements, whether it is the baseball arbitration rubric. 

As far as the broadcasters are concerned, do any of those methods of negotiating provide an avenue where you are not giving up 

your ultimate leverage, where you maintain leverage in the negotiations, because I certainly understand what you are saying, that, 

you know, the signal is what you have got to negotiate with. Are 

there any of those rubrics that allow you to keep your leverage, 

allow fair negotiation without putting the consumer in the middle 

of it? 

Ms. BURDICK. I think the context is important. I appreciate the 

question. 90 percent of the deals get done, and of those outages 

that have occurred, some are just a few hours, some are a couple 

of days. There have been one or two high profile that have been 

a longer period of time. 

I think the system is not broken. Disruptive on occasion, but not 

broken. The arbitration solution, if the goal, if the end game is to 

shorten the amount of time consumers are disrupted, that certainly 
84 

will not accomplish that and, in fact, will lengthen it perhaps into 

months in every case. 

So I think the fact that 90 percent of the deals get done, and of 

those disruptions, they are rare and short. We are both motivated 

to get the deals done now because our collective consumer is disrupted. 

Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Dodge, do you want to respond to that briefly? 

Mr. DODGE. Sure. I would say one interruption is too many, and 

even an hour interruption is too long if it occurs during the course 

of the Super Bowl or some event that you truly care about. And the 

fact of the matter is that the concept that, you know, 90 percent 

of these are a result of DISH, DirecTV, and Time Warner, that may 

very well be true. But the reasons for that is folks, like Mr. Polka’s 

members, Century Link, and others, have no negotiating leverage 

at all, and they are forced to take the broadcasters’ offer whole 

cloth. 

Mr. HOLDING. Well, one of the reasons why the local broadcast 

is important, and, you know, all of my constituents rely on the local 

broadcast, whether it is in times of emergency. We have great ice 

storms down in North Carolina. We have got hurricanes in North 

Carolina, and last week we had tornados in North Carolina. Of 

course, what are you tuning into? But, you know, your local broadcast for me is WRAL or WTVD. And so, Ms. Burdick, if you could 

expound upon the concept of broadcast localism and why it is important in this STELA debate, and in your opinion what is the best 

policy to continue to engender localized content. 

Ms. BURDICK. As NAB, we have been supportive of keeping the 

local cable and the local television compulsory licenses as a way to 

advance localism, and to look only narrowly at the distant signal 

importation as a piece of the compulsory license that could either 

sunset, as Congress intended, based on the fact that there is no 

need today, or do a narrow reauthorization of it. 

Mr. HOLDING. All right. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the distinguished 

gentlewoman from California, Dr. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Consumers today have several 

options for how they view content, whether it be through pay TV 

carriers, their bunny ears, or through the internet. The way that 

a consumer can view content is constantly evolving. In fact, Mr. 

Polka, you said in your testimony that 52.8 million households 

view television shows or movies using the internet or over-the-air 

delivery. And take, for example, the Aereo model. 

The Supreme Court is trying to determine whether online 

streaming of live TV broadcasts constitutes an infringement of a 

copyright holder’s exclusive right of public performance. Since the 

decision is looming, I would like for all the panelists to weigh in 

if they can, and what should members of this panel be thinking 

about while we wait for the Court’s decision and we review existing 

statutory licenses for cable and satellite providers? 

Mr. POLKA. Would you like me to start? 

Ms. CHU. Sure. 

Mr. POLKA. I would be happy to. I think the key thing here for 

the Committee is that innovation is occurring whether we like it 
85 

or not. It is happening. Whether it is Aereo or whether it is the 

next new disruptive technology—by the way, I love that term, ‘‘disruptive technology’’ because it is disrupting existing business models. And we had better get it, and we had better get with the consumer or else the consumers are going to pass us by. And frankly, 

that is one of the reasons why at the American Cable Association 

we supported Aereo because we believed that innovation in this 

marketplace is good. 

And so, as I mentioned even in my testimony, greater usage of 

broadband for online viewing is important, and frankly, it is where 

consumers are going. So that is why I think the Committee needs 

to be focused on it. 

Ms. BURDICK. As broadcasters, we want as many people to get 

our signals on as many platforms as they can get them. I think 

Aereo is only innovative in that it is innovative in how it attempts 

to, in a group Goldberg way, avoid the law. 

The underpinning of what we believe is that in order to support 

local content and local news, weather, and sports, we have to have 

an economic model to do it. And we do not believe anyone should 

be able to take our content, package it, and resell it without that 

money being returned to us to help reinvest in local communities. 

Mr. DODGE. We, too, similar to Mr. Polka, respect Aereo’s disruptive impacts on the market, and we, too, submitted a brief in support of them with the Supreme Court. And to answer your question, what I think Members of Congress should be thinking about 

is to be careful in drawing lines so as not to impact, unnecessarily, 

innovation. 

Mr. ROBERTS. And, Congresswoman, I would note that Aereo in 

their presentation before the Court specifically acknowledged that 

they were not a cable system, and, therefore, not qualified for the 

cable statutory license, therefore, suggesting that any license that 

they might wish to have in the future would have to be considered 

by the Congress. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Roberts, I would like to ask you about your Section 

302 report from the Copyright Office where you make recommendations on how we can phase out this statutory licensing in Title 17. 

The Office gathered comments on three possible marketplace alternatives to statutory licensing, and you stated that sublicensing 

holds the most promise. 

Under that structure, do you think there are enough incentives 

for the relevant parties to negotiate in good faith? In other words, 

is it a mechanism to help avoid negotiation impasses and blackouts 

that are harmful to consumers? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, we feel that in order to bring something like 

that about, there needs to be a trigger date, a date certain by 

where the statutory license, at least with respect to distant signals, 

would, in fact, come to an end so that market-based solutions could 

take a process and be put into place. 

Sublicensing does seem to be the best possible result of those 

marketplace negotiations. But in order for that to happen, it is 

going to have to be phased in over a period of time, and the communications law aspects really need to be considered because the 

statutory licenses have always marched according to how commu-
86 

nications law regulates the various industries, so they cannot be 

separated. They need to move together. 

Ms. CHU. Does anybody else want to weigh in on that? 

Mr. DODGE. One thing I would just add is if there is an idea of 

a ramp down, I think there should be some required showing on 

behalf of the broadcasters that actually have the necessary right to 

engage in such sublicensing negotiations. 

Ms. BURDICK. Well, I would agree with what Mr. Roberts said. 

But as a small broadcaster and a small cable operator who does not 

employ a phalanx of copyright attorneys and negotiators, I question 

how we are going to do that with the hundreds, maybe thousands, 

of pieces of copyrighted material. And then secondly, if you think 

about the ability of one to withhold carriage creates a blackout. So 

I have a lot of questions about the actual implementation. 

Mr. POLKA. Thank you, Congresswoman. I actually agree with 

Ms. Burdick. We are very concerned about the application of the 

copyright license and allowing that to be used by smaller providers. 

It is efficient. It works very, very well to clear copyrights, and we 

are very concerned even in the nature of the suggestion to eliminate the distant license, that it would be heaping onto smaller providers dozens, if not hundreds, of separate negotiations with copyright holders, while at the same time small cable operators are also 

negotiating for retransmission consent, which is what we tried to 

indicate, is not really a functioning marketplace. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Dr. Chu. We are going to get through 

one more. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Congressman Smith. 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dodge, 

how many households need Section 119 because they truly cannot 

receive a local signal? And how many of the households are grandfathered in as a result of past satellite reauthorizations? 

Mr. DODGE. I answered that question earlier. I do not have that 

information off the top of my head, but we will look into providing 

that to you. 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. Okay. That would be good. Also speaking more broadly about the trends in the satellite marketplace, 

blackouts have clearly changed. We have seen significant increases 

in the last couple of years. In fact, DISH customers in my district 

last August faced blackouts. And as you know—well, you may not 

know, but in my district, August is an important time for Major 

League Baseball and the Cardinals. It was a pretty big deal. What 

changes to Section 119 would you suggest to address this? 

Mr. DODGE. Quite simply, we think that programming should 

stay up during impasses, and that the parties, if they cannot reach 

a negotiated agreement on rates, should submit to binding baseball 

arbitration, which theoretically would produce a fair rate because 

each party has to put forth their best rate and be as fair as possible or risk losing. 

So in many cases, maybe it would not even get to the end of your 

arbitration because both parties, as they figured out what a fair 

rate was, would actually end up agreeing upon something. But 

worst case, you have one number from each party, and the arbitrator has to pick that number. 
87 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. So would you not make any changes to 

Section 119 or what? I mean—— 

Mr. DODGE. So we would. We would change the retransmission 

consent process, which actually is part of the Communications Act, 

to make it so that blackouts do not occur any longer, that the signal would stay up. And another proposal would be you could 

change 119 to allow the import of a distant network station if the 

broadcaster insists on taking their signal down. But we at DISH 

are always willing to keep the signal up while we negotiate, and 

then have any resulting rate apply retroactively. 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. It looks you might want to respond to 

that, Ms. Burdick. 

Ms. BURDICK. Maybe. I said earlier that if the end game is to 

shorten the dispute, arbitration does not do it. It lengthens it perhaps by months in every circumstance because it creates a process 

and a burden. But as a small broadcaster, when I negotiate against 

someone like DISH, it is a last resort and often the only leverage 

that I have to get a deal done to be fairly compensated. 

And let us not forget the context. Broadcasters were allowed to 

negotiate starting in 1992 for payment for the most watched content on satellite and cable. It was not until 2006 that broadcasters 

began to be paid, so we have only had a few cycles to negotiate 

those payments. 

And today, broadcasters are still the most watched. I have one 

market where my channel alone is watched by 40 percent of the 

customers on one cable system, yet I receive less than an estimated 

2 percent of the revenue. So we have had a high hill against operators that have stated publicly we will never pay you. So these have 

been tough negotiations. 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. Mr. Polka? 

Mr. POLKA. Thank you, sir. Let us be clear. Most broadcasters 

may not be like Ms. Burdick at Shurz Communications. In fact, 

they are not. They are major media conglomerates, like Sinclair 

Broadcasting, Nexstar Broadcasting, and others. And the nature of 

who our members are certainly are not the huge cable monopolies, 

but rather companies of 1,500 or below, such as Cablevision, which 

I mentioned this morning. So that kind of negotiation and the 

power of the cable operator, particularly in the smaller rural market, does not exist. 

And to really focus on a real life situation that is happening 

today, you need look no farther than Toledo, Ohio, where Sinclair 

Broadcasting, one of the major broadcasting groups in this country, 

has blacked out Buckeye Cablevision for 5 months on NBC WNBO, 

which Sinclair acquired in late November and came in with a first 

demand of nearly a thousand percent increase in retransmission 

consent. That is why there are blackouts today. And frankly, I applaud the Buckeye people for not paying that kind of ransom. 

Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the distinguished 

woman from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief because 

we do have votes pending on the House floor. But I remember 

when I was a freshman Member of this Committee and we had a 

markup on this bill, and we said at the time this was the last time 
88 

we would do it, and here we are again. And I predict that we will 

proceed again because we’re not really willing, I think, to face millions of consumers that are going to end up with no access, because 

that is what the result is going to be. 

So I just have two questions, one on the blackout bills. I am sure 

you are aware, Mr. Dodge, my colleague, Congresswoman Anna 

Eshoo, has introduced a bill on blackouts that I have co-sponsored. 

I am interested in your take on that bill. 

Mr. DODGE. Yes, and we thank you for your co-sponsorship of 

that bill. We think it goes a long way to fixing, you know, a couple 

of the biggest problems, which are on joint negotiating agreements 

amongst unaffiliated broadcasters in a single market that further 

exacerbates the leverage that the broadcasters have in programming or retransmission consent negotiations. And two, also giving 

the FCC some ability to curb those abuses. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am going to ask not Ms. Burdick, because I know 

the broadcasters are opposed to it, and I am almost out of time. 

Mr. Polka, your take on the bill? 

Mr. POLKA. Fully supportive. I totally agree with Mr. Dodge. The 

one point that I would also thank you for is the fact that your bill 

focuses on availability of content online. To focus on behavior 

where a broadcaster in a retransmission consent dispute unilaterally identifies IP addresses of consumers and denies access to content that is otherwise freely available online. Thank you for focusing on that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. That is a net neutrality as well. Let me just 

ask one final question. Other than areas that cannot receive an 

over-the-air broadcast, from a legal or technical standpoint, or 

maybe a business standpoint, what would prevent either a satellite 

or cable provider from simply integrating an over-the-air antenna 

into their cable box to avoid some of these problems? 

Mr. DODGE. That is a great question, and it is in some instances 

possible. But one of the points that Ms. Burdick made earlier that 

I take complete issue with is this concept that local programming 

is always available free over the air. DirecTV did a recent study 

where they did 1,800 signal tests in three different markets. And 

it actually showed that in the Los Angeles DMA, only 67 percent 

of the folks who were predicted to receive an adequate signal actually received an adequate signal. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. DODGE. Meaning 33 percent of the folks do not get over-theair broadcasts, and that is only within the area that the FCC predicts you would. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see. Mr. Polka? 

Mr. POLKA. Completely agree with Mr. Dodge. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am going to yield back the rest of my time because I know that the Committee needs to go vote and not miss it. 

So thank you very much. This has been very helpful. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Collins needs to get 

to his questions. He is going to do it. I am going to stick around, 

and then when he is done, I am going to call a recess and go vote. 

I hope the Ranking Member does not oppose. All right. So the 

Chair recognizes Mr. Collins. 
89 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is amazing what you 

hear when you are thinking you are going in one area, and then 

all of a sudden you get a curve ball thrown in. And, Mr. Polka, 

thank you for doing that. Frankly, from my opinion, anybody that 

has sat in this Committee long enough, they know that property 

rights are pretty important to me, and that includes intellectual 

property rights. 

And to describe Aereo as anything but a disruptive technology or 

a new and innovative technology is being very generous at best and 

dishonest at worst. That is not the way I say that, and I have 

issues with other things. And like I said, you see a lot of things 

in these hearings. That was just not one. 

But I want to thank the Chairman for doing this. I believe it is 

vitally important and appropriate for the Judiciary Committee to 

exercise its jurisdiction over the compulsory licenses in Title 17. 

And I hope the Committee moves forward to develop our own proposal regarding the expiring 119 license. 

Ms. Burdick, I have a question for you. It is pretty straightforward. You know, you are defending intellectual property, your 

own, and that you have your television broadcast programming. 

And you want protection of Federal copyright law to collect fees for 

your intellectual property. However, NAB in particular, when it 

comes to music licensing, your industry says that songwriters and 

composers do not have the right to receive the fair market value 

for their intellectual property. 

And under current law, cable operators are prohibited from taking down broadcast signal during the Nielsen sweeps period. However, there is no such prohibition for a TV broadcaster that pulls 

their signal during a retransmission consent dispute. Are these positions not inconsistent and really not being able to hold mutually 

in the same hand? 

Ms. BURDICK. So let me start with the radio piece. Broadcasters 

pay $500 million a year to songwriters through the U.S. copyright 

rules. In terms of streaming, we pay an estimated $60 million more 

a year to performers and to the labels. We pay consideration in 

other ways in terms of free promotional value, averaging about $2 

billion a year to the artists. 

Mr. COLLINS. Again, hold on right there, and we will leave you 

to more of this. You are getting into performance rights. I am not 

dealing with performance rights, and I am not dealing with artists. 

I am dealing with songwriters in the question. My simple question, 

and if you want to stick to the TV component as well, you can do 

that. They just seem to be inconsistent where you want your protection, which I do not blame you. I would want the protection, too. 

Cable wants theirs as well. I mean, it is just, I think, just an honest discussion as we are having this issue of reauthorization in the 

Committee. 

Ms. BURDICK. Well, I guess the point I was trying to make in too 

long-winded of a way is the fact that we on the radio side do not 

take someone else’s work, re-package it, and get real American dollars from someone that we put in our pocket. 

Mr. COLLINS. No, that is Aereo. [Laughter.] 

Ms. BURDICK. I would agree with that. On the television side, 

that is what was happening to our signal. And in terms of the dif-
90 

ficulty in negotiation of these signals, it is tough, whether you are 

a small broadcaster or a tough—and I think that was the second 

part of your question, the negotiation—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Where you can pull out when you need to. They 

cannot pull out during sweeps. So I think it is just, and that is 

where I was getting. I appreciate your answer. 

Ms. BURDICK. Could I just answer that real quickly? 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, finish up. 

Ms. BURDICK. The only reason that that was done is because 

there was a history and pattern and practice that Congress observed of some MVPDs, I am sure not represented at this table, but 

proactively pulling broadcaster signals to disrupt only 4 times a 

year when their economics are set to disrupt their economic model. 

And that is why that was created. 

Mr. COLLINS. And here is a big one for me. I have four orphan 

counties in my district, and many of these constituents in these 

counties only have access to satellite service, and these providers 

are not able to offer in-State local news and weather to residents 

in these counties. This is very important to me. 

To Mr. Dodge, I know there are larger reforms on both the copyright side and telecom side that this Committee should and will 

discuss in the weeks and months ahead. I have heard from too 

many Members whose constituents are facing similar situations. 

Localism is important, and the current DMA setup leaves my constituents feeling isolated and removed from their home State. We 

need to change that, and I need your help right now to assist my 

constituents to pursue larger reforms. 

Following up on sort of Mr. Goodlatte’s position, if the broadcasters are willing to clear rights to local in-State news and weather, can you commit to me as you have done to other Members in 

the past to make the programming available to your subscribers in 

my orphan counties? And will you encourage other satellite providers to do the same? 

Mr. DODGE. Well, one, I am not sure that they actually have the 

necessary rights to—— 

Mr. COLLINS. And I apologize. Let me restate my question. If 

broadcasters are willing to clear the rights to local in-State news 

and weather, will you then transmit to my orphan counties? 

Mr. DODGE. It depends to an extent. We actually do not think 

just passing through the local content actually is what consumers 

want, nor does it scratch the bigger itch of when catastrophes happen, that people are typically watching national content and get 

the local—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Dodge, I am going to stop you right there. My 

folks in Elberton, Stephens, Hart, and Franklin counties do not 

look to the national news service to determine. They look to the 

ones that they want to. And when you look at a disaster going on 

and I have four of my counties blanked out, frankly, that is a very 

disturbing answer. 

Ms. Burdick, I will give you the same question. I need your help 

to connect my constituents who are satellite subscribers with local 

in-State programming. Will you commit to clearing the rights working with the local stations for local news and weather in my orphan 
91 

counties, so in addition DirecTV can provide the programming to 

my constituents? 

Ms. BURDICK. Yes. And as we have in many cases across the 

country, and I believe in your specific case, cable and broadcasters 

have worked together to provide Atlanta broadcast into those counties. For some reason, satellite chooses not to do it. 

Mr. COLLINS. Right. You have brought up an issue, and, yes, it 

is. And I am a satellite user because of multiple reasons. This one 

is concerning me, and frankly, Mr. Dodge, that answer was very 

disturbing to me. In the light of other things where we could agree 

on, that answer is very disturbing because it highlights to me that 

there may not be a willingness on a financial reason, not a safety 

or a customer service need, because if you take the calls from district when I go in there, they are concerned about this. And so, it 

is disturbing. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Collins. It is past time for us to get 

to the Floor to vote. We have four votes. There is a good chance 

that we may be back here by 4. We will try. This hearing is now 

in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARINO. We will resume this hearing on intellectual property, and the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Farenthold, is 

up next. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. Mr. Dodge, you testified 

earlier you had the number of days every congressional district had 

been blacked out. Just for curiosity, do I win that? It sure seems 

like it with the most days blacked out. 

Mr. DODGE. And I am sorry, I could not hear. Were you asking 

do I know the exact number? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I mean, who won? You testified you looked at 

the numbers, and all but one had been blacked out. Do I win with 

the most days because it sure seems like it. 

Mr. DODGE. That I do not know, but it was Congressman 

Chaffetz who is the only Member of the Subcommittee whose State 

and district have not had a blackout. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I feel like the district I represent has been at 

the forefront of it, and we have actually ended up having to try to 

broker deals between the TV and the cable companies out of my 

office. 

Let us go to Mrs. Burdick. What happened to the business model 

of broadcast TV as advertiser supported? Back in the early days of 

cable, you guys were begging to be on the cable systems for free. 

What happened to change? 

Ms. BURDICK. Yes. Well, the largest thing that has happened is 

that it used to be just the three television stations, in essence, selling advertising, maybe only against newspaper and radio in that 

market. Now, we sell against cable or multiple cable systems, the 

internet, and that pool of advertising dollars has shrunk and 

shrunk and shrunk. So our ability to grow our business on advertising alone has diminished. 

Mr. HOLDING. And so, as far as local stations, I mean, a lot of 

what you get you can get on the internet. You can download even 

some of the network stuff now the day after it was aired. Where 

is the value in the future for local television stations? You know, 
92 

I do not mean to be cruel about this. What are you offering that 

the internet cannot now? 

Ms. BURDICK. You ask a really good question. We ask ourselves 

it every day. I do not know how the world is going to change in 

terms of the network affiliate model. What I do know that I can 

provide that is irreplaceable and to date not replicated by anyone 

is local news, weather, and sports. And in order to grow those businesses, and we have in our company been growing and investing 

in digital sub-channels that cater to local or new internet products 

that, as an example, cover only and every Kansas sports team. 

That takes people. It takes resources. And so, I have to think about 

what my future is going to be and how I monetize that. 

Mr. HOLDING. Okay. I am going to play devil’s advocate here for 

Mr. Dodge. His proposal was an arbitration, and your response to 

that is it would lengthen the time to make a deal. Well, his proposal that during the term of arbitration, the satellite or cable carrier still has the network affiliate on the air and saves my constituents from losing access to, say, the Super Bowl or 24 or whatever 

they are watching. I mean, you kind of conveniently leave that out 

of your response there. 

Ms. BURDICK. Yes. I guess I would say two things. First of all, 

and I always stress this because people seem to forget it. We never 

go off. We are always on the air—— 

Mr. HOLDING. But in today’s market, I mean, do rabbit ears really work during the blackouts? I tried rabbit ears. I had to climb up 

on my roof, mount an antenna, and string cable down to my house. 

Fortunately, I pre-wired for a lot of that, but it did take an afternoon. 

Ms. BURDICK. I do not say it is easy or the disruptions, and I do 

not take lightly disruptions. It is a last resort for a broadcaster in 

a negotiation because those are our mutual customers, and we do 

want to disrupt them. But when I as a small broadcaster have to 

face someone with 14 million customers and $14 billion in revenue, 

it is often the only tool that I have to get a fair price. 

Mr. HOLDING. All right. And then, Mr. Dodge, does DISH have 

local affiliates for everywhere in the country, or are there still some 

smaller areas that you are not carrying the affiliates? 

Mr. DODGE. No, we carry local channels in all 210 DMAS. 

Mr. HOLDING. All right. So we had the Chairman doing some 

questions about how some of the areas that are orphan areas or 

short areas, how do we deal with those. It seems to me the solution 

to that is to allow the customer to pick which one they want. We 

had a ranch about halfway between San Antonio and Laredo as a 

child growing up, you know. Why could we not say, well, we kind 

of want the San Antonio stations or we want the Laredo stations? 

Why do we not leave that to the consumer? 

Mr. DODGE. In our proposal with respect to that, I believe we do 

exactly that. 

Mr. HOLDING. And would that be technically possible? I mean, 

your spot beams are not so tight that you do not have a little bleed 

there. 

Mr. DODGE. It depends on the particular markets because our 

satellites have been designed with the current DMAs. But for many 

of them, you know, let us use Southern Colorado, for example, 
93 

which is in the Albuquerque DMA, we actually could provide Denver channels to those folks, and that is what we had suggested, 

that they would continue to receive Albuquerque, provide Denver 

on top of that, and ultimately let the consumer—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Now, as an affiliate I might have a problem 

with multiple affiliates in there. But for the ones outside the DMA, 

it seems like you ought to be able to pick, and you can divide out 

whatever you pay the station, you know, based on a per subscriber 

base, and click it up a few bucks here, a few bucks there based on 

the subscribers. Would that work for the broadcasters, Ms. Burdick? 

Ms. BURDICK. I think the first part of your question was really 

important. How many are there? There are, I think you said 18 

markets. Those could be negotiated directly. What we are talking 

about today is the expansion of the distant signal license. If that 

license expired today, those 18 markets could be negotiated with 

the rights holders, whether it is a network or the local broadcaster. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. But it would be probably easier for the satellite companies to pick one station, you know, New York or LA, 

and do it for everybody. But if they have got the technological capability, I think you want to keep it as local as possible. 

Ms. BURDICK. You absolutely do. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Dodge, I am out of time, but if you want 

to comment, I will let you comment before I yield back. 

Mr. DODGE. For short markets we typically import an adjacent 

signal, so we do try to keep it as local as possible. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Thank you very much. I see I am out 

of time. 

Mr. MARINO. If you have another question, go ahead. We are still 

possibly waiting for someone. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I just have a general question. Why is it my 

bills keep going up when the technology keeps getting cheaper? 

Why does my cable bill always seem like it is going up? We will 

go to Mr. Polka. 

Mr. POLKA. I will start. I will be happy to start. And we talked 

about it a little bit this morning at the Comcast hearing. As a result of companies that own content, the four or five major content 

companies control some 80 to 90 percent of all of the channels that 

we see on television today, and how that content is sold in bundles 

as opposed to in any way, shape, or form where a consumer has 

choice to either buy a channel separately or as part of a special 

package. 

Sports is a big driver of this. It is ironic nowadays, even though, 

you know, I am a sports fan and would be willing to pay for it that 

most of our subscribers, about 7 out of 10, would tell us I would 

not pay for it if I had the choice not to, but they do not have that 

choice. 

This is about the only marketplace I can think of where now you 

have more competitors, whether it is ESPN or whether it is FS 

One, Fox Sports One, or NBC Sports Network, where you actually 

have more sports competitors and the price goes up, not down, because the leagues are able to charge more in rights fees for TV 

rights. 
94 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, I will tell you. If I could probably just get 

the news channels in my local affiliates in internet, that is probably about all I would buy. Anyway, I see my time has expired, and 

I think you are ready to move on, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. There are no other Members here. All 

the questions that I was going to ask have been asked. I want to 

thank the panel, and this concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all 

of our witnesses for attending. I apologize for the delay. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional 

materials for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(95) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 

f 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 

f 
110 
111 
112 
113 

f 
114 
115 
116 
117 

Æ