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

64–374 PDF 2011

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SATELLITE HOME 

VIEWER EXTENSION AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, 

TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 24, 2009 

Serial No. 111–5 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 5 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 6 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Zachary T. Space, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio, opening statement ...................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Nathan Deal, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 11 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

Hon. Mike Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 13 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 14 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 152 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 153 

WITNESSES

Cynthia M. Lummis, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wymoming ............................................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Charles W. Ergen, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of DISH 

Network Corporation ........................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 154 

Martin D. Franks, Executive Vice President, Policy, Planning, and Government Relations, CBS Corporation ....................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Bob Gabrielli, Senior Vice President, Broadcasting Operations and Distribution, DIRECTV, Inc. ............................................................................................. 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 168 

Willard Rowland, President and CEO, Colorado Public Television, on behalf 

of the Association of Public Television Stations ................................................ 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 180 

K. James Yager, CEO, Barrington Broadcasting Group, LLC, on behalf of 

the National Association of Broadcasters .......................................................... 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 186 

Page

VI 

Gigi B. Sohn, President and Co-founder, Public Knowledge, on behalf of 

Public Knowledge, Consumers Union, and Free Press ..................................... 107 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 109 

W. Kenneth Ferree, President, Progress and Freedom Foundation .................... 118 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 120 

(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SATELLITE HOME 

VIEWER EXTENSION AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, 

AND THE INTERNET, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Boucher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Boucher, Markey, Eshoo, Stupak, 

DeGette, Weiner, Melancon, Matsui, Christensen, Castor, Murphy 

of Connecticut, Space, McNerney, Waxman (ex officio), Stearns, 

Deal, Shimkus, Buyer, Radanovich, Walden, Terry, Rogers, 

Blackburn, and Barton (ex officio). 

Also Present: Representative Ross. 

Staff Present: Amy Levine, policy coordinator; Roger Sherman, 

senior counsel; Tim Powderly, counsel; Shawn Chang, counsel; 

Philip Murphy, legislative clerk; Neil Fried, minority senior counsel; Garrett Golding, minority policy analyst; Will Carty, minority 

professional staff member; and Amy Bender, minority detailee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. BOUCHER. The subcommittee will come to order. On the occasion of the first order of this subcommittee, I want to welcome all 

of the members of the subcommittee and encourage each member 

to share with me your ideas for matters that we should place on 

the subcommittee’s agenda. It is my determination that the subcommittee will operate in a completely bipartisan fashion, and I intend to consult colleagues on both sides of the aisle about each 

matter that the subcommittee will address. So please give me the 

benefits of what you would like for the subcommittee to achieve 

and share those suggestions with me over the coming several 

weeks. 

The full agenda for the subcommittee is still under construction, 

but I can announce this morning that the next hearing for the subcommittee will be on March 12th, during which we will begin our 

work on universal service reform, and that is a subject on which 

I hope that we can report legislation to the full committee during 

2 

the coming months. After the hearing on March the 12th, the pace 

for having hearings for this subcommittee will accelerate. 

The subcommittee has a longstanding tradition of bipartisanship, 

and over 2 decades, I have enjoyed an ongoing partnership across 

a range of issues with the ranking Republican member of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. We have been 

lead sponsors of privacy legislation in past years, and in this Congress we may well consider bringing that issue forward again as 

well as other matters relating to information technology policy. 

And so this morning as I make general opening comments, I 

want to say that I very much welcome the position of Mr. Stearns 

as the ranking Republican on this subcommittee, given the long experience and technology-related issues that he brings to this work 

and to that position, and I very much look forward to our work together as I do with all members of the subcommittee on both sides 

of the aisle. 

Today the subcommittee takes the first step is reauthorizing the 

Satellite Home Viewer Act, which sets forth the terms pursuant to 

which satellite carriers retransmit distance signal broadcast programming. Certain provisions of the Communications and Copyright Acts expire at the end of 2009, making reauthorization of the 

Home Satellite Viewer Act and that compulsory license must-pass 

legislation during the course of this year. 

This year marks more than 2 decades since Congress created the 

distance signal compulsory copyright license in 1988 and 10 years 

since it created the local-into-local compulsory license in the 1999 

Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. Since 1988, direct broadcast satellite has grown to be a robust competitor to cable. Today, 

nearly one-third of all homes subscribing to a multi-channel video 

programming service choose a DBS provider. And DIRECTV and 

EchoStar are the second and third largest multi-channel video programming service providers in the Nation respectively. 

This increase in a competitive video programming marketplace 

would not have been possible had it not been for a series of acts 

of this Congress, including the two licenses to which I have previously referred, as well as the program access rules that were 

adopted in the early 1990s. 

Let me state at the outset my desire that Congress proceed with 

the reauthorization before us in the most straightforward manner 

possible. I do not wish for us to get sidetracked by collateral issues, 

such as retransmission consent reform that are relevant to all 

multi-channel video platforms, not just to satellite platforms. 

However, there are several matters that I think we cannot avoid 

discussing in the hearing today and as we continue our work on 

this reauthorization. One is whether satellite carriers should provide local service in all 210 designated market areas nationwide as 

a condition of relying on the Section 122 local-into-local compulsory 

license. 

As I mentioned earlier, the Section 122 license was created 10 

years ago. At that time, due primarily to the severe capacity constraints that were faced by satellite carriers in part because spot 

beam technology had not been at that time widely deployed, Congress allowed satellite carriers to roll out local service on a marketby-market basis. 

3 

Today, most of the country is served with local-into-local service. 

Today DIRECTV relies on that Section 122 license to offer local 

service in 150 markets and EchoStar provides local service in 178 

markets. But about 30 markets, among the 210 nationwide, do not 

have local-into-local coverage at all. Most of the DMAs that lack 

local-into-local service are in rural areas, such as the congressional 

district that I represent. And, in fact, constituents in one of the 

four DMAs that comprise my congressional district still cannot get 

their local stations by way of satellite, a fact with which I am reacquainted on a regular basis as constituents in that area complain 

to me vocally whenever I am in that region about their inability to 

get local signals delivered by satellite. 

While I understand that the numbers of subscribers in these 

areas are small, these households which often cannot receive local 

signals over the air because the DMAs in which they reside are 

large or because of terrain issues—many of these regions are also 

mountainous—these individuals are very vocal in their desire to receive the opportunities that those in more densely plated portions 

of the Nation presently have. 

Another matter for discussion is whether residents in one DMA 

should be able to receive broadcast programming from an adjacent 

DMA. DMAs in 45 States straddle State lines, which means residents in one State are assigned to a DMA that is primarily located 

at a neighboring State. For many, in that kind of situation, the 

local news, sports and public safety information they receive from 

the stations in their designated DMA actually derive from another 

State and/or are more concentrated on events that occur in that 

other State. 

So, one possible arrangement might be to allow for the provision 

of adjacent market signals in those situations with the people in 

the State that has a minority of the viewers in that straddle situation being able to subscribe to the adjacent market signals of the 

adjacent market within the State in which those individuals live. 

In past years, the law has been modified to allow adjacent market signal transmission in certain specified markets. Today we 

begin a discussion about the potential for enacting a general rule 

on adjacent market signals for situations where the DMAs straddle 

State lines, about 45 markets in total across the country. 

The Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Judiciary 

Committee share jurisdiction over the Home Satellite Viewer Act. 

And as a member of both of those committees, it is my desire that 

the subcommittees work closely together and create a common text 

which both committees can then process. In fact, the Judiciary 

Committee has its first hearing tomorrow morning on this subject, 

and we are already in discussions, senior staff to senior staff, about 

the kinds of coordination we could achieve in the work between 

these two committees. 

I want to welcome our witnesses this morning, and I want to 

thank each of them for taking the time to share their thoughtful 

comments with us. The prepared testimony is excellent. We appreciate your providing that, and after we have had an opportunity for 

other members to make their statements we will turn to your testimony. 

4 

In accordance with the rules of the committee, any member who 

decides to waive an opening statement will have 2 minutes added 

to the time that member can propound questions to our witnesses 

this morning. 

It is my pleasure now to recognize the ranking Republican member of our subcommittee about whom I have already made some 

welcoming remarks, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning. And thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman, for having this hearing. Obviously we are all excited. 

Let me congratulate you on becoming the new chairman of this 

very important committee. As you pointed out, it has had a long 

history of bipartisanship. So I look forward to working with you. 

You have the capability, you have the interest and the passion for 

telecommunications and Internet. So you and I have worked together on other things, so I look forward to this great opportunity 

to work again with you on this important committee. 

Obviously we live in exciting times. Advances in broadband technology, health care, and how we produce and distribute electricity 

will spur long-term economic growth, increase international competitiveness and improve the quality of life for all Americans. 

Frankly, we are only limited by our imagination. 

The topic of today’s hearing, the Satellite Home Viewers Act, 

simply allows satellite companies to deliver broadcast television 

signals. The act should be updated and made more consumer 

friendly. Its antiquated provisions are frustrating television viewers. At a minimum we should revise the law to reflect the end of 

analog broadcasting as well as to allow willing satellite operators 

and broadcasters to offer in State signals to households whose local 

markets include only out-of-State stations. We should resist calls to 

expand the carry-one/carry-all requirements governing satellite delivery of local broadcast stations. Doing so would not only be bad 

policy, it would be unconstitutional. 

My colleagues, over the past 20 years, technology has progressed 

beyond what most of us have ever or could have imagined. Twenty 

years ago, the Internet was used as a mere fraction of what it is 

today. There are other signs of how much things have changed. 

For example, let me just give you this little statistic. In the 

United States today, more people earn their living on eBay than 

are employed by the entire steel industry. Furthermore, in 1989, 

all of us remember the Tandy 5000. It was billed as the most powerful computer ever built. It had a lightning fast 20MHz processor 

and a whopping 2 megabytes of RAM. All of this cutting edge technology cost you almost $9,000. Monitor and mouse were not included. Now, if you take and make in today’s dollars, that would 

be equivalent to $15,000. So we have seen how things have 

changed so dramatically. 

This brings us to the subject of today’s hearing. I am looking forward to this committee moving forward on the Satellite Home 

Viewer Act Reauthorization. This act has served multiple times to 

advance competition and frankly to give consumers more choices. 

I anticipate exploring market-based avenues for satellite providers 

5 

to continue adding even more local stations because all of us know 

local content is essential and a customer’s desire. 

I would add that I am concerned about some interest in requirements that satellite TV providers serve all 210 media markets. 

Now, such initiative not only challenges the laws of physics, but 

also challenges how one is able to go to the capital and credit markets to achieve and accomplish this goal. A better approach, I believe, is to make smaller markets more attractive by allowing them 

to be carried as an adjacent local market in addition to the market 

that Nielsen determines that you live in. That is the rational way 

to incentivize more carriage and one that doesn’t even go as far as 

the Internet distribution model that the broadcast networks are already presently implementing. 

The video marketplace has never been more competitive. In the 

past cable was the only pay TV option. Fifteen years ago, cable had 

95 percent of the pay TV market. Now that share has dropped to 

68 percent. More than 32 million consumers now subscribe to a 

service other than cable. After Comcast, the second and third largest pay TV providers are DIRECTV and DISH Network. Phone 

companies are aggressively stealing subscribers with their video offerings. In fact, both AT&T and Verizon would rank in the top 10 

of largest pay TV providers today. 

Furthermore, local and national programmers alike are offering 

content to consumers over the Internet either on Web sites for free 

or simply through services such as iTunes. 

So as you can see, Mr. Chairman, consumers have a number of 

choices, and this competition will lead to new products and to new 

better services. We no longer have the justification to deny America’s households access to the programming of their choice, subject 

only to free market negotiations by distributors and the content 

owners. Indeed, we should be reducing video regulation in this 

competitive environment, not increasing it. We need to innovate 

and not regulate. 

So I look forward to the hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward again with working with you on these important matters. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns. The gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, chairman of the full Energy 

and Commerce Committee, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Today’s 

hearing marks the first step of the 111th Congress toward its required reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and 

Reauthorization Act, known as SHVERA. Today is also the first 

hearing of this newly constituted Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. The subcommittee has a new 

name, a new chairman and some new members. And I would like 

to congratulate Mr. Boucher on his chairmanship and welcome the 

new members to the subcommittee. 

Mr. Boucher has a long history on this subcommittee and an exceptional command of telecommunications issues, and I look forVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:37 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-5 CHRIS
6 

ward to working closely with him and Ranking Member Cliff 

Stearns and relying on their expertise as we consider this reauthorization. 

SHVERA is a complicated bill that grew out of competing policy 

goals promoting competition for pay television service and protecting our nationwide system of free over the air broadcast television. Achieving these competing goals especially during the time 

of dramatic change in the communications marketplace requires a 

careful balancing of interests, and the panel before us today represents a diverse group of stakeholders. So we are all anxious to 

hear their testimony and we very much appreciate their participation. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to say 

a few remarks and to express my desire to work with you and other 

members of this committee as we fashion this legislation. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Chairman Waxman, and I 

appreciate your kind words. And I look forward very much to working with you as well. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 2 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too am excited 

about your chairmanship of this committee. And let me just say if 

you can have some hearings in regular order you may be able to 

set the example for the rest of this Congress. So I am applauding 

your attempt to do that. 

Let me also report on the digital transition. Many of my broadcasters have turned off their analog signal, which I applaud. And 

we have heard very few complaints. In fact, I think my D.C. office 

got one call. I know one broadcaster may have had 40 calls and 

that was just to set the scan button on the digital receiver. I am 

very excited to report that. 

Yesterday I was on a major St. Louis morning talk show and the 

host there, a guy, McGraw Milhaven, and I have had a 10-year relationship. And it started with the debate of SHIVA, which he was 

really a late night guy, I think 1:00 in the morning, and had followed in the local debate, was pleased with our passage, saw the 

benefits and we have been friends ever since. So I mentioned it to 

him yesterday that I was going back to Washington to start the debate on reauthorization, which brings me to the aspect of reauthorization. 

We know it ties in with the digital transition and analog. There 

has to be some changes because of that technology. But I would 

also just caution us that we be careful not to harm the multiple options that consumers have today. It is truly a phenomenon of all 

the availability to view and compete and receive signals from a 

multitude of area. It is very important in my congressional district 

that we have the local in the local for the public safety debate. But 

again, I would just caution that we move diligently, and with your 

promise to have hearings and move through regular order, I think 

that is the way in which we address the minute details of bills 

which could be very, very harmful. 

7 

I thank you and yield back my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus. The 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, my congratulations to you on assuming the chairmanship and the gavel of this 

really wonderful and important subcommittee. I have always enjoyed your insights and I respect them relative to technology and 

telecommunications issues, and I look forward to working with you 

and all of my colleagues on this subcommittee. 

I am very pleased that we are starting out with the discussion 

of this reauthorization early so that we can flush out all of the 

issues surrounding it. The week before last, many members were 

visited by their local public television stations. They expressed 

their concern that access to local public television stations’ digital 

programming is denied to almost half of all direct broadcast satellite households. That is nearly 12 million households in our country because one major DBS provider has failed to negotiate a longterm deal with public television. 

I am reintroducing legislation in this Congress, as I did in the 

last, the Satellite Consumers Access to Public Television Digital 

Programming Act—it is a mouthful—to require DBS carriage of all 

public television stations, multicast digital stations. I am very 

pleased that DIRECTV, the Association for Public Television Stations, and PBS announced that they reached an agreement whereby DIRECTV would carry public television stations’ digital signals. 

I think it is unacceptable for any household to be denied access to 

public television’s digital programming. 

So I am looking forward to questioning the witnesses certainly 

DISH Network, and I appreciate meeting Mr. Ergen this morning. 

I think the bill would be unnecessary if they would just come to 

a similar agreement as their competitor. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, again. And congratulations and I 

look forward to a very full 111th Congress where we will really distinguish ourselves on behalf of our constituents. Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Eshoo. The ranking 

Republican member of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I won’t take too long. I appreciate 

you doing this hearing. I think we do need to reauthorize the satellite home viewer extension and reauthorization legislation, and I 

think this may be an issue that we can work together on. So I am 

supportive and look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Mr. BOUCHER. All happy thoughts. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Barton. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, is recognized for 2 

minutes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations being 

chairman of this committee. I want to waive my time and use it 

for questioning. 

8 

Mr. BOUCHER. The gentleman from Michigan waives his opening 

statement. The gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, is recognized for 2 minutes. She is not here, is she? The gentlelady from 

the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christensen, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will waive my 

opening statements. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mrs. Christensen waives her opening statement. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Space, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. SPACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent the 18th Congressional District in Ohio, a district that spans 16 counties and 

covers almost a fifth of the State’s geographic area. This district is 

composed of small towns and villages and rural areas and lies in 

the hills of Appalachia. Our largest town and throughout the district is Zanesville, Ohio, with about 25,000 people. And perhaps of 

most interest pertaining to today’s hearing Ohio’s 18th Congressional District encompasses five designated market areas. The Columbus market covers the majority of our counties, but in the north 

we pick up Cleveland and Akron. To the south, two of my counties 

are actually part of the Charleston-Huntington, West Virginia market. In the east two more of my counties are in the Wheeling-Steubenville market. And finally, Muskingum County is the sole county 

comprising the Zanesville market. 

This scenario makes the reauthorization of the Satellite Home 

Viewer Act of particular relevance to me and my constituents. I am 

looking forward to working with the subcommittee to address the 

complicated issues, many of which you mentioned in your opening 

statement, Mr. Chairman, that we will be talking about further 

today and specifically the local-into-local component of the legislation as the Wheeling-Steubenville market is one of a few dozen, I 

think 30, DMAs without local-into-local service. 

But thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Space. The gentleman 

from Georgia, Mr. Deal, is recognized for—I am sorry. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your 

having this hearing. I will apologize up front. We also have an energy hearing going on at the same time. So I am going to have to 

bounce back and forth. 

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to 

insert into the record an opening statement from our colleague 

from Wyoming, Mrs. Lummis, she would like in there regarding 

satellite issues. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to address this subcommittee on the issue of 

Designated Market Area (DMA) reform. While only one small part of the Satellite 

9 

Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act, DMA reform is critical for the advancement of local television content. 

The advent of satellite television ushered in a new era of video connectivity that 

for rural areas like my home state, made what had been previously impossible— 

multiple channel options and a clear picture—finally possible. This subcommittee 

deserves a great deal of praise for setting up a statutory and regulatory environment that has helped to protect local broadcasts while simultaneously allowing the 

satellite industry to corner 30 percent of the television viewing market. Not everything has worked perfectly, however. These are truly complicated issue, and they 

continue to change with each new technological breakthrough. As video technology 

evolves across all platforms, we can agree that the statutory and regulatory framework that governs them should evolve as well. 

Ensuring that local broadcasts and local content remained viable was an early 

goal of this subcommittee, and it continues to be a goal we all share. However, 

enough time has elapsed since syndicated exclusivity and network non-duplication 

rules were attached to each DMA that we have begun to understand the unintended 

consequences of those actions. The decision to use Neilson Media’s local market area 

map to determine the boundaries of local market areas was not without merit. After 

all, the DMA system was intended to link together television viewers by geographic 

and cultural affinities, and Neilson’s map accomplishes that goal in some cases. 

Unfortunately, it is also true that much of the DMA map makes little sense neither geographically, nor culturally. The problem is national, but Wyoming is the 

poster child of what is wrong with the DMA system. Sixteen of our twenty three 

counties are part of DMAs that originate out-of-state. Put differently, over 50 percent of Wyoming’s television households are not eligible to receive Wyoming-originated programming, including news, weather, sports and emergency programming. 

I believe, and Wyoming’s example illustrates, that the DMA system is an impediment to localism, not an aid. 

I am thankful both to Representative Mike Ross (D-AR), and to my predecessor, 

Representative Barbara Cubin (R-WY), who are responsible for early, important 

work on this issue. I am eager to continue that work with this subcommittee to craft 

a solution that retains the important and necessary work of our local broadcasts and 

content. I urge this subcommittee to take the necessary steps to ensure that television viewers in my state and around the Nation have access to their home state’s 

television programming. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I would concur with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, two of the markets that serve my district also 

converted to digital, although one station in each market remained 

analog because of their corporate ownership decisions. We didn’t 

have a signal phone call in my office about that conversion. And 

yes, we are listed in the phone book. The managers of the stations 

whom I spoke to repeatedly—in fact, I was in one of the markets 

when it occurred—they had a couple hundred phone calls. Predominantly it was about plugging in the box, rescanning the channels, 

and that was it. 

So I hope in the very near future, Mr. Chairman, we might have 

an oversight hearing on this issue, because I am not convinced that 

we need to spend 90 million on community organizers and another 

650 million on converter boxes. It appears in markets where the 

conversion has taken place it has done so rather seamlessly and 

with little problem. 

In terms of this legislation, I look forward to working with you 

on the reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Act. I know 

that I am not alone in concern out in the country about the localinto-local issue. It seems like when you represent a rural district 

with rural communities you are always sort of the last one considered, and I have got areas, for example, in Bend, Oregon, that still 

have not been able to get local-into-local. This is not a subject that 

you all are unaware of certainly, but it is one that I feel pretty 

strongly about. 

10 

So I hope you will be able to address that in your comments or 

at some point in this legislation because it seems to me whether 

you live in New York or Bend, Oregon or Medford, Oregon, when 

it comes to Federal law you ought to be treated the same. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on this, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Walden. The 

gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I waive 

my opening statement in favor of extra time during questions. But 

I do want to mention that underscoring the fact that Colorado is 

ground zero for telecommunications, I have two constituents on 

this panel who I would like to welcome, Charlie Ergen, who will 

be testifying for DISH Network and Rick Rowland, who will be testifying on behalf of public TV. He is the CEO of Colorado Public 

Television. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And welcome to both of our witnesses. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. DeGette. Two minutes 

will be added to your questioning time. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would wish to 

waive my opening statement. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Melancon waives his opening statement. The 

gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will waive. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Ms. Castor waives her opening statement. The 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also would like to 

congratulate you on assuming this chairmanship of this wonderful 

committee. I look forward to working with you. I would also like 

to thank today’s panelists for sharing their expertise on this very 

complex issue. 

We are here today to begin the process to reauthorize the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act, which is 

set to expire on December 31st, at the end of this year. In the past, 

Congress has tried to ensure that as many households as possible 

have access to local television programming while expanding competition and consumer choice in programming and service providers. As we move forward, we should continue to advance these 

principles. 

In today’s marketplace, we should encourage carriers to provide 

local television stations and news broadcasts to more and more customers. It is particularly important that consumers have access to 

local emergency broadcasts. Unfortunately, Californiais home to 

many natural disasters, such as earthquakes, flooding, and 

wildfires. Consumers need access to local emergency information 

when such events occur. 

I look forward to hearing from each of today’s witnesses about 

how we can advance solutions that are effective and efficient. 

11 

Thank you again for your leadership on this issue, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Matsui. The gentleman 

from Georgia, Mr. Deal, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NATHAN DEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, and I add my congratulations to you on 

your chairmanship. And I also welcome the witnesses and thank 

them for their attendance today. 

I am glad we are considering the reauthorization of the Satellite 

Home Viewers Act because it brings into focus one of the issues 

that has concerned me for a very long time, and that is the lack 

of true consumer choice in television viewing. As we all know, because DMAs, designated market areas, cut across State lines, hundreds of thousands of television households have little or no access 

to broadcast TV stations from their own State and therefore have 

very limited access to their State news, elections, government, and 

weather programming. And likewise, individuals who may live 

across a State or a DMA line but are part of a community on the 

other side of the line cannot receive the programming that matters 

to them. And as we have heard already today in these opening 

statements, this is a common concern that many of my colleagues 

share. 

Now, I understand the reasoning behind the drawing of the DMA 

maps, but it seems to me to be an archaic system. Depending on 

who you ask, broadcast TV viewers make up around 10 to 15 percent of the total viewing audience. It seems odd that the other 85 

to 90 percent of the television viewing audience is constrained by 

a system that is based on the viewing habits of a fraction of that 

15 percent. 

Now, I understand the desire of broadcasters to control the distribution of their programming, but it seems rather absurd to me 

that in this day and age that consumers who are willing to pay are 

still prevented from watching the content that they desire. The free 

market has allowed technology to meet consumer demand for content in many ways outside of the world of cable, satellite, and 

broadcast TV. We should strive to foster a framework that allows 

the free market to meet consumer demands in an equally efficient 

way for television viewers, and I hope that this hearing will be a 

step in that direction. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Deal. The gentleman 

from New York, Mr. Weiner, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. WEINER. I waive my opening statement, except to offer my 

congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Weiner. And we certainly welcome you as the new vice chairman of this subcommittee 

as well. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized for 

2 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to offer my 

congratulations for assuming the chairmanship of this exciting 

committee. As a person with a technical background, I am looking 

12 

forward to learning about this issue from experts such as yourselves. And this is exciting. It is a dynamic and it is a critically important area. 

So I am looking forward to contributing to our national policy in 

this area. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. The gentleman from 

Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. And 

frankly, I want to start off by saying congratulations and I am 

pleased that you are chairman and you have a depth of knowledge 

and a universal respect within the telecom community. So I really 

appreciate you accepting that role. 

Digital conversion, I want to hear from you how that is going to 

impact or whether there should be policies we need to incorporate 

in this reauthorization. Like Mr. Shimkus, I had two stations out 

of five that converted on the 17th. Between station calls and then 

Nebraska set up our 211 to receive calls, there was something 

around 550 calls. Like Mr. Shimkus mentioned, probably well over 

50 percent was helping people with their setup in the sense of 

learning how to scroll through or setting up the—I am just drawing 

a blank on the word right now—but easily resolved. And frankly, 

only about 10 were calls about I don’t have a box and I don’t have 

a coupon. What we did is pooled coupons before, so every one of 

those people received a coupon and a box that same day. So we 

were able to resolve every issue on the conversion. 

But I also, as I mentioned, want to hear how it impacts—especially at the digital signal—and if there are still problems with the 

local broadcasters or is that being resolved with local-into-local. 

And I look forward to your testimony, and thank you all for being 

here. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. The 

gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, for holding this hearing and for allowing me, as a member of the full committee but not 

this subcommittee, to be here and to participate and to raise an 

issue that is extremely important to so many of our constituents. 

Across our Nation, many satellite and cable subscribers cannot 

receive the local channels of their home State because the current 

law specifies that stations be transmitted primarily within their 

designated market area, or DMA. However, these boundaries assigned by the Nielsen Media Research Company were designated 

50 years ago. And many of these DMA boundaries, up to 47 percent 

by some estimates, cross State lines. This leaves millions of subscribers watching the local news, weather, and sports of their 

neighboring State and missing vital weather information about— 

and other information about the State in which they live, work 

and, may I add, pay taxes. We are essentially using 1950s laws to 

deliver 21st century technology. 

13 

In the 110th Congress, I introduced legislation to remedy this 

problem, and I am currently drafting new legislation that will update our law and bring it into the 21st century by giving consumers 

access to their local channels. 

But let me be clear, I am not proposing to change the DMAs. I 

simply want to allow those who are receiving the local channels of 

a neighboring State the choice, the choice to also receive local channels from their home State. Satellite and cable subscribers should 

not be denied the freedom, the freedom to choose stations from 

their home States simply because of an outdated law. And I am 

hopeful that we can work together to provide all subscribers more 

choice and greater local content. I am also hopeful that the witnesses today will specifically address this issue in their comments. 

And I look forward to working with the committee and you, Mr. 

Chairman, to remedy this problem in this year’s reauthorization. 

Thank you again for allowing me to be here, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Ross. The gentlelady 

from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I add my congratulations to you. I want to welcome our panelists and the return 

of some of our panelists who are here to talk with us today on the 

issues that we have got in front of us. We have heard some of the 

problems that we have existing with accessing local programming. 

So I will submit my full statement and just add a couple of comments on this. In Tennessee, my constituents in the metropolitan 

areas are well served. There is no problem with accessing and having choices and expanded services. And, Mr. Ferree, I like the way 

you illustratively pointed that out in your written testimony, and 

we thank you for that. 

Let me mention, though, as some of my colleagues have, in our 

rural and underserved areas—I have two counties: Hardin and 

Henderson Counties. And there the citizens cannot receive the subscription video service from traditional cable programmers and 

they are limited to a weak or nonexistent broadcast signal as we 

are making the digital switch. But the DBS, the satellite service 

providers, they are the only game in town for some and they don’t 

extend the local programming option for a variety of factors, whether it is policy or market driven factors. But this is something that 

we are going to need to address. These constituents of ours are 

frustrated. We understand this. I share that frustration with them. 

I also see it as an issue of safety, and this is one that I don’t 

think my colleagues have raised yet today, so I will. We had a tornado last year: 30 dead, 150 that were injured. We know that that 

local programming is important. We want to work with you as we 

look at reauthorization and see how we best address this issue. It 

is one of convenience and enjoyment, but it is also one of safety. 

So we do want to hear from you on this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Blackburn. 

14 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, former chairman of this subcommittee, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am chairing a hearing 

on energy upstairs as the former chairman of the energy subcommittee. A decade ago, Mr. Chairman, I successfully offered the 

local-to-local amendment that made it possible for direct broadcast 

satellite companies to offer consumers their local broadcast channels as part of a seamless satellite video service offering. This new 

legal ability dramatically increased the competitive prospects for 

the DBS companies against incumbent cable operators. 

The rise in subscribership to satellite service in urban and suburban America as a result of my local-to-local amendment had another beneficial consequence. It induced cable operators to invest 

heavily in greater bandwidth for additional channel capacity, enhanced picture quality, and to offer broadband and voice services 

in a headlong effort to distinguish its services in competition with 

DBS satellite. 

The point is that even if consumers stuck with their local friendly cable operator, such consumers have also benefited from the satellite competition this subcommittee fostered. 

In previous legislative consideration of these issues, questions 

have been raised about out-of-market signal carriage of broadcast 

signals, as well as the applicability of syndicated exclusivity, sports 

blackout, and network nonduplication rules that were adopted 

originally decades ago to protect the interests of free over the air 

broadcasters and the viability of their services. As the march of 

digital technology moves inexorably forward, it is appropriate to 

once again examine all of those issues so that our laws and regulations not only keep pace with changes in technology, but so that 

we may reassert policy support for the long held communications 

values of localism and diversity in a manner that embraces competition and innovation. The consumer ultimately should be the 

beneficiary of the policies we advance. 

I want to commend you, Chairman Boucher, for calling this important hearing this morning and the excellent panel of witnesses 

that I see down here. It is like Hall of Fame weekend as I look 

down: Mr. Ergen, Mr. Franks, Mr. Gabrielli, all of them who have 

helped us so much over the years in framing our policies. 

I yield back the balance. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey. 

The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, is recognized for 

2 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony, and I will submit my statement for the 

record. 

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. The gentleman waives his opening statement. 

The Chair asks unanimous consent for two matters. First, that 

a written statement prepared by National Programming Service, 

which distributes distant network signals to the subscribers of the 

15 

DISH Network, be submitted for the record. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. BOUCHER. And also that all members of this subcommittee 

may submit their prepared written statements for the record. And 

without objection, so ordered. 

We now turn to our panel of witnesses. And just as the gentleman from Massachusetts has welcomed our witnesses, I want to 

do the same and note that they have worked with us cooperatively 

and very constructively for a number of years as we have adopted 

the Home Satellite Viewer Act, the Home Satellite Viewer Improvement Act with its local-into-local opportunities, and now as we reauthorize the Home Satellite Viewer Act are with us again. So they 

are old hands at this subject matter, and we very much welcome 

them here this morning. Mr. Charles Ergen is the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of DISH Network Corporation. 

Mr. Martin Franks is Executive Vice President of Policy Planning 

and Government Relations for the CBS Corporation. Mr. Bob 

Gabrielli is the Senior Vice President for Broadcasting Operations 

and Distribution for DIRECTV. Mr. Willard Rowland is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Colorado Public Television. He 

testifies today on behalf of the Association of Public Television Stations. Mr. James Yager is the Chief Executive Officer of Barrington 

Broadcasting Group. He testifies on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters. Ms. Gigi Sohn is the President of Public 

Knowledge, a very respected public interest group. She testifies 

today on behalf of Public Knowledge, the Consumers Union, and 

Free Press. Mr. Kenneth Ferree is the President of another respected public interest group, the Progress and Freedom Foundation. 

And we welcome each of our witnesses. Without objection, your 

prepared written statements will be made a part of the record, and 

we would welcome your oral summaries and ask that you try to 

keep those to approximately 5 minutes so that we will have plenty 

of time for questions, of which I am sure there will be many. 

And, Mr. Ergen, we are pleased to begin this morning by hearing 

from you. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. ERGEN, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF DISH NETWORK CORPORATION 

Mr. ERGEN. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member 

Stearns, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is Charlie Ergen, and I am the 

Chairman and CEO of DISH Network, the Nation’s third largest 

paid TV provider. 

We are in the middle of a digital transition that is changing the 

way people watch TV. It is pretty simple. People want to watch 

what they want to watch, when they want, and where they want. 

And as TV evolves, there are some things that no longer make 

sense for consumers under today’s laws. 

First, many consumers can’t get local news and sports in their 

home State because of the way local markets are defined. 

16 

Second, many rural communities are missing one or more of the 

four major networks. 

Third, consumers are losing their local stations during disputes 

over retransmission consent. 

And fourth, consumers suffer when must-carry stations have little or no local content. 

It is our hope that all these challenges can be fixed as part of 

the SHVERA reauthorization this year. The digital age has arrived 

and the laws need to catch up. On DMA reform, many of your constituents are being denied access to news, weather, and election 

coverage from their home State. 

For example, depending on where a customer lives in Indiana, 

from the map over here, they may get local news from Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, or Ohio. As you can see from the map, defining 

local map based on DMA does not make sense from a consumer 

perspective. This is an issue in 45 States. The Copyright Office recognized this problem in their report last year. Paid TV providers 

should be allowed to bring in a neighboring broadcaster and consumers should be able to determine what local means to them. 

With respect to missing network affiliates, DISH Network provides local service in 178 markets today, reaching 97 percent of 

households nationwide. This translates into over 1,400 local broadcast stations, which is far more than any other pay TV provider. 

In most of the remaining markets, one or more of the four networks is missing. 

The Copyright Office has highlighted this problem in its report. 

We agree with the Copyright Office that all consumers should have 

access to NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX programming. If a local community is missing one of the Big Four network stations, pay TV 

providers should be able to treat a nearby affiliate as the local affiliate under copyright and communications law. 

On retransmission consent reform, a broadcaster used to negotiate with a single cable company and the leverage was relatively 

equal. But today, DISH Network customers and others are held 

hostages as broadcasters play their local monopoly off against multiple pay TV providers. In 2008 alone, consumers lost programming 

in approximately 15 percent of our markets because of retransmission consent disputes. This is a huge increase over prior years, 

and the problem continues to get worse. 

Today, stations in seven of our markets remain down because of 

unreasonable demands from Fisher Communications. Yet broadcasters provide the same content for free on the Internet and those 

lucky enough to live within the shrinking areas of digital over-theair coverage. 

Because broadcasters receive billions of dollars of spectrum for 

free, we think retransmission consent should be free. Failing that, 

we support the creation of a national retransmission consent rate, 

which would apply to all broadcasters and all paid TV providers. 

Treat a monopoly like a monopoly. Satellite providers already pay 

a fixed per subscriber copyright royalty rate, and we see no reason 

why a similar concept can’t work for retransmission consent. 

As a second alternative, we support the creation of an actual 

market. If a broadcaster threatens to drop programming, paid TV 

providers should be able to get a nearby affiliate to fill the gap. 

17 

Consumers should never have to wonder what happened to Sunday 

Night Football. 

Finally, on must-carry, we are forced to carry hundreds of stations today that have little or no local content. This increases our 

cost, raises our prices to consumers at a time when consumers need 

all the disposable income they can get. Must-carry stations should 

be required to earn carriage by offering at least 20 hours of local 

programming each week. This is beneficial to consumers and has 

no harmful effect on broadcasters that invest in their local market. 

Each of these four issues can be addressed within the structure 

proposed by the Copyright Office. Specifically, a unitary compulsory copyright license for all pay TV providers would give Congress 

the chance to make sure all consumers get the services they need 

in a digital world in a manner that is fair to copyright holders, 

broadcasters, cable and satellite. 

The Copyright Office recognizes that TV has changed fundamentally and incremental changes to outdated rules are not good 

enough. We encourage you to review the recommendations and act 

boldly on behalf of your constituents. 

Thanks again for allowing me to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ergen follows:] 

18 


64374.001
19 


64374.002
20 


64374.003
21 


64374.004
22 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Ergen. Mr. Franks, we 

will be pleased to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN D. FRANKS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY, PLANNING AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, 

CBS CORPORATION 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And we need the microphone. 

Mr. FRANKS. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. 

First, let me congratulate the committee on a remarkable legislative success story. Twenty-one years ago, prodded by Chairman 

Boucher and others through the original Satellite Home Viewer 

Act, Congress began a process which has resulted in a robust video 

distribution and programming marketplace which happily has 

made the local cable monopoly a relic of the past. There are many 

winners from Congress’ vision in this aspect of the video marketplace, but none bigger than the American consumer. 

The legislative issue on the table today is really a very narrow 

one, whether to extend satellite’s compulsory distance signal license once again. In contrast, the local-into-local license is permanent and not part of this debate. Yet during the course of congressional deliberation over the distance signal license, you will hear 

from parties seeking to exploit this legislation as a vehicle for a 

wish list of unrelated items such as changes to retransmission consent or DMA modification. Besides complicating the legislative 

process, the issues of retrans and DMA modification are not broken 

and do not need fixing. 

Each year, CBS and other television broadcasters conclude hundreds of retransmission consent agreements with cable, satellite, 

and telephone operators. In an overwhelming majority of such instances, agreements are reached quietly, amicably and in a mutually beneficial manner. Infrequently, a dispute erupts at least initially and both sides threaten the disruption of service. Even more 

infrequently, a very small handful of those disputes lead to a shortterm disruption. Legislating to deal with a few disputes against a 

pattern where there are literally hundreds of instances where willing sellers and willing buyers successfully reach agreement would 

be a solution in search of a problem. In the end, the retransmission 

consent regime works and in the manner Congress intended. 

As for DMAs, they are not a governmental creation. Rather they 

are a product of Nielsen Media Research, which groups counties by 

viewing patterns and the laws of physics and signal propagation 

rather than geographic boundaries. DMAs are the center of a 

broadcaster’s economic universe. And any tinkering with the system, even in good economic times, could be financially seismic, not 

only for smaller local broadcasters but also for local merchants who 

buy time on their local stations in order to reach potential customers in their local areas without competing and confusing ads 

coming into the market from a station 100 or 1,000 miles away. 

But if the desired outcome is for viewers to access news from their 

out-of-market but in-state television stations, right now, without 

the need to change any law or redefine any DMA, MVPDs may already import any station’s newscast into any other market simply 

23 

by securing the imported station’s permission to do so. Stations 

control the copyright of their news programming and can make 

them available to multi-channel providers in nearby markets looking to augment news programming. 

We are prepared to work on any problem areas where there may 

be issues with regard to local and in-state news. But please do not 

fall for the masquerade of those who are using DMA reform as a 

proxy for their real objective, a means for MVPDs to obtain bargaining leverage in a retransmission content regime that is now in 

nearly perfect balance. 

Please also remember that television broadcasters have the right 

to the copyright and communications acts and private contracts to 

control the distribution of the national and local programming they 

transmit. The CBS television network alone invests billions of dollars each year to deliver the highest quality news, sports and entertainment programming. We are not complaining. We strongly 

believe that our heavy investment in programming pays off. Superior programming generates viewing that helps not only the CBS 

network in our owned and operated television stations, but also our 

affiliated stations nationwide. When network programming is of 

high quality and compelling, local stations benefit because they sell 

advertising within the network programming. That allows them to 

make significant financial investments in local news, sports, weather, and other programming, including syndicated shows like Wheel 

of Fortune, Jeopardy, and Oprah, some of your constituents’ favorite programs. 

This network affiliate, national and local arrangement, of course, 

is not unique to CBS. It is also enjoyed by the other networks, including Univision and Telemundo, and their affiliated stations 

across the country. In the end, however, it is local viewers who 

benefit most from this system. 

Mr. Chairman, again I would like to thank the Committee for 

helping to steer our industry through the complex technical and 

market conditions to get us where we are today, a robust video delivery marketplace where thanks to vigorous competition, broadcast 

television is still an integral player deeply valued by American 

viewers. We look forward to working with the committee to preserve and advance the role of broadcast television in that extremely 

competitive marketplace. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Franks follows:] 

24 


64374.005
25 


64374.006
26 


64374.007
27 


64374.008
28 


64374.009
29 


64374.010
30 


64374.011
31 


64374.012
32 


64374.013
33 


64374.014
34 


64374.015
35 


64374.016
36 


64374.017
37 


64374.018
38 


64374.019
39 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Franks. Mr. Gabrielli. 

STATEMENT OF BOB GABRIELLI, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

BROADCASTING OPERATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION, DIRECTV, 

INC 

Mr. GABRIELLI. Thank you. Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member 

Stearns, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Bob Gabrielli, Senior Vice President for Programming Operations and Distribution at DIRECTV. On behalf of more 

than 17 million customers, I offer the following suggestions for updating SHVERA. First, Congress should retain and modernize the 

distance signal statutory license. Second, Congress should improve 

consumer access to local stations. Third, Congress should not require satellite subscribers to bear the burden of nationwide mandatory carriage. And fourth, the retransmission consent system 

should be modernized to protect consumers from high prices and 

withheld signals. 

To begin, I would like to discuss the distance signal license. 

Today, the vast majority of subscribers get network programming 

from local, not distance stations. Only about 2 percent of satellite 

subscribers receive distance signals, but those subscribers rely on 

distance signals to receive network programming and many will 

continue to do so into the future. Congress should thus renew the 

distance signal license. It should also modernize the license to 

make it simpler and to protect consumer access to network programming. In particular, it should ensure that consumers in markets missing one or more local affiliates have access to network 

programming through distance signals. 

Next, let me discuss DMAs. Millions are unable to receive truly 

local news and sports and entertainment because they live in one 

State while their DMA is mostly in another State. For example, 

viewers in Fulton County, Pennsylvania, are assigned to the Washington, D.C. DMA. As a result, they do not receive any Pennsylvania-based local programing. 

Five years ago, SHVERA addressed a handful of these situations 

by creating special rules. The time is right for a more general approach. Congressman Ross has a proposal allowing delivery of 

neighboring stations to households in these orphan counties like 

Fulton County. DIRECTV endorses this effort. Time and again, 

consumers tell us what local channels best meet their needs. Where 

possible, we should be able to meet those demands. 

I would like to now discuss local carriage. Satellite is an excellent medium for distributing national programming to even the 

most remote locations, but it is far more difficult to deliver thousands of local network stations from a handful of satellites in 

space. 

Congress recognized the difficulty of this task when it created 

the carry-one/carry-all rule. We have nonetheless made extraordinary progress in offering local programming. Our track record 

speaks for itself. We have spent billions of dollars to provide local 

service and now offer local television by satellite to 95 percent of 

households, and we intend to add six more markets by the end of 

this year. 

40 

Using the FCC calculations, over 80 percent of our satellite capacity is now devoted to this local service, nearly triple the amount 

cable operators are required by law to carry. This is because, unlike cable, we have to rebroadcast identical network programming 

hundreds of times throughout the country. For the 5 remaining 

percent of households, we now offer a local seamless solution. We 

will install a rooftop antenna and tuners that integrate local broadcast signals into a set top box. To our subscribers, offer signals will 

appear and function exactly as any other channel on the guide, in 

the DVR, et cetera. 

If the broadcasters made their signals available throughout the 

DMA, every DIRECTV subscriber could receive local channels in 

this fashion. This simple investment in repeaters and translators 

by broadcasters would be the fastest and most efficient way to 

achieve the goals of H.R. 927. 

Last, I would like to discuss the retransmission consent. Congress created the must-carry/retransmission consent regime before 

we even offered local channels. The regime functioned until recently in part because of the equilibrium that existed between monopoly broadcasters and monopoly cable operators. But as satellite 

emerged, broadcasters found their relative bargaining power increased. 

Today, the market is tilted even more heavily in favor of broadcasters. Each has at least three competitors with whom to negotiate government-protected exclusive control over their content and 

public air waves they use for free. 

At the same time, new private equity investors have pressured 

broadcasters to increase rates. Broadcasters now routinely demand 

fees three times those previously paid, and it does not appear that 

this additional money is being used to provide more or better local 

programming. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. Many broadcasters are producing less and less local news, while others have 

replaced local programming with national infomercials. 

DIRECTV willingly pays for high-quality content. We think programmers deserve fair and reasonable compensation for the product they create, but it does not serve the American public if the 

broadcasters have the unfettered ability to raise rates without any 

obligation to provide local content. 

We would like to work with you to establish a new rate transmission consent policy that compensates broadcasters fairly for its 

investment in high quality content yet protects consumers from 

withheld services. 

In closing, millions of your constituents throughout America, 

whether they are satellite or not, are better off because of the legislation this committee has championed over the years. I ask you to 

keep those consumers in mind as you consider SHVERA reauthorization this year. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gabrielli follows:] 

41 


64374.020
42 


64374.021
43 


64374.022
44 


64374.023
45 


64374.024
46 


64374.025
47 


64374.026
48 


64374.027
49 


64374.028
50 


64374.029
51 


64374.030
52 


64374.031
53 


64374.032
54 


64374.033
55 


64374.034
56 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Gabrielli. 

Mr. Rowland. 

STATEMENT OF WILLARD ROWLAND, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

COLORADO PUBLIC TELEVISION, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS 

Mr. ROWLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Stearns, for inviting me to testify today on behalf of Colorado Public Television in Denver and the Association of Public Television 

Stations. 

As an aside, at the outset I might note that this is probably a 

first in the history of communications policymaking in which a 

humble public broadcaster is sitting here situated in the middle of 

the panel between all of these distinguished members of the broadcast and telecommunications media to my right and left. Perhaps, 

indeed, this means change is in the air. 

The reauthorization of SHVERA is of great importance to my station and the 364 local public television stations across the country. 

KBDI is located in Five Points, the historically African American 

and Latino neighborhood of north Denver, and over the years, 

under the banner ‘‘World View, Community Voice,’’ we have developed a wide range of local and international programming that 

serves 85 percent of Colorado’s population. 

There are three SHVERA reauthorization issues of particular interest to public television stations: multicast carriage; local-intolocal; and the reach of public television Statewide networks. 

Public stations nationwide were early adopters of digital technology and have been at the forefront of maximizing the new digital capacity to serve our core missions of localism, education, and 

diversity. My station in Denver currently offers three multicast 

streams and plans to offer more. In addition to our traditional mix 

of local and national public affairs and cultural programming on 

one channel, we provide a documentary service and an international stream featuring news, foreign affairs, and arts programs. 

Without multicast carriage, this rich educational content made 

available through digital technology is lost. Given the complexities 

of multicast carriage, we prefer voluntary market-driven arrangements with multi-channel video providers, such as those we have 

already reached with cable, Verizon, and DIRECTV. The DIRECTV 

agreement proves that a mutually beneficial creative approach is 

possible involving high-definition, multicast standard definition, 

and video-on-demand options. Such an approach provides viewers 

with a full array of public television’s high quality digital content 

while respecting the capacity constraints of DBS providers. 

However, after years of unsuccessful attempts to reach a similar 

private agreement with Dish Network, we have no choice but to 

conclude that there is a market failure, and it is time for the Federal Government to intervene to ensure that Dish’s 14 million customers have access to the full benefits of their local public television stations’ digital offerings. 

As she noted today, Congresswoman Eshoo introduced H.R. 4221, 

which would mandate DBS coverage of public television stations’ 

complete digital signals where no private agreement between the 

DBS provider and the local station has previously been reached. 

57 

We are delighted that Representative Eshoo is going to reintroduce 

this legislation. We applaud her initiative and urge that this important legislation be incorporated as part of the SHVERA reauthorization. 

Turning to local-into-local, SHVERA does not require that DBS 

providers carry local broadcasts in all the areas they serve. As a 

result, viewers in more than 50 smaller and often rural markets 

cannot receive even the primary offerings of their local public television stations through one or both DBS providers. 

Public television is strongly and irrevocably committed to the 

principle of localism. As stations transition to digital-only broadcasting and invest in greater local services, carriage by all multichannel video providers is critical. Public television calls on Congress to ensure that DBS customers in every market are able to 

view through some mechanism the offerings of their local public 

television stations as soon as reasonably practicable. 

The final SHVERA issue for us involves Statewide or regional 

public television networks charged by statute or mission with 

reaching all viewers in their State or region. Because the SHVERA 

carriage regime is based on the DMA system, many of these networks cannot be carried by DBS providers in certain portions of 

their States because they do not have full power transmitters in 

each DMA. 

The most glaring example is with our neighboring Wyoming Public Television, which reaches only 45 percent of the State’s population through DBS carriage. But this problem affects State or regional public television networks in at least 18 States. It is our 

hope that public television can work closely with the committee to 

solve this problem. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not stress the 

importance of Federal funding for public broadcasters. Federal 

funding is more critical now than ever before as public stations are 

rolling out their new digital services while facing the greatest economic challenge in their 42-year history. We ask this authorizing 

committee to support increased Federal funding to offset the projected 15 percent declines in other sources of funding. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to participate 

in today’s hearing. I look forward to answering any questions you 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowland follows:] 

58 


64374.035
59 


64374.036
60 


64374.037
61 


64374.038
62 


64374.039
63 


64374.040
64 


64374.041
65 


64374.042
66 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Yager. 

STATEMENT OF K. JAMES YAGER, CEO, BARRINGTON BROADCASTING GROUP, LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS 

Mr. YAGER. Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for having me 

here today. My name is Jim Yager, and I am the CEO of Barrington Broadcasting, which owns and operates 21 television stations in 15 small- to mid-size markets. I am also the chairman of 

the Television Board of the National Association of Broadcasters. 

Ever since Congress crafted the original Satellite Home Viewer 

Act of 1988, it has worked to further two objectives: first, that free 

over-the-air television will remain widely available to American 

households; and, second, that satellite re-transmissions will not 

jeopardize the strong public interest in maintaining vibrant local 

television services. Those two goals remain paramount today. 

Our Barrington stations keep our communities informed and connected. We work every day to embody the spirit of localism which 

Congress has affirmed time and time again as a vital public policy 

goal. We do not charge our viewers to watch our programs, rely on 

payments from advertisers to deliver a free service to our constituents. 

Without free, over-the-air television, cable and satellite companies would essentially be unrestrained in their ability to charge 

subscribers even higher prices. Broadcast television stations remain the primary source of the most diverse and popular entertainment, news, weather, and sports programming in the country. In 

fact, according to data from Nielsen Media Research, in a 2007- 

2008 television season, 488 of the top 500 prime time television 

programs were broadcast on over-the-air television. 

While these stations represent a relatively small number of channels of those on cable and satellite systems, broadcast stations offer 

a unique and valuable service to their local markets that could be 

undermined by unnecessary changes to the law. 

As Congress considers updates to SHVERA, it is vital that you 

uphold the strength and tradition of localism. Any changes should 

not impair enforcement of program market agreements that are essential to local broadcast service. 

Furthermore, this committee should strengthen localism by phasing out satellite licensing for distant signals. The license should be 

replaced with a requirement for local-into-local carriage in all television markets which would enhance localism, programming, and 

price competition, and increase viewer choice. 

To assist viewers in this difficult economic climate, Congress 

should mandate local-into-local satellite service in every market. I 

would like to thank Congressman Stupak for the introduction of 

legislation to accomplish this goal. 

There are 31 of 210 television markets in small and rural areas 

like Marquette, Michigan, that the satellite companies do not 

serve. They have said that this is a capacity issue, but I believe it 

is quite simply a business decision on their part. I am certain that, 

67 

if Congress does not step in, the satellite companies won’t ever provide local service to every market in this country. 

Broadcasters have invested well over $1 billion in making the 

transition to digital television. So far, there is very little economic 

return on that investment. Nevertheless, those investments are 

still in the public interest. The satellite industry’s investment to 

provide local-into-local service to all Americans would also be in the 

public interest. 

Localism is at the forefront of broadcaster operation. In emergency situations, it is the broadcaster, not the cable or satellite 

companies, who is on the scene providing the public with the emergency, life-saving, and timely information it needs. Localism is not 

in cable or satellites’s DMA or their business models. 

Some Members of Congress have expressed frustration that their 

constituents do not have the access to in-State but out-of-market 

broadcast stations. Current law allows cable and satellite systems 

to offer nonduplicating, out-of-market programming to their subscribers, but many cable and satellite systems choose not to do so. 

However, Congress should not change current law to allow cable 

and satellite companies to offer network and syndicated programming that is identical to programming already offered by the local 

broadcasters with rights to that market. Doing so would be inconsistent with the long-standing principle of localism and the carefully balanced system of retransmission consent that was established by Congress to further this principle. 

If the retransmission consent rights of an in-market station were 

undercut by the importation of distant in-State duplicating signals, 

the economic basis for the local broadcaster service to the public 

would be eroded, and the public, in my opinion, would be harmed. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify. I welcome 

your questions following the panel. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yager follows:] 

68 


64374.043
69 


64374.044
70 


64374.045
71 


64374.046
72 


64374.047
73 


64374.048
74 


64374.049
75 


64374.050
76 


64374.051
77 


64374.052
78 


64374.053
79 


64374.054
80 


64374.055
81 


64374.056
82 


64374.057
83 


64374.058
84 


64374.059
85 


64374.060
86 


64374.061
87 


64374.062
88 


64374.063
89 


64374.064
90 


64374.065
91 


64374.066
92 


64374.067
93 


64374.068
94 


64374.069
95 


64374.070
96 


64374.071
97 


64374.072
98 


64374.073
99 


64374.074
100 


64374.075
101 


64374.076
102 


64374.077
103 


64374.078
104 


64374.079
105 


64374.080
106 


64374.081
107 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Yager. 

Ms. Sohn. 

STATEMENT OF GIGI B. SOHN, PRESIDENT AND CO-FOUNDER, 

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, 

CONSUMERS UNION, AND FREE PRESS 

Ms. SOHN. Chairman Boucher, let me extend my hearty congratulations to you. 

Ranking Member Stearns, members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me to give a consumer perspective on the reauthorization of SHVERA. 

As Congress considers renewing satellite compulsory licenses, it 

should repair the current fragmented regulatory structure by accomplishing three goals: one, treat all those who retransmit broadcast content and signals equally; two, ensure special protections 

given to broadcasters do not result in unfair licensing terms for 

multi-channel video providers, or MVPDs; and three, move toward 

a world without restrictive distant signal regulations. 

The current patchwork of laws and regulations unnecessarily differentiates between types of providers, restricts the availability of 

content to consumers, and sets the stage for discriminatory pricing. 

I have three recommendations: first, unify the regulatory and licensing systems for MVPDs. While at one time there may have 

been justification for maintaining separate structures for cable and 

satellite retransmission, that time is passed. Disparities in treatment of cable systems and satellite services are a result of historical and technical factors that are no longer relevant. In its report 

on SHVERA, the Copyright Office emphasized that regulatory parity between MVPDs is ‘‘a good governmental goal of the first 

order.’’ 

It is time to level the playing field, not just between these services but also for new types of MVPDs, including those who deliver 

content through the Internet. Allowing Internet-based MVPDs to 

voluntarily join this regulatory scheme could provide much needed 

competition. Congress should therefore create a single unified 

structure for all MVPDs, extending the benefit of the compulsory 

license to any that opt in and meet their regulatory obligations, including local carriage requirements. 

In addition, no provider should be subject to a 5-year reauthorization cycle. This presumably means that satellite providers, like 

cable providers, would be required to carry all local broadcast stations, a fair trade for significant regulatory relief. 

Second, reform retransmission consent rules to promote competition and eliminate unfair price discrimination. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would take issue that retransmission consent rules are unrelated to SHVERA. I would say that the problems with retransmission consent are directly related to restrictions on distant signals and the combination of the two produces 

anti-competitive results. 

The rules create an imbalance that allows powerful broadcasters 

to engage in discriminatory pricing or tie in carriage of unrelated 

stations, raising prices for customers and harming the ability of 

smaller MVPDs to compete. Unfortunately, most broadcasterMVPD agreements are not public, preventing anyone from deterVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:37 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-5 CHRIS
108 

mining the scope of these discriminatory practices. Therefore, first 

and foremost among Congress’s remedies should be transparency in 

retransmission consent deals. 

But Congress should go farther, for instance, by requiring that 

retransmission consent licenses be on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. Even more effective would be a statutory retransmission consent license that parallels the copyright license for 

broadcast retransmission. This would ensure price parity among 

MVPDs, eliminate troubling tie-in arrangements, and prevent 

broadcasters from withholding important local content as leverage 

against smaller video providers. 

Third, move toward eliminating distance signal protection. Distance signal protection is an anachronism in an Internet age, 

where consumers who have Internet access can view content that 

is not restricted by State lines or artificial market areas. Attempts 

to force subscribers to watch only local stations is doomed to fail. 

More pressingly, current rules create situations in which satellite 

providers are unable to provide customers with the local broadcast 

channels that are most relevant to their lives because they originate in a different DMA. 

Over the long term, Congress should work toward eliminating 

distant signal restrictions. MVPDs should be free to respond to customer desires and offer, in addition to local stations, other stations 

from wherever they broadcast. 

In the short term, however, Congress should fix the immediate 

problems caused by DMA-based and distant-based restrictions on 

MVPD retransmissions. At a minimum, the rules should be relaxed 

to allow retransmissions of any in-State signals, stations from 

neighboring areas, and any missing networks. 

Finally, I urge the subcommittee to reject efforts to make 

SHVERA a vehicle for unrelated changes to copyright and communications law. 

I would like to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and 

this subcommittee again for giving me the opportunity to testify 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sohn follows:] 

109 


64374.082
110 


64374.083
111 


64374.084
112 


64374.085
113 


64374.086
114 


64374.087
115 


64374.088
116 


64374.089
117 


64374.090
118 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Sohn. 

Mr. Ferree. 

STATEMENT OF W. KENNETH FERREE, PRESIDENT, PROGRESS 

AND FREEDOM FOUNDATION 

Mr. FERREE. Thank you, Chairman Boucher and Ranking Member Stearns, and thank you to members of the committee. 

I am Ken Ferree, president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank here in Washington that is focused on studying 

the digital economy. 

Today’s hearing is about the reauthorization of the Satellite 

Home Viewer Act, but in fact, this discussion we are having is really about a much larger debate about how and whether traditional 

media platforms will thrive in the emerging media world. 

The evidence is all around us. The days of force-feeding consumers media selected for them by monopolistic or near monopolistic operators is over. The gems of traditional media, the dominant daily newspapers, are losing prescribers at precipitous rates. 

The doyen of electronic media, terrestrial radio, has been in 

extremis for years. Its progeny, satellite radio, too, is struggling in 

a world of media abundance and consumer choice. 

Broadcast television ratings are a fraction of what they once 

were, and prime content is now migrating not only to multi-channel platforms such as cable and DBS but also to a platform with 

essentially infinite capacity and flexibility: the Internet, of course. 

And, thus, the relative newcomers in the media landscape, the 

multi-channel systems, also have a sharp eye on technological developments that may threaten their business models. 

So, as we talk today about distant signal importation, DMA 

boundaries and the like, we need to bear in mind that the technological workarounds to most any restriction already exist, and consumers are learning to use them with more and more facility every 

day. Allow me to highlight one example. 

Under existing rules, DBS systems make local signal determinations based on DMA boundaries. I don’t pretend to understand the 

intricacies of how DMAs are developed or why they were chosen for 

this purpose, but I do know that because DMA boundaries and 

State political boundaries are not coterminous, there are a number 

of markets where television viewers receive their local broadcast 

services via satellite from neighboring States rather than their 

home State. 

As chief of the FCC’s media bureau from 2001 to 2005, I heard 

numerous complaints about just this problem, and I have to say, 

I have some sympathy for those subscribers. 

As a practical matter, of course, technological innovation is rendering obsolete many of the restrictions that protect marketplace 

exclusivity. A new class of Web sites and services, including 

NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon Video on Demand, iTunes, and Vuze, are 

changing the way we view broadcast television. 

Moreover, it is increasingly easy for consumers to view content 

from any geographic market directly on Internet-ready televisions 

or through the use of set-top box devices, such as NetFlix Player, 

TiVo, or Slingbox, and through popular game consoles like the 

Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. 

119 

In short, time and geography increasingly are meaningless concepts with respect to video content. If traditional platforms, including DBS systems, are to thrive in this competitive market, it makes 

little sense to hamstring their ability to provide viewers in-State 

stations based on the vagaries of DMA boundaries. 

Similarly, it is increasingly difficult to justify carriage burdens 

on traditional media. I have read recently of legislative proposals 

that would require satellite operators to carry local television stations in even the smallest markets using satellite capacity rather 

than some other delivery mechanism. 

Now, there are only two ways in which a satellite company might 

comply with such a mandate: It could add the capacity; that is assuming it is physically possible given spectrum constraints. Or, it 

may convert capacity currently used for other more highly demanded programming services. Neither approach makes economic 

sense. 

Moreover, carriage requirements impose significant burdens on 

the First Amendment rights of those bound by them. In the current 

environment, imposing enhanced carriage mandates on DBS would 

be unwarranted, economically indefensible and unconstitutional. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferree follows:] 

120 


64374.091
121 


64374.092
122 


64374.093
123 


64374.094
124 


64374.095
125 


64374.096
126 


64374.097
127 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Ferree. 

And thanks to each of the witnesses for your very thoughtful 

comments here this morning, and we look forward to continuing 

our conversations with you as we continue with our work on reauthorizing the law. 

Mr. Gabrielli, I am going to pose a question to you, and I also 

intend to pose it to National Programming Service that delivers 

out-of-market signals as well. I understand that you have about 

800,000 subscribers to your out-of-market signal service. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And I wonder if you know, and if you don’t know 

this morning, if you can do the research and inform us, of the number of subscribers among that 800,000 who reside in places where 

there is currently local-into-local service. There are two grandfather provisions in the law that under two different sets of circumstances allow the residents of markets that have local-into-local 

service to continue to receive distant signals or to opt to receive 

them instead. And I wonder if you know how many people living 

in those local-into-local markets are receiving distant signaling, or 

if you could find that out for us. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. I don’t know offhand. 

But there is a question, there is the grandfathered customers 

who had distant signals before we carried locals and who opt to 

keep them. But there are also those customers in markets like Lafayette who receive the one local station and receive the other networks via distant network. They are part of the 800,000. So I will 

try to break out those that receive networks where they are fully 

covered by locals but choose to receive distance. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, we call that latter situation short markets, 

where there is really only—where not all of the networks have local 

affiliates within that market. And that is kind of a special case. 

But carve that out also. Give us those numbers, if you can. And we 

are very interested in knowing the numbers of subscribers you 

have for out-of-market signals and areas where there is full localinto-local service with all networks represented in that market. So 

if you could send that to us, that would be very helpful. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. We can do that, sir. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Yager, you have recommended that the section 192 license 

be eliminated coincident with the statutory requirement that localinto-local service be provided in all of the 210 local television markets. If that were to be adopted, what would you do in the situation 

where, as Mr. Gabrielli has just described, there are markets 

where not every network is represented by a local affiliate in that 

market, so-called short markets? Would you permit the importation 

of a distant signal into those markets for the network that does not 

have a local affiliate in that market? 

Mr. YAGER. I am unaware of all of these markets that supposedly 

don’t have a full network service. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, there are a number of them. 

Mr. YAGER. But in regard to that, let me say that I think we 

have to come up with a local service. We have to maintain localinto-local. 

128 

Mr. BOUCHER. I understand that, Mr. Yager. But my time is limited, and the question is today we don’t have it everywhere. And 

even if you mandate it, you are still going to have markets where 

not all networks are not represented with local affiliates. What do 

you do in a situation like that? 

Mr. YAGER. Well, we have significantly viewed status right now 

for many of those. 

Mr. BOUCHER. That doesn’t cover it all, either. OK. Why don’t 

you perhaps submit to us an answer in writing? 

Mr. YAGER. Fine. 

Mr. BOUCHER. And we would be happy to hear from you on that. 

Mr. Ergen and Mr. Gabrielli, I have a question for both of you, 

and it goes to the heart of what much of our debate in this committee on reauthorizing the law is going to be about. It has been 

10 years now since the local-into-local license was first granted. 

And in that 10-year period, much has changed. Most of the country 

now has the benefit of local-into-local service, but there are 30 markets that still do not. And I actually represent one of those markets 

or at least part of it. Spot beams were not commonly in use at the 

time this license was created 10 years ago. Today, spot beams are. 

That makes for far more efficient use of your spectrum. And in the 

meantime, another major thing that has changed is that you are 

now adding high definition service, which consumes quite a bit of 

spectrum in the more populated markets. 

But we still have 30 markets around the country where there is 

no local-into-local service. And in these markets, oftentimes you 

have a very small number of television stations. Maybe it is all of 

the networks represented, nothing else. Maybe you don’t even have 

that many. Maybe not all the networks are represented with local 

affiliates. And these are oftentimes geographically challenging 

areas where people really need the satellite service because they 

can’t get service delivered over the air because of being a long way 

from the television station or because of terrain. And so though the 

arguments from people in these 30 markets are very vocal that if 

you are going to get the benefit of a nationally granted license that 

lets you offer the local-into-local service, in return for getting that 

license you should be required to offer that service everywhere. 

And the technology now has improved to the point that it is somewhat easier for you to do that. 

So that is the complaint we are hearing. And I want to give you 

an opportunity, both of you, to respond to that. And my time is expiring, so as soon as you conclude your answer, I will turn to Mr. 

Stearns. 

But Mr. Ergen, would you like to respond, and then Mr. 

Gabrielli. 

Mr. ERGEN. Sir, it is a great question. 

First of all, our company delivers in the 178 DMAs, so there are 

only 32 DMAs that we don’t deliver a signal in. I was a little bit 

shocked that Mr. Yager was unaware, and in all those markets, 

those are short markets, Mr. Chairman. So, our company, as you 

may know, after a long court battle is not allowed to bring in a 

nonbroadcast network in those short markets. So we have—not 

only do we have technical issues that we perhaps could overcome 

with enough time and money, but we have real economic issues 

129 

that, without bringing in a short market station, without the ability to do so, no customer would buy it from us anyway. 

And it is a shame that the representative from the National Association of Broadcasters doesn’t realize that we have this issue of 

short markets without all network stations in all markets. 

We certainly believe that it shouldn’t be mandated from a legislative point of view. What I would like to see this committee do is 

bring the economic incentives so that we could generate competition and that we would have the desire from an economic point of 

view to go out and do all 210 markets. And, again, our company 

is certainly prepared to meet the challenges to do those kind of 

things with the ability to actually bring in short market signals. 

And you have to balance similar with the must-carry laws as well, 

which is why we suggested that where there is not local content, 

you free that bandwidth up for those local markets. If you do those 

things, I think you have a good shot at getting most, if not all, by 

one or both of the DBS providers. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Ergen. 

Mr. Gabrielli. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the point, 

though, that both Dish networks announced were secondary transmitters of a primary broadcast. So we are really doing what the television stations are supposed to do, which is cover their market. 

We happen to have some advantages of doing it, but it is not our 

primary business. 

The covering of 210 markets, as Mr. Ergen has said, has got a 

number of technical difficulties. One is, and we have picked up 

some stations like in Gainesville and in Lafayette where it is a single station, but getting the other networks is tough because we 

have to get agreements from all the locals around it that bleed into 

it, and all have some right to claim that those are their customers 

and that we can’t bring somebody else in. So we have to negotiate 

with everybody in the surrounding territory. 

A technical issue is that the local station often is in a pretty remote place, and we have a very tough time of getting the signal 

back to us that we have to get those signals via fiber in-ground, 

and quite often, there is no fiber to these stations and that is a 

huge economic burden to take that we have to go to try to get those 

signals. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Stearns for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I remember SHVERA, when we had this act in 2004, and we 

marked it up, and I thought it was rather simple that we could do, 

but it became very complicated. And after hearing a little bit of the 

opening statements, I can see that this has become complicated 

again. 

But the difference is, as I mentioned in opening statement, is we 

now have not only satellite and cable, but we have broadcasters 

and we have the phone companies, Sprint and AT&T coming in. 

We have the Internet. We have the iPhone. We have so much more. 

So is it possible some of the arguments we made back when Billy 

Tauzin was chairman of this committee and the Republican majority, some of the arguments we made about letting the market deVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:37 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-5 CHRIS
130 

cide may be even more so today. And so this is to follow up a little 

bit on what Chairman Boucher has talked about in dealing with 

the must-carry requirements. 

When it was brought up, the argument was, ultimately, it was 

constitutional, and must-carry had to be provided because there 

was insufficient competition to ensure broadcast stations would 

gain carriage on the marketplace. So this question is sort of fundamental to our whole debate this morning. 

And this is to Mr. Ergen, Gabrielli, and Ferree. In light of what 

I mentioned with the satellites and broadcasting and the phone 

companies, the Internet, and all these various new markets, and 

the multiple outlets for carriage, does the Constitutional argument 

still apply? Is it still that the must-carry requirements have to be 

implemented because of law? 

I will start with Mr. Ferree first. 

Mr. FERREE. In my judgment, it would be unconstitutional without a doubt. I don’t think you have to be Oliver Wendell Holmes 

to figure this out. 

The original must-carry rule was held up by a 5-4 majority in the 

Supreme Court based on an extensive record showing that broadcast stations, some broadcast stations, would fail without carriage 

on their local cable systems. I don’t think you could—I mean, first 

of all, we don’t have that record for satellite services, and I don’t 

think you could create such a record. So I think without a doubt 

it would be struck down as unconstitutional. 

Mr. STEARNS. And then we will go to Mr. Gabrielli. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. I guess the answer would be, we would rather 

not have a must-carry. The capacity we use to carry a number of 

stations that don’t have local content; we would love to use that capacity to carry local stations in, again, these smaller markets that 

we still can’t currently carry right now. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Ergen. 

Mr. ERGEN. I don’t know about the constitutionality, but again, 

I think I am sympathetic to the local broadcaster who invests in 

his community and invests in his local content, that, when possible, 

we should carry him, and we do that today. Where I think this 

committee has it wrong is where you mandate must-carry when a 

broadcaster doesn’t invest in his community and he gets the benefit 

without the investment. I will give you a simple example. 

We carry home shopping channels. And if we carry a national 

home shopping channel, we may carry it 20 different times in 20 

different spot beams, and it is exactly the same signal minute by 

minute, second by second. And there is not one local commercial, 

and there is not one local newscast. In my opinion, if the broadcaster doesn’t invest in his local community with local content, 

news, weather, sports, political, so forth and so on, there shouldn’t 

be a requirement for cable or satellite or phone companies that we 

have to carry their signal, because we can carry—we uniquely can 

carry it on a national basis and get the customer the same signal. 

It happens sometimes with a religious broadcast, shopping, some 

international channels. 

Mr. STEARNS. You could argue then the religious broadcaster has 

to have local participation in his community before it meets your 

criteria. 

131 

Mr. ERGEN. For example, we may carry a national religious channel; we may give it to all 110 million homes, every square inch of 

the United States. But to duplicate that same signal on a local 

basis, as the law requires us to do today, doesn’t make any economic sense if that local broadcaster only just rebroadcasts the 

same national signal because there is no local—they don’t have any 

local content, news, weather, sports. So it doesn’t hurt them in any 

way, but it adds cost to the satellite providers. 

Mr. STEARNS. What you are saying, if we carry the must-carry 

mandate, we should stipulate some of the requirements that these 

stations have to participate in their local community. 

Mr. ERGEN. And I think that is a fair compromise. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Ferree, what do you think of that comment? 

Mr. FERREE. I don’t think that gets to the underlying constitutional problem here. The original rule was held up, again, to protect over-the-air viewers from losing some broadcast service. I don’t 

think you could— 

Mr. STEARNS. Are you saying Home Shopping Network doesn’t fit 

that requirement, what you are just saying? 

Mr. FERREE. No. It may fit that requirement. But I don’t think 

you could make the case that, absent carriage on a DBS system, 

that these stations would fail. They are not being carried now, and 

they are not failing. So the over-the-air viewers would not lose the 

service. 

Mr. STEARNS. Would anyone else like to comment quickly? I have 

one more question. 

Ms. SOHN. I have sort of a grand bargain that might work and 

actually also may perhaps resolve some of the constitutional issues. 

One never knows what a court is going to do, so I can’t guarantee 

it. 

So I think a local-into-local requirement is required if, and only 

if, you reform retransmission consent, because that is a monopoly 

problem for the broadcasters; two, you allow the importation of distant signals without restriction; and you have this unitary license. 

So I wouldn’t be in favor of just imposing local-into-local on satellite providers without those other three reforms. In this way, the 

government is giving something to the DBS providers and asking 

in return, and that could resolve the constitutional problems. 

Mr. STEARNS. Let me go to my other question for Mr. Ergen and 

Mr. Gabrielli. 

There has been a delay in the DTV transition because February 

17th is no longer the date, and by June 12th, we will finally have 

reached the end of the analog full power broadcast. What do we 

need to be made in the satellite television law after the completion 

of this digital TV transition? Is it as simple as plugging a digital 

standard into the FCC predictive model and testing regime for distant single eligibility, or is there anything else that we need to do? 

Mr. ERGEN. Well, assuming you keep the 119 license and it 

doesn’t go into like a unitary license, 122, as the Copyright Office 

has recommended, then you must go out. And the digital signal is 

much different than the analog signal. As we all know, there is a 

waterfall effect: The signal normally doesn’t go as far, and you either get it perfectly, or you don’t get it at all, or it breaks up a lot 

on you. 

132 

So I think there has to be a new model. The predictive model has 

always been subject to interpretation, court battles, and so forth. 

It seems there has to be a way. In the digital realm, a customer 

knows whether they get a signal or not. In the analog world, it is 

always subjective, subjective is the picture quality, but in the digital world the customer knows. And I think there has to be a much 

better model in the digital world if you are going to keep the 119 

license. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Gabrielli. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. I agree with Mr. Ergen. 

The basis for this was a prediction where the customer could not 

get an over-the-air signal. So, as we go from analog to digital, we 

need to switch the model from an analog model to a digital model 

because that is now the signal that the broadcaster is producing. 

It is a much more clear drop-off. There is less of this ambiguous— you get a signal so much percent of the time, and there is 

no snow and stuff like that. So we need to go to a digital model, 

if it is a little gap in the way the law versus the digital transition 

has gone, and use that because there would still be customers who 

do not get an over-the-air signal and need some other way of getting network services. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr Stearns. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, is recognized for 7 

minutes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions, of course, are going to deal with local-into-local. 

So let me ask Mr. Gabrielli and Mr. Ergen, do you believe localinto-local in all 210 markets is in the public interest and would 

promote localism? 

Mr. Gabrielli. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. If it is truly local content, it will certainly help. 

As Mr. Ergen said, we both rebroadcast numerous stations locally 

that are equally available on a national basis. 

Mr. STUPAK. But do you believe it is in the public interest to do 

this? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. We believe it is in the public interest. But, again, 

my point is, both of us are secondary transmitters of a primary 

broadcast that the broadcasters are supposedly putting out. 

Mr. STEARNS. Sure. 

My time is limited, so I am not going to let you filibuster. 

Mr. Ergen. 

Mr. ERGEN. Yes, I do believe it is in the public interest. And we 

would love to be able to do it if the right incentives and legal 

things were able for us to do it. 

Mr. STUPAK. Why do you need incentives? 

Mr. ERGEN. Well, because there is a huge cost to do this. It costs 

about $1 million for each beam that you put— 

Mr. STUPAK. So you have 32 more areas you said you have coverage? 

Mr. ERGEN. $32 million. It costs about $250,000 or more per year to receive the signal via fiber. So that is 32 times $250,000 per 

year. In one DMA, like in Glendive, Montana, there are 3,700 

homes. If you got every single subscriber to Dish Network, you 

133 

couldn’t pay your cost to do it. And in our particular case, we do 

not do not have a statutory 119 license to be able to bring in the 

missing short market signals. 

Mr. STUPAK. So what incentives are you looking for? 

Mr. ERGEN. So we would look for a few things. One is some reform of the must-carry legislation so that we can free up bandwidth 

that helps us from an economic point of view. 

Second, we would look for some help with how do we get the signal back through our up-link sites. Perhaps we could even share 

that cost with DIRECTV under antitrust exemption and so forth. 

The third thing we would look for is a license, a compulsory license so that we can bring in short market signals where a network affiliate is missing in a particular short market. So, for example, in the cities that we don’t do today—we have done every market that is not a short market, so and otherwise, and it makes no 

sense to do a short market if we can’t also deliver the other networks. And so we need a reform there from a licensing point of 

view— 

Mr. STUPAK. Not going to start asking for all four of them. We 

just want local-into-local. Like when my schools were closed yesterday, we want to know about it. ABC isn’t going to tell me that unless it is local media, right? 

Mr. ERGEN. Give me the particular DMA. Which is your DMA? 

Mr. STUPAK. Marquette. 

Mr. Ergen. So Marquette is missing which networks? 

Mr. STUPAK. We only have one. 

Mr. ERGEN. So for us to spend over $1 million and $250,000 a 

year in Marquette, where we only can bring in one network, and 

we as a company are not able to bring in ABC, CBS, and Fox, that 

doesn’t make economic sense to us. And every market where we as 

a company can bring in all four networks, we have done it. More 

than anybody else on this panel, we have done it. But we are in 

a situation where we do not have the ability to bring in all the networks. 

Mr. STUPAK. You mentioned capacity. 

Mr. ERGEN. And the economics don’t work. 

Mr. STUPAK. You mentioned capacity, and that you would be 

willing to provide to the members—would you be willing to provide 

us responses as to your capacity to reach all 210? 

Mr. ERGEN. Yes, we would. 

Mr. STUPAK. And you would provide that to us, and we will follow it up in writing? 

Mr. ERGEN. Yes. We would like to work with you, Congressman. 

Mr. STUPAK. How about you, Mr. Gabrielli? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. I would like to work with you guys, too. But 

the part that bothers me is like when DIRECTV, when News Corp. 

bought you out, if you look at the September 22, 2003 document, 

page 4, you said: as early as 2006 and no later than 2008, all 210 

DMAs would be covered. 

And then I understand you are now owned by Liberty. But we 

keep getting these promises that we are going to have our localinto-local, and we never get it. So we have no choice but to enter 

into a mandatory requirement. I actually have not just Marquette 

134 

but also El Pena where my district is not being covered. And even 

point to your Indiana example, but that is not the upper peninsula 

of Michigan. That may work in Indiana, but certainly not in the 

upper peninsula of Michigan. So all these promises we get from you 

guys, you never seem to fulfill it. The same thing you said back in 

1999: Give us 10 years because technology and expense would come 

down, and we will do it. It has never been done. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. Let me respond to that. Very respectfully, I don’t 

think it is a fair characterization. It was News Corp., not 

DIRECTV, which no longer owns a part of DIRECTV. 

Mr. STUPAK. News Corp. buying DIRECTV. Right? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. News Corp. owned a percentage of DIRECTV. 

But that was their—News Corp. It really wasn’t— 

Mr. STUPAK. That was your application to do it. Right? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. The promise was for a seamless integrated local 

solution in these markets, which we think with our integrated offair tuner, which literally connects to our set-top boxes, it receives 

over-the-air signals; it puts them on the guide. You can control 

them just like you can control any other channel. 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. But you promised to do it in 2003; and now 

you are telling me here in 2009 you can’t do it. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. No, we can do it. 

Mr. STUPAK. So why didn’t you do it then? You said you would 

do it by the end of 2008. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. By the end of 2008, last year, we had this product. We have a product that the consumer can get, plug it in with 

our box, put an outdoor antenna on it, to receive over-the-air signals. It integrates the two. The customer has no idea which ones 

come over the air versus which ones come from satellite. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Ergen, you wanted to state something. 

Mr. ERGEN. This is my personal opinion. From a public perspective—what the gentleman from DIRECTV says is correct, but from 

a public perspective, it doesn’t really work. I think people want it 

via satellite, because the picture quality is better and you can always guarantee the customer a signal. I think, from our perspective, what we need is we need the right in Marquette, for example, 

to bring in the neighboring DMA channels’ networks that aren’t 

available in Marquette, so then you get a full complement of ABC, 

NBC, CBS, and Fox, one of those being Marquette. That would give 

us the economic incentive to go and do the 32 markets that we 

don’t do today. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, if Dish is doing more than DIRECTV, how 

come you are doing more than DIRECTV then? Why aren’t you 

both at 178 as opposed to— 

Mr. ERGEN. I can’t speak for DIRECTV, and I will let Mr. 

Gabrielli do it. But we have made different choices. For example, 

Mr. Gabrielli has done more with PBS. He has done more— 

Mr. STUPAK. So that takes care of Ms. Eshoo’s issue. 

Mr. ERGEN. So he has made a choice to do some additional PBS 

high definition channels. We have taken that spectrum and said, 

we can do more local markets, because that is what the vast majority of our consumers have asked us to do. So what happens is, it 

is difficult to do both. I think I have heard from the Congressman 

that people would like all 210 markets; everybody would like mustVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:37 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-5 CHRIS
135 

carry; and people would like all HD, which takes four times the capacity of standard definition. And, oh, by the way, I think, from 

PBS, they wanted all the multicast channels, which could be another 8 or 10 subchannels, for every channel that you have. The 

laws of physics won’t allow us to do that from a satellite perspective. 

Mr. STUPAK. Those of us in the rural areas just want to be treated the same as those in the urban areas. Why should we be treated 

any less after repeated promises, and we license it? So why— 

Mr. ERGEN. I tend to agree with you, because I grew up in rural 

America, and we started our business in rural America. So I have 

a real sympathy there. What happens there is it becomes a zerosum game. You would like to have capacity for Marquette. Fair 

point. PBS would like to have capacity for high definition PBS and 

10 subchannels. Other people would like to have capacity for mustcarry channels, even though there is no local content. And what 

happens is we can’t physically, the laws of physics, do all that. We 

have made huge strides. And as Mr. Gabrielli pointed out, 80 percent of our capacity today is just for local. 

Mr. STUPAK. That is why I asked the question, and you said you 

would provide the capacity issue, because we keep hearing that, 

but no one ever can directly point to it. 

Mr. ERGEN. I would like to come work with your staff. And I 

would like to—I think I understand your issue, and I would like 

you to understand our capacity issues. And we will certainly come 

open and share everything. And I would like to work with you to 

solve the problem that you are addressing, because I think it is a 

real problem. 

Mr. STUPAK. We will follow up with written questions as capacity, because I think it is important for all members of the committee to understand this capacity issue. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stupak. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for a 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate my colleague from Michigan’s comments. He is 

an ardent fighter for rural America, and I appreciate that. 

But I just want to get a clarification. Mr. Ergen, in this debate 

or discussion you had with Mr. Stupak, and I saw another panelist 

wanting to get attention. Are you saying that since Marquette has 

one local station and that is the market reason why it is difficult? 

But if you are allowed to broadcast the additional networks that 

may not now serve that area, that that would make an economic 

argument for doing so? Did I hear that right? 

Mr. ERGEN. That is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Yager, you were jumping out of your seat, and 

I just kind of want to know why. 

Mr. YAGER. I am afraid I didn’t totally understand the chairman’s question when it came to me about short markets. That is 

a rather new term to me. 

Marquette, Michigan is a very interesting market. There are four 

affiliated stations in Marquette, Michigan. Two of them are doing 

news. One is a full-fledged satellite of CBS station out of Green 

Bay. And, yes, I think that should be carried and should be part 

136 

of the carriage. The Fox station there is in terrible economic shape, 

but if it were carried, I think it might improve its economic condition. So I am sorry I misunderstood the chairman when he talked 

about short markets. I wasn’t quite aware that is the way he was 

terming the market. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But you are agreeing with Mr. Ergen’s statement 

on broadcasting the four networks. 

Mr. YAGER. I am surprised Mr. Ergen doesn’t know there are 

four network stations in Marquette. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am just trying to get clarification here. We are 

all among friends here. What I have learned in the digital transition, not the satellite debate, is that there is going to be some communities that, because of the length of the analog signal, they are 

going to assume that that is their local station; where, when we do 

a digital broadcast, the local affiliates are going to say this is our 

market area, and this is how far we are going to service. And people are going to say, hey, I lost, where they have another region. 

I know before, when we started, the State of Indiana was up there 

in the placard, and two of those bled into my congressional district. 

So we have this, where Vincennes is the major market for southeastern Illinois, or Paducah is a major market and that is where 

they get all their, or Cape Girardeau, Missouri, or Springfield or 

the St. Louis one. I have five markets that cover my congressional 

district. 

Let me ask a question to all the panelists, and the time is short, 

so if you can kind of keep this—this is not a gotcha one. I do some 

gotcha questions every now and then. 

Even apart from specific substantive changes to this legislation, 

could we improve things by simplifying the law, the current law as 

written? Are there things that we could simplify that makes it easier versus any major rewrite? And let’s go left to right. 

Mr. FERREE. Gee, I am not sure how to answer that question. 

Simple is always better. But right now, I don’t have an obvious answer 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is fine. 

Ms. SOHN. I advocate for one unitary license. There is no rationale either technologically or for any other reason to have satellite 

and cable under two different compulsory licenses. I think in the 

short term, a DMA fix allowing the importation of signals from adjacent DMAs or in-State DMAs, that is pretty simple. That is not 

hard. And in the future, getting rid of distant signal protection altogether. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Yager. 

Mr. YAGER. My answer would be, yes, local-into-local would simplify greatly. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. 

Mr. ROWLAND. It is simple. From a public television standpoint, 

we would prefer carriage in all markets and want to have conditions that maximize our digital multicast carrying capacity. The 

Eshoo bill would be a very useful way of making that happen. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Gabrielli. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. The simple answer is, yes, it would be a grateful 

help. An example is those stations that actually bleed over into another market that doesn’t have that network affiliate. It is not part 

137 

of their DMA, but yet they have rights under us that we can’t bring 

somebody else in. That would be a very simple fix. 

Mr. FRANKS. None of these issues are simple, Congressman. The 

simple, most straightforward thing for the committee to do is a 

straight reauthorization of the distance signal license. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. Ergen. 

Mr. ERGEN. Well, an absolute signal is to treat television like 

newspapers. Which means, in Washington, you can buy the New 

York Times, you can buy the Miami Herald, you can buy the Washington Post. Let customers buy any network signal they want to. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would ask another one, Mr. Chairman, but my 

time has expired so I yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus. 

The gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, is recognized for 7 

minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

There seems—I want to go to this issue of the local-into-local 

transmission. And there seems to be some agreement on the panel 

that, at least among Mr. Gabrielli and Mr. Ergen, that it is a good 

goal to try to carry these channels if they have local content. 

Mr. Gabrielli.I would like to ask you, how many of the channels 

you are being asked to carry under the local-into-local do not have 

local content? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. Offhand, I really don’t know. I know— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Can you give me a percentage? Is it a large percentage? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. It is a significant percentage. I would say it is 30 

percent of the channels. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thirty percent of the local channels have no local 

content? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. That would just be a guess from dealing with— 

Ms. DEGETTE. And why is that? Is it channels that are being rebroadcast? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. To a large majority, yes. The shopping channels 

that Mr. Ergen talked about; certain religious channels are just delivered via satellite to a facility and just rebroadcast out to that 

local channel. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Ergen, would you agree with that percentage, 

30 percent? 

Mr. ERGEN. The channels that have no local content is between 

15 and 20 percent. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And does that provide a real burden on you? Because I know you share the goal if it is truly a local content that 

you want to be able to rebroadcast that. 

Mr. ERGEN. I agree with Congressman Stupak, that we would be 

much better off to free up that 15 to 20 percent of channels that 

have no local content and go get Marquette and get them up on the 

satellite, and some of these other locations, the other 32 markets 

that we don’t do today. To me, that is an economic trade-off where 

the local broadcaster suffers zero and the 32 markets that we don’t 

do today get a great benefit, and then therefore the consumer gets 

a great benefit. 

138 

Ms. DEGETTE. I hear what you are saying, and that kind of goes 

to the heart of the issue. How are you going to determine and who 

determines whether there is local content? 

Mr. ERGEN. My suggestion would be that probably the broadcasters submit their—to the FCC or so forth, and they determine 

the cutoff that you are allocated, just as they would define a network today, I believe the FCC could define a local content hurdle. 

That would— 

Ms. DEGETTE. So you think it should be up to the FCC? 

Mr. ERGEN. I prefer that this committee do it, but I think— 

Ms. DEGETTE. We will put the chairman in charge of determining that. 

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Rowland, I want to ask you to comment 

on that, because it seems to me to make sense, on the one hand, 

to require transmission of the shows truly with local content. But 

if you have these retransmitted shows that don’t have any local 

content, that seems to be cluttering up the problem. What is your 

response to that? 

Mr. ROWLAND. I think, from a public television standpoint, there 

is a tremendous amount of local content in all of the licensees. The 

stations across the country are not just retransmitters of the PBS 

signals. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I don’t think that is the problem that Mr. 

Gabrielli and Mr. Ergen are identifying, though. There is a different problem they see with that, which I will get to in a minute. 

But what they are saying is there is a lot of other shows, shopping 

shows and other shows that have no local content that are being 

asked to—for example, with Colorado Public Broadcasting. If they 

were transmitting that, sure, they might have some of the national 

PBS shows, but there would also be substantial local content. 

So I think you would be OK. What about these shows that are 

just being rebroadcast by local TV stations that really don’t have 

any local content at all? 

Mr. ROWLAND. Yes, that is a very difficult issue, and I don’t have 

a real clear sense of the dimensions of that problem. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, as Mr. Ergen just said, it is 15 to 20 percent. 

Mr. ROWLAND. Yes. I haven’t seen the statistics on that. I have 

to look at it much more closely. 

Ms. DEGETTE. What is the view of the public broadcast systems? 

I don’t know if you are here representing them or just Colorado 

Public Broadcasting. But of that 15 to 20 percent, what would your 

view be if we could somehow find some standard to take that out? 

Wouldn’t that free up space for you folks to get broadcasting? 

Mr. ROWLAND. Yes, it might. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Have you thought about that issue? 

Mr. ROWLAND. No, I haven’t— 

Ms. DEGETTE. That might be worth doing that. What about this 

point that Mr. Gabrielli was making, about it is not just public 

broadcast systems, but it is also high definition, and then there is 

all of these substations. I didn’t really understand that issue so 

much. Is that something that the Public Broadcasting System is 

shooting for? 

Mr. ROWLAND. I think what has happened, of course, is as digital 

has advanced—and it is always a moving target. It is dynamic, it 

139 

is changing with compression technologies. We are no longer in a 

world of a single HD channel opportunity any longer. You can get 

more multicast capacity. And many of those are very, very valuable. To think of them as subchannels sometimes demeans them 

when, in fact, they are very, very important in the eyes of the viewers who use them. And I think that is what we are talking about, 

is broadening out the range of the multicast stream capacity. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So that is a very interesting question, then. And 

that question is, as we broaden out the HD capacity of the local 

shows and the public broadcasting, how much of that should these 

folks be required to carry? 

Mr. ROWLAND. Well, ultimately, the objective would be to have 

as much as we are otherwise putting out over our free over-the-air 

transmitters that affect the full 19.4 megabits capacity that we 

have. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And, Mr. Ergen, what is your view on that? 

Mr. ERGEN. You have asked a really good question there. In today’s technology, that 19.4 megabits could be 15 channels. So I 

don’t think it is realistic to pass legislation that would require 

cable and satellite and phone broadcaster companies to retransmit 

10 or 12 or 15 PBS subchannels. We are supportive of the core PBS 

signal, and we do believe it does, in almost every case, have a lot 

of the local content and needs the local fund raising. So we are very 

supportive of the main PBS feed. But the multicast is not a requirement that anybody has burdened us with today, and we would 

be against that. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Rowland, what is your response to that, that 

you should really look at the number of channels, not the number 

of— 

Mr. ROWLAND. Yes. And evaluate the services that are being provided. In Colorado, as you know, we have got two public television 

stations. Traditionally, in the analog role, they have been quite differentiated from one another. They have been value-added in the 

public broadcasting firmament of television services. Between us 

now, we offer six multicast streams that are all differentiated from 

one another, ranging from Latino-oriented programming through to 

international news and public affairs, that together add up to a 

considerable service that is not otherwise available in the market. 

So it seems reasonable to argue that those services should be made 

available. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. You know, you didn’t exactly answer that, 

but I get the sense that, frankly, the public broadcasters and the 

companies share sort of some of the core values, and the question 

is, how do we make it work? So I will reiterate, at least for my own 

industries, what I did before, which is I would be happy to convene 

a meeting of you folks to talk about what we should do and if there 

is some kind of resolution. I had done that before, and that never 

came about. So I will— 

Mr. ROWLAND. And we would relish that. And just understand, 

we understand there are some capacity issues. And we are willing 

to work around that. We have with DIRECTV already. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. DeGette. 

140 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Deal, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are issues here that some people won’t talk about, and 

some people don’t. 

Mr. Franks, I was somewhat amazed when you made the pronouncement that the DMAs and the retransmission consent are not 

broken and we shouldn’t tamper with it and that straight reauthorization is what this committee should be dealing with. I am sure 

that was spoken with the same conviction that King George dismissed the taxation without representation of our early colonial 

revolutionaries. It is a statement of a monopolist. 

Now, I am more inclined to agree with Ms. Sohn’s analysis here 

that retransmission is tied into it. And I know the chairman would 

prefer us not to get into that, but apparently your panelists didn’t 

have that information because almost all of them in some form or 

fashion have mentioned it. And I think ultimately it is one of those 

things we have to deal with. 

Let me talk about some of the other issues. 

Mr. Yager, what percentage of the viewing population of your 

broadcasters receive their signal now over the air? 

Mr. YAGER. Well, it varies by market. 

Mr. DEAL. Well, average overall. Now, I am told that the 2006 

FCC study showed that it was about 15 percent. 

Mr. YAGER. That is probably a good average. 

Mr. DEAL. Do you expect that percentage to increase or decrease 

with the digital transition? 

Mr. YAGER. I am hoping it decreases. 

Mr. DEAL. All right. So less and less people are going to get their 

signal from your broadcasters free of charge; they are going to have 

to go through some of these other medians: cable, et cetera? 

Mr. YAGER. Well, no. The over-the-air signal will still be very, 

very strong and I think it will be superior in digital than it has 

been in analog. 

Mr. DEAL. But you said it was going to decrease in percentage 

of viewers. 

Mr. YAGER. Well, I think that is true because right now the preferred delivery method for digital has been through cable and satellite. But as we get the converter boxes out, as we see more conversion to digital on the part of the home set, I think you will see 

about the same kind of 15, 16 percent. 

Mr. DEAL. So you think it may go up then. I thought you just 

said a minute ago it will go down. 

Mr. YAGER. What I am really saying is I think it will go down 

because second sets are not included in anything we are doing. 

Mr. DEAL. Let me ask. You like the DMA system; is that right? 

You like what DMAs give you in terms of protection? 

Mr. YAGER. I believe in the DMA system as a way to designate 

a marketing area where there is a common kind of commonality of 

interests of the people served. 

Mr. DEAL. Well, that is all well and good but over the year 

doesn’t serve the needs of constituents in the DMAs. What are your 

broadcasters doing to increase or enhance the ability to reach those 

141 

viewers without the necessity of going through some of the multichannel providers? 

Mr. YAGER. I am sorry. I am not quite sure I understand the 

question. 

Mr. DEAL. Well, there are places in my district and I think everybody we have heard from, places in their districts that they can’t 

get your broadcaster’s signal over the air. Now, in going to digital 

may or may not enhance that spread. In fact, I am inclined to 

think it may decrease it rather than increase it. If you are not 

doing anything to enhance the ability to expand the over-the-air, 

why would you object to us looking at the issue of DMAs as to the 

problems they present? 

Mr. YAGER. We think, first of all, that the local-into-local will 

solve the problem of people not being able to get a signal. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Deal, may I interrupt? You may not hold my 

opinion in high regard, but I would like to express it. 

Mr. DEAL. Maybe you can enhance my opinion. 

Mr. FRANKS. I will try valiantly. 

Actually, we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the 

digital transition to try and perfect that signal. In many instances, 

we are still not on the designated channel that we will be on. We 

are not at the tower height. So as soon as we do make those 

switches, we are—we know for a fact that KCBS in Los Angeles is 

not going to as easily reach the full market as the KCBS analog. 

We are prepared to spend millions of dollars to try to enhance that 

signal, change the antenna height, if need be go to translators and 

repeaters, so that we do—it is in our interest. We do better in overthe-air homes. We get higher ratings in over-the-air homes. So it 

is very much in our— 

Mr. DEAL. But you don’t get the retransmission money? 

Mr. FRANKS. You know what, I would happily go back to a threechannel universe, no retransmission. That was a wonderful business, Congressman. And I would go back— 

Mr. DEAL. Well, let me ask you this. I don’t think we are going 

back to that, but we may be going— 

Mr. FRANKS. I would swear off retrans if we could go back to an 

over-the-air regime, purely over the air. Happily. 

Mr. DEAL. We may go into consideration of allowing some of your 

CBS affiliates to cross the DMA boundaries. 

Mr. FRANKS. They can do it today. I keep hearing this concern 

about local news. I grew up—well, the map is down. I grew up in 

that corner of Indiana, Michigan City. We were served by the Chicago market. My father commuted to Chicago, so we have an economic affinity with Chicago. But if there is a desire to bring South 

Bend news into Michigan City, that can be done today. It can be 

done this afternoon with no change to the law, no change to regulation. 

Mr. DEAL. So you are saying, then, the issue of adjoining DMAs 

or in-State DMAs crossing those lines is not an issue? 

Mr. FRANKS. I think it is only an issue for people who are 

masquerading either to evade retrans or to bring in competing program, a competing network—a second source of network programming. But what I hear from this committee is that the desire is for 

news. If the desire is for news, that is controlled by the local staVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:37 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-5 CHRIS
142 

tion. They control the copyright. They can authorize it this afternoon. 

Mr. ERGEN. I have to jump in there a little bit. I can’t let Mr. 

Franks get away with that. 

He is talking just about news, and it is not practical. That means 

we would be turning on and off that channel 6, 8, 10 times a day. 

It means when a Senator runs his political commercial, you don’t 

get it across State lines. And we obvious know people think about 

their weather and their news and their sports and everything else. 

So it just doesn’t work from a practical point of view. 

And what Mr. Franks and the broadcasters are saying here is 

that we are not going to build the towers out. So you have to build 

your satellites and your cable systems and your plant equipment, 

right, and we want you to build the towers. And then we are going 

to charge you for a signal on top of that. And then, from a satellite 

perspective, you have got to pay the fiber costs to get the signal 

back to your uplink center, right. And we are just going to sit back 

in one little building and have a signal that we kind of send out 

to get to you. And I don’t think the economics of that is quite fair, 

and I think you have pointed that out correctly. 

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Deal. 

The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christensen, is recognized for 7 minutes. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I recognize that this is the first hearing of our newly constituted subcommittee. I want to applaud Chairman Waxman for 

creating it. 

And thank you, Chairman Boucher and Ranking Member 

Stearns, for holding this hearing on what, for me, who is new to 

this depth of the telecommunications world, are very complex 

issues as we prepare to reauthorize the Satellite Home Viewer Act. 

Hopefully, by the end of this hearing, I will understand why I 

have to have one TV on satellite and another on cable so that I can 

get network as well as local stations and distant programming at 

home and also why I have to try to find an excuse not to go home 

during baseball playoffs so I won’t be bombarded by all of the complaints on why it is blacked out in the U.S. Virgin Islands. I have 

a lot to learn. 

But it is clear that the disparities remain between the satellite 

and cable providers and also, importantly, in the ability of consumers based on where they live to have acces to programs that 

they want to see. 

It is also clear that we are reauthorizing this act in a time of a 

changing landscape in terms of how broadcast programming is provided in the move to digital. 

So I want to thank my colleagues and the panel for this baptism 

by fire, but I am learning. 

Mr. Franks, I am still trying to get clear on all of the issues 

around DMAs. 

Mr. FRANKS. OK, so am I, Congresswoman. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. As I was reading last night—I guess Mr. 

Yager also feels similarly to you—but I thought you were the only 

one that didn’t want to change the system. I have a very simple 

143 

question on that. Is that the position of all of the network stations, 

or is that just— 

Mr. FRANKS. I can only speak for CBS and the stations we own, 

Congresswoman. I can’t speak for the other networks. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Sohn, do you think that being able to obtain regional sports 

programming is critical to competition in the multichannel video 

programming distribution marketplace? Or, put another way, is a 

consumer less likely to subscribe to services of an MVPD provider 

if the services don’t include regional sports programming? There 

isn’t any substitute for that, is there? Or is this a situation that 

is harmful to consumers? 

Ms. SOHN. Well, absolutely. 

I mean, I am a huge sports fan, so I can safely say that when 

viewers can’t see their local sports team, they are harmed, and it 

might make them less inclined to buy service from an MVPD. So, 

absolutely. Unfortunately, the one entity that is missing from this 

panel are the sports leads themselves because they have an awful 

lot of power to say, yes or no to an MVPD carrying their programming. It is a shame that we don’t have anybody from the NFL or 

Major League Baseball here to talk about that. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And then I could ask them my question about 

the Virgin Islands, too. 

Thank you. 

Who is from cable? Do I have a cable witness? 

Well, to Mr. Gabrielli and Mr. Ergen, one of the problems that 

occurred in the past with satellite operators was around the issue 

of the underserved homes and how programming was or was not 

provided to them. Satellite TV has advocated adopting a policy 

whereby satellite operators would be permitted to offer distant high 

definition digital signals to consumers who currently only have 

acces to local over-the-air SD signals. Given our past history with 

the satellite television industry that I referred to, what is to stop 

the industry from trying to—I don’t know what word to use—poach 

or just get around this with local broadcast station subscribers? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. I think, again, the reason for distant network signal is to deliver to a customer a service that he can’t get locally. 

We carry a lot of markets in HD as DISH network does. And in 

those markets, if we offer HD locally, they get HD locally. We don’t 

offer distance. In places where either we don’t carry it or a station 

does not get HD and a customer wants HD, we feel the right we 

should offer them HD. And we had agreements way before we 

started offering HD locally that we turned on a number of networks for customers because we were the only national carrier. 

As those markets became local HD markets, we have turned off 

those customers. The number of distant network service subscribers has decreased, not because of them reaching an over the 

air broadcast but because we carry both the SD and the HD 

versions. And as we do that, we will turn off the distant networks. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Ms. Sohn or anyone else who might want to 

answer this, I am informed that the Communications Act permits 

cable companies to refuse to permit access to certain programming 

if it is provided terrestrially, the so-called terrestrial loophole. It 

seems that the FCC thinks the current law prevents it from taking 

144 

action on this. Is the commission right, or do you think—would you 

recommend a fix as we reauthorize this act? 

Ms. SOHN. Well, I would love to see Congress close the terrestrial 

loophole. There is an ambiguity as to whether an MVPD can avoid 

the program access rules by sending programming terrestrially as 

opposed to via satellite, because the 1992 cable act says that if a 

vertically integrated cable operator sending programming via satellite does not make that programming available, unreasonable on 

nondiscriminatory terms, then somebody can file a program access 

complaint to the FCC. But because at the time the cable act was 

passed, it wasn’t—the programming wasn’t sent terrestrially, it 

was sent by a satellite; so therefore Congress used those words not 

recognizing that the technology would change, which is, of course, 

a good warning to Congress when they do pass laws to try to be 

as technologically neutral as possible. So that is a long-winded answer to your question to say that I do think that Congress should 

make it clear that however a vertically integrated cable operator 

provides programming, it should be subject to the program access 

rules. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I don’t know if anyone had another comment. 

I have got about 5 seconds. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. I guess we just agree to the same thing. There 

is only a couple of cases where this loophole is being used, and it 

is specifically being used to keep both the DISH Networks from 

carrying that content. There is really no reason for it anymore. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Christensen. 

The gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I just have a couple of questions. 

Mr. Ferree, I want to come first to you. In your testimony, you 

had specifically said that you believe consumers should be permitted to access whatever programming they desire so long as distributors and right holders can negotiate an agreement in the free 

market. And I would love—and you can send this to me in writing, 

because what I would like is for you to elaborate on how you think 

we could best approach and realize that result, and what recommendations that you may have for improving that DMA system 

that would spark an expansion of the DBS-provided local programming. 

Many of us have talked about rural areas. I specifically mentioned Hardin and Hardeman counties in my district and the problem that we have there with accessing the program and that being, 

again, a security issue. So I would love to hear an expansion or an 

elaboration on those comments from you if you will. And very briefly, if you want to add one or two points for me. 

Mr. FERREE. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to do it in writing 

later when I have had more of a chance to reflect on the question. 

The problem with this area, as several of the members have mentioned, is that it is an incredibly complex web of rights and consumer expectations. And there is no simple way to untangle this 

web and just say, OK—I wish there were an ideal simple free-market answer, here is how everybody would trade and deal. I don’t 

have that. 

145 

Ms. BLACKBURN. I think Ms. Sohn has an idea or two on that. 

Mr. FERREE. And I expect—actually, we are very close on most 

of these issues. I tend to disagree that it is as easy as unifying the 

licensing standards between all MVPDs, because one law for the 

lion and the ox is oppression. They are not all similarly situated 

to begin with. And again, I think there would be tremendous practical difficulties in trying to come up with just a simple unified 

compulsory license. So I will endeavor to come up with something, 

but I don’t have it for you right now off the cuff. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I will look 

forward to your response. 

Mr. Yager, I want to come to you if I may, please, sir. Thank you 

for your testimony. I know you favor that DMA system, and I wonder if you would favor it in a digital world. But the question I really want to ask you goes to what I think is one of the act’s bedrock 

principles, which is section 122 of the Copyright Act, which gives 

you a compulsory license for satellite carriers to retransmit your 

programming in a local market. And it allows all of you broadcasters to maintain control over that programming to protect those 

advertising revenues and then to ensure appropriate compensation 

to you for that signal and its content. And that makes sense to me. 

And I agree with that because I think that it is an appropriate intellectual property protection. And using that same logic, what I 

want to ask you is this: Do you or do you not believe that creators 

of musical works deserve that same protection when the terrestrial 

radio stations broadcast creative content over the air, and if not, 

why you would not agree extending that? 

And I would also ask you, sir, if you do not think this is a mirror 

image argument, and why do you think that the cable, satellite and 

telephone subscription video providers provide similar royalty compensations while the radio broadcasters do not? 

Mr. YAGER. That is an excellent question, Congresswoman. 

Unfortunately, my side of the aisle as the National Association 

of Broadcasters is television. The side of the aisle you are talking 

about there is radio. And I understand that radio does have a hearing coming up in front—maybe this committee or the Judiciary. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Do you not think that they are the same argument, sir? 

Mr. YAGER. No, I don’t. I think they are very different arguments. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. So you think they are very different intellectual 

properties? 

Mr. YAGER. I don’t really profess to be an expert on— 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Congresswoman, if I can speak on behalf of CBS 

radio and CBS television. With all due respect, I think you are 

making an apples and oranges comparison. On the television side 

of things, we spend a great deal of money procuring our programming and procuring that content from which we then seek compensation. In our radio businesses, A—in the TV business, we then 

have an exclusive right to that program. At our radio stations, the 

same record is played on seven or eight different stations and is 

aggressively pushed by the record companies and by the artists to 

the stations asking us, please, please, to play this station—to play 

146 

the music. Five weeks from now, we will broadcast proudly the 

Academy of Country Music Awards. Every one of those winners is 

going to stand up and say thank you to country radio for making 

their music known. 

Ms. SOHN. Here I think is a better question. You asked a great 

question, Mrs. Blackburn, but here is a better question. Why does 

satellite radio pay public performance royalties to their artists and 

the recording industry? Why do Web casters—a lot of whom are 

going out of business—pay those royalties but over-the-air broadcasting does not? That is the comparison that makes absolutely no 

sense because those, satellite radio and Web casting, promote the 

heck out of music just the same as broadcasters do. And if those 

two have to pay, in my opinion, broadcasters should have to pay 

as well. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, ma’am. 

Yield back. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Blackburn. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, is recognized for 

7 minutes. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Most of my questions are probably going to deal with, Mr. Ergen 

and Mr. Gabrielli. I have a distinct issue that raised its head 

around the end of May and kind of hangs around until around November of each year. It is called hurricane season. And because of 

that and the alignment of my district along the coast, I kind of live 

in what I call a black zone. They know we are out there, because 

they want to get TV and such to us, but they don’t want to cover 

our news very much. 

I have got a low power station, which I understand creates a dilemma from the standpoint of getting broadcast vis-a-vis satellite. 

Prior to the storm, this station, low power, has been on local cable. 

When the storm came 6 weeks, he has got a drag line out there 

with his tower worth of signals, sending the signal off the top of 

a drag line, at least he had been for several months until he could 

get a new tower built. 

In the meantime, satellite people came in and started advertising 

throughout the community. It doesn’t matter when the power goes 

down, you have got a generator, you can get TV coverage. The only 

problem is you couldn’t get this low power station. If he went to 

the tuner, then, in fact the tuner is—if my understanding is correct, only gives him a several mile radius because it is local reception through the satellite. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. His territory is depicted or controlled by his 

power. So the tuner can pick it up if he has got the power to the 

tuner. 

Mr. MELANCON. On cable, he was carrying—approximately several hundred thousand people were receiving on the cable network 

that he is being carried on. When the storms hit, the satellite companies said, we can get you all your stations but in fact couldn’t 

provide him. 

My dilemma is I have got this black area that is in between Lafayette, Louisiana; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. And none of them reported what was going on down there 

on a daily basis, which people who had evacuated wanted to know 

147 

when they could come back, how they could get back, what the circumstances were. 

And let me just tell you, Mr. Gabrielli, your people, we have been 

working with them and talking to and trying to figure this out 

somewhere—and, Mr. Ergen, your people, too—to see if there is 

some help. Is there something that can be done in this reauthorization that provides for a station that provides more public service 

and 100 percent of local content to the community in which I am; 

that New Orleans doesn’t help them. Baton Rouge doesn’t help 

them, other than for network coverage. And Lafayette doesn’t even 

get there. Is there anything that we can do in this bill that allows 

for me to help this—it is a business to this guy, but it is an information source to several hundred thousand people—that I can inject into this bill that would allow us to get him on to satellite or 

to some mechanism where those people will be able to get the information, particularly after disasters or hurricanes have been 

through. 

Mr. ERGEN. You bring up a really good point. As I have said in 

my testimony and in answer to a previous question, I think the 

best thing you can do is relax the must-carry obligation on cable 

and satellite broadcasters and make—and eliminate any kind of 

must-carry requirement where there is not local content provided 

by the local broadcaster. 

And in your situation, it is just the opposite. Your local broadcaster provides 100 percent local broadcasting and can’t get carriage. He is being bumped off the satellite by somebody who doesn’t 

have any local carriage at all because they are a bigger company 

or part of a big conglomerate or whatever. And the way the law is 

situated today, it doesn’t recognize the value of the local broadcaster that you have in your situation. So that is what I would recommend. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. The limiting resource for both of our companies 

is really the satellite capacity. It takes 3 years to build and launch 

a satellite, $250 million, and they are up there for a long time. It 

is not like you can launch them every couple of years to update the 

capacity. So that is our limiting resource. 

In this case, Mr. Ergen is probably right. There is a full power 

shopping channel in New Orleans that we have to carry, and we 

can’t, no longer have the capacity to carry a truly local station like 

yours. So not having that must-carry for those nonlocal stations 

like that frees up the capacity where we can help them pick up 

these truly local stations that fit within existing spots and capacities. 

Mr. MELANCON. Is that your prerogative on the must-carry or 

can you take the option, QVC or— 

Mr. GABRIELLI. No. There is no option. If that full power QVC 

station in New Orleans says carry me, we have to carry it. 

Mr. MELANCON. The local tuner, as I appreciate it, is just like a 

local adapter with rabbit ears if you would. I have a duck camp 15 

miles from this place; I can get the station. I live 30 miles away; 

I can’t get the station. And, of course, 30 to 50 miles is where all 

the people moved away after the hurricane. Is there some other 

technology that is out there that, vis-a-vis the DISH Networks, the 

148 

DIRECTV network, satellite actually that might be able to give 

them more distance at this particular station? 

Mr. GABRIELLI. The two options are with us, an integrated tuner 

that receives an over-the-air broadcast. If you can add a repeater 

or a translator to reach farther, our systems will pick it up. The 

only other option is to be on the satellite, and we need to find the 

capacity to do that. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Melancon. 

The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

To our satellite providers, I am just curious again, as I mentioned in my opening comments, Bend, Oregon—that is B-E-N-D, 

Oregon—it does not have the local-into-local yet on your services, 

and I am curious of two things. One, if you have a timeline, and 

I don’t imagine you have every market memorized as to where you 

stand. But to do local-into-local, it is the second biggest community 

in my district, but it is also a rural district. So a lot of people use 

your services, and I am just curious if you have a timeline there. 

And second, on that similar point, I understand that you will go 

or assist in terms of putting up an antenna for people to receive 

the local signal and then it comes seamlessly through, in effect, the 

tuner. And I am curious how you market that, what kind of awareness there is in terms of your marketing strategies for that service. 

I don’t think people are fully aware of how that works. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. When a customer calls us, we know by his phone 

number approximately where he lives. And in those markets, we 

don’t offer a local solution. We do tell them we have another offair solution that is integrated with it. I am very familiar with 

Bend. I am an Oregon State grad. So I know where Bend is. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, you seem to have turned out OK despite that. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. And there is a station in Eugene, the guy calls 

me probably every other month and asks me the same question. 

And with Bend, it is an interesting market. And because when it 

first started there was, I think, one local station. And then when 

the stations or other stations went to digital, now it says, well, instead of now just being a FOX there on my digital secondary channels, I am going to be an NBC and a CBS. So now I have rights 

instead of being one station, I have to worry about one seat on the 

bus—now I have to worry about more seats. So that really kind of 

complicated the situation of—it was for years thinking about, we 

will find this one seat able for Bend, oops, now it is three seats. 

Mr. WALDEN. Now it is three. Delay has its costs. 

Mr. Ergen. 

Mr. ERGEN. Thank you. 

We recognize that Bend now has all—their subcarriers, all four 

networks. So we have under construction a satellite that will allow 

local-to-local in Bend, Oregon, in January of next year. As we seat 

here next year, a year from now, when I see you with your kids 

at college, then we will hopefully be celebrating the launch of Bend. 

Mr. WALDEN. That is terrific. I will be happy to help flip a 

switch. 

149 

Mr. Yager—and I appreciate that, and there is a good example 

of a role model to your left. 

Mr. Yager, talk to me about DTV in the remaining 2 minutes I 

have. The Medford market shifted, except one station. Tri-Cities 

Washington, which also serves my district, shifted. We didn’t get 

a single phone call. Did any of your stations? 

Mr. YAGER. None of ours shifted. We did apply for a couple of 

shifts. We were turned down by the FCC. For whatever reason, 

they didn’t want all the stations in the market, in one of our markets Quincy, Illinois, which is not from Congressman Shimkus’s 

district. One station did go; we did not. 

Mr. WALDEN. I understood that the FCC had decided on that policy. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be curious—I don’t know if you are planning a hearing on this DTV—I mean, a post February— 

Mr. BOUCHER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Thank you for yielding. We do indeed intend to have an oversight 

hearing on the DTV transition. We will probably wait until such 

point in time as the new money in the stimulus bill has made its 

way into the system, and the converter box program, the coupon 

program has been re-energized with those new funds. So it will not 

be the most immediate thing that we do. But certainly in the 

spring of this year, well before the June 12th transition date, we 

will have an oversight hearing on that. 

And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am glad we are going to do the hearing. I would 

actually argue just the opposite, and maybe it is because I am now 

syncing with our new President who wants us to reduce spending 

where we can, that maybe if this transition worked OK in the markets where it occurred we wouldn’t need to spend all that money, 

and this would be a great place and time to save a little. 

One other comment, and, Mr. Yager, maybe you can address this, 

The fairness doctrine. Congressman Pence and I succeeded in getting an amendment in to prevent the FCC from using its funds to 

promulgate some version of the fairness doctrine. I understand in 

the omnibus bill that we are about to vote on that that restriction 

has been stripped out. And so now the FCC, if this is the case, 

could use their funds to promulgate the fairness doctrine or some— 

it won’t come up under those terms. It will be called something else 

if they do it. Is that a concern you have, and do you think it should 

apply to cable and satellite if it does come back? 

Mr. YAGER. It is a major concern to me, and I hope it doesn’t 

come back. And if it doesn’t apply to us, then it certainly shouldn’t 

apply to cable or satellite. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman from our satellite distributors, what 

is your view on the fairness doctrine? 

Mr. ERGEN. I am with Mr. Yager. 

Mr. GABRIELLI. I also agree. 

Mr. WALDEN. Anybody else want to comment, even though I have 

overshot my time? 

Ms. SOHN. I spent a lot of the first part of my career defending 

the fairness doctrine. I think it is a doctrine whose time has come 

and passed, long passed. But that doesn’t mean that the whole 

public trustee doctrine shouldn’t be reviewed to see whether broadVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:37 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 111\111-5 CHRIS
150 

casters aren’t getting a few too many government bennies, including free spectrum exchange for not the best local programming. 

Mr. WALDEN. What if you got your spectrum allocation in an auction, is that free? 

Ms. SOHN. They don’t. They didn’t— 

Mr. WALDEN. In the radio business you do. 

Ms. SOHN. Broadcasters get their spectrum for free. 

Mr. WALDEN. No, no, no. In the radio where you have competing 

applications in a market, you go to auction. And the highest bidder— 

Ms. SOHN. I see. I just think the entire public trustee doctrine 

needs to be looked at again. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, we are getting a little bit far afield. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am just trying to give you new ideas for hearings. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Walden certainly gets the award for covering 

the largest number of issues during the course of 5 minutes in this 

hearing today. 

Thank you, Mr. Walden. 

The gentleman from California—Mr. Buyer, is here. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUYER. Thank you. 

First of all, since we are going to bring up other issues while we 

are investigating this particular one, a couple of things of note, in 

Indiana last fall, it appeared that LINbroadcasting sort of went 

first out there in the marketplace in the retransmission negotiations with cable, i.e. Comcast, of which LIN Broadcasting in their 

local went dark in Indianapolis. Not a good thing. OK? So when we 

talk about free market principles in a market that really is also 

highly regulated, this is really hard. And I don’t believe that was 

good in the public interest for a station to go dark. It was one of 

these things where, who is going to blink first? And I just want you 

to know that was not a good thing. It was not healthy. 

So we, I guess, like to use terms about serving the public interests. That didn’t do it at all. That is a CBS affiliate. So I got that 

sorted. And I kind of hold that thought because I recognize there 

are many retransmission agreements that are coming on line. So 

I don’t know if that was sort of posture about what is to occur. 

And then I noticed that—Mr. Franks, I don’t want to pick on 

you, but I had noticed in December that your CEO of CBS had 

made some comments about how the model of the network broadcast is changing and we have to change with the landscape. And 

he talked about that perhaps even in the future, that the network 

will move toward cable; and that with regard to all these affiliate 

agreements that also are going to be coming up for renewal here 

relatively soon, that you are going to cut the affiliates out of the 

retransmission money to go directly with cable and then cut out 

the local broadcasters. 

Now, for a lot of Members of Congress of whom have close relationships with their localities, I have a strong curiosity here of 

what are those interests. So we can talk about all—the spirit of 

this hearing today about trying to get the local programming while 

there is some big issues out there in front of us. So I almost got 

a sense that I don’t want to get lost in the high weeds. So I am 

151 

going to do my opening and ask you, Mr. Franks, if you could sort 

of explain what your boss meant. 

Mr. FRANKS. First, Congressman, he was asked a hypothetical 

question, and he gave a— 

Mr. BUYER. That is dangerous. Go ahead. 

Mr. FRANKS. I would be happy to send to you the full context of 

the question and the answer, because it has been reported in a 

number of places as if it was something that was being contemplated in the very near term. And I think his answer made 

clear that this is something that may happen over the course of 10 

or 15 years. I mean, local broadcasting—we own a number of stations. So they are amongst the most valuable assets of the corporation. So the notion that we are going to abandon any time soon 

local broadcasting is, I think, counterintuitive. So he was responding to a hypothetical. And, in fact, we continue to support our affiliates; there are any number of legislative arenas, maybe even this 

one, where we could take a more selfish course than we do. We do 

not do that because we believe in the system. We believe in our 

local affiliates. Our network is a $41⁄2 billion business that we are 

not going to walk away from quickly. 

Mr. BUYER. Would this article have been accurate, that you 

wanted a percentage of the retransmission fees from the local 

broadcasters? 

Mr. FRANKS. Other networks have talked about that. I mean, a 

large part of what drives the retransmission value is the national 

programming. And in order to compete for the NFL, in order to 

compete for March Madness, we spend billions of dollars. And we 

may need help from our affiliates. We may need a share of their 

retransmission consent money in order to remain competitive for 

those rights. 

Mr. BUYER. OK. So they are out there in tough negotiations. I 

mean, take the Indianapolis for example, where LIN and 

Comcast— 

Mr. FRANKS. It is Time Warner, not Comcast. And 2 months 

later, we reached an agreement with Time Warner and—I mean, 

the LIN situation was unfortunate; it was unfortunate for the network. It hurt the network’s ratings. So we were monitoring it very 

closely, but we also respected LIN’s right. It is their right. We 

didn’t bigfoot them. We didn’t cut them off. They are the licensee. 

And under the law, they have the retransmission consent right. 

What deal we then negotiate with them in an affiliation agreement 

is a matter between us and LIN. 

Mr. BUYER. All right. I know my time is exhausted. May I ask— 

Mr. FRANKS. I will come back. 

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more? I know my time 

is exhausted. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Go ahead, Mr. Buyer. 

Mr. BUYER. I want to now go back into this free market, I am 

well aware that the CBS affiliate through LIN Broadcasting, which 

is the Lafayette, finally, after many years, had learned that there 

really were no legal ramifications as to why an affiliate in Illinois 

can sort of block that signal. 

And I appreciate, Mr. Gabrielli, for you to finally get this negotiated and on line. 

152 

But as a curiosity, if we are going to say, OK, really don’t do the 

Stupak bill, let the marketplace work, but why, then, Mr. Ergen, 

wouldn’t you then get on board and do the very same thing that 

DIRECTV is doing in Lafayette? This is almost 150,000 households. So don’t give me the 1,400 household answer. 

Mr. ERGEN. Yes. It is a unique problem to DISH Network. We 

don’t have a compulsory license to bring in—I think in Lafayette 

there is a CBS affiliate, but there is not an ABC, NBC, or CBS. 

It is what we call a short market. We don’t have the license to 

bring in those networks. So just to have one station and go to the 

expense for one station without the ability to bring in the other 

markets—DIRECTV does have a license, so they can bring in the 

other ones. So that is why we haven’t done it. 

Mr. BUYER. So that is a money answer? 

Mr. ERGEN. No, it is a regulatory—it is an issue where we, after 

a long court battle, we don’t have a license to do it. So if that 

doesn’t—if we had a license to do it, then the economics would 

make sense for us. 

Mr. BUYER. Can we let Mr. Franks answer and then I am done? 

Mr. FRANKS. It is a little off point, So you may be sorry that you 

let me back in. So, in the context of all the talk about DMA reform, 

I understand the problem of the short markets. I truly do. I understand Lafayette. I am from Michigan City. But why it is then preferable to bring in our station from New York to Lafayette as opposed to figuring out a way to bring in the Indianapolis stations 

into Lafayette when here we are talking about we need more help 

on getting in-State signals to—and then you are going to bring in 

New York City, it—I understand the attractiveness of providing the 

network programming, but it sure isn’t localism. 

Mr. BOUCHER. On that note, thank you, Mr. Buyer. Thank you 

members of the panel for what has been a very constructive and 

informative conversation. We will be having further discussions 

with each of you, I am sure, as we construct the legislation. And 

members of this panel will perhaps be sending some additional 

questions to you. In fact, with Mr. Stearns’ consent, I will ask 

unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee have the 

opportunity to propound in writing questions to the witnesses for 

a period of, shall we say, 10 days. So without objection, and you 

probably will be getting questions from a number of our witnesses. 

So your responses today have been very helpful to us. This has 

been a truly constructive discussion. And when you get questions 

sent by the members of the panel, please return the answers as 

quickly as you can. 

With the thanks of the Chair to all participants, this hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. Once again, the Committee is tasked with reauthorizing portions of the Communications Act of 1934 that 

affect satellite carriers’ ability to retransmit broadcast television signals. The last 

reauthorization of these provisions in 2004 benefitted from the cooperation and insightful contributions of many, including several of my friends, among them Senator 

Hollings and Representatives Boucher and Markey. I hope that this collegial spirit 

153 

will be characteristic of today’s proceedings and the mark-ups to come, so that we 

may produce consensus-driven, common-sense legislation that ultimately serves the 

interests of our Nation’s consumers. 

In essence, we are again concerned with the two competing policy goals of fostering competition among Multichannel Video Programming Distributors, while at 

the same time preserving the viability of free broadcast television. I submit that the 

Satellite Home Viewer Extension Reauthorization Act of 2004 helped in large part 

to balance these at times conflicting objectives, but I also recognize that the passage 

of time has brought new issues to light, such as whether satellite providers should 

be allowed to retransmit adjacent market local signals and also whether satellite 

providers should be statutorily required to offer all local signals in the markets 

where they offer service. These are multifaceted issues for which solutions may only 

be found in deliberate discussions among all stakeholders involved. 

I support your stated goal of a clean reauthorization of these provisions, Mr. 

Chairman, and offer my cooperation in achieving it. Moreover, I commend your foresight in beginning the Committee’s work of examining these provisions well in advance of their expiration at the end of this year. With the benefit of experience, I 

can safely say that this affords the Committee the opportunity to produce well reasoned and effective legislation. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD

Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying how thrilled I am to be a Member of this 

subcommittee. I am happy to be here today to discuss the Satellite Home Viewer 

Extension and Reauthorization Act. Subscriptions to satellite based television services are very popular in my Congressional District as many of my constituents live 

in extremely rural areas where traditional cable service does not reach. 

In 2006, the Federal Communications Commission estimated that 85% of US 

households subscribe to some sort of pay television service so this reauthorization 

will ultimately impact the vast majority of Americans. It is important we cautiously 

move forward to ensure all stakeholders’ views are taken into account. With many 

different views represented, I am confident we will arrive at a compromise with 

which everyone can be pleased. 

One issue I hope we’ll explore is the addition of more quality children’s programming available on satellite television. I have had the pleasure of working with ION 

Media Networks and have learned about their children’s learning channel called 

Qubo. Now more than ever, children are turning to television to educate and entertain. I commend ION Media Networks and networks like ION for filling the void 

in using television to educate our young people. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. I know that all of the witnesses come with a plethora of institutional knowledge and industry experience and 

I thank each of them for their time on this important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I am eager to work with my colleagues on this Subcommittee on 

this and future issues. 

Thank you. 

154 


64374.098
155 


64374.099
156 


64374.100
157 


64374.101
158 


64374.102
159 


64374.103
160 


64374.104
161 


64374.105
162 


64374.106
163 


64374.107
164 


64374.108
165 


64374.109
166 


64374.110
167 


64374.111
168 


64374.112
169 


64374.113
170 


64374.114
171 


64374.115
172 


64374.116
173 


64374.117
174 


64374.118
175 


64374.119
176 


64374.120
177 


64374.121
178 


64374.122
179 


64374.123
180 


64374.124
181 


64374.125
182 


64374.126
183 


64374.127
184 


64374.128
185 


64374.129
186 


64374.130
187 


64374.131
188 


64374.132
189 


64374.133
190 


64374.134
191 


64374.135
192 


64374.136
193 

Æ 


64374.137