Video Policy in Backseat on Hill, But Not Forgotten, Lawmakers Say

Lawmakers don’t necessarily expect dramatic movement for several pieces of legislation that had been introduced in previous sessions of Congress -- Local Choice, a broadcast a la carte proposal from Senate Commerce Committee leaders last fall; the Video Choice (Consumers Have Options in Choosing Entertainment) Act from House Democrats; and the cable a la carte Senate legislation known as the Television Consumer Freedom Act. Industry lobbyists and Capitol Hill staffers widely agree that the challenges of moving any legislation will be compounded by distractions from the 2016 presidential election and other high-profile issues.

In December, lawmakers approved the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) Act, a must-pass law reauthorizing those video statutes for another half decade. Lobbying around these video policy issues spiked then but has dropped since.

“Video policy, we’ll probably continue to bat it around, continue to discuss a path forward, but I don’t know we’ll be able to move anything any time soon,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., in an interview when asked whether he plans to revive Local Choice. He and former committee chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., wrote the controversial proposal last year, only to face intense backlash from broadcasters. Thune said early this year that he planned to revisit it.

House GOP Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., plans to reintroduce his Next Generation Television Marketplace Act this Congress, with no clear timeline set, a GOP House staffer told us. Scalise had introduced this legislation, which would repeal several video market rules in favor of what Scalise sees as a free market approach, in multiple sessions of Congress before but not yet in this one. Scalise, also a member of the Communications Subcommittee, is adjusting the legislation in light of STELAR, the staffer said. The legislation had no Senate backers last Congress but its previous House co-sponsor was Cory Gardner, now a Republican senator representing Colorado and sitting on the Commerce Committee.

House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., is skeptical about the prospects of her Video Choice bill, which targeted TV retransmission consent blackouts and hasn't been reintroduced this Congress. “Most frankly, the leadership of the subcommittee is not interested in it,” Eshoo told us. “But it’s something that’s broken. It’s a racket, is what it is, you know. So let’s see.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he hadn’t decided whether to reintroduce his a la carte legislation this Congress and remarked that the evolution of technology may have resolved his concerns.

Momentum Behind JSA Bill

One piece of video legislation gaining bipartisan momentum is S-1182, from Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., to grandfather in broadcaster joint sales agreements. That legislation cleared the Senate Commerce Committee, despite opposition from several Democrats (see 1506250043), and now features a bipartisan House companion (HR-3148). The Senate version has five Democratic and four GOP co-sponsors. Versions of the bill were also attached to both the Senate and House Financial Services appropriations bills for FY 2016.

“I would hope that in one way or another that winds up on the president’s desk this year,” Blunt said in an interview.

Blunt dismissed the concerns from committee Democrats, though during the markup session he had said he believed the legislation may be tweaked to address their fears about its media ownership implications. Blunt pointed out that Democratic sponsors include Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois, members of the Democratic leadership. “So there is a broad base of support here,” Blunt remarked. “And the concerns in committee, I think, were at variance with what we were really talking about, which is just let these stations do what the FCC had told them they could do.” The legislation “actually helps minority owners, it helps small stations,” Blunt insisted, saying the bill helps alleviate rather than exacerbate the concerns raised in committee.

“We’ll be discussing [the legislation] but we haven’t yet,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., one of the measure’s opponents during markup. A month had passed since the markup then, and Blunt gave no indication in late July of substantially modifying his bill when considering committee concerns.

Eyes on Video Policy

Lawmakers haven't forgotten video, they said, even if congressional action isn't imminent. Some members scrutinize what’s transpired with the FCC Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee. DSTAC was created by the STELAR law.

“I’m not ready to say what the agenda’s going to be for the fall, but clearly, where they’re headed with DSTAC isn’t what the intent of STELAR was,” said House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., who probed FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler about the issue during a July hearing. “I’ll follow up with Wheeler.” Blumenthal and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., recently touted their own inquiry into what they believe are high prices of set-top boxes and praised the mission of DSTAC (see 1507300057).

Comptel, the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance and NTCA urged Thune in a letter sent earlier this summer to hold a video policy hearing, and industry lobbyists hope that may happen this fall. Thune emphasized the busy schedule, focused on advancing a highway funding bill and legislation to reauthorize the FCC and the Federal Aviation Administration. “It’s a whole range of stuff,” Thune said. “There’s obviously a lot on our agenda.”

“We’d like to see another hearing on video reform,” said Comptel Senior Vice President-Government Relations Alan Hill, suspecting that may inform a legislative direction. “I’m optimistic.” He pointed to the broad coalition of stakeholders pressing for such discussion, whether on retrans, program access rules, bundling and the STELAR provisions and compared the momentum to that driving the 1996 Telecom Act’s creation. “You’ve got the impetus there from industry.” Hill also sees another entry point in congressional attention to broadband, as evidenced in a recent House hearing on the topic. “Congress has been focused on broadband investment and investment in networks,” but video costs and regulation is “a key component” to that investment, he said.

Eshoo cited Scalise's interest as significant. Scalise and Eshoo both criticized aspects of the retrans rules and had introduced their measures on the same day last Congress, with nods to one another’s interests over time. “Congressman Scalise has a real interest in this, and we have pledged to work together on it,” Eshoo said. “It bolsters my confidence that Mr. Scalise really has such an interest in this, so let’s see what will happen in this Congress with it. … We have a year and a half to go.”

“Still investigating!” Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., told us of her inquiries into pay-TV companies. She's ranking member of the Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and is believed to have, in partnership with subcommittee Chairman Rob Portman, R-Ohio, subpoenaed the over-the-top contracts of Comcast, Dish Network, DirecTV and Time Warner Cable earlier this summer (see 1506230045). Her remark is the first direct Hill confirmation that any investigation is ongoing this year. NAB is “hopeful” McCaskill “follows through on her probe of pay-TV abuses,” said a spokesman. “People are fed up with bad service, bait-and-switch billing, outrageously high DVR and set-top box fees, and astronomical early termination fees that lock customers in to long-term contracts.”

“Very seldom do we get out in front of something, anticipating the future,” Eshoo said of the video market. “This is all about things that are not working well that we need to fix. So we’re the repair service for the country, you know. If we could get some of these things repaired, I’d be thrilled. And I think the consumers would instantaneously know the difference. So we’ll keep working on it.”