1999 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, today we are faced
with an unfortunate and false choice between
two evils. The false choice is whether the government
should ban voluntary exchange or
regulate it — as though these were the only two
options. More specifically, today’s choice is
whether government should continue to maintain
its ban on satellite provision of network
programming to television consumers or replace
that ban by expanding an anti-market,anti-consumer regulatory regime to the entire
satellite television industry.
1999 Ron Paul 32:2 H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition,
and Consumer Protection Act of 1999,
the bill before us today, repeals the strict prohibition
of local network programming via satellite
to local subscribers BUT in so doing is
chock full of private sector mandates and bureaucracy
expanding provisions. H.R. 1554,
for example, requires Satellite carriers to divulge
to networks lists of subscribers, expands
the current arbitrary, anti-market, government
royalty scheme to network broadcast programming,
undermines existing contracts between
cable companies and network program owners,
violates freedom of contract principles, imposes
anti-consumer“must-carry” regulations
upon satellite service providers, creates new
authority for the FCC to “re-map the country”
and further empowers the National Telecommunications
Information administration
(NTIA) to “study the impact” of this very legislation
on rural and small TV markets.
1999 Ron Paul 32:3 This bill’s title includes the word “competition”
but ignores the market processes’ inherent
and fundamental cornerstones of property
rights (to include intellectual property rights)
and voluntary exchange unfettered by government
technocrats. Instead, we have a
so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism
at every level. Cable companies are granted
franchises of monopoly privilege at the local
level. Congresses have previously intervened
to invalidate exclusive dealings contracts between
private parties (cable service providers
and program creators), and have most recently
assumed the role of price setter — determining
prices at which program suppliers must
make their programs available to satellite programing
service providers under the “compulsory
license.”
1999 Ron Paul 32:4 Unfortunately, this bill expands the government’s
role to set the so-called just price for
satellite programming. This, of course, is inherently
impossible outside the market process
of voluntary exchange and has, not surprisingly,
resulted instead in “competition”
among service providers for government favor
rather than consumer-benefiting competition
inherent to the genuine market.
1999 Ron Paul 32:5 While it is within the Constitutionally enumerated
powers of Congress to “promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing
for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries,” operating a clearinghouse
for the subsequent transfer of such property
rights in the name of setting a just price or instilling
competition seems not to be an economically
prudent nor justifiable action under
this enumerated power. This can only be
achieved within the market process itself.
1999 Ron Paul 32:6 I introduced what I believe is the most
pro-consumer,competition-friendly legislation to
address the current government barrier to
competition in television program provision.
My bill, the Television Consumer Freedom
Act, would repeal federal regulations which
interfere with consumers’ ability to avail themselves
of desired television programming. It
repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite
service providers to more freely negotiate
with program owners for just the programming
desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology
is now available by which viewers will
be able to view network programs via satellite
as presented by their nearest network affiliate.
This market-generated technology will remove
a major stumbling block to negotiations that
should currently be taking place between network
program owners and satellite service
providers. Additionally, rather than imposing
the burdensome and anti-consumer“must-carry” regulations on satellite service providers
to “keep the playing field level,” my bill allows
bona fide competition by repealing the
must-carry from the already
over-regulated cable industry.
1999 Ron Paul 32:7 Genuine competition is a market process
and, in a world of scarce resources, it alone
best protects the consumer. It is unfortunate
that this bill ignores that option. It is also unfortunate
that our only choice with H.R. 1554
is to trade one form of government intervention
for another — “ban voluntarily exchange or
bureaucratically regulate it?” Unfortunate, indeed.
Notes:
1999 Ron Paul 32:2
bureaucracy expanding provisions probably should be hyphenated: bureaucracy-expanding provisions.
1999 Ron Paul 32:2
requires Satellite carriers probably should not be
capitalized: requires satellite carriers.
