PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 7, 1997
Multichannel Video Competition and Consumer Protection Act of 1997 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to: (1) initiate, and report to specified congressional committees on, an inquiry on the extent to which a certain differential fee decision (relating to the per subscriber per month royalty fee for the retransmission of superstation and distant network signals by direct-to-home satellite service providers) constitutes an impediment to the development of effective market competition for multichannel video programming distribution; and (2) based on such inquiry, make necessary regulatory changes. Includes direct-to-home satellite services under provisions protecting telecommunications services from piracy. Prohibits any U.S. officer or employee from taking any action to implement or enforce the differential fee decision until 120 days after FCC submission of its report.
People & committees
Rep. Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) [R-LA-3] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9932-9937)
Mr. Tauzin moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 398.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-661, Part II.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-661, Part II.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property Discharged.
House Committee on Judiciary Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Sept. 11, 1998.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Commerce. H. Rept. 105-661, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Commerce. H. Rept. 105-661, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Referred to House Judiciary
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Commerce
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2921 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2921 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2921 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2921 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.