[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 118 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   SATELLITE HOME VIEWER ACT OF 1994

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. JILL L. LONG

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, August 16, 1994

  Ms. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1103, 
legislation to extend satellite broadcast retransmission rights.
  As Chair of the Congressional Rural Caucus, I strongly support the 
provisions of H.R. 1103 to ensure that rural home satellite dish 
consumers will be able to continue to receive retransmitted broadcast 
programming. This is essential because in many rural areas satellite 
technologies represent the only way that rural families can receive the 
kind of information and entertainment programming that many urban 
Americans take for granted.
  However, I remain concerned with provisions in the legislation which 
could result in unfair discrimination against these same rural 
families. Specifically, this legislation would sever the link between 
cable and satellite fees and instruct an arbitration panel to determine 
these fees based on fair market value. I, along with many other members 
of the Rural Caucus, believe that this could lead to unfair, and 
increased rates for our rural constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, rural satellite television consumers are already charged 
higher retransmission fees than cable subscribers. On behalf of my 
rural colleagues, I respectfully request that the House conferees 
recede to the Senate on this matter. In addition, I have included 
following my statement a letter signed by 32 members of the Rural 
Caucus on this matter.
  The letter follows:

                                       Congressional Rural Caucus,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1994.
     Hon. Jack Brooks.
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. William J. Hughes,
     Chairman, Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and 
         Judicial Administration, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Brooks and Chairman Hughes: As Members of the 
     Congressional Rural Caucus, we write to thank Chairman Hughes 
     and his Subcommittee for their hard work on H.R. 1103. This 
     legislation is essential to the many rural Americans who are 
     unable to receive either cable or clear off-the-air broadcast 
     programming; and thus rely on satellite technologies to 
     receive the popular news, information, entertainment and 
     other video programming that many urban Americans take for 
     granted.
       While we are supportive of the intent of H.R. 1103, we have 
     specific concerns with the legislation that we hope can be 
     addressed in an appropriate manner. In particular, we are 
     concerned that as currently written, this legislation could 
     impose an unjustifiable and disproportionate rate increase on 
     rural satellite home viewers.
       As you know, rural satellite home viewers are able to 
     receive network and superstation broadcast programming 
     through the compulsory license provided by the Satellite Home 
     Viewer Act (SHVA) of 1988--which expires at the end of 1994. 
     While H.R. 1103 extends the SHVA compulsory license, we are 
     concerned with the provisions of H.R. 1103 that would serve 
     to (1) sever the link between the rates paid for satellite 
     retransmission compared with rates paid by cable companies, 
     and (2) establish a new pricing approach for satellite rates 
     while continuing the statutory formula for determining cable 
     rates.
       Although H.R. 1103 would not alter the formula used for 
     determining cable fees, it would fundamentally alter the 
     criteria used for setting these fees for retransmission to 
     home satellite dish consumers. Under current law, fees for 
     broadcast retransmission for the satellite industry are 
     determined by an arbitration panel (established by the SHVA) 
     based on several factors, the first of which is the 
     ``approximate average cost to a cable system for the right to 
     secondarily transit to the public a primary transmission made 
     by a broadcast station.''
       Under H.R. 1103 these satellite fees would no longer be 
     based on the average cost to cable operators--which are 
     determined by a statutory formula--but instead on the ``fair 
     market value'' of the retransmitted signals. We believe that 
     this unprecedented ``fair market value'' determination could 
     result in substantially higher rates for satellite carriers 
     compared to their cable counteparts.
       Our rural constituents should not be asked to pay more 
     money or receive the same network and superstation 
     programming commonly available in cable-wired urban areas 
     simply because they utilize satellite technologies. Satellite 
     carriers already pay substantially more than the average 
     rates paid by cable companies for retransmission of broadcast 
     signals--with no difference in the costs to broadcasters or 
     copyright owners providing these signals.
       With this in mind, we respectfully request that you amend 
     H.R. 1103 to continue the criteria of current law--which was 
     recently approved by the Senate in S. 1485. We believe that 
     this is an essential step to ensure that our rural satellite 
     television consumers are not unfairly disadvantaged or used 
     to test a mew pricing approach from which the predominately 
     urban cable industry is exempted.
       Again, we appreciate the work so far, and are hopeful that 
     we can fully support this bill as it moves through Congress. 
     In advance, thank you for your serious consideration of our 
     views.
           Sincerely,
     Jill Long, Chair.
     Martin Lancaster, Vice Chair.
     Pat Roberts.
     Bill Richardson.
     Collin C. Peterson.
     Charles Wilson.
     Peter A. DeFazio.
     Earl Pomeroy.
     Tim Johnson.
     Charles H. Taylor.
     Karan English.
     Pete Peterson.
     James E. Clyburn.
     Jim Chapman.
     Thomas J. Barlow.
     David Minge.
     Eva M. Clayton.
     Ike Skelton.
     Steve Gunderson.
     Michael G. Oxley.
     Fred Upton.
     Floyd Spence.
     Barbara F. Vucanovich.
     Charlie Rose.
     John M. Spratt.
     Jim Cooper.
     Pat Danner.
     Pat Williams.
     Bill Orton.
     Doug Bereuter.
     John M. McHugh.
     Mike Parker.

                          ____________________