[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 145 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S11191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      RURAL SATELLITE SUBSCRIBERS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to raise an issue that my 
colleagues may have heard about, the recent decision by an arbitration 
panel convened under the auspices of the Copyright Office in the 
Library of Congress regarding the rates satellite carriers will pay 
under the satellite copyright compulsory license. The panel, in 
attempting to set a fair market value of the retransmission of 
broadcast signals, has decided to raise those rates and has made the 
new rate effective July 1, 1997. The arbitration panel's decision is 
currently on appeal to the Librarian of Congress who is empowered to 
review the decision. The standard of review is limited to one of 
arbitrariness or contrariness to law. The Librarian's decision will be 
announced next Tuesday, October 28. At that point, the Librarian's 
decision is subject to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia. The decision to raise the rates and especially its 
retroactive effective date has raised objections by the satellite 
carriers. Obviously, copyright owners disagree with the satellite 
carriers. My colleagues may be contacted by one side or the other of 
this dispute in the coming weeks or months.
  My colleagues should know that as chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, the committee of jurisdiction over copyright matters 
generally, and the Satellite Home Viewers Act in particular, I have 
begun a review of the satellite and cable licenses. Earlier this year I 
asked the Copyright Office to conduct in depth public hearings and make 
a comprehensive report to the Judiciary Committee on the licenses, 
together with recommendations for reforms. The Judiciary Committee is 
now reviewing these recommendations.
  As we make our review of the compulsory licenses, I believe we need 
to keep in mind the needs of rural families. The Satellite Home Viewers 
Act was originally intended in 1988 to ensure that households that 
could not get television in any other way, such as traditional 
broadcast or cable, would be able to get television signals via 
satellite.
  The market has changed substantially since 1988, and those changes 
have led to many of the controversies that currently surround the act. 
Many are looking to satellite carriers to compete directly with cable 
companies for viewership. But as we consider reforms to make the 
license work better in the current marketplace, we need to consider 
carefully the impact on the original beneficiaries, rural folks who are 
otherwise beyond the reach of traditional television signals.
  I come from a state that has a fine broadcast industry that invests 
its energy and capital in trying to reach as many viewers as it can in 
our mountainous State of Utah. But there are some Utahans, or others in 
similar rural States, who appear to be simply beyond the reach of 
broadcast transmitters and translators, despite the best efforts of our 
broadcasters. As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I hope to 
find a fair way of helping the greatest number of Utahans have the 
greatest amount of choice in television entertainment. Obviously this 
means balancing a number of interests, since consumer choice will be 
curtailed if any segment of the industry is disadvantaged too much to 
support the other segments. We need to try to get a system that will be 
consumer-friendly, fair to creators and copyright holders to encourage 
them to continue to produce quality entertainment, and that makes for a 
competitive environment that will lower prices and increase choices. As 
we do this, we need to remember the original purpose of the satellite 
license, which is to make television available to those who cannot 
otherwise get it.
  I believe many of my colleagues on the committee and in the Senate 
share my views, particularly my good friend, the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. Mr. President, I would ask the 
distinguished ranking member if he shares my concerns about rural 
satellite viewers, as well as the other affected interests in this 
industry?
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank Senator Hatch for his comments. I am also very 
concerned about rural areas in my home State of Vermont and about the 
needs of rural satellite viewers throughout the country.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I would ask my 
colleague from Vermont if he will work with me and the other members of 
the Judiciary Committee to help ensure that we keep the needs of rural 
satellite viewers in mind as we consider reforms to the compulsory 
licenses?
  Mr. LEAHY. I look forward to working with you and the rest of the 
committee on these important issues.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague, and I invite my colleagues in the 
Senate to work with me and with the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee as we review the compulsory licenses to ensure the best 
situation for all our constituents.

                          ____________________