[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 121 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S10056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A REAL THREAT TO SATELLITE TELEVISION SERVICE
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 1998 and 1999 over 2 million families
were faced with the prospect of losing the ability to receive one or
more of their satellite television network stations. Back then,
Congress acted and not only protected access to those stations but also
expanded consumer opportunities to receive more programming options.
This time around the story may not have such a happy ending. As we
near the end of the session, I grow more concerned that Congress will
not have time to pass a reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer
Act. This is especially disappointing because many members of the other
body and many Senators have worked diligently to craft legislative
language that would be a boon to public television, the satellite
industry, the movie, music and television industries, and to satellite
dish owners throughout America.
Indeed, families who own satellite dishes may end up being the big
losers if provisions of that act are not extended. Many midwestern and
Rocky Mountain States have vast areas where satellite dish owners
receive imported network stations such as ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox.
Thousands of these families do not have any other choices. They do not
have access to TV stations over-the-air because of mountain terrain or
distance from the broadcast towers. They do not have access to cable
because of the rough terrain or the lack of population density which
makes it economically impossible for cable companies to invest. Without
access to network stations via satellite, over-the-air, or cable those
families will no longer be able to receive national news programming or
other network TV programming.
If Congress does not reauthorize provisions of current law by
December 31, 2004, hundreds of thousands of households will lose
satellite access to network TV stations. Since information about
subscribers is proprietary it is difficult for me to tell you exactly
how many families will be affected by this, but I assure you it is not
a small number.
The Senate Judiciary Committee got its job done in June. We reported
a great bill out of Committee without a single amendment and without a
single nay vote. That bill does far more than just protect satellite
dish owners from losing signals. At the time I pointed out that the new
satellite bill ``protects subscribers in every State, expands viewing
choices for most dish owners, promotes access to local programming, and
increases direct, head-to-head, competition between cable and satellite
providers.''
I continued by saying that, ``easily, this bill will benefit 21
million satellite television dish owners throughout the nation, and I
am happy to note that over 85,000 of those subscribers are in
Vermont.''
The Senate and House Judiciary Committee-reported bills go far beyond
protecting what current subscribers receive. The bills allow additional
programming via satellite through adoption of the so-call
``significantly viewed'' test now used for cable, but not satellite
subscribers. That test means that, in general, if a person in a cable
service area that historically received over-the-air TV reception from
``nearby'' stations outside that area, those cable operators could
offer those station signals in that person's cable service area. In
other words, if you were in an area in which most families in the past
had received TV signals using a regular roof-top antenna then you could
be offered that same signal TV via cable. By having similar rules,
satellite carriers will be able to directly compete with cable
providers who already operate under the significantly viewed test. This
gives home dish owners more choices of programming.
In the past, Congress got the job done. Congress worked well together
in 1998 and 1999 when we developed a major satellite law that
transformed the industry by allowing local television stations to be
carried by satellite and beamed back down to the local communities
served by those stations. This marked the first time that thousands of
TV owners were able to get the full complement of local network
stations. In 1997 we found a way to avoid cutoffs of satellite TV
service to millions of homes and to protect the local affiliate
broadcast system. The following year we forged an alliance behind a
strong satellite bill to permit local stations to be offered by
satellite, thus increasing competition between cable and satellite
providers.
We also worked with the Public Broadcasting System so they could
offer a national feed as they transitioned to having their local
programming beamed up to satellites and then beamed back down to much
larger audiences.
Because of those efforts, in Vermont and most other States, dish
owners are able to watch their local stations instead of getting
signals from distant stations. Such a service allows television
watchers to be more easily connected to their communities as well as
providing access to necessary emergency signals, news and broadcasts.
I hope we are able to work together to finish this important
satellite television bill in the few remaining days of this Congress.
____________________