HEARINGS During 1991 the Tribunal held 36 Sunshine Act Meetings on cable and the 1991 Satellite Carrier Rate Adjustment. SATELLITE HOME VIEWER ACT Mr. FAZIO. Thank you. One of the areas we are interested in is the Satellite Home Viewer Act controversy. You had begun to ascertain the facts regarding that and I wonder if you can tell us what the outcome was and maybe outline your plans for holding hearings, give us an idea of what is at stake and maybe how many claimants there are in this regard. Ms. DAUB. Mr. Chairman, we were planning to hold a hearing on the satellite distribution as of last year. As you know, we always try to encourage the parties to try to come to voluntary settlements. We found out there was controversy in May of last year. However, the parties have asked us that we delay the satellite distribution hearing until such time as the 1989 cable distribution hearing has been settled. The reason for that is the claimant groups who hire these lawyers who come before us on cable are the same counsel, same lawyers as for the satellite distribution hearings. So until the 1989 cable distribution hearing dispute was completed, they did not want to expend their energy preparing the case for the satellite. Mr. Fazio. They are stretching their income out further in the future. Ms. DAUB. I would not comment on that. Subsequently, in July of last year we did receive approximately 90 claims on 90 satellite funds. Mr. FAZIO. Ninety, did you say? MS. DAUB. I meant 242 claims. Subsequently we encouraged the parties to combine 89 and 90 satellite distribution hearings, under the circumstances, so that we are up-to-date and current. They have agreed and they were very pleased with our suggestion. We believe that sometime after April 30-April 30 is the date that we are mandated to publish in the Federal Register our decision on the 89 cable distribution-we will be entering into 89 and 90 combined satellite hearings. That is the distribution side of our satellite issue. SATELLITE CARRIER RATE ADJUSTMENT We do have currently the rate adjustment issue. As you are aware, when Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewers Act in 1988, Congress set the royalty rates for satellite for three years. That three years was up last year. We have encouraged the parties in this case, satellite distributors and carriers on one side, and the owners of the programs on the other side-to try to settle. They have been trying to work this out. Apparently, they could not come to an agreement and we had to enter into an arbitration process. The CRT was the facilitator up to the selection of the three arbitrators. One comes from the satellite carriers and distributors, the other panelist comes from the program owners and the third panelist was chosen just last week by the other two panelists. The three will enter into an arbitration hearing process, I believe sometime in the beginning of February 5, 6 and 7 and the hearing by March 2. At that point, the Commissioners have the authority to accept their decision or we have the option to reject it and decide the new rate. Mr. FAZIO. What has been the history of these situations? Do you almost always accept the arbitrators? Ms. DAUB. Mr. Chairman, this is rather precedent setting. The satellite issue is very new to all of us. It would be highly unlikely that we would reject, but then this is the kind of circumstance that we cannot predict until such time as they produce their end product to us. Mr. FAZIO. You are hopeful that you will have a 3-to-nothing vote in? Ms. DAUB. Yes, sir. Mr. FAZIO. Have you used this method in resolving other similar issues before the Tribunal? Ms. DAUB. This is the first time, I believe. There were, if I might say, some loose ends the way the law was written. So we have gone step-by-step, very, very, carefully. We have dug into the legislative history to try to reflect the precise and exact intent of Congress so we do not miss it in anyway. Mr. FAZIO. So the Telecommunications Subcommittee did not dot all the “i's” and cross all the "t's"? Ms. DAUB. It is difficult, I think, to put them in our shoes. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COSTS Mr. FAZIO. Sometimes the bills don't pass unless they are somewhat obscure. We leave to the agency the resolution. I would like to get into a side issue that is important to the Committee. We are not trying to imply any problem on your part, but your dealing with GSA is illustrative with problems we see in general. Apparently you have a $2,600 increase in telephone costs. Ms. DAUB. Yes, sir. Mr. FAZIO. Primarily the $300 per month sum you pay GSA is for administrative costs in handling the FTS-2000 program. Can you tell us what you are getting for that reimbursement, in your view? Ms. DAUB. Mr. Chairman, you know when I first joined CRT, CRT was operating still with a rotary phone. That was a mere two years. We would have been more than pleased and delighted to have push button. You will recall the statement I made. But, as you indicated, GSA is our agent with respect to telephone services and our rental of space as well. Last July GSA put us under the WITS program, Washington Interagency Telecommunications System. Mr. FAZIO. That is WITS, not nitwits? Ms. DAUB. Just WITS. Mr. FAZIO. I am going beyond the Beltway. I probably should not. Ms. DAUB. With the WITS program came a package of updated and increased services we did not need or ask for. We are pleased to have those services but nevertheless we did not request them. One is one-stop shopping for ordering equipment and requesting repairs. We don't have to call C&P for repairs. Maintenance of equipment is a one-stop process. We have the agency's own custom We are required to have separate local and long distance numbers. WITS has automatic features, like three-way conference calls and call transfer. They offer new technology, new features and quality service. We are pleased with the increased and expanded services, but we also find ourselves with increased costs. We do pay-a good example, in 1991, relocating and getting equipment alone cost us $3,000. By the time we paid C&P and AT&T, our cost was $9,200. With our small budget it was an immense jump. It is an increase we could not absorb with our current budget the way it was. That is the reason for the $2,600 increase, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAZIO. Well, I guess my concern is that you are paying essentially a surcharge of probably more than half your total bill simply to have them available to call somebody else to take care of any telephone problem that comes along. MS. DAUB. Yes, sir. Mr. FAZIO. If you were a homeowner paying a $200 a month bill and $400 on top of that, I think you would be somewhat unhappy. I understand one-stop shopping may be nice, but it is an awful large surcharge. Ms. DAUB. Mr. Chairman, we think so, too. We did not mind at all calling different phone companies whenever we needed the help. This, again, was mandated to us. It was something we did not request. Mr. LEWIS. Whether you liked it or not. Ms. DAUB. That is correct. Mr. FAZIO. You would have to be happy or you would go back to the rotary phones. NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER The payroll at the National Finance Center, how is that doing? Ms. DAUB. The NFC has been extremely good. At the Tribunal we were especially pleased to receive our W-2s during the first week of January. As you are aware this is rather unheard of. Mrs. Gray said that her daughter received her W-2 just this past week. So we are extremely pleased and Mr. FAZIO. I am glad it is working out. We are encouraging, particularly our smaller agencies and, frankly, some of the larger agencies to look to the NFC. I think it has been a positive experience for everyone who has used it. Ms. DAUB. We commend them highly. Mr. FAZIO. Are there any questions, Mr. Lewis? DISCUSSION OF MR. LEWIS' QUESTION Mr. LEWIS. I have a question. It may be a little esoteric, but I don't know where else to ask it. Ms. Daub, you may be the perfect person to ask this hypothetical question of. Let us presume that a former Member of Congress was the subject of a TV film and he wanted to use that film, since he was its subject for some purpose of his own and the people who took the film claimed the rights to that film. Does he as an actor or a participant have any rights to use that film? Mr. LEWIS. He has a copy of it, but the people who took the film say he cannot use it for his own purposes. Does he have the right to use it? Ms. DAUB. I am not an expert on copyright issues. Perhaps I can give my own personal opinion on that. I wish my general counsel was here. Mr. LEWIS. Let's speculate a little bit. It may raise questions from you and I can ask additional questions about. I am just probing here. Mr. AGUERO. What were the costs? Is it a room, the locations, how was it? Mr. LEWIS. Assume we have a hypothetical former Member of Congress. Somebody comes into his office and takes a film. He has a copy of the film. The set was his former office. He is the subject and he wishes to use or reproduce that film for his own purposes. Would he have certain rights? Mr. AGUERO. I think he would have to make certain deals with the cameraman, the corporation who took the film, because they spent the money and the congressman allowed its crew to enter into his office and take the film. Can you use the film for certain other purposes. They may allow him to do it or maybe they will sell the rights, that is what I think. Mr. Lewis. What if he has not signed anything that releases him to use them? Mr. ARGETSINGER. I think he made a good argument. Ralph Oman will be here Thursday. Mr. LEWIS. Will you warn him? Mr. ARGETSINGER. I have. Mr. LEWIS. You are from Youngstown. That is why you are so straightforward. Mr. FAZIO. That is why you get whatever you want from this committee. Ms. DAUB. Congressman, did this come up? Mr. LEWIS. Sure. I was asking the question for my Chairman. Ms. DAUB. I have a personal opinion, however I do not want to misspeak. Mr. Lewis. I would be happy to have your personal opinion. Ms. DAUB. Congressman Lewis, I think I will decline and leave that answer to experts like Ralph Oman. Mr. FAZIO. Very good. Are there any further questions? Mr. LEWIS. I would like to welcome you one more time to the Committee. Mr. FAZIO. It seems there are no problems. MR. AGUERO'S STATEMENT Mr. AGUERO. Mr. Chairman, this morning when I woke, I felt I had to write something. Mr. Chairman, it has been a wonderful experience for me to testify before you and the members of this committee for eight years. I think I broke the record. I wish to thank you for the courtesy and kindness you have always given the Tri |
