FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 4, Pages 946 to 1358, February 17 - February 27, 1987 Page: 1,031
ii, 947-1358, iv p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
of non-tariff barriers to trade that affects telecommunications,
including. for example, the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade and the Agreement on
Government Procurement ("AGP").9' However, foreign
PTTs. although generally state-owned and operated, are
not subject to the AGP. More recently, in large part as a
result of continuing U.S. concerns over foreign barriers to
trade in services, the member nations of the GATT met in
Punta del Este, Uruguay to launch an eighth round of
talks that would, among other things. extend the authority
of the GATT to include trade in services.
b. Current Issues
62. In this Notice. we invite comment regarding whether
our criteria for developing an international model
should include adherence to existing. or proposed. international
provisions promulgated under the GATT. the
ITU Convention or any other generally accepted international
arrangement that facilitates open entry, nondiscrimination.
technological innovation and
international comity. including reciprocity. We also encourage
parties to comment on the relationship. if any.
between the efforts this Commission may make to promote
open entry, nondiscrimination, and technological
innovation in international telecommunications and U.S.
efforts in WATTC-88. the Uruguay Round. or any other
multilateral forum. Finally, we encourage parties to comment
on whether an international model can. and should,
include criteria for the improvement of relations on a
bilateral basis. Specifically, we invite comment on whether
such criteria should directly address the question, of
reciprocal treatment of U.S. firms in any or all of the
following areas: (1) terminal equipment: (2) core equipment:
(3) the authorization of facilities. such as private
cable or satellite facilities; and (4) network-related services.
such as enhanced services.
B. US. Regulatory Policies
63. The previous section will allow us to develop a
model that represents an "ideal" to be sought in international
telecommunications. This ideal would represent an
optimal balancing of the four international objectives
discussed in detail above: open entry: nondiscrimination:
technological innovation; and international comity. To
ensure that we are fully discharging our mandate under
the Communications Act, however. we must also consider
the actions that we might take to encourage the closer
approximation of this ideal in international telecommunications.
As a result, the second portion of our inquiry
focuses on these questions.
64. We recognize that it is not clear whether traditional
trade concerns, such as the effects of a telecommunications
trade deficit on U.S. employment or its contribution
to the U.S. balance of payments deficit, are cognizable
under the Communications Act.10T' Our primary interest
in this proceeding. however, is to examine the effect of
foreign regulations or practices on the price, variety.
quality, or technological sophistication of telecommunications
goods and services provided to U.S. consumers and
determine what measures, if any, we can. and should.
consider to promote greater access for U.S. telecommunications
service providers and equipment manufacturers
abroad. Towards that end, we invite parties to comment
on the specific question of our authority to take regulatory
action based on the effect that foreign policies and
practices have, or may have on the price, variety, qualityand technological sophistication of telecommunications
goods and services provided to U.S consumers. We also
encourage parties to comment on our authority to take
actions based on more general concerns, such as the
telecommunications trade or employment implications of
foreign policies and practices. that have, or may have, a
negative impact on our ability to ensure that the three
goals provided for in the Communications Act are met.
65. As discussed earlier, our primary authority over
common carriers is contained in Title II of the Act.
Specifically, we have the authority to ensure: that carriers
offer service pursuant to "schedules" or tariffs on file with
the Commission;101 that tariffed rates. practices and regulations
are "just and reasonable":102 and that there is no
"undue preference or discrimination in charges. practices,
classifications. regulations. facilities, or services for. or in
connections with, like communication services . . .1i03
We also have the power to "prescribe what classification.
regulation. or practice is or will be just, fair, and reasonable
. . .,1104 as well as require that carriers obtain from
this Commission a certificate that the "present or future
public convenience and necessity require or will require
the construction. or operation . . . " of a new or extended
line.'05
66. Our ancillary authority over common carrierrelated
goods and services derives from the provisions of
Title I of the Act. As discussed earlier. Section 1 of the
Communications Act sets out the goals of the Act. which
principally focus on efficiency. equity and national security
concerns. Section 2(a) of the Act provides that our
jurisdiction "shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication
by wire or radio . . .."'lO while Section 3(a)
broadly defines "communication by wire" to include all
instrumentalities, 'facilities, and apparatus incidental to
transmission.'07 Moreover, Section 4(i) provides that:
The Commission may perform any and all acts,
make
such rules and regulations. and issue such orders. not
inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the
execution of its functions.
47 U.S.C. 154(i).108 In United Stales v. Southwestern
Cable Co,.10 the Supreme Court held that this Commission
may assert jurisdiction under Section 2 over activities
that are not within the more specific provisions of the
Communications Act. so long as that jurisdiction is limited
to those activities that are "reasonably ancillary" to the
performance of this Commission's various responsibilities.110
In CCIA v. FCC,"' the Court of Appeals, in
upholding our Second Computer Inquiry decision, specifically
held that our ancillary jurisdiction extended to activities
not explicitly addressed by Title II of the Act and
that our assertion of jurisdiction over enhanced services
was "reasonably ancillary" under the Southwestern Cable
standard. 12
67. We recognize that any actions taken by this Commission
that would serve to limit foreign access to the
U.S. market could have significant trade, commercial.
foreign policy. antitrust, labor and national security implications.
As a result. we invite parties to comment on
the manner in which market access determinations
should be made, including whether we should rely primarily.
although not exclusively. upon the executive
branch determining that specific foreign markets are1031
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 4, Pages 946 to 1358, February 17 - February 27, 1987, book, February 1987; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1607/m1/89/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.