[Senate Executive Report 105-3]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Exec. Rpt.
SENATE
1st Session 105-3
_______________________________________________________________________
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION CONSTITUTION AND CONVENTION
_______
October 20, 1997.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Helms, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany Treaty Doc. 104-34]
The Committee on Foreign Relations to which was referred
the Constitution and Convention of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), with Annexes, signed at Geneva
on December 22, 1992, and amendments to the Constitution and
Convention, signed at Kyoto on October 14, 1994, together with
declarations and reservations by the United States as contained
in the Final Acts, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with two understandings, two declarations,
and one proviso, and recommends that the Senate give its advice
and consent to the ratification thereof as set forth in this
report and the accompanying resolution of ratification.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose..........................................................1
II. Background.......................................................2
III. Summary..........................................................4
IV. Entry Into Force and Termination................................13
V. Committee Action................................................13
VI. Committee Comments..............................................13
VII. Resolution of Ratification......................................15
VIII.Appendix........................................................17
I. Purpose
The Constitution and Convention of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) are intended to restructure the
United Nations Telecommunication Union to make it more
effective in responding to the changes taking place in
telecommunications. The
Constitution and Convention replace the ITU Convention signed
in Nairobi in 1982. The 1992 Constitution and Convention
represent the first basic instruments of the ITU intended to be
permanent. It establishes in the ITU three sectors--
Radiocommunication Standardization, Telecommunication
Standardization, and Telecommunication Development--that
replace the previous permanent organs.
II. Background
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the
principal international organization in the area of
telecommunications, providing a forum for global cooperation
and coordination and the promotion of more effective and
efficient use of telecommunications generally. The ITU, which
has over 180 members, was founded in 1865 and became a
specialized agency of the United Nations in 1947. The ITU's
primary missions are:
managing the radio-frequency spectrum and recording
frequencies, and preventing and eliminating harmful
interference;
facilitating worldwide standardization of
telecommunications; and
fostering efforts to provide technical assistance to
developing countries with the aim of developing
domestic telecommunications infrastructures.
Originally, the basic instrument of the ITU was its
Convention, a document that was revised and adopted at the
conclusion of each ITU Plenipotentiary Conference (normally
held every 5 years). In 1992, Members agreed not only to
fundamentally restructure the ITU but also to bifurcate its
underlying legal document into a Constitution and a Convention
and to make these two instruments permanent.
The current effort to restructure the ITU was undertaken in
the late 1980's in response to significant changes and
developments in the telecommunications area. In 1989 ITU
parties appointed a High Level Committee (HLC), of which the
United States was a member, to examine ways to modernize the
Union. Its report, titled ``Tomorrow's ITU: The Challenges of
Change,'' was issued in 1991. Among other things, the HLC cited
a number of developments as having a significant impact on the
ITU's ability to carry out its mission and serve its Members.
As summarized by one commentator, these were:
(1) the globalization of telecommunication networks
and services and the concomitant blurring of the
distinction between national and international
regulatory regimes; (2) the accelerating pace of
technological changes stemming from the convergence of
telecommunication and computer technologies and the
spawning of new services, products, and user demands
therefrom; (3) the increasing importance of the role of
telecommunications in the information economy and
society; (4) the rising importance of other
organizations having authority over telecommunication
or telecommunications-related issues; (5) the widening
of the development gap between industrialized and
developing countries; and (6) the increasingly diverse
nature of the participants in Union activities due to
the liberalization, privatization and deregulation of
telecommunication services, equipment providers and the
users for the new services.
The 1992 Geneva Plenipotentiary Conference, which was
convened to consider restructuring proposals made by ITU
Members and contained in the HLC report, recommended that ITU
Members adopt a new permanent two-instrument Convention that
would embody the ITU restructuring and allow Plenipotentiary
Conferences to amend the instruments if necessary. Amendments
to the Constitution must be approved by 2/3 of the voting
delegations. The Convention is more amenable to change,
requiring only a majority vote for amendments.
The 1992 Constitution and Convention reorganized the ITU by
creating three new vertical sectors: the Radiocommunication
Sector, the Telecommunication Standardization Sector, and
Telecommunication Development Sector. The Radiocommunication
Sector continues the work of the CCIR and the IFRB; the
Telecommunications Standardization Sector continues the
activities of the CCITT and a portion of the CCIR's
standardization work; the Telecommunication Development Sector
carries forward the work of the former Telecommunication
Development Bureau.
The ITU's supreme organ continues to be the Plenipotentiary
Conference. Its Administrative Council has been given new
policy responsibilities and renamed the Council. The General
Secretariat has been carried forward, given added
responsibilities and resources, and charged with serving all
sectors. Administrative conferences are now functions of each
sector and world conferences on international telecommunication
are made a part of the ITU's basic structure. The Constitution
and Convention require that administrative conferences be held
more frequently and facilitate ITU decision-making, which had
been governed by consensus voting.
In general, the restructuring appears to have reconfigured
what had been considered to be a somewhat unwieldy bureaucracy
by consolidating the primary activities of the ITU into three
specific bodies, directly managed by their Directors, with a
Coordinating Committee (consisting of the Secretary General,
his or her deputy and the three sectoral Directors) acting as
an advisory ``internal management team,'' and the Secretary-
General charged with overall administrative and financial
management of the ITU. Among other changes the Constitution and
Convention require the use of strategic planning for the
organization, place the budget on a biennial cycle, and allow
for increased participation of private sector and international
organizations in ITU activities.
The Constitution and Convention were adopted at the 1992
Geneva Plenipotentiary Conference; several amendments to the
Constitution and the Convention were later approved at a
Plenipotentiary Conference at Kyoto in 1994. The Geneva
Conference agreed that provisions of the new documents
addressing structure and working methods would go into effect
provisionally as of March 1, 1993. The Constitution and
Convention entered into force July 1, 1994 between ITU Members
who had deposited their instruments of ratification or
accession before that date. The Kyoto amendments entered into
force as a whole on January 1, 1996, between those parties to
the 1992 ITU Constitution and Convention who had deposited the
necessary instruments before that date.
Signatory Members that did not deposit an instrument of
ratification for the Constitution and Convention within two
years of the date these instruments entered into force are not
entitled to vote at any ITU conference, Council session,
sectoral meeting, or consultation by correspondence until an
instrument of ratification is deposited (Constitution, Art.
52). Rights other than voting rights are not affected, however.
The United States signed both instruments when they were first
open for signature, but the Clinton Administration did not
transmit the treaties to the Senate for advise and consent to
ratification until September 1996--two months after the United
States had lost its vote under ITU rules.
III. Summary
a. constitution of the international telecommunication union
The Constitution of the International Telecommunications
Union sets out general principles governing the purpose, basic
structure and functions of the various organs comprising the
ITU. As complemented by the ITU Convention, it is the basic
instrument of the Union, with which all activities must be in
conformity. The document consists of nine chapters: Basic
Provisions (Arts. 1-11); Radiocommunication Sector (Arts. 12-
16); Telecommunication Standardization Sector (Arts. 17-20);
Telecommunication Development Sector (Arts. 21-24); Other
Provisions Concerning the Functioning of the Union (Arts. 25-
32); General Provisions Relating to Telecommunications (Arts.
33-43); Special Provisions for Radio (Arts. 44-48); Relations
With the United Nations, Other International Organizations and
Non-Member States (Arts. 49-51); and Final Provisions (Arts.
52-58).
Structural Changes.
In amending its governing constitution, the 1992
Plenipotentiary Conference of the ITU significantly revised the
organizational structure of the body. Most significant, the
conference divided the principal working organs of the Union
into three distinct sectors: the Radiocommunication Sector; the
Telecommunication Standardization Sector and the
Telecommunication Development Sector.
Radiocommunication Sector (Articles 12-16) ITU activities
related to the use of the radiospectrum are now conducted by
the Radiocommunication Sector, whose primary purpose is to
``ensure the rational, equitable, efficient and economical use
of the radiospectrum by all radiocommunication services.''
(Article 12) The work of the newly created sector is
accomplished primarily through world and regional
radiocommunication conferences which convene to consider
revisions to the radio regulations and other items related to
its agenda.
While the predecessor of the Radiocommunication Sector--the
World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC)--convened to
conduct business on an ad hoc basis, the world
radiocommunication conference is required under the
constitution to convene every two years. (Article 13) Working
in conjunction with the radiocommunication conferences are the
``Radiocommunication Assemblies.'' Replacing the function of
the International Radio Consultative Committees (CCIR), the
assemblies are primarily responsible for the provision of the
``technical bases for the work of the [conferences]'', are also
required to convene every two years ``in place and time'' with
the radiocommunication conferences. (Article 13)
Also within the Radiocommunication Sector, the Radio
Regulations Board assumes the responsibilities of the
International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB). The
constitution requires that members of the Board be ``thoroughly
qualified in the field of radiocommunication . . .,'' and that
each member be familiar with the ``geographic, economic and
demographic conditions'' of a particular area of the world.
(Article 14) While the former IFRB was directly responsible for
the recordation and registration of frequency assignments, the
new constitution appears to limit the Board's role to the
promulgation of rules of procedure, including technical
criteria to be used by the newly created Radiocommunication
Bureau in making frequency assignment registrations.
Telecommunication Standardization Sector (Articles 17-20)
The Telecommunication Standardization Sector carries out the
activities of the Union related to telecommunications
standardization. Essentially, subsuming the responsibilities of
the former International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative
Committee, the sector is charged with ``studying technical,
operating and tariff questions and adopting recommendations on
them with a view to standardizing telecommunications on a
worldwide basis.'' (Article 17) Similar to the
Radiocommunication Sector, much of the work is accomplished
through world telecommunication standardization conferences,
which convene every four years. (Article 18) In addition, the
Sector consists of telecommunication standardization study
groups and the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, the
responsibilities of which are set out in the Convention.
(Article 19-20)
Telecommunications Development Sector (Articles 21-24)
Under its revised constitution, ITU development activities have
been consolidated into the Telecommunications Development
Sector. In addition to fulfilling the purposes of the Union
with regard to telecommunications development, the Sector is
charged with carrying out the Union's dual role as the United
Nations' Specialized Agency for telecommunication and the
``executing agency'' for implementing UN development projects.
(Article 21) Sector activities are carried out through world
and regional telecommunication development conferences, study
groups and the Telecommunication Development Bureau. (Article
22) World development conferences are to be convened every four
years, between Plenipotentiary Conferences, to produce
conclusions which take the form of ``resolutions, decisions,
recommendations or reports.'' (Article 22) Regional development
conferences are convened ``subject to resources and
priorities.'' (Article 22) The specific duties of the world and
regional telecommunication development conferences, as well as
the study groups and the Telecommunication Development Bureau
are set out in the Convention. (Articles 23-24)
Other Structural Changes In addition to the permanent
sectors, the constitution authorizes world conferences on
international telecommunications which may revise the
international telecommunications regulations and deal with
telecommunications questions of a worldwide character. (Article
25)
A number of modifications were also made with respect to
operating procedures and responsibilities of ITU leadership.
For instance, Plenipotentiary Conferences, formerly convened
every five years, are now required to be held every four.
Moreover, additional authority has been provided to the
Administrative Council, renamed ``the Council'', to ``consider
broad telecommunications policy issues,'' an area in which it
historically has not played a major role.
Constitutional Amendment Process.
Provisions were also added governing the process of
constitutional amendment. Under Article 55, proposed amendments
to the constitution must ``reach'' the Secretary-General no
later than eight months prior to the scheduled opening date of
the next Plenipotentiary Conference. Upon receipt of the
proposed amendment, the Secretary-General is required to
forward the proposal to Union Members no later than six months
prior to the opening date. A quorum of one-half of the
delegations accredited to the Plenipotentiary Conference and
approval by at least two thirds of such delegations, which have
the right to vote, is required for consideration and adoption
of a constitutional amendment.
Amendments adopted at the Plenipotentiary Conference are
entered into force at a date determined by the conference and
are subsequently subjected to the process of ratification,
acceptance, approval and accession normally applicable to the
constitution as a whole. Under this process, signatory Members
of the Union have two years from the date of entry into force
to ratify the constitution (or amendment) in accordance with
the Member's own constitutional rules. At the end of the two
year period, Members that have not submitted an instrument of
ratification to the Secretary-General lose all voting rights
until the instrument has been so submitted.
b. convention of the international telecommunication union
The Convention of the International Telecommunications
Union builds on the ITU Constitution and generally addresses
the functional and procedural matters that were contained in
the second part of earlier conventions titled ``General
Regulations.'' It consists of six chapters: Functioning of the
Union (Arts. 1-22); General Provisions Regarding Conferences
(Arts. 23-25); Rules of Procedure (Art. 32); Other Procedures
(Arts. 33-35); Various Provisions Related to the Operation of
Telecommunication Services (Arts. 36-40); and Arbitration and
Amendment (Arts. 41-42). Key provisions are highlighted below.
ITU Conferences.
The Convention expands on Constitution provisions that
place ITU administrative conferences on a regular schedule,
making clear that between Plenipotentiary Conferences the
following will take place: two world radiocommunications
conferences, one world telecommunication standardization
conference, one world telecommunications development conference
and two radiocommunication assemblies, associated in time and
place with the world radiocommunication conference (Article 3).
It also provides a process for canceling one world
radiocommunication conference and adding a standardization
conference (Article 3). World telecommunication conferences,
which may revise the International Telecommunications
Regulations and deal with any other relevant global issue in
the area, may be held if so decided by a Plenipotentiary
Conference (Article 3). These will be subject to conference
procedures applicable to radiocommunication conferences
(Article 3).
Radiocommunication Sector.
The Convention elaborates on the activities of the six
entities that compose the Radiocommunication Sector: the world
radiocommunication conference, the radiocommunication
assemblies, the regional radiocommunication conferences, and
the Radio Regulations Board, and the radiocommunication study
groups, and the Radiocommunication Bureau (Articles 7-12). The
major activities of this sector are the allocation of
terrestrial radio spectrums (the complete range of frequencies
of electromagnetic radiation useful in radio communication),
and the allocation of satellite orbital positions.
The Convention places world radiocommunication conferences,
which are normally to be convened every two years, on a four-
year planning cycle, requiring each conference to submit agenda
items to the Council for a period of this length (Article 7).
The general scope of the agenda is to be decided four years
before the conference, with the final agenda to be approved by
the Council two years in advance with a concurrence of a
majority of Members (Article 7). Radiocommunication assemblies,
which provide the technical work for world conferences,
consider and issue recommendations on questions adopted under
their own procedures as well as questions referred to them by
the Plenipotentiary Conference, any other conference, the
Council or the Radio Regulation Board (Article 8). Regional
radiocommunication conferences may deal only with questions of
a regional nature and may not consider non-agenda items
(Article 9). Agendas are drawn up and adopted pursuant to the
procedures in place for world radiocommunication conferences
(Article 9).
The Convention increases the membership of the Radio
Regulation Board (formerly the International Frequency
Registration Board) from 5 to 9 Members, though the Board now
operates on a part-time basis due to the increasingly routine
nature of its work (Article 10; Constitution, Article 14).
Members are elected by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Article
10). In addition to duties listed in the Convention, the Board
considers reports from the Director of the Radiocommunication
Bureau on investigations of harmful interference carried out at
the request of one or more of the interested administrations of
Members of the Union and formulates recommendations as to these
matters (Article 10). The Board normally convenes four meetings
a year, at which at least two-thirds of its Members are to be
present, and may carry out its duties using ``modern means of
communication.'' Board decisions should normally be unanimous,
but if this fails, decisions may be made by (and only by) a
two-thirds vote of the Board (Article 10).
The Convention sets forth the duties of the
radiocommunication study groups, which are set up by
radiocommunication assemblies (Article 11). These groups study
the spectrum use, characteristics and performance of radio
systems, operations of radio systems, and radiocommunication
aspects of distress and safety matters, but do not generally
address economic matters unless this issue arises in the
consideration of technical alternatives (Article 11).
Recommendations are submitted to radiocommunication assemblies
for adoption but may also be adopted by national
administrations in the interim (Article 11). The Convention
contemplates cooperative activities with other
telecommunication organizations and with the work of other ITU
sectors (Article 11).
The Convention spells out the functions of the
Radiocommunication Bureau, which organizes and coordinates the
work of the Sector (Article 12). Bureau functions include,
inter alia, undertaking preparatory activities for
radiocommunication conferences; supporting the work of the
Radio Regulation Board; coordinating and organizing of the work
of study groups; carrying out studies as to the maximum
practical number of radio channels with the aim of eliminating
harmful interference and attaining equitable and effective use
of the geostationary-satellite orbit; and providing technical
support to the Telecommunication Development Sector (Article
12).
Telecommunication Standardization Sector.
The Convention details the activities and functions of the
Telecommunication Standardization Sector, which consists of
three bodies: the world telecommunication standardization
conference, telecommunication standardization study groups, and
the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (Articles 13-15).
World telecommunication standardization conferences consider
the reports of study groups and approve, modify, or reject
recommendations contained therein; approve work programs
arising from existing and new questions; decide, on the basis
of these work programs, whether to maintain, terminate or
create study groups, and allocate work to them; group questions
of interest to developing countries to facilitate their
participation in work programs (Article 13). This sector is
primarily responsible for the adoption of standards for
telecommunications equipment and systems.
Telecommunication standardization study groups study and
prepare recommendations which may be approved by world
conferences or by administrations in the interim (Article 14).
They are charged with studying technical, operating and tariff
questions and prepare recommendations with a view to worldwide
telecommunication standardization (Article 14). This work and
the technical work of radiocommunication study groups is to be
kept under regular review by the Telecommunication
Standardization and Radiocommunication Sectors with a view to
reaching common agreement on changes in the distribution of
matters under study (Article 14). Study groups are also charged
with paying ``due attention'' to matters dealing with
telecommunication infrastructures in developing countries and
to cooperate with other national, regional, and international
standardization organizations working in the area, all the
while maintaining the ITU's primary global role in
telecommunication standardization (Article 14). As with the
Radiocommunication Sector, the Convention contemplates
cooperative activities with other telecommunication
organizations and with the work of other ITU sectors (Article
14).
Telecommunication Development Sector.
The duties and functions of the three components of the
Telecommunication Development Sector--the telecommunication
development conferences, telecommunication development study
groups, and the Telecommunication Development Bureau and
Advisory Board--are set forth in Articles 16-18 of the
Convention. Telecommunication development conferences serve as
a forum for the study of issues related to telecommunication
development, fix objectives and strategies aimed at a balance
in global and regional development of telecommunications and,
at the world level, establish work programs and guidelines for
defining telecommunications questions and priorities, provide
guidance and direction for the sectoral work program, and set
up study groups, as necessary (Article 16).
Study groups, which are limited in number and created for
limited periods of time, have specific terms of reference
related to specific telecommunication questions of general
interest to developing countries (Article 17). Matters under
study are to be kept under continuing review by each of the
three sectors with the aim of agreeing on work distribution so
as to avoid duplication and promote inter-sectoral coordination
(Article 17).
The Telecommunication Development Bureau organizes and
coordinates the work of the Sector, providing it with
administrative and technical support for the sector and working
with other elected ITU officials to strengthen ``the Union's
catalytic role in stimulating telecommunications development''
(Article 18).
The Convention also establishes a Telecommunication
Development Advisory Board, appointed by the Sector Director in
consultation with the Secretary-General (Article 18). It is to
be ``composed of persons with a wide and equitable cross-
section of interests and expertise in telecommunication
development'' and has the task of ``advis[ing] the Director,
who shall participate in its meetings, on priorities and
strategies in the Union's telecommunication development
activities ...[and] inter alia, recommend[ing] steps to foster
cooperation and coordination with other organization interested
in telecommunication development'' (Article 18).
Council.
As amended by the 1994 Kyoto Amendments, the Convention
provides that the number of Members of the ITU Council is to be
decided by each Plenipotentiary Conference and may constitute
no more than 25 percent of the total number of ITU Members
(Article 4, as amended). As it does now, the Council is to hold
an annual (``ordinary'') session at the seat of the Union and,
if needed, may at that time decide to hold an additional
session (Article 4). Along with its current functions, the
Council must annually consider the Secretary-General's
strategic policy and planning report and take appropriate
action (Article 4). In the interval between Plenipotentiary
Conferences, the Council supervises the overall management and
administration of the ITU. Unlike the earlier Convention, the
1992 Convention sets forth a procedure for the election of
Council members where a vacant seat cannot be automatically
filled (Article 2).
General Secretariat.
The Convention details the specific functions of the
Secretary-General of the ITU (Article 3). Added to the
functions set forth in earlier Conventions (including
preparation of the draft budget), the Secretary-General is
responsible for the overall management of the Union's
resources, coordinates the activities of the General
Secretariat and the three new Sectors, prepares an annual
strategic planning report for the ITU Council, and undertakes
additional tasks supporting the work of sectors.
Coordination Committee.
As did the ``General Regulations'' of earlier Conventions,
the 1992 Convention elaborates on the tasks assigned to the
Coordination Committee in the Constitution and sets forth
general Committee procedures (Article 6). The Convention gives
the Committee specific responsibility to ensure coordination
with the United Nations and other international organizations
with telecommunications-related interests as to ITU
representation at their meeting and to examine the progress of
the ITU and assist the Secretary-General in preparing his
strategy report (Article 6). As now, the Committee is to reach
conclusions unanimously, and absent a majority support, the
Chairman may take decisions on urgent matters (Article 6). The
Convention continues the current practice of convening monthly
meetings (Article 6).
Budget.
In contrast to former Conventions, the 1992 Convention
places the ITU on a biennial, rather than annual, budget cycle
(Articles 4-5). As in the past, the budget is to be prepared by
the Secretary-General (in consultation with the Coordinating
Committee) and reviewed and approved by the ITU Council. The
budget is to be based on a 4-year budget ceiling determined at
each Plenipotentiary Conference (Constitution, Article 8).
While prior Conventions required the Plenipotentiary Conference
to establish a ``fiscal limit'' for the period between
conferences, the 1992 Constitution uses the term ``ceiling''
and newly requires that the Conference's budget decision be
based in part on the Council's strategic policy and planning
recommendations (Constitution, Article 8).
In making its budget decisions, the Council must take into
account the views of the Coordinating Committee submitted to
the Secretary General for incorporation into his annual
strategic policy and planning report, as well as the
Secretariat's annual financial operating report (Article 4).
The Council must also consider a two-year budget forecast for
the period following the approval of any budget based on the
actions of the Plenipotentiary Conference and the above-
described views and reports (Article 4).
Under the 1992 Convention, the Secretary General must
prepare a consolidated budget, including cost-based budgets for
each of the three Sectors prepared in accordance with the
Secretary General's budget guidelines (Article 5). As is the
current requirement, the Secretary must prepare two budgets:
one for zero growth of the contributory limit, and the second
for growth less than or equal to any limit fixed by the
Plenipotentiary Council after any drawing on the ITU Reserve
Account (Article 5).
The United States is assessed 8.274 percent of the ITU
budget (the equivalent of 30 ``units'' under the ITU assessment
structure). Under this formula the United States pays about
$8.5 million per year to the organization. Contributions the
U.S. and other nations make to development organizations such
as the United Nations Development Program also are transferred
to the ITU for development activities. In addition, private
sector members pay dues to the ITU. A private sector member
must give a minimum of $35,000 for membership in the ITU.
Together, all U.S. private sector members pay about 8 percent
of the ITU budget. Unlike most other U.N. organizations, the
ITU also assesses interest penalties and revenue generating
activities to offset budget shortfalls.
Increased participation of private sector groups.
The increasing number of non-state actors in the
telecommunications field has led the ITU to allow these
organizations to play a greater role in ITU activities in order
to better fulfill the Union's international coordinating
mission. In the past, recognized private operating agencies
(RPOAs) and scientific or industrial organizations (SIOs) had
participated in ITU activities along with national
telecommunications administrations. In addition, prior
Conventions allowed certain non-Members to attend ITU
conferences as observers.
The 1992 Convention now recognizes an even greater role for
non-governmental organizations, allowing three specific
categories of entities to participate in the work of ITU
sectors. These are: (1) recognized operating agencies,
scientific or industrial organizations 1 and
financial or development institutions that are approved by the
Member concerned; (2) other entities dealing with
telecommunication matters that are approved by the Member
concerned; and (3) regional and other international
telecommunication, standardization, financial or development
organizations (Article 19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``scientific or industrial organization'' is defined
as ``[a]ny organization, other than a governmental establishment or
agency, which is engaged in the study of telecommunication problems or
in the design or manufacture of equipment intended for
telecommunication services.'' Convention, Annex (para. 1004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests from an entity in the first category approved by
the Member concerned need only be forwarded to the Secretary
General; requests from entities in the second category
submitted by the Member concerned are handled under procedures
established by the Council and are reviewed for conformity with
that procedure. Requests from entities in the third category
are submitted to the Secretary General and acted upon by the
Council. In addition, agencies that have been invited to
participate in ITU Plenipotentiary Conferences in the past (the
United Nations, regional telecommunication organizations,
intergovernmental organizations operating satellite systems,
and specialized agencies of the U.N. and the International
Atomic Energy Agency) may also submit requests to participate
in the work of sectors, which requests are to be sent to the
Secretary General. Entities in the three categories listed
earlier, as well as international organizations representing
them, may also be invited as observers to Plenipotentiary
Conferences (Article 23, as amended).
All organizations authorized to participate in sectoral
work are referred to as ``members'' of the sector involved.
While these entities do not have the rights and obligations
generally pertaining to ITU Members, they must share in
defraying the expenses of the conferences or sectors in which
they are involved pursuant to formulas set forth in the
Convention (Article 33, as amended).
The Convention's Rules of Procedure allow the press and the
public, to the extent practicable, to attend ITU conferences in
accordance with ITU guidelines and the practical arrangements
made by the Secretary-General; they may not attend other ITU
meetings, however, unless the meeting in question decides
otherwise (Article 32, para. 23).
While neither the Convention nor the Constitution
specifically provide for Advisory Groups on Radiocommunications
and Standardization Sectors, the 1992 Plenipotentiary
Conference adopted a resolution encouraging the establishment
of such groups which would provide outside advice to the
sectors. Advisory Groups consist of ``government
representatives, Study Group chairpersons, Recognized Private
Operating Agencies (RPOAs), Scientific or Industrial
Organizations (SFOs), and are chaired by the Sector Director.''
A Radiocommunication Advisory Group and a
Telecommunications Standardization Advisory Group have since
been created. The former is directed to ``review the priorities
and strategies adopted in the Sector, monitor progress of the
work of the Study Groups, provide guidance for the work of the
Study Groups, [and] recommend measures for fostering
cooperation and coordination with the other ITU Sectors'' and
provides advice to the Director of the Radiocommunications
Bureau on these issues. As noted earlier, the Convention
established a Telecommunications Development Advisory Board,
which generally carries out the types of activities undertaken
by the Advisory Groups described above (Article 18).
Amendments.
As it is now a permanent ITU instrument, the 1992
Convention contains provisions and procedures for amendments
(Article 42). Amendments may only be adopted by an ITU
Plenipotentiary Conference. Proposed amendments, which may be
initiated by any ITU Member, must be submitted to the ITU
Secretary-General at least 8 months before the Conference is
scheduled to begin. Modifications may be submitted at the
Conference by a Member or its delegation at any time. To be
adopted, proposed modifications, or the proposed amendments as
a whole, require a majority vote of accredited delegations that
have the right to vote.
This procedure creates a less onerous approval requirement
than that for the ITU Constitution, which requires a two-third
vote. Adopted amendments, which are to be contained in a single
amending instrument, enter into force at a date fixed by the
Conference between Members having deposited their instruments
of ratification for the Constitution and Convention and the
amending instrument before that date (Article 42). Ratification
after that date take effect on the date the instrument of
ratification is deposited with the Secretary- General (Article
42).
IV. Entry Into Force and Termination
a. entry into force
The Constitution and Convention entered into force on July
1, 1994 between Members that deposited their instruments of
ratification (Article 58), replacing the 1982 ITU Convention.
For the United States, the Constitution and Convention will
enter into force upon the date of deposit of the U.S.
instrument of ratification with the Secretary-General of the
United Nations (Article 53).
b. termination
Any party, including the United States, may withdraw from
the treaty by so notifying the Secretary General of the United
Nations in writing. Upon such notice, withdrawal shall take
effect one year from the date of receipt of such notification.
V. Committee Action
The Committee on Foreign Relations held a public hearing on
the proposed treaty on September 17, 1997. The hearing was
chaired by Senator Rod Grams. The Committee considered the
proposed treaty on October 8, 1997, and ordered the proposed
treaty favorably reported with two understandings, two
declarations, and one proviso by voice vote, with the
recommendation that the Senate give its advice and consent to
the ratification of the proposed treaty.
VI. Committee Comments
The United States international telecommunications industry
has grown during the past several years to make the United
States the leading provider and consumer of telecommunications
goods and services. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. trade surplus in
telecommunications equipment amounted to $3.62 billion--a 4.3
percent growth over the previous year. In all the United States
telecommunications industry generated $63.7 billion in 1996
according to the Telecommunications Industry Association.
In light of the importance of the global telecommunications
market to U.S. economic interests the Committee supports the
continued active participation of the United States in the
International Telecommunication Union. The Committee favorably
recommends the Senate's ratification of the ITU Constitution
and Convention and thereby supports the important restructuring
of the ITU established by the Constitution and Convention.
Specifically, the restructured ITU Constitution and
Convention will enhance the role of the private sector and the
ability of the organization to react to changing needs of the
telecommunication industry. The Constitution and Convention
regularize the scheduled meetings of the radiocommunication
sector, so that world radio conferences are held every two
years to consider changes to international radio regulations.
The new Convention also expands the list of private sector
entities authorized to participate in the ITU sectors, and
expands their role in these sectors through advisory groups.
The Administration testified that the new procedures for rapid
consideration and adoption of recommended standards under the
Convention should enable the United States to forward global
standards for the products and services of U.S. companies in
about half the time previously required.
Given the efforts to reform and streamline international
organizations, the Committee is encouraged by the efforts of
the ITU to place the budget on a biennial cycle, to require the
use of strategic planning, and to allow for increased private
sector participation in the ITU's activities. The Committee
believes that such a system forces an organization to be both
more accountable and more responsive to its contributors. Such
a system creates an incentive for high performance since
without a continued level of support from the parties,
organizations that rely on voluntary funding will be unable to
sustain themselves.
The resolution of ratification approved by the Committee
reaffirms, and thereby highlights, the U.S. understanding with
regard to two important declarations it made to the Final Acts
of the Constitution and Convention. The first, regarding Cuba,
affirms U.S. rights to broadcast to Cuba free of jamming or
other interference, to address interference by Cuba, and to
meet radio communication requirements in the U.S. base in
Guantanamo. The second makes clear that Article 44 of the
Constitution does not grant any sovereign rights over segments
of the geostationary orbit, nor does any country have
preferential rights over any such segment.
The proposed resolution of ratification makes clear the
Committee's opposition to Article 33(3) of the Constitution,
which permits the ITU to levy interest on late payment of
contributions. The declaration requires that the Administration
seek to amend Article 33(3) of the ITU Convention to eliminate
the ITU's authority to impose interest payments on ITU members.
In addition the declaration restates U.S. appropriation law
with regard to funding of international organizations--that is,
payments by the United States to the International
Telecommunication Union are limited to contributions
appropriated by Congress. This provision does not apply to
United States payments voluntarily made for a specific purpose,
such as funding of the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference of the
ITU in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The Committee also notes that although the United States
signed the Constitution and Convention in 1992 and its
amendments in 1994, the Administration failed to submit these
documents to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification
until 1996--two months after the United States lost its right
to vote under ITU rules. Given the importance of the
telecommunication industry to the United States, the Committee
is concerned by the Administration's inexplicable delay in
submission of this treaty for advice and consent.
Finally, the Committee notes that the United States will
host the 1998 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference next fall in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. This is the first international
conference to be held in the United States in 50 years. The
last two such conferences were held in France and Japan--two of
the most significant competitors to the United States in this
area. The Committee anticipates that the 1998 Plenipotentiary
Conference will provide an opportunity for the United States to
showcase U.S. telecommunications technology and areas for
future development. Ratification of the Constitution and
Convention is essential to making the United States a full
voting member prior to the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference.
VII. Resolution of Ratification
Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Constitution and Convention of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), with Annexes,
signed at Geneva on December 22, 1992, and Amendments to the
Constitution and Convention, signed at Kyoto on October 14,
1994, together with Declarations and Reservations by the United
States contained in the Final Acts (Treaty Doc. 104-34),
subject to declarations and reservations Nos. 68, 73 and 82 of
the 1992 Final Acts; declarations and reservations Nos. 84, 92,
97, and 98 of the 1994 Final Acts; and the understandings of
subsection (a), the declarations of subsection (b), and the
proviso of subsection (c).
(a) UNDERSTANDINGS.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following two understandings, which shall be
included in the instrument of ratification, and shall be
binding on the President:
(1) BROADCASTS TO CUBA.--The United States of
America, noting the Statement (No. 40) entered by the
delegation of Cuba during the Plenipotentiary
Conference of the International Telecommunication
Union, in Kyoto Japan, affirms its rights to broadcast
to Cuba on appropriate frequencies free of jamming or
other wrongful interference and reserves its rights to
address existing interference and any future
interference, by Cuba with United States broadcasting.
Furthermore, the United States of America notes that
its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an
international agreement presently in force; the United
States of America reserves the right to meet its radio
communication requirements there as heretofore.
(2) GEOSTATIONARY-SATELLITE ORBITS.--The United
States understands that the reference in Article 44 of
the Constitution to the ``geographical situation of
particular countries'' does not imply a recognition of
claim to any preferential rights to the geostationary-
satellite orbit.
(b) DECLARATIONS.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following two declarations, which shall be
binding on the President:
(1) ASSESSED PAYMENTS TO THE UNITED NATIONS
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION.--Payments by the
United States to the International Telecommunication
Union shall be limited to assessed contributions,
appropriated by Congress. This provision does not apply
to United States payments voluntarily made for a
specific purpose other than the payment of assessed
contributions. The United States shall seek to amend
Article 33(3) of the ITU Convention to eliminate the
ITU's authority to impose interest payments on ITU
members.
(2) TREATY INTERPRETATION.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally
based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in
Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the
INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and
Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the
Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the
Senate on May 14, 1997.
(c) PROVISO.--The Senate's resolution of ratification is
subject to the following proviso, which shall be binding on the
President:
(1) SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION.--Nothing in the
Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other
action by the United States of America that is
prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as
interpreted by the United States.
A P P E N D I X
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION
CONSTITUTION AND CONVENTION
(TREATY DOC. 104-34)
C O N T E N T S
__________
September 17, 1997
Page
Fisher, David F., Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate
Secretary, ADC Telecommunications, Incorporated, Minneapolis,
Minnesota...................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Levin, Lon C., Vice President, American Mobile Satellite
Corporation and President, American Mobile Radio Corporation,
Reston, Virginia............................................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
McCann, Hon. Vonya, Coordinator for International Communications
and Information Policy, U.S. Department of State............... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Appendix
Letter from Barbara Larkin, Department of State, to Chairman
Helms.......................................................... 53
Responses of Ambassador McCann to Questions asked by Senator
Helms.......................................................... 53
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION CONSTITUTION AND CONVENTION
(TREATY DOC 104-34)
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rod Grams
presiding.
Present: Senator Grams.
Senator Grams. Good morning. This hearing will now come to
order. I just wanted to make a few brief comments this morning
and then, Ambassador, we will hear your opening remarks as
well.
Today, as you know, the committee will consider the
Constitution and Convention of the International
Telecommunication Union, or the ITU, with Annexes and the 1994
Amendments to the Constitution and Convention, as well,
together with Declarations made by the United States in the
Final Acts.
In a few moments we will hear testimony from our
representatives of the State Department and also from the
private sector involved in the work of the ITU.
In our global economy, the telecommunication services
industry has become one of the fastest growing areas of
economic activity. Private sector innovation and technological
developments have enabled the United States to become a leader
in the international telecommunications arena. The United
States is one of the leading providers and consumers of
telecommunication goods and services and with an increasing
number of countries liberalizing and deregulating the markets,
business opportunities for U.S. corporations continue to
increase.
I strongly believe that it is in the national security,
economic, and commercial interests of the United States to work
with other countries in a manner that promotes the rational use
of telecommunication services, that helps to encourage
technological advancement and also helps to insure competition
in the telecommunications industry.
As the United Nations' specialized agency for
telecommunications, the ITU is a critical component of our
effort in fulfilling this responsibility. However, the active
participation of the United States in the ITU has been
threatened by our country's failure to, so far, ratify the ITU
Constitution and Convention that was adopted in Geneva in 1992.
Now under the ITU Constitution, signatory members who did
not deposit an instrument of ratification for the Constitution
and Convention within 2 years of these instruments entering
into force are not entitled to vote at any ITU conference,
council session, sectoral meeting or consultation by
correspondents until an instrument of ratification is
deposited.
Although the United States signed these instruments when
they were first opened for signature, the administration failed
to submit this treaty document to the Senate for ratification
until 2 months after the U.S. had lost its right to vote under
the ITU rules.
The activities of the ITU are of growing importance to the
United States' telecommunication industry, and further delay in
consideration of this treaty jeopardizes billions of dollars in
business opportunities for U.S. telecommunications companies.
Now as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on International Operations, I have had the
opportunity to work to institute reforms within the operation
of the U.N. I am also encouraged by the proposed restructuring
of the ITU and the adoption of reforms, such as placing the
budget on a biennial budget cycle, requiring the use of
strategic planning and allowing for increased participation of
private sector and international organizations in the ITU
activities. These changes were proposed in order to respond to
the changing telecommunications industry.
It will also help the ITU to fulfill its purpose as the
principal global forum for telecommunications standardization,
for the management and use of the radio spectrum, and for also
promoting and for offering technical assistance in the field of
telecommunications to developing countries.
The United States was one of the 21 member States that
developed many of these reform proposals and I am confident
that our interest in maintaining our leading role in the global
telecommunications arena has been preserved by these
recommendations.
The United States has also been granted the great honor of
hosting the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference next fall in
Minneapolis. This is the first international conference to be
held in the United States in 50 years. Its importance cannot be
underestimated since the most critical issue concerning the
mission and the purpose of the ITU are determined during the
conference.
In recent years, these conferences have been hosted by two
of the United States' most significant competitors in
telecommunications technology and development, those being
France and Japan. The conference will allow the U.S. to
emphasize its leadership within the telecommunications
industry. It will also help to showcase American technology to
dignitaries from over 180 member States and also 363 private
sector companies and organizations that have expressed an
interest in telecommunications issues.
Also, as an honorary co-chair of the conference, I am
confident that the commitment shown by our Government, by our
private sector, and by the ITU Host Committee toward the
conference demonstrates the importance that the United States
places upon remaining active in transforming this industry.
So as we approach the 21st Century, the boundaries between
the United States and other industrialized countries have
become blurred by the rapidly changing nature of the
telecommunications industry. It is necessary, I believe, for
all parties involved in this environment to have a forum to
discuss the complex policies and strategies that are so vital
to their telecommunications infrastructure.
So I look forward to the testimony from this morning's
witnesses as to whether this treaty package is the appropriate
vehicle with which we try to achieve these goals.
With that, I would like now to turn this over to our first
witness.
Again, Ambassador, welcome. Thank you very much for your
time to be here this morning. We look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. VONYA McCANN, COORDINATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador McCann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I cannot tell you how pleased I am to be here this morning
to testify in support of the ratification of the Constitution
and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union, or
the ITU, and to urge the Senate's advice and consent to
ratification by the President.
The treaty under consideration establishes the framework
for the work of the ITU, the specialized agency for
telecommunications matters. The ITU is a unique organization,
dating back from 1965, when European countries saw a need to
work together to facilitate telegraphic communications across
their boarders.
Today, the ITU is involved in every phase of global
telecommunications. It is the principal forum for
telecommunications standardization activities, for management
and use of the radio spectrum, and for promoting and offering
technical assistance in the field of telecommunications to
developing countries.
Its 187 member countries work to maintain international
cooperation for the improvement and rational use of all types
of telecommunications services.
Among United Nations agencies, the ITU is unusual in that,
although it is an intergovernmental organization, it provides
for extensive, direct participation by various nongovernmental
entities, including private companies, in most of its
activities.
This feature is particularly vital to U.S. interests in
view of our complete reliance on the private sector for the
provision of telecommunications networks and services on both
national and international levels.
Approximately 90 U.S. companies have chosen to become
sector members of the ITU. Those companies, which are world
leaders in communications technologies and services, have a
profound influence on ITU activities.
At the Department of State, my responsibility is to
coordinate our overall relations with and participation in the
activities of the ITU. This includes the presentation of U.S.
proposals to the ITU and its members, development of strategies
and positions related to conference issues, and the assembly of
well qualified delegations to carry out the complex and highly
technical negotiations.
The Department is assisted in detailed preparations for the
ITU conferences by the Federal Communications Commission, which
is responsible for nongovernmental telecommunications, and the
Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, which is responsible for
governmental telecommunications, and various other U.S.
Government departments and agencies, including the Department
of Defense.
One important advantage of this extensive national effort
is that it insures that the United States is well prepared for
the conference negotiations and implementation of their
results. The national preparatory process provides interest
groups and members of the public with the opportunity to
express themselves at each stage of the process, from the
initial conception of ideas to the eventual adoption of
national regulations.
Currently, this national effort is underway as we prepare
for the ITU's World Radio Conference, or WRC-97, which will be
held in Geneva from October 27 to November 21. At WRC-97, the
world's radio experts will gather to decide on international
frequency spectrum and satellite orbital allocations, which
will influence radio-based communications services well into
the next century.
Hundreds of U.S. Government and private sector
representatives have been preparing for this conference for
nearly 2 years. As the world leader in innovative radio and
satellite based technologies, the United States has a
significant stake in the outcome of this important conference.
As you noted, as of July 1, 1996, only those countries
which have ratified the 1992 Constitution and Convention are
entitled to vote in the ITU. By becoming a party to this
treaty, the United States will be able to play a full, active
and leadership role in WRC-97. It also will convey our
continuing commitment to and strong support for the mission of
the ITU. There is uniform support for the U.S. becoming a party
to this treaty, subject to the reservations described in the
reports of the Secretary of State.
I will give only a very brief summary of some of the
important provisions of this treaty.
The 1992 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference was convened to
consider proposals by ITU member countries concerning the
restructuring of the ITU. The 1992 conference decided to
recommend that the ITU adopt full texts of a new Constitution
and Convention, one that could be amended as necessary by
future plenipotentiary conferences.
The 1992 Constitution and Convention are intended to enable
the ITU to enter the 21st Century as an effective international
telecommunications policy and spectrum allocation organization.
They restructure the ITU by establishing three sectors--
radiocommunications, telecommunication standardization, and
telecommunications development--which replace the ITU's
previous permanent organs.
Each sector is headed by a director who is elected by the
member countries at plenipotentiary conferences. As you noted,
the next conference will be held in the fall of 1998, and
hosted by the United States in your home State of Minnesota.
Chapter II of the Constitution covers the radio
communication sector. It replaces the World Administrative
Radio Conferences which were convened on an ad hoc basis to
consider changes to the international radio regulations with
world radio conferences, WRC's, which now are held every 2
years.
Chapter III of the Constitution addresses the
telecommunication standardization sector. It changes the name
and mandate of the conferences for this sector to reflect the
fact that the sector deals with a broad range of rapidly
evolving telecommunications services over both the public
switched network and private lines, as well as issues such as
international numbering plans and international settlement of
accounts.
Chapter VI of the Constitution covers the telecommunication
development sector, which is intended to facilitate and enhance
telecommunications development. The conference decided that the
World Telecommunication Development Conference will be held
every 4 years and that the frequency of regional conferences
will depend on the availability of resources and need.
The next World Telecommunication Development Conference
will be held in Malta next year.
The convention expands the list of private sector entities
authorized to participate in the world of the ITU sectors to
include scientific and technical organizations, financial or
development institutions, and other entities dealing with
telecommunications matters. Additionally, to further enhance
the participation of those entities and to provide them with a
role in determining the priorities of the study groups in the
radio and telecommunication standardization sectors, the
convention establishes advisory groups for the two sectors.
The 1992 Constitution and Convention also makes significant
changes to the management of the ITU. Those changes are
designed to increase its effectiveness and responsiveness.
For example, new procedures were added to permit rapid
consideration and adoption of recommended standards. As a
result, the United States can get the ITU to adopt a global
standard for a U.S. company's product or service in less than
half the time than was required previously.
Other changes to the budget cycle and to ratification and
the effective dates of amendments were also made.
In 1994, the Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference was convened.
That conference took place less than 4 months after the entry
into force of the 1992 Constitution and Convention. At the 1994
Conference, member States advanced a large number of proposals
to amend the new Constitution and Convention and even some
proposals to revert back to the old documents.
After much deliberation, the Kyoto Conference rejected the
vast majority of those proposals. Instead, the 1994 Conference
resulted in only minor changes to the Constitution and
Convention concerning the functioning of the Plenipotentiary
Conference, elections, and finances.
In addition, an amendment to the convention, which was
strongly supported by the U.S. private sector, permits private
sector entities to send observers to the plenipotentiary
conferences and we look forward to their participation in the
Minneapolis Plenipotentiary.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my summary of this important
treaty. I have been pleased to present this testimony and to
discuss with you the significance of the ITU to the United
States. I urge that the Senate act favorably on this very
important treaty at the earliest opportunity. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador McCann follows:]
Prepared Statement of Abassador Vonya McCann
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to testify in support of the
ratification of the constitution and convention of the International
Telecommunication Union ITU, and to urge the Senate's advice and
consent to ratification by the President. The treaty under
consideration is the constitution and convention of the ITU, with
annexes, signed by the United States at Geneva on December 22, 1992;
amendments to the constitution and convention signed by the United
States at Kyoto on October 14, 1994; and U.S. declarations and
reservations, as contained in the declarations and reservations made by
participating member countries at the end of the Geneva and Kyoto
conferences.
This treaty establishes the framework for the work of the ITU, the
specialized agency for telecommunications matters. The ITU is a unique
organization, dating from 1865 when European countries saw the need to
work together to facilitate telegraphic communications across their
borders. Today, the ITU is involved in every phase of global
telecommunications. It is the principal forum for telecommunication
standardizaton activities, for management and use of the radio
spectrum, and for promoting and offering technical assistance in the
field of telecommunications to developing countries. Its 187 member
countries work to maintain international cooperation for the
improvement and rational use of all types of telecommunication
services.
Among United Nations agencies, the ITU is unusual in that although
it is an intergovernmental organization, it provides for extensive,
direct participation by various non-governmental entities -- including
private companies -- in most of its activities. This feature is
particularly vital to U.S. interests, in view of our complete reliance
on the private sector for the provision of public telecommunications
networks and services on both national and international levels, and
the reliance of U.S. companies on effective communications to support
their multinational operations. Approximately 90 U.S. companies have
chosen to become ``sector member'' or so-calleid, ``Small-M Members''
of one or more sectors of the ITU. Those companies, which are world
leaders in communication technologies and services, have a profound
influence on ITU activities.
At the Department of State, my responsibility is to coordinate our
overall relations with, and participation in, the activities of the
ITU. This includes the presentation of U.S. proposals to the ITU and
its member countries, development of strategies and positions relating
to conference issues, and assembly of well-qualified delegations to
carry out the complex and highly technical negotiations. The Department
is assisted in the detailed preparations for ITU conferences by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is responsible for non-
governmental telecommunications; the Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which is
responsible for governmental telecommunications; and various other U.S.
Government Departments and agencies, including the Department of
Defense.
One important advantage of this extensive national effort is that
it ensures that the United States is well prepared for the conference
negotiations and implementation of their results. The national
preparatory process provides interest groups and members of the public
with the opportunity to express themselves at each stage of the
process, from initial conception of ideas to the eventual adoption of
national regulations.
Currently, this national effort is underway as we prepare for the
ITU's World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-97), which will be held
in Geneva from October 27 to November 21. At WRC-97, the world's radio
experts will gather to decide on international frequency spectrum and
satellite orbital allocations which will influence radio-based
communications services well into the next century. Hundreds of U.S.
Government and private sector representatives have been preparing for
this conference for nearly two years. As the world leader in innovative
radio and satellite-based technologies, the United States has a
significant stake in the outcome of this important conference.
As of July 1, 1996, only those countries which have ratified the
1992 constitution and convention are entitled to vote in the ITU. By
becoming a party to this treaty, the United States will be able to play
a full, active, leadership role in WRC-97. It also will convey our
continuing commitment to and strong support for the mission of the ITU.
There is uniform support for the U.S. becoming a party to this treaty,
subject to the reservations described in the reports of the Secretary
of State.
I will give only a very brief summary of some of the provisions of
this treaty.
The 1992 ITU plenipotentiary conference was convened to consider
proposals by ITU member countries concerning the restructuring of the
ITU. The 1992 conference decided to recommend that ITU members adopt
full texts of a new constitution and convention, that could be amended
as necessary, by future plenipotentiary conferences.
The 1992 constitution and convention is intended to enable the ITU
to enter the 21st Century as an effective international
telecommunications policymaking and spectrum allocation organization.
It restructures the ITU by establishing three sectors --
radiocommunication, telecommunication standardization and
telecommunication development -- which replace the ITU's previous
permanent organs. Each sector is headed by a director who is elected by
the member countries at plenipotentiary conferences. The next
plenipotentiary conference will be held in the Fall of 1998 and hosted
by the United States in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Chapter II of the constitution (articles 12-16) covers the
radiocommunication sector. The constitution replaces world
administrative radio conferences, which were convened on an ad hoc
basis to consider changes to the international radio regulations, with
world radio conferences (WRCs), which now are held every two years. The
constitution also replaces the five-member, full-time elected
international frequency registration board, with a nine-member, part-
time elected radio regulations board within the radio sector. The radio
regulations board approves the rules of procedure used by the director
and the radio bureau in applying the radio regulations to register
frequency assignments made by members and considers certain matters
that cannot be resolved by the bureau through application of the rules
of procedure.
The telecommunication standardization sector is addressed in
chapter III (articles 17-20) of the constitution. The constitution
changes the name and mandate of the conferences for this sector to
reflect the fact that the sector deals with a broad range of rapidly
evolving telecommunications services over both the public switched
network and private lines, as well as such issues as international
numbering plans and international settlement of accounts.
Chapter VI of the constitution (articles 21-24) covers the
telecommunication development sector, which is intended to facilitate
and enhance telecommunications development. World and regional
telecommunication development conferences, established by resolution in
Nice, will continue to be convened. The world conferences are held
approximately every four years; the frequency of regional conferences
depend on availability of resources and need. The next world
telecommunication development conference will be held in Malta in
March, 1998.
The non-governmental entities and organizations authorized to
participate in the work of the ITU sectors were expanded by article 19
of the convention to include, inter alia, scientific and technical
organizations, financial or development institutions and other entities
dealing with telecommunication matters that are approved by member
states.
Additionally, to further enhance the participation of those
entities and organizations described in article 19(L) of the convention
and to provide them a role in determining the priorities of the study
groups in the radiocommunication and telecommunication standardization
sectors (convention, articles 11 and 14), the 1992 plenipotentiary
conference established advisory groups for those two sectors. This
helps to ensure that the ITU is responsive to the needs of member
countries and to private sector participants in the ITU.
The 1992 constitution and convention also make significant changes
to the management of the ITU designed to increase the ITU's
effectiveness and responsiveness. For example, new procedures were
added to permit more rapid consideration and adoption of recommended
standards. As a result, the United States can get the ITU to adopt a
global standard for a U.S. company's product or service in less than
half the time required previously. Similarly, the two-year WRC cycle
serves United States interests by facilitating the early introduction
of new and innovative radio technologies, for which U.S. companies are
the world leaders.
Articles 4 and 5 of the convention establish a two-year budget
cycle instead of the past one-year cycle and mandate the establishment
of a strategic plan for the ITU. Those articles instruct the ITU
Secretariat to prepare an annual strategic policy and planning report
for the ITU council to consider at its annual 8-day meeting.
Article 55 of the constitution and article 42 of the convention
allow amendments to enter into force for countries that have ratified
or approved the amendments by a date fixed by the adopting
plenipotentiary conference rather than after two-thirds of the members
have deposited instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval, or
accession as had been adopted at the 1989 Plenipotentiary Conference.
The 1994 Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference was convened less than
four months after the entry into force of the 1992 constitution and
convention. At the 1994 conference, member states advanced a number of
proposals to amend the new constitution and convention. Those proposals
sought to correct oversights, refine the 1992 changes, further
restructure the ITU, and, in some instances, revert to earlier
convention (Nairobi, 1982) provisions.
After much deliberation, the Kyoto conference rejected the vast
majority of the proposals to amend the constitution and convention. The
Kyoto conference resulted in only minor changes to the constitution
concerning the functions of the Plenipotentiary Conference, elections
and finances. In addition, an amendment to the convention--strongly
supported by the U.S. private sector--provides for the ITU's Secretary-
General to invite private sector entities and organizations described
in article 19(l) to send observers to Plenipotentiary Conferences.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my summary of this important treaty. I
have been pleased to present this testimony and to discuss the
significance of the International Telecommunication Union to the United
States. I urge that the Senate act favorably on this very important
treaty at the earliest possible date.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Ambassador McCann. I
appreciate your testimony.
We do not have a lot of questions. We do have a few. But I
also want to remind you and our other witnesses this morning on
our next panel that if we do not have other Senators here, I
know many are interested and would like to submit questions in
writing. So we would hope that you would take a look at that
and respond as quickly as possible.
Ambassador McCann. We'd be happy to.
Senator Grams. The ITU Convention, as you mentioned,
provides for a less onerous amendment process than that
required for amending the ITU Constitution itself. The
Constitution I believe takes a two-thirds vote for any
amendment while the ITU Convention requires only a majority
vote to amend the Convention.
Are you satisfied that it will be able to protect U.S.
interests adequately in the ITU Convention amendment process?
If so, why?
Ambassador McCann. Well, amendments to both the
Constitution and Convention result from proposals by member
States. In our U.S. preparatory process, we have the private
sector fully involved as well as other Government agencies to
flesh out issues that are of concern to both the Government and
the private sector.
The Constitution was conceived of as a more permanent
document than the Convention, which really implements in
specific detail some of the aspects of the Convention.
We at all times will seek to use our vast human resources
to influence the outcome of changes to the Convention at the
conference. If we are not successful in doing that, we are
always able to take reservations which minimize the impact of
any such changes on the United States.
As you know, we have the advice and consent process where
the Senate can advise us on any aspect of those changes that it
has concerns about.
Senator Grams. So you are satisfied with that ratio?
Ambassador McCann. I am satisfied.
Senator Grams. A third sector dedicated to development
issues is created under this new ITU Constitution and
Convention. But what development obligations will the U.S. have
upon ratification of the Convention and the Constitution?
Ambassador McCann. Well, we are a participant in all three
sectors of the ITU and U.S. companies are participants in all
three sectors of the ITU. Right now, our participation, the
Government's participation, extends to sending personnel to
review proposals and the work plan of that sector and to help
guide the work of that sector toward issues and values that we
hold dear. Those are issues regarding competition,
liberalization of the regulatory regimes, privatization and the
benefits of private investment, especially foreign investment,
and telecommunications services.
Senator Grams. The Constitution of the ITU also requires
member States to pay their annual contributory shares ``in
advance.''
The ITU Convention permits the ITU also to assess interest
for those assessments that are overdue. Does this require the
U.S. to pay its contributions at the beginning of the calendar
year or would it be at the beginning of the ITU fiscal year?
Ambassador McCann. We are obligated to pay our dues at the
beginning of the calendar year, and if those dues are not paid
by the acts or provisions under the Convention, interest starts
to accrue at 3 percent for the first 6 months and thereafter at
6 percent.
Under U.S. law, payments may be made down on those interest
payments, but we have not done so for interest due for calendar
year 1996 or interest accruing as a result of our failure to
pay our dues in full as of the beginning of 1997.
Senator Grams. The State Department, as you know,
frequently pays its assessments for international organizations
at the end of the year. Is the United States in compliance with
the ITU requirement?
Ambassador McCann. No. We were assessed our dues for
calendar year 1997. We have paid approximately 81 percent of
our assessed dues. There is a 19 percent shortfall, and
interest is current accruing on that shortfall for 1997.
We did pay our dues in full for 1996, but they were paid
late, and so, interest was assessed on those late payments and
that is still outstanding--for 1996.
Senator Grams. The interest is?
Ambassador McCann. For 1996. That's correct.
Senator Grams. What accounts for the shortfall of the 19
percent and what are the dues, by the way?
Ambassador McCann. The dues for 1997 were 10 million Swiss
francs, which is equal to about $8 million, depending on the
exchange rate. We ended up paying a little over $6 million, or
about $6.5 million earlier this year. Again, those dues were
not paid in January, but later on after it became clear to the
Department how much funds would be available for the payment of
dues to international organizations.
As you know, the Department gets an allotment of funds to
pay its dues and has to make decisions how to spread the money.
It is not enough to pay all of the dues in full, all of the
dues that we are assessed in full.
Senator Grams. Is it because of our calendar year versus a
regular calendar year? I mean, our fiscal year ends not on
January 1 but on September 30. Is that a problem with paying
the dues to these funds?
Ambassador McCann. Well, only to the extent that we do not
necessarily know how much money we will have to pay, the dues,
when they become due and owing at the beginning of the calendar
year.
Senator Grams. Does the U.S. or will the U.S. make payments
or pay the interest on the ITU obligations? The U.N. Reform
Bill prohibits interest payments. Is that a problem or a
question?
Ambassador McCann. It is not clear at this time whether we
will be able to clear up the arrearages on the interest
payments. It will depend on what Congress and the
administration agree to as an overall package.
Senator Grams. Arrears seem to be a problem in many
quarters.
Ambassador McCann. Yes.
Senator Grams. The administration also recently released a
report concerning efforts made by the United Nations and
specialized agencies there to employ a number of Americans
during 1996. But, according to the report, the level of the
number of Americans in professional positions within the ITU
has declined over the last 4 years and also Americans that have
had very strong qualifications have been passed over for senior
positions within the ITU itself.
This is, I believe, a particular concern concerning a
leading U.S. role in international telecommunications. In your
opinion, does the lack of American representation among the
senior professionals in the ITU jeopardize in any way our
interest in regard to the work of the ITU?
Ambassador McCann. It is clearly a concern of mine and of
the State Department in general, a concern which I have
discussed with the Secretary General of the ITU.
I will confess that the United States plays such a dominant
role in the organization as a result of the tremendous
participation of the U.S. private sector and the skilled and
expert Government officials, U.S. Government officials, that
participate in the work of the ITU such that many in the ITU
feel that we already dominate the organization and that those
positions should rightfully, or, rather, that there is some
equity in giving those positions to countries which do not play
such a dominant role.
But it is a concern of ours about which I have spoken to
the Secretary General, and we are trying to take steps to
correct that situation.
Senator Grams. So your concerns would be to have more
Americans in these positions?
Ambassador McCann. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Senator Grams. What can be done to increase the level? I
know you've said you have talked to the Secretary General. Are
there any other methods?
Ambassador McCann. Actually, I have been talking to members
of the private sector about putting together some kind of
training program which would encourage either Government
officials or industry executives to have a tour at the ITU to
work in a management position. We have been trying to get a
regular, steady crop of good candidates over to the ITU, who
speak multiple languages, which is a requirement. Many U.S.
executives are making good money, are working in a tremendously
exciting field, and do not necessarily regard a tour of duty at
the ITU as something that is going to help them on their career
path.
So we are trying to put together a way so that we can
continually recruit and have a good supply of candidates for
ITU positions, again, so that this situation does not continue.
Senator Grams. Last year, the ITU cleared the way for
companies to have a single toll-free telephone number that can
be dialed from anywhere in the world beginning in February of
this year.
This, I believe, was a very significant development for
U.S. companies considering that over $100 billion in goods and
services have been sold over these lines in these types of
calls every year. This is not to mention that U.S. phone
companies also take in over $10 billion a year in revenue for
the service itself.
How many disputes involving companies bidding for the same
number have been filed and how have these disputes been
handled?
Ambassador McCann. I don't have the precise number of
disputes before me, but I can certainly get that for you.
[The following material was subsequently supplied for the
hearing record by Ambassador McCann.]
The ITU Secretariat in Geneva advises that more than
225,000 requests for Universal International FreePhone Numbers
(UIFNS) were received and processed by the ITU's
Telecommunication Standardization Bureau. Of that number, 2200
were regarded as disputed, in that they involved duplicative
requests. All disputed applications were examined and resolved
satisfactorily, in accordance with procedures contained in the
ITU-T Recommendation E-169 (i.e., the international standard)
that were expressly developed for this situation. No unforeseen
or unusual problems have been identified yet in the
registration of international FreePhone Numbers.
Ambassador McCann. Disputes have been resolved, generally,
by using first-come/first-serve type philosophies, so that if
there is competition for a particular number, the company or
Government that is first to register a request for that number
is generally favored.
Senator Grams. Have there been a lot of disputes?
Ambassador McCann. There have been some, but, again, not
having the number right before me, I would hesitate to
characterize it as a lot.
Senator Grams. Is it your view that the demand for these
numbers will reach a point where the ITU will have to offer
even another prefix, like the ``888?''
Ambassador McCann. Undoubtedly. I mean, it is very popular,
as you know, in the United States. We have taken steps so that
there is a small reprieve before more needs to be done. But I
don't see the demand for these types of numbers dying down.
Senator Grams. As long as I don't have to go by the 5
minute rule today, I will go ahead and ask one final question,
if I may, of you.
One of the major issues involving the global computer
network involves disagreement over who assigns new Internet
addresses. Of course, this is of particular concern to the many
ISP's in my home State of Minnesota itself.
Does the ITU have a role to play in this dispute?
Ambassador McCann. That issue is being investigated as we
speak. The ITU is preparing the release of a notice of inquiry
which asks that very question: Does the ITU have a role in
registering domain names.
There are members of the U.S. private sector which believe
that the ITU can play a useful role in the international
registration of domain names. There are many companies that
argue that the ITU does not have a role in this type of service
and should not be engaged.
The U.S. is in the process of developing its position on
that, trying to reconcile the competing views of U.S. industry
as well as U.S. agencies, Government agencies.
Senator Grams. What do you feel is the role, the
appropriate role, for the ITU--either the State Department
position or your feelings?
Ambassador McCann. I think it is an issue that really needs
to be looked at carefully. The ITU has such tremendously
important existing responsibilities that I am hesitant to
expand, to take an expansive interpretation of its mission
where it is not specifically warranted.
So I think we need to take a look at that and see whether
or not it has the capacity to do that, what kind of effect it
will have on the finances of the ITU, what financial impact it
will have, and whether it will take away from the ITU's ability
to carry out its primary functions.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Ambassador McCann.
Ambassador McCann. Thank you.
Senator Grams. I don't believe I have any other questions.
Give me a second to check, please.
[Pause]
Senator Grams. All right. Again, thank you very much.
Again, I would just remind you that I know other Senators, or
even I, might have additional questions. I think we will keep
the record open for about 3 days for those questions to be
submitted in writing. Then, after that, if we could get a quick
response, we would appreciate that.
Ambassador McCann. I commit to you that we will get back to
you as promptly as we can.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much.
Ambassador McCann. Thank you.
Senator Grams. I would like now to call our second panel:
Mr. David Fisher, Vice President, General Counsel, and
Corporate Secretary for ADC Telecommunications, Incorporated,
located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and also Mr. Lon Levin, Vice
President of American Mobile Satellite Corporation and
President, American Mobile Radio Corporation out of Reston,
Virginia.
Gentlemen, thank you very much also for taking your time to
be with us here this morning for your testimony.
Mr. Fisher, we would welcome you again and would go to you
first for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAVID F. FISHER, VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL COUNSEL,
AND CORPORATE SECRETARY, ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Senator, and members of the
committee who may read this testimony later. As I indicated, my
name is David Fisher. I am a resident of Minneapolis,
Minnesota, and, as indicated, I serve as Vice President and
General Counsel of ADC Telecommunications. I am here to share
with you today my own thoughts regarding the International
Telecommunication Union and the role it plays in our
international community.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a copy of my remarks, as
well, and I will just read excerpts of that if that is
permissible.
Senator Grams. Your full statement will be entered into the
record as if read. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Fisher. Thank you.
As a background, I would just like to describe briefly the
role of my own company in the telecommunications industry. I do
not believe it is particularly unique. It may help to
illustrate the significance of international affairs in this
sector.
ADC Telecommunications is an equipment manufacturer based
in the United States with its home offices in the State of
Minnesota. It's business is to design, manufacture, and market
transmission and communications systems for fiber optic and
copper wireline, coaxial cable, and wireless networks.
We specifically focus on broadband technology, that is,
transmitting signals at speeds of T1, that is 1 megabit per
second or faster.
Our shares are publicly traded and are reported on the
NASDAQ. Our revenues currently are approximately $1.1 billion
annually.
ADC's international sales have grown significantly in
recent years, coinciding with a new telecommunications paradigm
which has swept the globe. Convergence of telephony,
broadcasting, and computing is now really happening and
affecting almost everyone in our daily lives.
Like businesses around the world, ADC is helping to bring
about fundamental changes through the enabling power of new
technologies--technologies created and developed here in the
United States.
Just within the last few years, ADC has established
manufacturing facilities in Australia, China, Finland and the
United Kingdom. It has established new sales offices in
countries throughout Asia, India, Latin America and Europe,
including Central and Eastern Europe. Each of these operations
is fully supported with telecommunications products and
technologies manufactured by the company here in the States of
California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oregon.
In many ways, ADC personifies the modern globalization of
the United States telecommunications industry.
I have been asked to describe the significance of the ITU
for companies such as ADC and to the telecommunications
industry as a whole.
There can be little doubt that telecommunications is one of
the fastest growing industries in the world today and is a
global industry in every sense. It is commonplace to
acknowledge that the world is shrinking and that
interdependence of nations is growing.
The ITU in that context has established an ambitious goal
for itself and it did so at its last governing conference, the
Kyoto Plenipotentiary of 1994. There the commitment was made to
establish the ITU as the international focal point for all
matters relating to telecom in the global information economy
and society of the 21st Century.
Historically, the ITU related primarily to national
governments, which were the major owners and operators of
telecommunications networks within their respective borders.
However, this is changing. Convergence, spurred by
technological change, has opened a worldwide debate concerning
the appropriate means to meet growing demand for information
and communication. As a consequence, privatization and
reorganization of telecommunications networks are accelerating
around the world.
These changes have caused the ITU to change its regard for
private sector organizations, such as ADC, and to redefine its
coordinating role in the international arena.
The ITU, in other words, has opened its doors to
participation by the private sector in ways it had never
previously.
At the Kyoto Plenipotentiary, it established a review
committee which is to recommend how the rights and obligations
of the private sector ought to grow within the organization,
and that review should be considered at the next
plenipotentiary to be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota in the
fall of 1998.
This is important because, Senator, as you indicated in
your opening remarks, the United States is indisputably the
world leader in telecommunications technology, innovation and
development. At the same time, communications networks have
become quite literally an essential strategic resource in most
countries of the world, on a par with labor and capital in
making a real difference in peoples' lives. The global
information infrastructure is a necessary part of growth in
every economic sector. It represents a tremendous
responsibility for Government as well as for industry.
The ITU plays a significant role in assuming responsibility
for global technical standardization, for defining standards
for interoperability and interconnection of network systems,
and establishing revenue sharing principles among nations.
Participants in this industry must comply with standards
developed by the ITU. In short, without the ITU, ADC and other
U.S. equipment manufacturers would have a difficult time
delivering products which could compete in the international
marketplace.
Another key role undertaken by the ITU, in addition to this
coordinating function on equipment and transmission standards,
is establishing international agreements on the allocation of
radio spectrum through its World Radio Conferences. Governments
for years have worked together in an effort to manage radio
spectrum. Radio signals, of course, do not respect political
boundaries and, for this reason, Governments have had to work
together to assure there is minimal interference in signaling.
Conflicts arise all the time.
For instance, the United States and Mexico currently differ
with respect to licensing of the 3.7 gHz spectrum. The United
States, invoking its own domestic standards, has licensed the
spectrum for private military use, while Mexico, applying ITU
standards, has designated the spectrum for private commercial
use. A common standard would prevent such conflicts between
Governments and that is a fundamental role of the ITU.
I am going to just make a few comments, Mr. Chairman,
regarding the 1998 Plenipotentiary. I have been asked to
comment on the plenipotentiary conference of the ITU. This is
going to be hosted by the United States in the fall of 1998 and
it is to be held in Minneapolis. It will hereafter be regarded
as the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary.
On behalf of ADC and my own home community, I have been
actively involved in planning for the Minneapolis
Plenipotentiary.
As you know, the ITU is an inter-governmental organization,
operating under auspices of the United Nations. It represents
187 member nations, from the developing to the fully
industrialized, including the United States--hopefully with a
vote.
Its plenipotentiary conference is the highest
decisionmaking body of ITU member nations and is held once
every 4 years in a different host country. This is the first
time the plenipotentiary has been held in the United States in
50 years--in fact, the first time in modern telecommunications
history that it has been held in the United States.
The plenipotentiary itself is a government-to-government
conference at which the various nations of the world,
represented by elected delegates, meet for a full month to
consider and decide upon issues of telecommunications
administration, financing, network systems, services, uniform
equipment and transmission standards.
The delegates are telecommunications ministers, high level
government officials, and industry advisors serving at the
request of their respective governments.
The Minneapolis Plenipotentiary is significant, and not
merely because it is being held in the U.S. In the words used
by the Department of State in a letter to Congress earlier this
year, ``Decisions are made at this conference which could
impact America's global competitiveness in telecommunications.
Hosting this important conference in the United States
highlights U.S. leadership in this critical sector and will
allow U.S. technology to be showcased.''
The U.S. telecommunications industry supports the
invitation of the United States to host the ITU plenipotentiary
conference and we are not taking steps to show our support by
assisting in that planning. An ITU Host Committee has been
established, headquartered in Minneapolis with assistance from
a private sector organization here in Washington and now is
making efforts to include participation from both Government
and industry on a wider scale.
It also is playing a significant role in supporting the
planning efforts of the Departments of State and Commerce,
which are officially hosting the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary.
For its part, the U.S telecommunications industry already
has pledged to raise up to $5 million to cover plenipotentiary
expenses. These are basically host and hospitality expenses. We
are arranging for volunteers. We are sponsoring hospitality
activity. We are hosting official receptions and we hope to put
up a historical exhibit, demonstrating American telephony and
technology.
The private sector role clearly is one of ancillary support
for U.S. Government agencies with respect to the assembly or
business sections of the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary and in
helping them to assure effectiveness and efficiency.
Now we have been engaged earlier this spring on funding for
the U.S. plenipotentiary. I will just make a comment on that,
Mr. Chairman.
We had originally thought that approximately $21 million
would be needed for both the business sections of the
conference and for host or hospitality activities. Of this
total, approximately $14 million was to be funded by the U.S.
Government.
The State Department and the Commerce Department had the
full $14 million in their budgets originally, and when it came
before Congress, that budget was deleted altogether. The State
Department, I hope with the support, the proper support, of the
host committee have convinced Congress to reinstate a certain
portion of those funds--approximately $7.5 million, $3 million
of which have already been allocated, $4.5 million of which
will be coming up in this budget cycle. But it is still far
short of the $14 million originally thought to be necessary for
those business sections of the plenipotentiary.
The Department of State has revised now its needed budget.
We believe that a minimum of $11 million to $12 million is
required to adequately cover expenses of the plenary portion of
the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, and we believe, frankly, that
we may have some real challenges trying to raise the additional
$4 million to $5 million to cover the gap at this point.
Meanwhile, the ITU Host Committee has been successful in
securing pledges from private industry of up to $4.5 million to
fund nonplenary or host committee activities of the Minneapolis
Plenipotentiary. We are all determined to work within the
budget established for the Minneapolis Plenipot and to make
this conference a true success and a showcase for U.S.
ingenuity in the field of telecommunications.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of ADC Telecommunications and the
ITU Host Committee, I commend the U.S. Senate today for
considering the significance of telecommunications in the world
and the role played in promoting telecommunications throughout
the world by the ITU.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. David F. Fisher follows:]
Prepared Statement of David F. Fisher
INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS UNION
CONSTITUTION AND CONVENTION RATIFICATION
Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee: Good Morning. My name is David
Fisher. I am a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and serve as Vice
President and General Counsel of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. I am
pleased to share with you today my thoughts concerning the
International Telecommunications Union and the role it plays in our
industry.
I. INTRODUCTION: ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS
As background, permit me first to describe the role of my own
company in the telecommunications industry. It is not likely to be
unique, but may help to illustrate the significance of international
affairs in this sector.
ADC Telecommunications is an equipment manufacturer based in the
United States, with its home offices in the State of Minnesota. Its
business is to design, manufacture and market transmission and
communication systems for fiber optic and copper wireline, coaxial
cable, and wireless networks. ADC's specific focus is on broadband
technology, transmitting signals at speeds of TI (that is, 1 megabit
per second) or faster.
ADC's products are used by telephone companies, broadcast and cable
television operators, and private network providers through such
systems as local area networks, or ``LAN'' systems. ADC shares are
publicly traded, and are reported on the NASDAQ. Its revenues currently
are approximately $1.1 billion annually. ADC's international sales have
grown significantly in recent years, coinciding with a new
telecommunications paradigm which has swept the globe. Convergence of
telephony, broadcasting and computing is now really happening, and
affecting almost everyone in their daily lives. Like businesses around
the World, ADC is helping to bring about fundamental change through the
enabling power of new technologies -- technologies created and
developed here in the United States. Just within the last few years,
ADC has established manufacturing facilities in Australia, China,
Finland and the United Kingdom. It has established new sales offices in
countries throughout Asia, India, Latin America, and Europe, including
Central and Eastern Europe. Each of these operations is fully supported
by telecommunications products and technologies manufactured by the
company here, in the States of California, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, and Oregon. In many ways, ADC personifies the modem
globalization of the United States telecommunications industry.
II. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ITU
I have been asked to describe the significance of the ITU to U.S.
companies such as ADC, and to the telecommunications industry as a
whole.
There can be little doubt that telecommunications is one of the
fastest growing industries in the World today, and is a global industry
in every sense. It is commonplace to acknowledge that the World is
shrinking and that the interdependence of nations is growing.
A. ITU'S NEW GOVERNANCE
The ITU established an ambitious goal for itself at its last
governing conference, the Kyoto Plenipotentiary of 1994. There the
commitment was made ``to establish the ITU as the international focal
point for all matters relating to telecom in the global information
economy and society of the twenty-first century.''
Historically, the ITU related primarily to national governments,
which were the major owners and operators of telecommunications
networks within their respective borders. However, this is changing.
Convergence spurred by technological change has opened a worldwide
debate concerning the appropriate means to meet growing demand for
information and communication. As a consequence, privatization and
reorganization of telecommunications networks are accelerating around
the World. These changes have caused the ITU to change its regard for
private sector organizations, such as ADC, and to redefine its
coordinating role in the international arena.
The ITU has opened its doors to participation by the private sector
in ways it never had previously. At the Kyoto Plenipotentiary, for
instance, the ITU established a Review Committee to recommend how the
rights and obligations of the private sector ought to grow within the
organization. This report should be ready for presentation to the ITU's
next Plenipotentiary, to be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the Fall
of 1998.
This is important, because today the United States is a net
exporter of telecommunications equipment, in the midst of a trend which
is on the rise. There is good reason for this. The United States is the
indisputable World leader in telecommunications technological
innovation and development. At the same time, communications networks
have become quite literally an essential strategic resource in most
countries of the World, on a par with labor and capital in making a
real difference in peoples' lives. The global information
infrastructure is a necessary part of growth in every economic sector.
It represents a tremendous responsibility for government, as well as
for industry.
B. ITU STANDARDS SETTING
In this context, the ITU undeniably plays a significant role in
assuming responsibility for global technical standardization, for
defining standards for interoperability and interconnection of network
systems, and establishing revenue sharing principles among nations.
Participants in this industry must comply with standards developed by
the ITU. In short, without the ITU ADC and other U.S. equipment
manufacturers would have a difficult time delivering products which
could compete in the international marketplace.
For companies such as ADC, this has not always been the case.
Throughout much of telecommunications history in the United States,
domestic equipment suppliers have served the domestic market almost
exclusively. In effect, until recently we have been occupied or
``captive'' within the domestic market, meeting demands of universal
service and government regulation. Indeed, the United States
telecommunications industry has developed its own standards for
transmission and equipment manufacture, commonly referred to as the
law, developed by Bellcore, a telephone company standards setting body.
Essentially, the law sets the standard for domestic United States
telecommunications. These standards are important, for they determine
the type of equipment, signaling and switching which must be used by
equipment manufacturers and carriers in order to interconnect with one
another. They are fundamental to the linkage of our United States
communications system.
The rest of the World has gone its own way.
Outside the United States, the most commonly used, and the most
influential, set of standards are those established by the ITU, and are
known as ``A'' law standards. While the difference between law and A
law may be subtle in many cases, they can be significant in others. The
differences are great enough that transmissions from the United States
to a foreign country today likely will have to pass through transcoders
for the purpose of converting from the law standard to an A law
standard. In other words, United States telecommunications systems are
not wholly compatible with those in the rest of the World.
Although in key respects, this dual-standard system may seem to
favor equipment manufacturers, it is not consistent with the inevitable
globalization of the United. States telecommunications industry.
C. ITU INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
A second key role undertaken by the ITU, in addition to
coordinating equipment and transmission standards, is establishing
international agreements on the allocation of radio spectrum, through
its World Radiocommunications Conferences. Governments for years have
worked together in an effort to manage radio spectrum. Radio signals,
of course, do not respect political boundaries and for this reason
governments have had to work together to assure there is minimal
interference in signaling. Conflicts arise all the time. For instance,
the United States and Mexico currently differ with respect to licensing
of the 3.7 gHz spectrum. The United States, invoking law, has
licensed the spectrum for private military use, while Mexico, applying
A law, has designated the spectrum for private commercial use. A common
standard would prevent such conflicts between governments.
D. ITU COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
A third role undertaken by the ITU is to provide methods for the
cooperation of telecommunications common carriers in providing
international telecommunications services. This includes matters such
as the method of handing off telephone calls between international
carriers, the billing of international calls, and other key aspects of
cooperation.
E. EXCHANGE OF TECHNOLOGY
Lastly, the ITU provides a vehicle for the global exchange of
telecommunications technology, through the Telecom Information Exchange
Services (``TIES''). As the telecommunications industry continues to
de-regulate around the World, the new technologies are all based on
global standards. They will be based on ITU standards. The
organizations, be they public or private, which can influence these
standards are the organizations most likely to be strongest
participants in World telecommunications. The United States cannot
afford to bypass the opportunity to assert its rightful role as the
World leader in telecommunications by ignoring participation in the ITU
standards setting bodies.
If the ITU is supported by all nations, and is functioning as it is
intended, it will provide a more level playing field for all industry
participants to compete in a global marketplace, regardless of the
location of their home office or manufacturing facilities.
III. ITU 1998 PLENIPOTENTIARY
I have been asked to comment on the Plenipotentiary Conference of
the ITU to be hosted by the United States in the Fall of 1998. This
conference will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and will in the
future be regarded as the ``Minneapolis Plenipotentiary''. On behalf of
ADC, I have been actively involved in its planning.
A. BACKGROUND
As you know, the ITU is an inter-governmental organization
operating under auspices of the United Nations. It represents more than
186 member nations, from the developing to the fully industrialized,
including the United States. Its Plenipotentiary Conference is the
highest decision-making body of ITU member nations, and is held once
every four years in a different host country. This is the first time
the Plenipotentiary has been held in the United States in fifty years.
The Plenipotentiary is a government-to-government conference, at
which the various nations of the World, represented by elected
delegates, meet for a full-month to consider and decide upon issues of
telecommunications administration, financing, network systems,
services, and uniform equipment and transmission standards. The
delegates are telecommunications ministers, high-level government
officials, and industry advisers serving at the request of their
respective Governments.
The Minneapolis Plenipotentiary is significant, and not merely
because it is being held in the United States for the first time in
modem telecommunications history. In the words used by the Department
of State in a letter to Congress earlier this year, ``[d]ecisions are
made at this conference which could impact America's global
competitiveness in telecommunications. Hosting this important
conference in the United States highlights U.S. leadership in this
critical sector, and will allow U.S. technology to be showcased.''
In 1994, the United States Congress and Administration initiated an
invitation to the ITU to host the Plenipotentiary in 1998, and the
invitation was accepted. This is an important step. At a time when U.S.
telecommunications ingenuity is leading the way in technological
advancement, it is clearly time for us to take our rightful place as a
trend-setter and decision maker in World telecommunications policy and
implementation. To date, the United States has not been the leader it
might be, or the leader indicated by its technological superiority.
B. PRIVATE SECTOR ROLE
The U.S. telecommunications industry supports the invitation of the
United States to host the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, and is taking
steps now to show its support by assisting in its planning. An ITU Host
Committee has been established, headquartered in Minneapolis, and now
is making efforts to include participation from both Government and
industry. It also is playing a significant role in supporting the
panning efforts of the Departments of State and Commerce, which are
officially hosting the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary.
For its part, the United States telecommunications industry already
has pledged to
raise up to $5 million to cover Plenipotentiary expenses,
arrange for Volunteers and resources to assure warm
hospitality for foreign dignitaries,
sponsor entertainment and weekend excursions to ``see
America'',
host official U.S. and State receptions,
advise on conference preparations, and
host an historical exhibit on American telephony and
technology.
The private sector role clearly is one of ancillary support for
United States Government agencies with respect to the business sections
of the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, and in helping them to ensure its
effectiveness and efficiency.
C. FUNDING AND BUDGET
When the United States first indicated an interest in hosting the
1998 Plenipotentiary, it was thought that a total of approximately $21
minion would be needed for both the business sections of the conference
and for host or hospitality activities. Of this total, approximately
$14 million was to funded by the United States Government for such
expenses as refurbishing the Minneapolis Convention Center to provide
lighting, audio/data wiring, and furnishings, as well as for
international transportation and housing for ITU staff and the United
States delegation, simultaneous translation in the six official
languages of the ITU, and the equipment necessary to assure proper
international communications. These funds would have been earmarked to
meet needs. of the official assembly, or plenary-portions of the
Plenipotentiary. The private sector was to raise approximately $7.0
million in separate funding for the hospitality and other logistics of
the conference. This comprised the total $21 million thought to be
required.
For the convenience of the Committee, I have attached a rough
exhibit to these remarks indicating the expenses anticipated for the
Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, as well as a rough allocation of funding
dollars.
Initial requests for funding for the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary
came before Congress in 1996, in the budgets of the Departments of
State and Commerce. At that time, funding for the Plenipotentiary was
deleted from the budget altogether. Following some effort by the
Department of State, as well as by the ITU Host Committee, Congress now
has agreed to permit reprogramming for the purpose of restoring $3.0
million as preliminary funding, and has indicated that another $4.5
million for the Plenipotentiary plenary session preparations will be
considered. A total United States funding of $7.5 million therefore is
anticipated by the ITU Host Committee.
Meanwhile, the Departments of State and Commerce and the ITU Host
Committee have cut budget estimates for the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary
significantly, to remain within the anticipated funding. The ITU Host
Committee, however, believes that a minimum of $16 million to $17
million is required to adequately cover expenses of the Minneapolis
Plenipotentiary, including approximately $11 million to $12 million for
the plenary portion. This would indicate a shortfall in the anticipated
funding of approximately $4.6 million.
The ITU Host Committee has been successful in securing pledges from
private industry of up to $4.5 million to fund non-plenary, or Host
Committee, activities of the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary. There is a
serious question whether additional private funding can be secured.
The ITU Host Committee is determined to work within the budget
established for the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, and to make this
conference a true success and a showcase for United States ingenuity in
the field of telecommunications.
IV. CONCLUSION
On behalf of ADC Telecommunications, Inc., and the ITU Host
Committee for the 1998 Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, I commend the
United States Senate today for considering the significance of
telecommunications in the World, and the role played in promoting
telecommunications throughout the World by the International
Telecommunications Union. The ITU has come to recognize, as has the
telecommunications industry itself, the need to change, to redefine
itself, in order to meet new technological challenges and demands for
greater communication and access to information. This can only be
accomplished across international boundaries, with the assistance,
guidance and sanction of the World's governments. We urge the United
States to assume its rightful position as the leader in
telecommunications technology, and to help shape the standards and
policies which will guide our future.
TESTIMONY EXHIBIT -- 1998 FUNDING/BUDGET
U.S. Government: Costs of holding conference away from ITU headquarters
in Geneva --
create conference setting -- lighting, audio/data wiring,
furnishings (desks, lamps) ($2.5 million)
international transportation and housing for ITU staff ($2.5
million)
U.S. delegation and Department expenses ($2.5 million)
credentialing of delegates
simultaneous translation (six official languages) -- hard-
wired/infra-red headsets, booths
computer LAN'S, facsimile's, equipment
telecommunications links between Minneapolis-Washington-
Geneva
newsletters, official mailings and related supplies
security
City of Minneapolis has pledged:
lease charges for use of the Convention Center
$250,000 in transportation costs
service as hotel booking agent
State of Minnesota has pledged $500,000
Private Sector has pledged ($4.5 million - $5 million):
up to $5 million to cover non-business Plenipotentiary
expenses
volunteers and resources to assure a warm welcome and
comfortable stay for foreign dignitaries
sponsorship of entertainment and weekend excursions to ``see
America''
hosting official U.S. and State receptions
advising on the conference preparations
hosting an historic exhibit on American telephony and
technology
Potential funding shortfall currently estimated at $4.5 million.
ITU HOST COMMITTEE
1998 MINNEAPOLIS PLENIPOTENTIARY
BUDGET/FUNDING SUMMARY
(Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BUDGETS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Minimum Budget
Source Initial -------------------------------------------
Budget Cash In-Kind
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Government............................................ $14.0 $11.33 $0.62
ITU Host Committee......................................... $6.46 $2.78 $2.23
-------------------------------------------
Sub-Totals............................................... $20.56 $14.11 $2.85
-------------------------------------------
Totals................................................. $20.56 $16.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. FUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Current
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Government........................................ $7.50
State of Minnesota................................... $0.50
Private Sponsorships................................. $4.35
----------------
Total.............................................. $12.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. SUMMARY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Operating Budgets (All Requirements)........... ($16.96)
Funding Sources........................................ $12.35
----------------
Budget Surplus or (Deficit)........................ ($4.61)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The History of ADC
The story of ADC Telecommunications begins in 1935 the height of
the great depression -- when a young engineer, Ralph Allison, founded
Audio Development Company (ADC) in the basement of his south
Minneapolis home. The company got its start with a new innovation
called the audiometer, an electronic device designed to test hearing.
In 1937, Allison was joined by a fellow engineer, Walt Lehnert, and
together, they diversified the company's product line to include
amplifiers and transformers for the broadcast industry. In 1942, the
company designed a sophisticated audio system for the University of
Minnesota. The resulting jacks, plugs, patch cords and jackfields
became the cornerstones for ADC's later entry into telecommunications.
In 1949, ADC sold its audiometer product line. Throughout the post-
war boom years, ADC focused its efforts on transformers and electronic
equipment for the military. And, in 1961, ADC merged with Magnetic
Controls Company, a manufacturer of power supplies and magnetic
amplifiers with strong ties to the U.S. Space Program.
The resulting company, ADC Magnetic Controls, had a decade of mixed
success. Although transformer sales boomed during the early 1960's,
profit margins were poor, and when the volume began to drop off late in
the decade, the company began a downward spiral. In 1970, Chuck Denny
joined as President.
Under Denny's leadership, jack and plug sales grew steadily through
the 1970's and ADC diversified its product mix with pre-wired
connectorized jackfields, wired assemblies and test equipment for
telephone operating companies. By 1974, the company was on solid
ground. And, by 1976, ADC had become the largest independent supplier
of test boards in the U.S., and set its sights on becoming the world
leader in jack and plug sales.
The deregulation of AT&T, ordered by the federal government in
1983, created a golden opportunity for ADC. By establishing the seven
regional Bell operating companies (RBOC's) as independent entities, the
U.S. market for telecommunications expanded by 90 percent. No longer
forced to purchase their equipment from the Western Electric Division
of AT&T, the RBOC's began to look for suppliers like ADC that had a
reputation for quality and innovation in the marketplace. Over time,
the RBOC's would become ADC's key customer base.
Growing success in the telecommunications market and declining
sales in transformers resulted in the 1984 decision to sell the
magnetics business. This decision was highlighted when the company
changed its name from ADC Magnetic Controls to ADC Telecommunications.
Throughout the 1980's, ADC capitalized on the shift in technology from
analog to digital, becoming the industry leader in digital signal cross
connect devices.
During the 1 990's, ADC has sought and will continue to seek
alliances and acquisitions. This growth strategy allows ADC to more
quickly add key technologies; broaden its product offerings; enter
attractive new markets, and expand/enhance distribution channels.
As a result of our growing and diversifying business, in 1995, ADC
developed a more divisionalized approach. Shown below is an overview of
our current structure.
Broadband Connectivity Group (BCG)
Broadband Connectivity Group - Designs and manufactures products
which provide the physical contact points for connecting different
telecommunications systems components. BCG also designs and
manufactures products for access to telecommunications system circuits
for the purpose of installing, testing, monitoring or reconfiguring
circuits. BCG Minnesota has several locations -- Minneapolis, Shakopee
and LeSueur.
AOFR - Manufacturer of fiber optic couplers and components. Based
in Canberra, Australia. Solitra - Designs, manufacturers and markets
radio frequency filers and other wireless base station equipment
components and subsystems. Located in Kempele and Ruukki, Finland and
Hutchinson, Minnesota.
Broadband Communications Division (BCD)
BCD - Minnesota - Deliver flexible transmission solutions to
service providers - voice, video and data transmission.
BCD - AVS Connecticut - Designs, manufacturers, and markets fiber
optic video transmission equipment for the telephone, cable television,
broadcast and government markets.
ADC Shanghai - 20-year joint venture with Shanghai Posts &
Telecommunications Equipment. Licensed to manufacture and market ADC
video systems fiber-optic transmission systems.
Nanjing ADC Broadband Communications Co. Ltd - markets ADC's
Homeworx platform to provide telephony and data services throughout the
country. ADC and Panda are the joint venture holders.
Network Services Division (NSD)
NSD provides loop access and transport systems to carriers for
delivery of high-capacity and other high-bandwidth services to business
end-users. NSD is located in Richardson, Texas.
Wireless Systems Group
Mobile Systems Division
Metrica Systems - Software design firm specializing in applications
based network performance management tools for global wireless and,
increasingly, wireline networks. Headquartered in London, England.
Wireless Microsystems Division - Provides RF coverage solutions for
PCS and cellular networks. Located in Portland, Oregon and Waseca,
Minnesota.
ITS Corporation
Manufacturer of television transmission equipment for the broadcast
and microwave transmission markets, located in McMurray, Pennsylvania.
Enterprise Networking Group (ENG)
ENG - Kentrox - Manufacturer of public network service access
equipment for private telecommunications networks, located in Portland,
Oregon.
Skyline - Designs and manufactures ISDN/Frame Relay access products
with routing capabilities. Located in California.
Systems Integration Group (SIG)
Systems Integration offers a spectrum of services including:
technical consulting and design services; implementation services,
reliability services; performance services and training. This segment
of SIG is primarily located in Chanhassen, Minnesota.
Da Tel Fibernet, Inc. is an engineering and installation company
focuses on servicing the telecommunications industry. Located in
Georgia.
The Apex Group - Software development and information management
company located in Columbia, Maryland.
International
Many of the business units have international components within
their units. ADC also has international sales offices and manufacturing
facilities located in various countries, such as: Canada, Mexico,
Venezuela, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Finalnd, Australia,
Singapore, Argentina, Malaysia, Korea, India, and China.
Corporate
This group provides services to ADC as a whole and organizes some
of the core functions of ADC's daily business - Legal, Facilities,
Information Services, Business Development, Finance, Treasury, Human
Resources, Marketing Communications, Customer Service, and Payroll.
Entering the 1990's, ADC focused on meeting the needs of its
customers in the public, private and government markets with a broad
range of network management products and services designed for
broadcast data and telecommunications networks. With a strong emphasis
on fiber optic and high speed transmission systems, ADC is poised for
the future with financial strength, superior resources and a vision
that will ensure success.
Entering the 21st century, ADC is helping define the future of
telecommunications, both notionally and globally. Magnificent changes
are on the horizon - changes in the way we do everyday things. ADC will
play a key role in these changes and you have a stake in achieving
these exciting goals. Our combined efforts and teamwork are critical to
future successes which should be very exciting!
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Levin.
STATEMENT OF LON C. LEVIN, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MOBILE
SATELLITE CORPORATION AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MOBILE RADIO
CORPORATION, RESTON, VIRGINIA
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
My name is Lon Levin. I am here in support of ratification
of the Constitution and Convention of the International
Telecommunication Union signed at the 1992 Additional
Plenipotentiary Conference held in Geneva and amended at the
1994 Plenipotentiary Conference held in Kyoto.
Ratification of the Constitution and Convention will enable
the United States to participate fully at the ITU, which I
believe is in our country's best interest.
I am President of American Mobile Radio Corporation, one of
two winning bidders to offer digital audio radio service via
satellite in the United States. I am also Vice President of the
parent corporation, American Mobile Satellite Corporation, a
relatively new satellite company that is today providing a full
array of two-way voice and data mobile satellite services
throughout the United States.
I speak for myself and on behalf of those two companies.
In my work in the satellite industry for roughly the past
12 years, I have been active in the private sector's
involvement with the ITU, helping with the United States
preparation for ITU conferences and frequently serving as a
member of the U.S. delegation--positions that I consider to be
among the highest honors of my professional life.
I was a member of the U.S. delegation to the 1992 Geneva
Additional Plenipotentiary Conference, or APP for short, and
the 1994 Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference, or Kyoto Plenipot.
I believe that, as a general matter, particularly in the
timeframe in which I have been involved, the ITU has played a
very positive role for United States telecommunications
companies, particularly those that operate in the international
environment. The ITU provides an international forum for the
resolution of key global telecommunications issues. For the
most part, decisions are hammered out by consensus, even though
there are strong disagreements and lengthy negotiations. Member
States are comfortable that the ITU protects their sovereign
rights.
In recent years, the private sector has been playing an
increasingly important role. This involvement by the private
sector in conference preparation and actual service on
delegations distinguishes the ITU from many other international
organizations and I believe contributes to its effectiveness.
For the satellite industry, which is a $23 billion a year
industry and a U.S. success story, the ITU plays a critical
role, providing the only international forum for countries to
agree on frequency allocations and operational procedures that
permit the launch and operation of regional and global systems.
All satellites are inherently international due to the size
of their coverage areas. Thus, regional and international
consensus on frequency allocations, orbit locations, and
regulatory provisions are the lifeblood of satellite
communications.
The ITU also provides a critical function as an
international clearinghouse for information on proposed
spectrum uses. This permits administrations to negotiate with
new users on behalf of existing spectrum users that are
potentially affected by the proposed new operations.
In most cases, this is a highly efficient and cost
effective way to resolve potential interference problems before
they occur. The private sector is the direct beneficiary.
There are risks with any international entity, particularly
one that operates on a principal of one nation/one vote. There
are also legitimate concerns regarding the efficiency of any
international bureaucracy. The United States does not always
get what it wants.
But my experience has been that the risks and concerns pale
in comparison to the benefits derived by the United States and
its telecommunications industry participating at the ITU.
All of these general comments apply specifically to the
Constitution and Convention that is the subject of this
hearing. The changes made in the 1992 Constitution and
Convention have resulted in an ITU that is more responsive to
the rapid changes in telecommunications. Dividing the ITU into
three sectors--development, radio communication, and
telecommunication, has effectively separated the work on
specific issues that concern the developing world, which tends
to be more political in nature, from the more technical and
operational matters of the other two sectors.
This significant innovation is the scheduling of world
radio communication conferences every 2 years, instead of on an
ad hoc basis. This provides a routine mechanism for the world
to deal quickly with radio communication matters. In addition,
the APP eliminated the highly politicized International
Frequency Registration Board and replaced it with the more
spectrum-administration-oriented Radio Regulations Board.
The 1994 Kyoto Plenipot had its share of initiatives that
favor U.S. interests. Besides ratifying virtually all of the
new Constitution and Convention developed at the 1992
Conference, the Kyoto Plenipot adopted a 5 year strategic plan
that included virtually all U.S. modifications. It also set an
ITU budget that is well within acceptable bounds from the U.S.
perspective.
I understand that ratification of the ITU Constitution and
Convention is required for the United States to be permitted to
vote at the upcoming WRC-97. The U.S. must have a voice at this
year's conference and must be a leader. There are several
matters on the conference agenda in which the United States is
the proponent or has a substantial interest. Not being able to
vote will certainly put us in an awkward position and a less
effective position.
In conclusion, the ITU in general and the final results of
the Geneva APP and the Kyoto Plenipot in particular should be
considered successes for the United States, and as we look
toward the future, we can be confident that those successes
will continue.
Thank you and I will take any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lon C. Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lon C. Levin
Good morning. My name is Lon Levin. I am here in support of
ratification of the Constitution and Convention of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), with annexes,
signed at Geneva on December 22, 1992, and the amendments to
the Constitution and Convention signed at Kyoto on October 14,
1994, together with declarations and reservations by the United
States as contained in the Final Acts. Ratification of the
Constitution and Convention will enable the United States to
participate fully at the ITU, which I believe is in our
country's best interest.
I am President of American Mobile Radio Corporation (AMRC),
one of two winning bidders to offer Digital Audio service via
satellite in the United States. AMRC plans to launch its
satellites and begin operations by 2000. I am also Vice
President of the parent corporation, American Mobile Satellite
Corporation (AMSC), a relatively new satellite company that is
today providing a full array of two-way voice and data mobile
satellite services throughout the United States. I speak for
myself and on behalf of both companies.
In my work in the satellite industry for roughly the past
twelve years, I have been active in the private sector's
involvement with the ITU, helping with the United States
preparation for ITU conferences and frequently serving as a
member of the U.S. delegation--positions that I consider to be
among the highest honors of my professional life. I was a
member of the U.S. delegation to the Geneva Additional
Plenipotentiary Conference (APP) in 1992 and the Kyoto
Plenipotentiary Conference in 1994. Because my career has been
in the satellite industry, my focus has been on the
Radiocommunication Sector of the ITU and the World
Radiocommunication Conferences (WRC), which review and revise
the international table of frequency allocations and develop
technical and operational regulations and recommendations. I
served in international leadership positions at the ITU's 1992
World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) and at the 1995
World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-95). At WARC-92, I was
the international conference chairperson of the Mobile
Satellite Service Committee. At WRC-95, I was the international
conference chairperson of the committee dealing with services
in spectrum below 1 GHz. Most recently, I have been serving as
the Vice Chairperson of the Industry Advisory Committee
preparing for the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference
(WRC-97) that begins this October in Geneva.
I believe that, as a general matter and particularly in the
time frame in which I have been involved, the ITU, with its 185
member states, has played a very positive role for U.S.
telecommunications companies that must deal with the inherent
difficulties of operating in an international environment. The
ITU describes itself accurately as ``an international
organization within which governments and the private sector
coordinate global telecom networks and services.'' The ITU
provides an international forum, with regular conferences that
provide a focal point for the resolution of key
telecommunications issues. For the most part, decisions are
hammered out by consensus, even though there are strong
disagreements and lengthy negotiations. Member states are
comfortable that the ITU protects their sovereign rights.
In recent years the private sector has been playing an
increasingly important role. This involvement by the private
sector in conference preparation and actual service on
delegations distinguishes the ITU from many other international
organizations and I believe contributes to its effectiveness.
For the satellite industry, which is a $23 billion a year
industry and a U.S. success story, the ITU plays a critical
role, providing the only international forum for countries to
agree on frequency allocations and operational procedures that
permit the launch and operation of regional and global systems.
Virtually all satellites are inherently international, due to
the size of their coverage areas. Thus, regional and
international consensus on frequency allocations, orbit
locations, and regulatory provisions is the lifeblood of
satellite communications. Decisions by past ITU conferences
paved the way for, among others, the development of Direct
Broadcast satellites, the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) mobile
satellite systems, Digital Audio Radio Satellites, and the
newly proposed high-speed data satellites.
The ITU also provides a critical function as an
international clearinghouse for information on proposed
spectrum uses. This permits administrations to negotiate with
new users on behalf of existing users that are potentially
affected by the proposed new operations. In most cases, this is
a highly efficient and cost effective way to resolve potential
problems before they occur. The private sector is the direct
beneficiary,
There are risks with any international entity, particularly
one that operates on a principle of one nation-one vote. The
U.S. does not always get what it wants. There are also
legitimate concerns with the efficiency of any international
bureaucracy. But my experience has been that those risks and
concerns in practice pale in comparison to the benefits derived
by the U.S. and the telecommunications industry.
All of these general comments apply specifically to the
Constitution and Convention that is the subject of this
hearing. The changes made in 1992 to the Constitution and
Convention have resulted in an ITU that is more responsive to
the rapid changes in telecommunications. Dividing the ITU into
three sectors--Development, Radiocommunication, and
Telecommunication--has effectively separated the work on
specific issues that concern the developing world from the more
general technical and operational matters of the other two
sectors. Another significant innovation is the scheduling of
World Radiocommunication Conferences every two years, instead
of on an ad hoc basis. This provides a routine mechanism for
the world to deal quickly with radiocommunication matters. In
addition, the new Constitution and Convention replaced the
highly politicized international Frequency Registration Board
with a more spectrum- administration-oriented Radio Regulations
Board.
Besides ratifying virtually all of the new Convention and
Constitution developed at the 1992 Conference, the 1994 Kyoto
Plenipot had its share of initiatives that favor U.S.
interests. The Kyoto Plenipot adopted a five year strategic
plan that included all U.S. modifications. It set an ITU budget
that is well within acceptable bounds from the U.S.
perspective. And, although a U.S. candidate was not elected to
head the Radiocommunication Sector, the Plenipot selected
Robert Jones of Canada, who was clearly qualified and has
proven to be an excellent administrator.
The United States was also concerned in Kyoto with an
effort by other countries to establish a Policy Forum to
discuss global satellite systems. There was concern that such a
forum might slow the development of U.S. systems. But, as it
turned out, the Policy Forum, held a year ago in Geneva,
provided a useful mechanism for administrations to learn more
about global systems and to become more comfortable that such
systems will benefit their citizens while leaving their
sovereignty intact. This process was facilitated by permitting
the private sector to send its own delegates as company
representatives that were separate from national delegations.
The Kyoto Plenipot also adopted a provision known as
Resolution 18, dealing with the regulation and administration
of satellites. Resolution 18 raises legitimate issues and I am
optimistic that further progress can be made on these issues at
WRC-97 and the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference.
I understand that ratification of the ITU Constitution and
Convention is required for the U.S. delegation to be permitted
to vote at the upcoming ARC-97. The U.S. must have a voice at
this year's Conference and must be a leader. There are several
matters on the Conference agenda, including mobile satellite,
direct broadcast satellite, and high speed data satellite
services, regarding which the United States is the proponent or
has a substantial interest. Not being able to vote will
certainly put us in an awkward and less effective position.
In conclusion, the ITU in general and the final results of
the Geneva APP and the Kyoto Plenipot in particular should be
considered successes for the United States. And, as we look to
the future, we can be confident that those successes will
continue.
Thank you.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Levin. I just have
general questions for both of you. So I would appreciate it if
you would both answer in any detail you can.
First, the Secretary General of the ITU is required to
issue a strategic plan indicating changes in the
telecommunications industry and also containing recommended
action that is related to the union's future policies and
strategy.
In relation to that plan, to what degree was industry's
involvement in helping to formulate the strategic plan?
Mr. Fisher?
Mr. Fisher. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not personally been
involved in that process. I am probably not the best qualified.
I know that ADC and other industry representatives have
certainly been involved in the three sectors of the ITU. We
have been encouraged, certainly since the Kyoto Plenipotentiary
to participate fully in the strategic plan. But I'm afraid I
cannot specify exactly what those strategies are.
Senator Grams. But do you feel it is important that the
private sector was involved?
Mr. Fisher. Clearly, I do. We want to encourage the ITU to
keep its doors open, as it has thrown them open, frankly, to
this date to have the private sector more involved in this
process. As I have said, in the past I think the private sector
community has been captured by Government regulation and,
frankly, in the new era of deregulation and increased
competition, we certainly want a voice. It may sound like a
cacophony sometimes, but we do want a voice in helping to shape
those policies worldwide.
Senator Grams. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Just to quickly respond, the private sector,
because they tend to be vocal and because they tend to believe
that the ITU is critical to their own successes, makes sure
that their voice is heard, and the U.S. Government is always
helpful in making sure that the voice is heard. I am
comfortable that, at least in the last decade, the Secretary
General continues to listen to U.S. industry.
Senator Grams. I just say that because I am reminded that
about 2 years ago there were some political charges made on
both sides, or from one side, that said that, somehow, Congress
invited in industry to help rewrite pollution laws and somehow
that was to the detriment of the environment and to the benefit
of some of the industry. I looked at it in just the opposite
way. If you do not have industry involved to have a voice and
use their expertise--I mean, I am not a heart surgeon; I would
not pretend to do surgery, but we are going to be required to
vote on legislation regarding rules and regulations there. But
I think it is important. So I also agree with the ITU in
opening the doors and inviting in industry to give their
counsel, their expertise, and to help formulate better rules
and regulations to operate, especially, as you have mentioned,
in a global type market situation where you need that type of
input.
Mr. Levin, you said earlier that, despite maybe some
concerns, the ITU gives the U.S. some huge benefits. What kind
of benefits come out of this that the public should know if
they are wondering about the ITU?
Mr. Levin. Well, as I mentioned, let's take satellites,
specifically, with which I am most familiar.
Satellites are inherently international. Satellites require
the use of spectrum that spills over borders. In order for a
satellite the operate, particularly if it is using spectrum
that is currently occupied by other users, there needs to be
some way to coordinate the spectrum with the existing users.
The ITU serves that function as the clearinghouse for
sharing spectrum.
Another function the ITU has performed, particularly
recently, is the use of a policy forum. It is a nonbinding
effort where the world gets together to discuss world issues
regarding telecommunications. In the case of the Geneva Policy
forum last year, it was on satellite regulations--how do we
have satellites provide service throughout the world?
The ITU is the ideal place for that kind of discussion and
it served to be, as I said, the clearinghouse of all those
ideas. It resulted, I believe, in each country feeling more
comfortable with these global systems.
Senator Grams. It provides the forum?
Mr. Levin. It provides the forum for these ideas.
Senator Grams. While some present at this hearing may
disagree, the ITU is probably one of the least known
international organizations but probably one of the most
growing in importance. I mean, if we look at the growth of
technology from 1947, it is a completely different environment
today. I think this places even more importance on a forum such
as what the ITU provides.
By virtue of ratification, the U.S. and members of the
Union are expected to play a very critical role in the future
in telecommunications in the arena. What more can be done to
increase the awareness of the public and the decision makers
concerning the importance of the ITU to the global economy?
Maybe I should throw this out. Is it important that the ITU
be a very highly visible organization or can it do its work in
a more stealth-type mode?
Mr. Fisher, I will go to you first.
Mr. Fisher. Well, unfortunately, for those who are outside
the field of telecommunications this is not a thing you would
normally see on TV every evening. I am sure that it is a part
of its role, as a consequence, that causes that.
But to the extent that the public is being asked to fund
and support it, not only with their public support but with
their public dollars, I think it is important to bring to the
fore at some point, and perhaps more forcefully, just how
significant this is in our lives.
When I say ``our lives,'' I mean beyond our
telecommunications industry but in the lives of each and
everyone of us every time we pick up a telephone or turn on the
television set or our computer. It affects our lives. We are
using, basically, standards that are organized by standard
setting bodies like the ITU.
Certainly having the plenipotentiary in the United States
for the first time, as I said, in modern telecommunications
history is going to be a tremendous help in highlighting the
importance of international community and international
standard setting for the American public. I think that is true,
too, for the Kyoto summit, our plenipotentiary 4 years ago, and
other like summits.
I think these are one of the ways that we should really
promote these kinds of activities.
Senator Grams. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. To quickly respond, I am of two minds on this
one.
First, I think the ITU has been a tremendous benefit to the
United States, and even though it may not be that well known,
the fact is it is well known within the telecommunications
industry and it is working just fine.
On the other hand--and this is important--it works and it
works well. I do think it could serve as a model for other
international organizations. So to the extent that it could be
appreciated for its efficiency and effectiveness and used as a
model, I think that could help.
As Mr. Fisher points out, the fact is now that it is going
to be in Minneapolis, I am sure the level of interest will
increase, at least in the United States. But it is an effective
organization and I think it can be used as a model.
Senator Grams. The new ITU Constitution provides for more
regularized consideration of radio communication spectrum
allocations. The ITU will hold radio communication conferences
every 2 years in order to amend those regulations regarding
radio.
What effect will this regularized process have on new
technologies? Is it necessary to hold it this often, more
often, or less often?
Mr. Levin?
Mr. Levin. Actually, I am a very big fan of that. Before,
it used to be on an ad hoc basis. What would happen, having the
experience of being at the last great ad hoc 1992 WARC, is
there is a sense of urgency at those ad hoc conferences that
there is never going to be another one again until the plenipot
starts scheduling them when the plenipotentiary conference
comes.
So as a result, a lot of decisions are made that may not be
the best decisions or are made with the sense that if we don't
get it done now, nothing is going to get done for years.
What has happened, as a result of the routinization of
these radio conferences, is if they are every year, if
something does not get done that year, we all know that it can
get done 2 years following. This is because the process is that
you set the agenda not only for the one coming up but also for
the one following it. So there is a sense of continuity.
Also, there is no longer that sense of urgency which
results in a better process.
Also, if a new technology does come about, which, in fact,
happened at the last conference in 1995, to the benefit of the
United States where there were these new low Earth orbit global
systems to provide a high speed data service, the ITU could
accommodate it. It was flexible enough, one, to push aside
other work because it can be done in the next 2 years, as well
as it was flexible to take in the new work that had just popped
up.
So, in general, I am a very big fan of this 2 year process.
Senator Grams. Mr. Fisher?
Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, I would have to share that.
I am a relative newcomer, to be honest with you, to the
telecommunications industry. I have been with ADC for about 2
years. I can tell you the marked distinction of the
telecommunications industry in my view is the rapidity of
technological change.
To be honest with you, I am not even sure that 2 years is
fast enough to keep up with the changes that are going to
happen every single day in our industry. If you are a newcomer
to this, you know that there is an acronym a minute in this
business. It is because of technological change and very large
amounts of dollars going into R&D.
So I certainly support flexibility.
Senator Grams. I used to be in TV broadcasting and, even
then, they were making decisions on what equipment to buy
because by the time they ordered it, got it, and installed it,
it was obsolete. I mean, new things had come out.
So this is an industry, as you mentioned, that is moving
very quickly in that regard.
The ITU permits the private sector, as we have mentioned,
to become members of the organization, and the convention under
consideration would permit a greater role for private sector
members permitting them to make requests for consideration by
the ITU.
In this regard, are you confident that the ITU insures that
no one industry would be given more favorable access or
influence in the ITU than another by having this open
enrollment?
Mr. Levin?
Mr. Levin. Let me understand the question.
Senator Grams. Well, government belongs to those who show
up. So if those who show up get more influence, then those who
don't are--what?
Mr. Levin. Well, as we know, 80 percent of life is just
showing up.
Senator Grams. Yes.
Mr. Levin. I think that those who do spend the effort tend
to be the more successful. But I would like to think that what
that invites is others to also make the effort, appreciating
that the ITU is a place where you can cause change.
I do think, at least in the United States--and I am going
to assume it will be that way in the rest of the world that has
a private sector as well as an effective government part of
these delegations--there is a balancing out. Our Government
does tend to balance out interests, even though there are very
aggressive industry voices, which is fine. Sometimes these
delegations get rather rough before we even go outside and deal
with the rest of the world.
But I think that the balance between these very strong
industry voices and the effectiveness of our own Government,
the State Department, the FCC and the NTIA--I think it tends to
balance itself out.
Senator Grams. Mr. Fisher, any comment?
Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, I may be an idealist, but I will
take the chance.
Using ADC Telecommunications as an example, we are not an
Ericcson, an ALCATEL, or a Lucent. We are a billion dollars in
revenues a year, and while growing, we are not going to have
the type of resources and capital to be able to pour into these
conferences that would be necessary to truly be a significant
voice there.
But what I can tell you we are doing is we are pouring
dollars into research and development to provide innovative
solutions for carriers across the world, NDN solutions that
will deliver their signals and their broadcasts to wherever
they want it as fast as they want it to go. If nothing else, we
are going to speak on the basis of our technological
achievements, and we expect those achievements to come to the
fore, even in large conferences, such as the ITU, and to
influence standard bearing and standard setting in the future.
Senator Grams. What can be done, or, probably, what more
can be done to enhance the participation by nonadministrative
entities and organizations that are seeking their views on
approaches to the challenges of telecommunications development?
Should there be more enhancement for more agencies, private
sector, or whatever, to get involved--in other words, a larger
table, more input, more voices, more views?
Mr. Levin. If I could, first, I do think for the most part
that it is open. I mean, there is an FCC process in which one
can participate.
I think the only limitation I can tell seems to be that the
focus of the activity tends to be in Washington, D.C. And then
Geneva. It is not spread out as much. As a result, those who
can afford or who have a presence in Washington tend to be
slightly more dominant. But I don't think that is a very big
concern.
As far as the ITU goes, the ITU is well on its way to open
its doors. It has to have some location and some central point.
I'm not sure you can really fix that one.
Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, if I may, what I have seen is
some mixed results. I think I agree with Mr. Levin that there
is a concentration, certainly on national policy making in
Washington, and on international in Geneva. More and more of
the State PUC's are coming into the fore with the new
Telecommunications Act of 1996. It creates a bit of a dichotomy
for someone like us in the industry.
It is easy to pay attention to Washington, and trade
associations and the FCC because it is all one location. But
now we have 50 States to which we have to pay attention.
But to that extent, we have greater opportunity to
influence local administration of telecommunications as well as
Federal, as well as international. So I think it is opening up
quite a bit.
Senator Grams. I just have two quick, brief questions
dealing with the plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis, Mr.
Fisher, before we wrap up. We have a vote that is on right now.
As a member of the ITU Host Committee, you have played a
very important role in preparation for this 1998 conference in
Minneapolis. I know that the Host Committee is committed to
staging a very first rate conference in the Twin Cities.
From the perspective of your other role as an executive
with ADC Telecommunications, what issues that may receive
consideration during the conference are of particular concern
to your company?
Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, what is always a concern in the
plenipotentiary is, of course, as I think you indicated in your
earlier questions, the opportunity to amend the Constitution
and Convention. We are going to be watchful of that.
We want the doors to be further opened to industry
participation and voice, not control necessarily--we want a
voice. Certainly, the review report that is to be submitted to
the plenipotentiary in that regard will be very important to
us. We think it will highlight, frankly, the industry role in
international telecommunications and do something that really
has not been done to date, and that is to spark their interest
in the ITU.
While there has been significant participation, in my view,
by industry in ITU events, we have not always felt that we have
had a specific voice. Now we would like to push that right to
the max and I think it will spark greater interest by the
industry in ITU affairs and, as a consequence, the public.
Senator Grams. The final question is this.
You have mentioned provisions for the cost of the
conference are required of the host country, of any host
country, to provide this. Congress, as you mentioned, has
provided $7.5 million for the business sectors of the
conference, rather than the $14 million in funding that had
been originally requested and sought by the State Department.
You are currently in a very aggressive campaign, I think
you mentioned, to solicit private sector contributions and
sponsorships. The question, is, in hindsight, do you believe
that a greater education of the role of the ITU, a higher
profile, may be what will come out of this conference as far as
the public goes, to Congress? Would that have resulted, do you
think, in an increased support and appropriation for the
plenipot?
Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, in my own opinion, I think that
is the case. When we were talking to people earlier this spring
about funding, we were talking with people who were primarily
interested in appropriations but who were not particularly
schooled in telecommunications.
I honestly believe that the importance of the ITU and the
plenipotentiary overall to the United States, as a Government
to Government operation, was not fully appreciated at that
time.
Now that is my personal view. I certainly believe that if
good things come out of the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, as we
expect, this will certainly raise the consciousness and make
things much easier in the future to host these types of events.
Senator Grams. I think a lot of feeling was that this was
an industry event and not a public event.
Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
Senator Grams. But in most respects, this really helps to
set the rules and regulations as to how the public and industry
are both going to benefit from this. So, in hindsight, again,
maybe there could have been a different view from the Congress.
Mr. Fisher. It might have been.
Mr. Chairman, frankly, if the plenipotentiary is left to
private industry, it will be a cat fight. I think we really
need an organizational hand in this that will bring in the
nations of the world together to make some decisions that
industry will fully support and that they had a voice in
setting.
Senator Grams. Again, I want to thank you all for taking
your time to be here this morning.
I just wanted to mention that I have noticed Ambassador
McCann has been shaking her head in agreement with all of the
things you have said. It is great when you see Government and
private industry working together and sharing in common goals.
Again, just a reminder of the fact that the record will
remain open for 3 days--that would be fine--for any questions
that Senators may want to present to any or all of our
witnesses today. Again, a quick reaction from you would be very
much appreciated.
Again, thank you very much for your time here this morning.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject
to the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
United States Department of State,
Washington, D.C. 20520
September 24, 1997
The Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Following the September 17, 1997 hearing at
which the Honorable Vonya McCann testified, additional questions were
submitted for the record. Please find enclosed the responses to those
questions.
If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely,
Barbara Larkin,
Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.
Responses of Ambassador McCann to Questions Asked by Senator Helms
Question. The 1996 letter of transmittal contained in the ITU
treaty document indicates that the Administration placed several
reservations in the 1992 Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference.
The first reservation indicates that the United States reserves the
right to make additional reservations at the time of the deposit of
instruments of ratification. The letter of transmittal goes on to say
that the Department of State and other agencies involved recommend that
no additional reservations are needed to protect U.S. interests. Does
the Administration still recommend that no additional reservations are
needed to protect U.S. interests?
Answer. Yes, the administration still recommends that no additional
reservations are needed to protect U.S. interests.
Question. The first reservation (Number 68) indicates that the
United States will not be bound by Administrative Regulations adopted
prior to the date of signature of the Constitution and Convention.
Which regulations specifically will the United States be bound by
through ratification of the ITU Constitution and Convention?
Answer. The first U.S. statement (number 68) establishes that the
United States will be bound solely by administrative regulations that
it has expressly consented to through notification to the ITU.
Administrative regulations that the United States has expressly
consented to include: The radio regulations, with appendices and final
protocol, done at Geneva December 6, 1979; entered into force January
1, 1982; definitively for the United States October 27, 1983; partial
revision of radio regulations (Geneva 1979) relating to mobile
services, with annex and final protocol, done at Geneva March 18, 1983;
entered into force January 15, 1985; for the United States April 6,
1993); partial revision adopted by the first session of the World
Administrative Radio Conference on the Use of the Geostationary-
Satellite Orbit and the Planning of Space services utilizing it, signed
at Geneva September 15, 1985; entered into force October 30, 1986; for
the United States April 6, 1993; 1987 partial revision of the radio
regulations (Geneva 1979) relating to mobile services, done at Geneva
October 17, 1987; entered into force October 3, 1989; for the United
States April 6, 1993; partial revision of the world administrative
radio conference on the use of the geostationary-satellite orbit and
the planning of space services utilizing it, signed at Geneva October
6, 1988; entered into force March 16, 1990; for the United States April
6, 1993; and international telecommunication regulations (telephone and
telegraph) with appendices and final protocol, done at Melbourne
December 9, 1988; entered into force July 1, 1990; for the United
States April 6, 1993.
Question. What is the impact of incorporating declarations made at
the time of signature of the. Final Acts of the World Administrative
Radio Conference (Geneva 1979) as contained in the Administration's
second declaration (Number 73)?
Answer. Incorporation of declarations made at the time of signature
of the final acts of the World Administrative Conference (Geneva 1979)
as contained in the administration's second statement (number 73)
reiterates the U.S. position that references in article 44 of the
constitution to the ``geographical situation of particular countries''
does not signify a recognition of claims of countries to exercise
sovereign rights over, or preferential rights to, segments of the
geostationary orbit.
Question. Please explain the Administration's rationale for
including a declaration relating to Article 44 of the Constitution
clarifying that the United States does not recognize claims to any
preferential rights to the geostationary-satellite orbit. Are other
Parties interpreting this Article as granting such rights? If so, how
will the ITU handle such competing assertions.
Answer. Article 44 of the constitution is an important provision
that deals with the rational, efficient and economic use of radio
frequencies and the geostationary-satellite orbit, as well as equitable
access to both. In regard to equitable access, article 44 provides that
countries shall take ``into account the special needs of developing
countries and the geographical situation of particular countries.''
This language has been interpreted by some countries to reflect a right
to exercise sovereign rights over segments of the geostationary orbit.
Declarations made by the Republic of Colombia (number 37 of Kyoto
reaffirming reservation number 48 made at Geneva) and the Republic of
Kenya (number 72 at Kyoto reaffirming reservation number 53 made at
Geneva), for example, incorporate by reference statements made by
several equatorial countries -- the so-called Bogota declaration of
December 3, 1976 -- regarding such preferential rights. The
administration's statement with respect to this issue affirms its long-
standing view that countries do not exercise sovereign rights over
segments of the geostationary orbit and that references to the
``geographical situation of particular countries'' do not imply U.S.
recognition of claims to ``any preferential rights'' to that orbit.
Twenty-six other countries, including Australia, the Federal Republic
of Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Japan, Norway and the
United Kingdom, share the U.S. view.
In the event of a dispute concerning claims of preferential rights
to the geostationary orbit, countries may invoke the dispute resolution
mechanisms available under article 56 of the constitution and article
41 of the convention.
Question. The third declaration broadly asserts the right of the
United States to take whatever measures it may consider necessary to
safeguard U.S. interests in response to actions taken bv other
countries to protect their interests. Is this a standard declaration
taken by all countries? What actions may trigger the United States to
assert this right? Does this declaration give the United States
adequate protections to respond to the actions of other countries or
parties who take actions harmful to U.S. interests?
Answer. Many countries have adopted similar declarations reserving
their right to take such actions as may be considered necessary to
safeguard their interests in response to reservations by other
countries that jeopardize such interests. Such declarations have been
common in ITU treaty conference final acts since at least the early
1980S, and include, for example, the assertion of the right to take
whatever actions are necessary to address what are considered to be
inappropriate broadcasts by one country in the territory of another.
Actions that jam U.S. broadcasts on appropriate frequencies might
trigger the United States to take measures necessary to preserve its
rights. This declaration does not itself establish the type of measures
the United States might invoke to address a particular declaration that
adversely affects U.S. interests, but rather puts countries on notice
that the United States will take appropriate actions to enforce U.S.
rights if jeopardized by other countries.
Question. Please clarify the effect of the Administration's third
reservation (Number 97)
Answer. The administration's third statement in the final acts of
the Kyoto conference deals with declaration number 80, which was
included by a number of delegations unhappy with the decision taken by
the plenipotentiary conference not to amend article 54 of the
constitution (article 54 addresses the status and entry into force of
administrative regulations). The U.S. declaration is intended to make
clear that the United States did not agree with the interpretative and
international law statements made in that declaration and that,
regardless of how the delegations who made the declaration interpret
the declaration and its effects, the declaration does not affect the
application to the United States of article 54 of the constitution. A
number of European nations made a declaration (number 94) similar to
the U.S. declaration.
Question. What has been the response of the other Parties regarding
the U.S. reservation regarding Cuba? Is the Administration satisfied
that the reservation as drafted adequately protects U.S. policy and
interests toward Cuba?
Answer. There have been no specific responses by other parties to
the U.S. statement regarding Cuba. The administration believes that
this reservation provides adequate notice to Cuba and others that the
United States will take whatever actions it deems appropriate to ensure
effective broadcasts to Cuba on appropriate frequencies, and to meet
the radiocommunication needs arising from the United States' presence
in Guantanamo. Nothing in this statement would interfere with the
United States' ability to protect its rights vis-a-vis broadcasts to
Cuba.