III. Determinations on the Issues
B. Conditions on system applications on policy grounds
19.
|
Insofar as the staff recommends that none of
the pending applicants should be disqualified on the basis of the information
now before us, we are generally in agreement with the staff's position and
much of its reasoning (staff recommendation, paragraphs 82–119).4
However, we will address the question of what policy conditions and/or
further showings will be required in the case of particular applicants.
|
20.
|
As indicated above, realization of our
policy objectives herein requires that we take appropriate measures toward
the end that those objectives are not frustrated by any applicant,
particularly in the critical threshold stage when others are attempting to
become established. Because of the complexities and uncertainties associated
with this matter, the question of what kind of measures to adopt confronts us
with some difficult decisions. We have examined a number of alternatives and
permutations. While none appears completely satisfactory in all respects to
the entire Commission and there are conflicting considerations, it is out
best collective judgment that the following course of action constitutes the
most reasonable and appropriate accommodation we can achieve in the present
circumstances.
|
1.
AT&T and Comsat
21.
|
In essence, we have concluded that AT&T
should be afforded access to the satellite technology to determine its
feasibility as an efficient and economic means of providing AT&T's basic
switched telephone services, as well as to explore potential use of the 18
and 30 GHz frequencies. Because of the concerns expressed in our policy
statement (paragraphs 9–13 above), we will limit AT&T's initial use of
domestic satellites to MTT, WATS, AUTOVON, emergency restoration in the event
of terrestrial outage (pursuant to a restoral plan proposed to and approved
by the Commission, and regardless of the services involved), and—if found
necessary in light of the considerations discussed in paragraphs 35–41
below—any other services in the case of Alaska. Hawaii and Puerto Rico-Virgin
Islands. However, the Commission will entertain a petition by AT&T for
authority to provide additional services within the contiguous states at the
earliest of the following occurrences: (a) when domestic satellite licensees
authorized to offer specialized common carrier services have achieved
substantial utilization of their satellite capacity; or (b) in any event,
three years after the commencement of domestic satellite operations by
AT&T. Upon such petition, we will re-examine this initial limitation to
determine whether it is still warranted or should be modified or deleted in
light of the circumstances then pertaining, including such relevant factors
as the impact on the current competitive situation and any resolution of the
cross-subsidy problem.
|
22.
|
We have further concluded that it would be
contrary to the public interest and the realization of our policy objectives
to authorize the Comsat/AT&T proposals based on their contractual
arrangement, in light of the considerations set forth in our policy statement
(paragraphs 13–14 above). For those services it is authorized to provide via
domestic satellite (see paragraph 21 above). AT&T will have the option of
applying for authority to own and operate satellite facilities or of leasing
transponders under tariff from Comsat or any other carrier who elects to
proceed solely as a carrier's carrier under the same conditions specified
below as to Comsat.5
|
23.
|
If Comsat elects to serve AT&T, then it
will be required: (a) to operate solely as a carrier's carrier; (b) to lease
transponders to AT&T under the same tariff terms applicable to other
carriers leasing transponders; (c) to permit AT&T and other carriers to
have access to their leased transponders through their own earth stations,
where desired and authorized by the Commission; and (d) to comply with a
formula, to be prescribed by further order of the Commission, concerning the
maximum percentage of system capacity that can be leased to any one carrier
(see paragraph 25 below). Such operation as a carrier's carrier may include
the provision of earth station facilities by Comsat where desired by carriers
leasing transponders and warranted by the existing or potential volume of
their traffic. If, on the other hand, Comsat elects to serve only entities
other than AT&T, then Comsat may, pursuant tariffs, offer end-to-end
service, lease transponders to carriers other than AT&T, and offer other
services as proposed in its application for a multi-purpose system (staff
recommendation, paragraph 22).
|
24.
|
We see no compelling reason of public policy
for precluding AT&T from leasing satellite transponders under tariff from
a carrier's carrier for its authorized domestic satellite services so long as
the wholesale carrier retains adequate capacity to meet the requirements of
other carriers desiring to lease transponders. Since the wholesale carrier
would not be engaged in retailing specialized communications services to the
public, the lease of transponders to AT&T would not deter competitive
entry by others to serve the specialized markets. Moreover, such an
arrangement would afford an opportunity for access to the satellite
technology by retail carriers who lack sufficient existing or potential
traffic to warrant the investment required for ownership of space segment
facilities. Further, a wholesale carrier commencing operations under the
incentive of AT&T's available business would have an opportunity to
develop business from other carriers, and to that extent would be less
affected if AT&T should elect in the future to apply for authority to own
and operate space segment facilities.
|
25.
|
While we believe it necessary to limit the
percentage of the space segment capacity of the wholesale carrier that could
be preempted by AT&T under tariff in order to reserve adequate capacity
for use by other carriers, we are not now in a position to devise a formula.
On the one hand, there is the consideration that AT&T initially has the
ability to occupy a large number of transponders and thereby could pre-empt
much of the capacity of any system, whereas the capacity available for other
carriers may be utilized in gradually increasing amounts. On the other hand,
in view of the relatively short life of the satellites, the wholesale carrier
should not be saddled with substantial idle capacity which AT&T might
otherwise lease, particularly after other carriers have had a reasonable time
to take advantage of the wholesale tariff offering. Accordingly, if AT&T
elects to lease transponders under tariff from Comsat (or any other wholesale
carrier) and the latter elects to proceed solely as a carrier's carrier by
serving AT&T's requirements, we will require that such wholesale carrier
submit, for Commission review, an appropriate formula by which it will
allocate its space segment capacity for AT&T's use and the use of other
carriers. Upon consideration of such allocation, the Commission will approve
or prescribe a formula prior to the authorization of facilities.6
|
26.
|
Comsat will be required to form a separate
corporate subsidiary to engage in any domestic satellite venture, whether it
elects to pursue its multi-purpose system proposal or to operate solely as a
wholesale supplier of satellite facilities to AT&T and other carriers.
While Comsat's comments filed on April 19, 1972 do not object to paragraph
116 of the staff recommendation, we will not impose any prior constraints as
to how such domestic subsidiary is to be structured or financed. This is an
appropriate area for the exercise of Comsat's own judgment in the first
instance, subject to ultimate Commission approval of its proposal. In the
event that Comsat elects to proceed other than as a carrier's carrier, it
will be prohibited from owning or operating domestic satellite facilities at
any overseas point served by INTELSAT facilities (staff recommendation,
paragraph 114).
|
2. GTE
27.
|
The staff has expressed various concerns
about GTE's proposal to provide interstate MTT service via satellite
facilities for which it seeks authorization (staff recommendation, paragraphs
97–99). In encouraging multiple entry and the development of competition in
the supply of domestic communications, we have maintained a distinction
between the so-called monopoly switched telephone services now being
furnished by AT&T and all other classes of existing and potential specialized
services. We have made this distinction not for the purpose of protecting any
established position that AT&T occupies in the MTT field. Rather, it has
been our purpose and concern to protect the public in the availability of
efficient and economic switched MTT services—an interest that might well be
adversely affected by unnecessarily fragmenting responsibility for the
planning and provision of the facilities required for this integrated
service. On the other hand, we should not reject any proposal that might
prove feasible and beneficial to the public simply because it represents some
departure from the established scheme. This is particularly true when the
proposal comes from an entity, such as GTE, which already is a significant
participant in the furnishing of MTT facilities and services, although
essentially as a carrier which originates, terminates, and switches large
volumes of MTT traffic rather than in the provision of long lines
transmission facilities.
|
28.
|
At least potentially, GTE's proposal offers
several advantages. It would introduce more directly, although on a limited
scale, the perspective and experience of another responsible entity into the
planning and operation of the interstate MTT network, which heretofore has
been the sole responsibility of AT&T. It could provide a basis for
regulatory comparison of the relative efficiencies and cost advantages of
somewhat different technologies represented by AT&T's proposal and GTE's
proposal. It could also tend to lessen AT&T's dominance and economic
influence in the domestic communications field.
|
29.
|
Notwithstanding these potential public
benefits, there are a number of uncertainties, not dispelled by the
information contained in the record before us, that must be resolved before
we can make the required statutory finding that GTE's proposal will serve the
public interest. Accordingly, before determining whether this portion of the
Hughes/GTE applications should be authorized, we will require a showing of
the nature described by the staff (paragraphs 98–99) concerning: what
potential benefits might be achieved by affording GTE access to the satellite
technology for this purpose; whether its proposal is economically justified
from the standpoint of the public in terms of costs and prospective fill; the
effect on GTE's present contracts for settlement with AT&T; GTE's plans
for handling traffic in case of temporary outages or catastrophic failure of
its satellite system facilities; how the costs of such facilities would be
treated for rate-making and accounting purposes; and the kinds of data it
will gather and report to the Commission to assist our evaluation of the
efficiency and economy of any authorized operations compared to continued
exclusive reliance on the interstate switched telephone facilities of
AT&T.
|
30.
|
In the event that we determine after
consideration of such showings that the proposal, on balance, would serve the
public interest, any authorization to GTE would be limited initially, as in
the case of AT&T, to the provision of MTT service (plus other services,
if found necessary, in the case of Hawaii only in the event that GTE is
authorized to serve that State (see paragraph 39–40 below)). GTE would also
be required to form a separate corporate subsidiary to engage in such
operations.
|
3.
Other system applicants
31.
|
We will further require that any other
terrestrial common carrier, who is authorized a domestic satellite system,
shall offer its services in accordance with tariff schedules filed pursuant
to Section 203 of the Communications Act and the Commission's applicable
rules and regulations. Where the terrestrial carrier seeks to provide
services and facilities to other carriers (i.e., as a carrier's carrier), the
offering of such wholesale services—whether for transponder access alone or
for satellite system service including earth station access—shall be pursuant
to a tariff setting forth all terms and conditions relating to each class of
offering.7 If, in addition, the carrier intends to provide
end-to-end services, the retail offering shall be covered by appropriate
tariffs. In order to assure the minimum intermingling of costs and revenues
between the wholesale and retail operations, we will require the carrier to
maintain its accounts in such a fashion as to identify clearly the costs and
revenues related to each. The prescription of specific accounting rules by
the Commission will be given consideration when we have a clearer picture of
the structure of this industry and its operation. We consider these measures
to be essential, as a minimum, to insure that other carriers leasing
transponder or satellite system facilities are not burdened with any portion
of the revenue requirements applicable to the supplying carrier's retail
offerings.
|
32.
|
Finally, we adopt the staff's proposal that
any authorization to a satellite equipment supplier shall be conditioned upon
a requirement for the existence or creation of a separate corporate entity to
engage in the satellite communications operation (staff recommendation,
paragraph 86). Any authorization to Hughes will be upon the further condition
that it afford its CATV customers the option of owning receive-only earth
stations to obtain the Hughes program offering and that of any other CATV
program distributor offered by means of the Hughes system facilities. Hughes
will also be required to submit, for Commission approval prior to the
issuance of any authorization to it, a plan whereby other CATV program
distributors will be afforded reasonable access to receive-only earth
stations associated with its system on an equitable and non-discriminatory
basis, including—if necessary therefor—by means of access to the Hughes
transmit-receive earth stations and space segment facilities.
|
4 We will
defer resolution of what domestic satellite services Western Union may provide
in Hawaii under Section 222 of the Act pending a determination on the pending
"Application for Review" of the staff's action in rejecting Western Union's
application for authority to lease facilities to provide Mailgram service between
Hawaii and the mainland. A Commission decision on that application for review
will be forthcoming shortly.
5 Since we
decline to authorize facilities to implement the Comsat AT&T contractual
arrangement, we will not require AT&T to show that the costs of leasing
satellite capacity from Comsat under tariff are no greater than obtaining
equivalent facilities by other available means, such as ownership or leasing
under tariff from another satellite carrier (see staff recommendation,
paragraph 79).
6 Of course,
as AT&T from time to time proposes to take up additional capacity pursuant
to that approved formula. AT&T will be required to obtain appropriate
authorization therefor pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act.
7 As in the
case of any domestic satellite carrier operating exclusively as a wholesale
carrier, we will require any domestic satellite system licensee operating in
part as a wholesale carrier to permit carrier customers to have access to
transponders through their own earth stations, where desired and authorized by
the Commission.
 |
 |
|