Special Message to the Congress on Communications Policy.

To the Congress of the United States:

Man's greatest hope for world peace lies in understanding his fellow man. Nations, like individuals, fear that which is strange and unfamiliar. The more we see and hear of those things which are common to all people, the less likely we are to fight over those issues which set us apart.

So the challenge is to communicate.

No technological advance offers a greater opportunity for meeting this challenge than the alliance of space exploration and communications. Since the advent of the communications satellite, the linking of one nation to another is no longer dependent on telephone lines, microwaves or cables under the sea. Just as man has orbited the earth to explore the universe beyond, we can orbit satellites to send our voices or televise our activities to all peoples of this globe.

Satellite communications has already meant much in terms of human understanding.

--When President Lincoln was assassinated, it took twelve days for the news to reach London. Britons watched and grieved with us at the funeral of John F. Kennedy.

--Europeans watched Pope Paul speak to the United Nations in New York--and Americans saw his pilgrimage to Fatima.

--The peoples of three continents witnessed the meeting of an American President and a Soviet Premier in Glassboro.

The future of this new technology stirs our imagination.

In business and commerce

--Commercial telephone calls will be carried routinely by satellite to every part of the globe.

--Rapid and universal exchange of data through satellite-linked computers will encourage international commerce.

--Productive machinery can be operated at great distances and business records can be transmitted instantaneously.

In education and health--

--Schools in all lands can be connected by television--so that the children of each nation can see and hear their contemporaries throughout the world.

--The world community of scholars can be brought together across great distances for face-to-face discussions via satellite.

--Global consultations, with voice and pictures, can bring great specialists to the bedsides of patients in every continent.

--The art, culture, history, literature and medical science of all nations can be transmitted by satellite to every nation.

Who can measure the impact of this live, direct contact between nations and their people? Who can assess the value of our newfound ability to witness the history-making events of this age? This much we know: because communications satellites exist, we are already much closer to each other than we have ever been before.

But this new technology--exciting as it is--does not mean that all our surface communications facilities have become obsolete. Indeed, one of the challenges before us is to integrate satellites into a balanced communications system which will meet the needs of a dynamic and expanding world society. The United States must review its past activities in this field and formulate a national communications policy.

U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE

The Communications Act of 1934 has provided the blueprint for federal involvement in the communications field. That Act, and the Federal Communications Commission it created, have served our national interest well during one-third of a century of rapid communications progress.

The Communications Satellite Act of 1962 established a framework for our nation's participation in satellite communications systems. Congress weighed with care the relative merits of public and private ownership of commercial satellite facilities. The Act authorized creation of the Communications Satellite Corporation (ComSat)--a private corporation with public responsibilities--to establish a commercial satellite system.

In 1964 we joined with 10 other countries in the formation of the International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium (INTELSAT). 58 nations are now members. Each member contributes investment capital and shares in the use of the system. ComSat, the U.S. representative, is the consortium manager and now contributes 54% of the total investment. All satellites managed by ComSat are owned by INTELSAT--so that commercial satellite communications has from its beginning been a product of international cooperation.

Progress has been rapid. Early Bird was launched in 1965. Now the INTELSAT II series serves both the Atlantic and the Pacific. Twelve ground stations--the vital links for sending and receiving messages-have been constructed over the world. 46 are anticipated by the end of 1969.

Today, just five years after the passage of the Communications Satellite Act and three years after the INTELSAT agreement, developments have exceeded our expectations:

--The synchronous satellite, which rotates with our globe and thus maintains a stationary position in orbit, has been developed well ahead of schedule.

--Those responsible for U.S. international communications--with ownership divided among a number of surface carriers and ComSat--now look forward to an integrated system which will utilize satellite technology.

--Proposals are being discussed for the establishment of a domestic communications satellite--either limited to TV transmission or servicing a variety of domestic communications uses.

Because we have been the leaders in the development and use of satellite communication, other countries are deeply interested in our country's position on the continuation of INTELSAT, and in the importance we assign to international cooperation in the field of satellite communications.

On February 28, 1967, I declared in a message to Congress:

"Formulation of long range policies concerning the future of satellite communications requires the most detailed and comprehensive study by the executive branch and the Congress. I anticipate that the appropriate committees of Congress will hold hearings to consider these complex issues of public policy. The executive branch will carefully study these hearings as we shape our recommendations."

A number of important communications issues are presently before the Federal Communications Commission for consideration. Some of them have been discussed in the Senate and House Commerce Committee hearings on the Public Television Act of 1967. ComSat and the State Department have opened discussion of the international questions with our foreign partners and their governments.

In order to place this important policy area in perspective, I want the views of the President to be dear. This message includes a report of the past, a recommendation for the present, and a challenge for the future.

GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

Our country is firmly committed to the concept of a global system for commercial communications. The Declaration of Policy and Purpose of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 set forth Congressional intent:

"The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States to establish, in conjunction and in cooperation with other countries, as expeditiously as practicable a commercial communications satellite system, as part of an improved global communications network, which will be responsive to public needs and national objectives, which will serve the communications needs of the United States and other countries, and which will contribute to world peace and understanding."

The INTELSAT Agreement of 1964--to which 58 nations have now adhered--left no doubt as to its purpose. Its preamble expressed the desire:

"--to establish a single global commercial communications satellite system as part of an improved global communications network which will provide expanded telecommunications services to all areas of the world and which will contribute to world peace and understanding."

Of course, these agreements do not preclude the development and operation of satellite systems to meet unique national needs. The United States is developing a defense system--as will others. But INTELSAT members did pledge that commercial communications between nations would be a product of international cooperation.

Today I reaffirm the commitments made in 1962 and 1964. We support the development of a global system of communications satellites to make modern communications available to all nations. A global system eliminates the need for duplication in the space segment of communications facilities, reduces the cost to individual nations, and provides the most efficient use of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum through which these communications must travel.

A global system is particularly important for less developed nations which do not receive the benefits of speedy, direct international communications. Instead, the present system of communications--

--encourages indirect routing through major nations to the developing countries,

--forces the developing nations to remain dependent on larger countries for their links with the rest of the world, and

--makes international communications service to these developing nations more expensive and of lower quality.

A telephone call from Rangoon to Djakarta must still go through Tokyo. A call from Dakar, Senegal to Lagos, Nigeria is routed through Paris and London. A call from American Samoa to Tahiti goes by way of Oakland, California. During the recent Punta del Este conference, I discovered that it usually cost Latin American journalists more than their American colleagues to phone in their stories because most of the calls had to be routed through New York.

Such an archaic system of international communications is no longer necessary. The communications satellite knows no geographic boundary, is dependent on no cable, owes allegiance to no single language or political philosophy. Man now has it within his power to speak directly to his fellow man in all nations.

We support a global system of commercial satellite communications which is available to all nations--large and small, developed and developing--on a non-discriminatory basis.

To have access to a satellite in the sky, a nation must have access to a ground station to transmit and receive its messages. There is a danger that smaller nations, unable to finance or utilize expensive ground stations, may become orphans of this technological advance.

We believe that satellite ground stations should be an essential part of the infrastructure of developing nations. Smaller nations may consider joint planning for a ground station to serve the communications needs of more than one nation in the same geographical area. We will consider technical assistance that will assist their planning effort.

Developing nations should be encouraged to commence construction of an efficient system of ground stations as soon as possible. When other financing is not available, we will consider financial assistance to emerging nations to build the facilities that will permit them to share in the benefits of a global communications satellite system.

CONTINUATION OF INTELSAT

The 1964 INTELSAT agreement provides only interim arrangements--subject to renegotiation in 1969. Our representatives to the consortium will soon begin discussions for a permanent arrangement.

We support the continuation of INTELSAT. Each nation or its representative contributes to its expenses and benefits from its revenues in accordance with its anticipated use of the system. The 58 members include representatives from the major nations who traditionally have been most active in international communications. It has been a successful vehicle for international cooperation in the ownership and operation of a complex communications system.

We will urge the continuation of the consortium in 1969. The present arrangements offer a firm foundation on which a permanent structure can be built.

Some nations may feel that the United States has too large a voice in the consortium. As heavy users of international communications, our investment in such an international undertaking is exceptionally large. The early development of satellite technology in the United States and the size of our investment has made it logical that ComSat serve as consortium manager.

We seek no domination of satellite communications to the exclusion of any other nation--or any group of nations. Rather, we welcome increased participation in international communications by all INTELSAT members. We shall approach the 1969 negotiations determined to seek the best possible permanent organizational framework.

--We will consider ceilings on the voting power of any single nation--including the United States--so that the organization will maintain its international character.

--We will support the creation of a formal assembly of all INTELSAT members-so that all may share in the consideration of policy.

--We favor efforts to make the services of personnel of other nations available to ComSat as it carries out its management responsibilities.

--We will continue the exchange of technical information, share technological advances, and promote a wider distribution of procurement contracts among members of the consortium.

It is our earnest hope that every member nation will join with us in finding an equitable formula for a permanent INTELSAT organization.

DOMESTIC COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEMS

Communications satellites have domestic as well as international applications. Satellites that can beam telephone calls or television programs between New York and Paris can do the same between New York and Los Angeles. Daring proposals have already been made to tap the vast U.S. domestic market.

Our awareness of the social and economic potential of this new technology is met by similar excitement around the globe. Each nation will be making decisions about how domestic communications needs can best be met. The position taken by the United States is particularly important because our domestic market is so large and our role in international communications is so extensive.

There are important unanswered questions concerning the operation of a domestic system. Assuming these questions are answered favorably, we still must make the decision to move forward with such a system consistent with our international obligations.

The space segment of a communications satellite system is international by its very nature.

--A synchronous satellite occupies a permanent orbital position in the international domain of outer space.

--All satellites radiate electro-magnetic energy potentially capable of interference with other communications systems.

--All satellites use the internationally regulated frequency spectrum. In view of the international nature of satellite communications and our commitments under the INTELSAT agreement of 1964, we should take no action in the establishment of a domestic system which is incompatible with our support for a global system.

This does not mean that the United States--or any other nation--will give up vital sovereignty over domestic communications. The flow of satellite communications-both domestic and international--is to and from ground stations owned by the individual nation or its representatives. Each country will have to determine for itself whether it wants to use communications satellites for domestic purposes. It must be prepared to bear the expense of such satellite use, just as it will derive any revenues.

It is the space segment--not the ground station--that is of legitimate international concern. How should a nation utilize satellites for domestic communications purposes? There are several possible choices:

--A nation can lease circuits from an international INTELSAT satellite.

--It could elect to operate a separate satellite for its own domestic use.

--It could join with neighboring countries to operate a separate satellite.

Logically, this decision should be based on economic grounds--whether domestic requirements can be met most efficiently and economically by a satellite owned by INTELSAT, or by a separate satellite. Present studies indicate that a high volume of domestic traffic is necessary for a separate satellite to offset the cost advantage of sharing the use of an international satellite. The same considerations apply if domestic needs are to be met by a satellite shared by several nations.

If the regional satellite is to carry international traffic as well, INTELSAT--the international communications consortium-has an important stake in the result. Adequate provisions must be made so that any international traffic which is diverted will not jeopardize the economic efficiency of the INTELSAT system or limit its extension to developing countries.

INTELSAT members should adhere to INTELSAT supervision in any use of domestic or regional satellites.

Such supervision should include coordination of design so that all communication by commercial satellite is compatible with the global system. We must not sacrifice our goal of direct communications links among all nations. Domestic and international traffic should be able to flow freely through the entire global system, limited only by the technology itself.

Technical regulation is also necessary so that positions in orbit can be assigned, frequencies can be allocated, and energy from satellites does not interfere with other communications systems.

The alternative to this type of coordination is international communications anarchy--lack of inter-connections, needless expense, pollution of frequencies, radio interference, and usurpation of orbital spaces. Nations should have no hesitation in choosing the route of international cooperation.

PARTICIPATION BY OTHER NATIONS IN INTELSAT

I urge the Soviet Union and the nations of Eastern Europe to join with the United States and our 57 partners as members of INTELSAT. INTELSAT is not a political organization. It holds no ideological goal except that it is good for nations to communicate efficiently with one another. It seeks no diplomatic advantage. It is quite simply a cooperative undertaking of many nations to finance an international communications system which is of advantage to all.

In 1963, this invitation was extended by the governments of those nations which joined in the creation of INTELSAT. Today, I renew that invitation on behalf of our government.

I have stated many times my hope that our commercial activities with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe will grow, that our contacts will increase, and that we will emphasize those matters in which our interests are common rather than dwelling on those issues which divide us.

Here is a rare opportunity to join in an activity to bring benefits to all nations and loss to none. Recently the Soviet Union ratified the treaty for the peaceful uses of outer space. Nothing could better symbolize the truth that space belongs to all men, than an international undertaking that permits the free flow of communications. I earnestly hope that the Soviet Union and the nations of Eastern Europe will join in this historic action.

The Soviet Union is a leader in satellite technology. I am advised that there is no insurmountable technical obstacle to an eventual linking of the Soviet MOLNIYA system with the INTELSAT system. The peoples of the world could rightfully rejoice if our advances in satellite technology were accompanied by this act of global cooperation.

Of course, this participation would require a revision of investment and voting ratios based on Soviet anticipated use of the system. Our representatives in INTELSAT are ready to participate in immediate discussions to make that membership possible.

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS OWNERSHIP

Most nations handle their international communications through a "chosen instrument"--generally, a government owned entity. The United States has no chosen instrument. Several record carriers and one voice carrier handle international traffic. In addition, ComSat provides satellite circuits to these carriers.

Our normal instinct is to favor the existence of multiple companies in each commercial field. We believe that competitive pressures--among technologies as well as companies--will usually generate lower prices for the user. Congress recognized in the 1962 Act that ComSat would be required to deal with several international carriers.

Yet, there is a legitimate question as to whether the present division of ownership continues to be in the public interest. Critics argue that:

--International communications are provided by an industry which is regulated in its rates and practices. Price completion, as we usually use that term, does not exist.

--Divided ownership has resulted in the construction and maintenance of expensive, duplicating communications facilities which increase operating costs and result in higher rates for the user.

--Our nation is in a relatively poor bargaining position on communications matters with foreign counterparts since we do not speak with a single voice.

--Disputes have existed between ComSat and the surface carriers over who should own the ground stations in the international system.

--Defense communications in the future could be subjected to delay.

Several proposals have been advanced which would affect our international communications posture. Legislation has been proposed to permit a merger of one or more of the international carriers. It has been suggested that ComSat should be permitted--in certain circumstances--to contract directly with users other than the international common carriers.

Questions have been raised whether additional communications capacity should be developed through surface cables, utilization of satellites, or other technologies.

A continuation of the review of these issues is desirable.

TASK FORCE ON COMMUNICATION POLICY

I am appointing a Task Force of distinguished government officials to make a comprehensive study of communications policy.

It will examine a number of major questions:

--Are we making the best use of the electro-magnetic frequency spectrum?

--How soon will a domestic satellite system be economically feasible?

--Should a domestic satellite system be general purpose or specialized, and should there be more than one system?

--How will these and other developments affect ComSat and the international communication carriers?

These are complex questions. Many of them are being presently weighed by the Federal Communications Commission. But a long, hard look must also be taken by all parties with responsibility in this area--for the ultimate decisions will work a revolution in the communications system of our nation.

This Task Force will examine our entire international communications posture. It should investigate whether the present division of ownership in our international communications facilities best serves our needs, as well as which technology can meet new communication requirements in the most effective and efficient manner.

The task force may establish working groups of government and non-government experts to study various technical, economic and social questions.

The task force should also determine if the Communications Act of 1934 and the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 require revision. I am asking the task force to report to me from time to time and to make its final report within one year.

GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION

Our government must be organized to carry out its responsibilities in the communications field. Present authority is widely dispersed. The Federal Communications Commission has heavy responsibilities under the 1934 and 1962 Acts. The President and many agencies have responsibilities under these Acts, various Executive Orders, and as part of their general duties.

Communications is a vital public policy area--and government organization must reflect that challenge.

l have asked the Bureau of the Budget to make a thorough study of existing governmental organization in the field of communications and to propose needed modifications.

CONCLUSIONS

This message does not create a new communications policy for our nation. Rather it proposes the foundation for that policy.

--It reaffirms our intentions as a partner in INTELSAT.

--It considers the need for modifications in our international communications posture.

--It sets in motion the necessary studies for a better understanding of policy needs in domestic and international communications.

The challenge of this new technology is simple--it is to encourage men to talk to each other rather than fight one another.

Historians may write that the human race survived or faltered because of how well it mastered the technology of this age.

Communications satellites now permit man's greatest gifts--sight, expression, human thoughts and ideas--to travel unfettered to any portion of our globe. The opportunity is within our grasp. We must be prepared to act.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

The White House

August 14, 1967