DA 95-1342 Federal Communications Commission Record 10 FCC Red No. 14 2. Given the seriousness of Columbia©s allegations and Before the our commitment to a fully competitive marketplace, we Federal Communications Commission have deferred action on these applications pending review Washington, D.C. 20554 of Columbia©s allegations. Based on our review and subse quent events bearing on these issues, we now dismiss Co In the Matter of lumbia©s petitions and grant these applications, which will improve communications between the U.S. and the Rus IDB WORLDCOM File No. I-T-C-92-164 sian Federation and other international points. SERVICES, INC. BACKGROUND Application for blanket authority pursuant 3. Traditionally, satellite services between the U.S. and to Section 214 of the Communications Act the countries of the former Soviet Union, including Russia, of 1934, as amended, to establish channels have been provided using the Intelsat system. However, the communications between the U.S. and the establishment of U.S.-licensed international satellite systems countries of the former Soviet Union via separate from Intelsat provided U.S. customers with a choice in the use of space segment capacity for telecom the Statsionar 11 satellite for the provision munications services between the U.S. and Russia.3 This of public switched network services choice has been expanded to permit the use of Intersputnik satellite system capacity to provide various switched and non-switched services between U.S. and Russia. For exam MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, ple, initially we authorized use of the Intersputnik system AND AUTHORIZATION for television and data service based on a finding that insufficient ground and space segment capacity were avail Adopted: June 23,1995; Released: July 5,1995 able over the world-wide Intelsat system.4 More recently, we authorized use of the Intersputnik system in an effort to By the Chief, International Bureau: improve the unacceptable quality of telephone service be tween the U.S. and the Russian Federation, and to meet 1. Over the past two and one-half years, an increasing the rapidly increasing demand for PSN service.5 We found number of applications have been filed for authority to that the demand for services could not be met solely provide a full range of telecommunications services be through use of the Intelsat system and that additional ca tween the United States and the Russian Federation and pacity needed to be established using the Intersputnik sys other international locations using satellites owned, op tem/ erated, or licensed by the Russian Federation. 1 Columbia 4. The applications that are the subject of Columbia©s Communications Corp., a U.S.-licensed separate interna petitions seek authority, pursuant to Section 214 and Title tional satellite system, opposes authorization of these ap III of the Communications Act of 1934, to establish chan plications until the Russian Federation grants "landing nels of communications between appropriately-licensed rights" to permit its satellite system in Russia.2 Columbia earth stations in the United States and the Russian Feder claims that various anticompetitive actions by officials in ation and other locations via the Russian Intersputnik and the Russian Federation have denied its system "landing other satellites of the former Soviet Union. rights." 5. Columbia opposes the authorization of any additional Intersputnik or other Russian satellite capacity because it believes the Russian Federation has engaged in conduct 1 Because of the number of applications involved, only one may have been deferred in previous Commission orders in application is included in the heading. The remaining applica which requests to use non-Russian facilities were granted. We tions which are the subject of this order are: IDB WorldCom will address those deferred requests in a subsequent order. Services, Inc. (File Nos. I-T-C-91-196, l-T-C-92-164, 1-T-C- 2 In addition to the appropriate Russian regulatory approvals, 93-075, l-T-C-94-259 and I-T-C-94-306); MCI Telecommunica "landing rights" also involves completion of the Intelsat Article tions Corp. (File No. I-T-C-92-189); AT&T Corp. (File No. XIV(d) consultation process by which a country agrees to per I-T-C-93-164); Pacific Gateway Exchange (File No. I-T-C- mit use of a foreign satellite for international service between 93-215); Mariga Communications Corporation (File No. I-T- that country and other international locations. Under Article C-94-030); Transworld Communications (U.S.A.), Inc. (File Nos. XIV(d) of the Intelsat Agreement, a Party or Signatory that I-T-C-94-126 and l-T-C-94-159); Micronet, Inc. (File No. l-T- desires to use non-Intelsat space segment (i.e., a "separate sys C-94-245); Alascom, Inc. (File No. I-T-C-94-352); Sprint Com tem") for the provision of public international telecommunica munications Co., LP (File Nos. I-T-C-94-403 and I-T-C-94-411); tions service must consult with Intelsat to determine if the use Transworld International, Inc. (File No. CSG-94-078-P/L); Cable of non-Intelsat space segment will cause either technical or News Network, Inc. (File No. CSG-94-129-P/L); Micronet, Inc. significant economic harm. (File No. CSG-94-096-ML); Bridgewater State College (File No. 3 Establishment of Satellite Systems Providing International CSG-95-028-P/L); Melbourne International Communications Communications, 101 F.C.C.2d 1046 (1985) ("Separate Systems Limited (File No. CSG-94-088-ML); and Alascom, Inc. (File No. Decision"), recon., 61 R.R.2d 649 (1986), further recon., 1 F.C.C. CSG-94-160-P/L). All pending applications filed by IDB Com Red. 439 (1986). munications Group. Inc. and CICI d/b/a IDB International are 4 IDB Communications Group, Inc. et al., 6 FCC. Red. 2932 authorized under the name IDB WorldCom Services, Inc. as a (1991). result of a transfer of control. A description of the services 5 American Telephone and Telegraph Co. et al., 8 FCC. Red. authorized for each application is set forth in the ordering 2668, 2669 (1993). clauses. We are aware that authority to use Russian satellites 5 Id. 7278 10 FCC Red No. 14 Federal Communications Commission Record DA 95-1342 designed to prevent additional entrants into its market for DISCUSSION international telecommunications services. Columbia cites 7. Underlying U.S. international satellite policy is the its unsuccessful efforts over a three-year period to obtain establishment of a competitive environment that provides "landing rights" to offer low-cost business telecommunica customers with increased service options and lower prices. tions services to, from, and within Russia.7 Columbia be We have extended our Separate Systems Policy to allow use lieves that the lack of Russian interest in its business of non-U.S. satellite systems such as Intersputnik where proposal there stems from a "desire to keep American such use is required to satisfy traffic demand that other satellite capacity providers from competing with Russian international systems could not address. In view of these telecommunications ventures" in which prominent Russian policies, we are concerned if any U.S. satellite provider is Government officials may have a direct financial interest.8 denied access to a country, particularly where the satellite Columbia also suggests that its inability to gain landing systems of that country are permitted access to the U.S. rights stems from its refusal to offer the same financial international market. In this case, however, we find no inducements as other companies seeking to do business in lack of reciprocal access to the Russian Federation for Russia. Thus, Columbia requests that the Commission au U.S.-licensed satellite systems. thorize no additional access to U.S. markets by the Russian 8. To begin with, Columbia has not presented us with Federation via any Russian satellite facilities until U.S. any specific regulatory policy or decision of the Russian international separate systems are granted unfettered access Federation that denies Columbia the ability to provide to Russian international telecommunications markets. Co service between the U.S. and Russia. We note that no U.S. lumbia also suggests that the Commission refer this matter carrier has applied to us for authority to serve Russia via to the Department of State. the Columbia system. Moreover, Columbia states that it 6. The applicants cite a number of reasons why the knows of no similar application pending before any gov applications should be granted and suggest reasons, other ernmental entity within Russia. Columbia©s inability to than those described by Columbia, to explain Columbia©s point to any specific regulatory denial has made it difficult difficulties. First, the applicants observe the need for im for us even to define the alleged exclusion from the Rus proved communications between the U.S. and Russia, and sian market, let alone determine its causes. note that use of the Intersputnik satellite system is consis 9. As Columbia suggested, we sought the views of the tent with our Separate Systems Decision. They also note that Department of State on the issues raised by Columbia.10 In the evidence does not indicate a Russian policy to exclude response, the State Department advised that there are "no non-Russian satellite systems from operating within Russia. fundamental foreign policy reasons which would lead the For example, they point out that the Intelsat and Eutelsat Russian Federation or the United States to deny use of satellite systems provide service to Russia, and that each other©s satellite systems for commercial uses." 11 The PanAmSat, a U.S.-licensed international separate satellite State Department also referred to a letter to Columbia system, has "landing rights" to provide U.S.-Russia service.