Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

126
THE HISTORY OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
17. Like the staff and most parties, we think it unwise to attempt to select or prescribe
one system (either a consortium of all the applicants or selection of one applicant) or to
choose one or more systems through comparative hearings. In addition to the reasons
given by the staff (staff recommendation, paragraphs 50-–61), which we adopt, such a
course would not promote our policy objectives discussed above. However, we are not
accepting the alternative recommended by the staff (paragraphs 71–78) or requiring of
encouraging consolidations of applicants along guidelines prescribed by the Commission.
While we recognize that there may well be advantages to and need for voluntary consolidations
or sharing arrangements (such as “launch risk pools”) undertaken at the applicants’
initiative as a matter of prudent business judgment, we do not deem it advisable to
structure the architecture of any joint space segment operations. Rather, we will permit
and encourage such arrangements so long as they are consistent with the policy conditions
set forth herein. Accordingly, we will accord the system applicants a 30-day period
within which to apprise the Commission as to whether they intend to pursue their pending
applications, as modified to achieve compliance with this Second Report and Order, or
whether they desire further time to reframe their proposals.
18. Our decision in favor of multiple entry does not mean that we have opted for a
policy of “unlimited or unrestricted open entry.” Our aim, as outlined above, is to afford
qualified applicants a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate the public advantages in use
of the satellite technology as a means of communications. But such entry cannot be
“open” in the sense that it is without any restrictions or limitations. Pursuant to statute we
must require showings of financial, technical and other qualification and make the requisite
finding that a grant of the particular proposal will serve the public interest, con-
[851] venience and necessity. Although, as discussed in paragraph 15 above, it is our
intention to make such determinations with due regard for the unique circumstances
involved here, each applicant must make a sufficient showing of potential public benefit
to justify the assignment of orbital locations and frequencies. Moreover, we believe it necessary
to impose certain conditions to protect the public from possible detriment and to
further the implementation of our policy objectives. In addition to the conditions discussed
below, we will require a reasonable showing by any common carrier applicant now
engaged in providing essential communications services that revenue requirements related
to the proposed domestic satellite venture will not be a burden or detriment to customers
for such essential services. . . .
IV. ORDER
[860] 44a. Authority for the policies and conditions adopted herein is contained in
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4(i) and (j), 201, 202, 212, 213, 214, 218, 219, 220, 301, 303, 307–309,
310(b), 319, 396, 403 and 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 102 and
201(c)(8) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962.
45. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That:
a. The policies and conditions set forth herein, and such portions of the staff
recommendation (34 FCC 2d 9) as are expressly approved or clearly consistent
with the policies and conditions herein, ARE ADOPTED, effective July
25, 1972.
b. Each of the applicants for domestic communications satellite systems named
in paragraph 1 above, SHALL APPRISE THE COMMISSION on or before
July 25, 1972, as to whether it intends to pursue its pending system applications,
in whole or in part, with such modifications as are required to achieve
compliance with the policies and conditions specified in this Second Report