Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

70
THE HISTORY OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
of the Bell Telephone System. Only by insisting upon the widest participant by all interested
communications and aerospace manufacturers and operators can there by any hope
that such a monopoly can be forestalled in this new and vital field.
The antitrust laws prohibit monopolization of any part of the domestic or foreign
commerce of the United States. They also prohibit the acquisition, ownership, control, or
operation by an interstate or foreign wire carrier of any station or any system for radio
communications or signals between any place in any state in the United States and any
place in any foreign country, if the purpose is, and/or the effect thereof may be, to substantially
lessen competition or to restrain commerce between any place in any state in the
United States and any place in any foreign country, or unlawfully to create monopoly in
any line of commerce. In these circumstances, any plan which does not meet both the conditions
we have specified would, in our considered judgment, be in direct violation of the
antitrust laws and would require special legislation by the Congress. No executive order
or decree of any agency can override the antitrust laws.
[4] Nor is there any logical or rational basis for excluding U.S. domestic communications
common carriers from ownership in the system while granting companies which have no
interest and virtually no investment in international communications service opportunity
to participate in the system’s ownership, particularly since the space satellite could provide
domestic as well as international communications services.
Furthermore, it is clear that the space satellite communications system will be vastly
different from the conventional common carrier type of operation. Thus there is no justification
for excluding communications and aerospace manufacturers, particularly when
the record clearly demonstrates that a number of these organizations have a far greater
contribution to make in expert technology than any of the ten “communications carriers.”
The question of monopoly is only one of many complicated questions involved in the
decision as to what kind of an ownership system will best meet the public interest. The
ramifications of this remarkable system are likely to be truly revolutionary. And, as with all
revolutions, it is clear that our understanding of the implications of a new technology is
likely to lag behind developments themselves. Because we believe time and study are
essential to wise decision-making, and because we do not want to prejudice the ultimate
question of control and ownership during the period of study, we urge that:
1. No decisions concerning ultimate control be made until the entire system
becomes fully operational.
2. No contracts, decisions, or acts which may prejudice the ultimate decision as to
ownership be agreed to until the entire system becomes fully operational.
3. During this period, the Congress be consulted upon the question of ultimate control
and ownership and allowed to exercise its constitutional responsibility to
supervise activities of Federal agencies regulating foreign and domestic commerce.
4. During this period, all other interested parties be consulted fully upon the question
of ownership and control.
5. During this period, all possible questions of international agreement, cooperation,
control and ownership related to other nations and the [United Nations] be
thoroughly explored.
The United States can demonstrate to the world what a democratic system can accomplish
in developing a space communications satellite system. But if decisions are taken in
haste and allowed to cramp and prejudice [5] the rational development of the new gift of
science, it is likely that we may not only prejudice a question of vital national concern, but
we may hinder the rapid development of the system itself.
Your statement of July 24, 1961 makes it clear that if private ownership is to be
favored, the ownership and control system must meet eight stringent conditions. We
would like to emphasize that the conditions laid down are a very difficult set of tests for