Page 96 - Communication Commerce and Power The Political Economy of America and the Direct Broadcast Satellite

Foreign Communication Policy and DBS: 1962-1984 85

by space stations are intended for direct reception by the general
public. ' 42 The ITU also established a distinction between what it still
calls 'fixed satellite services' (FSS) and 'broadcasting satellite services'
(BSS). BSS is the ITU's formal term for DBS. Unlike the intended
distribution of signals directly to end receivers (namely, households),
as with BSS/DBS, a FSS system - also known as point-to-point as
opposed to point-to-multipoint broadcasting- involves the transmis-
sion of signals to a single or limited number of fixed receivers (namely,
a cable television operator). WAR C-ST also allocated parts of the Ku
band for BSS/DBS transmissions. Finally, WARC-ST adopted a pro-
cedure to deal with inter-state conflicts concerning unwanted (but
inevitable) spillover signals. The Conference agreed, through Regula-
tion 428A, that 'all technical means available shall be used to reduce, to
the maximum extent practicable, the radiation over the territory of
other countries unless an agreement has been previously reached with
such countries.' 43
Some nation states considered Regulation 428A to be a de facto
prior consent agreement. Some, like the Soviet Union, also argued
that it should be expanded to include explicitly broadcasting from
telesatellites direct to household receivers. US officials counter-argued
that Regulation 428A constituted nothing more than a technical
agreement. As such, it could not be used as the basis for establishing
prior consent (nor nation-state sovereignty over the free flow of
information) as a principle of international law. Representatives
from Canada and Sweden, however, considered Regulation 428A to
be an agreement regulating unwanted DBS transmissions. US officials
responded by pointing out that 428A was relevant in questions invol-
ving unintentional signal spillover only. 44 Stephen Doyle, the US
representative to the COPUOS Working Group on DBS, argued
that the Regulation, in conjunction with other ITU regulations, relate
only to radio-frequency coordination and potential interference pro-
blems.45 In other words, the US interpretation of 428A was that it
constituted little more than an agreement that DBS activities should
take place over frequencies that would not, if possible, interfere with
existing domestic broadcasts. In effect, however, this interpretation
meant that

in countries where television is hardly existent ... 428A would in no
way inhibit the broadcasting country, since the receiving countries'
channels would be unlikely to be in full use by domestic broad
casting, and thus there would be no problem of interference. 46