WPC( 2BJ Courier#|j  Xj\  P6G;XPTimes New Roman0_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2a6KF Zv#|j "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xj\  P6G;\oeXPa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2~pkkna4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vt& 4a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2   \  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2s   sa6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical21ua1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2c ra3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2L*3ea8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:   T> $//TRANSMITTED FOR FCC RECORD ONLY//$ $//Declaratory Ruling, Cable & Wireless, Control of Licenses, FCC 95422//$ $/300.314 Extension of Lines/$ $/300.310  Xv4+e#Xn4  pG;4X#Before the [ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4Washington, D.C. 20554  X 4#Xj\  P6G;XP#In the Matters of hhCq)  X 4 hhCq)pp  *xxXFCC 95422  X 4Petition of Cable & Wireless, Inc. q)  X 4 hhCq)  X 4for a Declaratory Ruling RegardinghhCq)File No. 60SATMISC95  X4Control of Licensees for Very Smallq)  Xy4Aperture Terminals Used to Provideq)  Xb4Common Carrier Services hhCq) ` `  hhCq)  X44Application of Cable & Wireless, Incq) ` `  hhCq)  X4for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 q)  X4of the Communications Act of 1934,q)File No. ITC95367  X4as Amended, to Provide Private Lineq)  X4Services to Foreign Points Using Licensedq)  X4VSAT Terminals  hhCq)  Xe41$ DECLARATORY RULING vAND Z MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AUTHORIZATION AND CERTIFICATE  X 4  Adopted: October 6, 1995hhCq Released: October 17, 1995 By the Commission:  X!4GN I. Introduction  X#4 1.` ` In this order, we grant the request of Cable & Wireless, Inc. (CWI) to exceed the alien ownership and participation benchmarks of Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications  XQ%4Act of 1934 (the Act)_Q%T X'4ԍX47 U.S.C.  310(b)(4) (1994).(#_ for the purpose of obtaining control of very small aperture terminal (VSAT) licensees. We find that public interest factors weigh in favor of granting CWI's":&y0*0*0*$" request. We also grant CWI authority, under Section 214 of the Act, to acquire and operate":&y0*0*0*%" U.S. international VSAT facilities to provide, as a nondominant carrier, noninterconnected":&y0*0*0*%"  X:&-private line services to Mexico and various points in Central and South America. We":&y0*0*0*%" anticipate that enabling CWI to provide these VSAT facilities will increase satellitebased":&y0*0*0*%" competition in the provision of common carrier global network services. ":&y0*0*0*%"Ԍ":&y0*0*0*%"Ԍ X-3" II. Background  X- x2.` ` CWI, a Washington, D.C. corporation, is a whollyowned subsidiary of Cable & Wireless Holdings, Inc. (CWH), a Virginia corporation. CWH is a whollyowned subsidiary of Cable & Wireless plc (C&W plc), a publicly traded corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales. C&W plc's officers and directors are U.K. citizens with the exception of three directors, one of whom is from the United States. Eightyseven percent of its shares are held by U.K. interests; the majority of the remaining shares are held by large institutional investors from Western Europe and the United States. Eight percent of the shares are owned by U.S. entities.  X -x3.` ` C&W plc has been involved in global telecommunications for over 120 years. As a worldwide carrier of international telephone traffic, C&W plc provides international communications in more than 30 countries. It also provides domestic services in more than 20 countries. C&W plc's subsidiary, CWI, is a U.S. domestic long distance and international common carrier, providing a range of switched and private line services.  Xy-x4.` ` CWI seeks a declaratory ruling that the public interest would not be served by prohibiting CWI or its U.S. affiliates from obtaining control of VSAT licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of the Act. CWI's proposed use of VSATs to provide common carrier services  X4-implicates the indirect alien ownership provisions of Section 310(b)(4) because CWI's parent corporation, C&W plc, is a U.K. owned and controlled corporation. In addition, C&W plc has alien officers and more than twentyfive percent of its directors are aliens. Thus, CWI would exceed the alien ownership and participation benchmarks set forth in Section 310(b)(4).  X-x5.` ` CWI also seeks authority under Section 214 of the Act to provide private line services, not interconnected to the public switched network, to and from Mexico and various  X-points in Central and South America,<19 X -ЍXxCWI originally sought authorization to serve other routes worldwide. See Application of Cable & Wireless, Inc. for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Private Line Service to Foreign Points Using Licensed VSAT Terminals, File No. ITC95367 (filed Jan. 26, 1995) (CWI Section 214 Application). It narrowed its request, however, to Mexico and  X-Central and South American countries in a subsequent ex parte letter. See Letter from Philip V. Permut, Counsel for CWI, to Diane J. Cornell, Telecommunications Division  Xk!-Chief, International Bureau (filed June 19, 1995). The countries CWI seeks to serve are listed in the Appendix.(#< using VSAT facilities acquired from existing sources. CWI states that traffic will be transmitted between earth stations authorized to communicate with the satellites of PanAmSat Corporation (PanAmSat), Orion Satellite Corporation and Columbia Communications Corporation, as well as U.S. domestic satellites and the Morelos and Solidaridad satellite systems. "  0*((>"Ԍ X-]# III. Discussion  X-  W< A.xCWI's Section 310(b)(4) Petition   X- x6. ` ` CWI's proposed controlling ownership interest in VSAT licensees exceeds  X-Section 310(b)(4)'s alien ownership, officer and director thresholds.9 X-ЍXxSection 310(b)(4) states, in pertinent part: (# Xx(b) No broadcast or common carrier or aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station license shall be granted to or held by (# x` ` hh@* * * XxX` ` (4) any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by any other(#` XxX` ` corporation of which any officer or more than onefourth(#` x` ` of the directors are aliens, or of which more than onefourth of the(#` XxX` ` capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives,(#` XxX` ` or by a foreign government or representative thereof, or(#` XxX` ` by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country, (#` XxX` ` if the Commission finds that the public interest will be served (#` x` ` by the refusal or revocation of such license.(#`  X-Xx47 U.S.C.  310(b)(4) (1994). @ (#Ɲ Section 310(b)(4) expressly provides that up to 25 percent of the capital stock of a corporation that controls a corporate licensee may be held by aliens and that no officers and up to 25 percent of the directors of the parent corporation may be alien without Commission approval. Section 310(b)(4) further provides that the benchmark levels for alien ownership and directors may be exceeded and alien officers may participate unless the Commission determines that greater  X -alien ownership or participation would not be in the public interest.B 9 X-ԍXxId.(#B  X -  X - x7.` ` In its petition, CWI states that it has identified a specific business opportunity involving the use of a VSAT network to provide domestic and international common carrier services. CWI argues that it should be allowed to exceed Section 310(b)(4)'s benchmarks for alien ownership, officers and directors for four principal reasons. First, CWI states that the Commission should take into account the openness of the United Kingdom, the country in which C&W plc is incorporated and headquartered. CWI states that the United Kingdom  XK-offers open entry to U.S. interests seeking U.K. radio licenses.K9 X$-ЍXxSee Petition of Cable & Wireless, Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling Regarding Control of Very Small Aperture Terminal Used to Provide Common Carrier Services, File No. 60SATMISC95, at 47 (filed Jan. 26, 1995). (# Second, CWI states that its use of VSAT service will increase satellitebased competition in the provision of common"4T0*((" carrier global network services by enabling CWI to compete more effectively in offering integrated solutions to companies with U.S. operations. Third, CWI emphasizes that there is a close and friendly relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom and, accordingly, there is no national security reason for disallowing U.K. ownership or participation in excess of the statutory benchmark. Finally, CWI states that the Commission traditionally has found that foreign ownership of common carrier radio licenses, such as  Xv-VSAT licenses, raises far fewer policy concerns than ownership of radio broadcast licenses.Jv9 X-ԍXxId. at 79.(#J  X_-  XH-x8.` ` NYNEX Corporation (NYNEX) and SBC Communications Inc. (SBC) filed comments in support of CWI's petition. They contend that grant of CWI's petition will promote the opening of foreign telecommunications markets to competitive entry and will ensure that U.K. markets remain open for U.S. investment. These parties also assert that failure to relax the foreign ownership restrictions may jeopardize favorable conditions that  X -now exist in the United Kingdom for U.S. investors. y9 X-ЍXxSee Comments of NYNEX Corporation at 23; Comments of SBC Communication, Inc. at 23. (#Ɵ  X -x9.` ` Hughes Network Systems, Inc. (Hughes) and PanAmSat filed comments which raise several additional issues. Hughes, a provider of VSAT services, is concerned that CWI does not specifically describe the common carrier services it wishes to provide. Thus, according to Hughes, CWI's petition may erode the notion that services provided via VSATs typically are considered to be noncommon carrier services. Hughes therefore requests that  X4-the Commission require CWI to describe specifically its proposed operations.i49 X-ԍXxComments of Hughes Network Systems, Inc. at 23.(#i PanAmSat suggests that, if the Commission considers the openness of the U.K. VSAT market in evaluating CWI's petition, other markets in which CWI has a dominant interest, including various Caribbean countries, also should be examined for their openness to U.S.based  X-entities.a 9 XM-ԍXxComments of PanAmSat Corporation at 23.(#a  X-x10.` ` AT&T argues that CWI's petition should be decided under the rules that may  X-be adopted in our Foreign Carrier Entry NPRM proceeding.  u9 X"-ЍXxSee Market Entry and Regulation of Foreignaffiliated Entities, Notice of Proposed  X#-Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 4844 (Feb. 17, 1995) (Foreign Carrier Entry NPRM).(#  According to AT&T, CWI has affiliations with foreign monopoly carriers that present significant policy issues that the  Xe-Foreign Carrier Entry NPRM is designed to address. AT&T therefore urges us to deny or "e 0*((" defer ruling upon CWI's petition until we can apply rules developed in the pending  X-rulemaking proceeding.c 9 Xb-ԍXxSee Opposition of AT&T Corp. at 45.(#c  X-  X-x` ` 1. The Commission's Legal Authority Under Section 310(b)(4).  X-x11.` ` Under the plain language of Section 310(b)(4) and its legislative history, the  Xv-Commission has broad discretion in applying Section 310(b)(4).  vy9 X -ЍXxSee, e.g., Primemedia Broadcasting, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 4293, 4295 (1988) ("The provisions of Section 310(b)(4) expressly provide the Commission with discretion to allow levels of indirect alien ownership along a vertical ownership chain in excess of  X[ -the statutory benchmarks."); Requests for Declaratory Ruling Concerning the Citizenship Requirements of Section 310(b)(3) and (4) of the Communications Act of  X--1934 (Wilner & Scheiner), 103 F.C.C.2d 511, 524 (1985) ("the provisions of Section 310(b)(4) expressly provide the Commission with the discretion to refrain from strictly  X-applying the statutory benchmarks"); Data Transmission Co., 52 F.C.C.2d 439, 440 (1975) ("Congress evidenced a flexibility on alien control of parent corporations, particularly in giving the Commission discretion in waiving the alien restrictions for controlling corporations (see Section 310(b)(4)"). (# Moreover, Section 310(b)(4) does not limit the amount of alien interests, as long as the Commission does not determine that such ownership would not be in the public interest. Thus, alien interests in parent corporations of licensees in excess of the statutory benchmarks have been authorized on  X -several occasions. H D 9 X-ЍXxSee, e.g., MCI/BT Declaratory Ruling, 9 FCC Rcd 3960 (1994) (MCI/BT Order) (28 percent foreign ownership in the parent corporation of common carrier radio licensees). Several decisions made under delegated authority have also allowed greater  X-than 25 percent foreign ownership: Teleport Transmission Holdings, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 3063 (Com. Car. Bur. 1993) (60 percent foreign ownership in parent corporation of  X-satellite earth station licensee); GCI Liquidating Trust, 7 FCC Rcd 7641 (Dom. Fac. Div., Com. Car. Bur. 1992) (60 percent foreign ownership in parent corporation of common carrier microwave licensee).(# To date, the highest percentage of such alien ownership in a common  X -carrier radio licensee previously approved is 60 percent. T9 X!-ЍXxSee Teleport Transmission Holdings, 8 FCC Rcd at 3065 (granted by the Common Carrier Bureau pursuant to delegated authority).(#  X -x` ` 2. Applicability of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  X -Regarding Foreign Carrier Entry. (#  X-x12. ` ` We disagree with AT&T that we should deny CWI's petition and application or  Xy-defer ruling until we issue rules in our Foreign Carrier Entry NPRM . Although we currently"y0*((i" are considering adoption of new policies that would affect our public interest analyses under Sections 214 and 310(b)(4), we are reluctant to delay our ruling on CWI's requests until such time as final rules may ultimately be adopted. We believe that, out of fairness to petitioners and applicants and their need for prompt regulatory decisionmaking, normal processing of petitions and applications should continue during the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding. We note, however, that this ruling and order adopted under our current policies does not  Xv-prejudge the outcome of the Foreign Carrier Entry NPRM, which examines what our future foreign carrier entry policies and goals should be. We therefore find that CWI's petition  XH-should be reviewed under our current rules and policies.  X1-  X -x` ` 3. Public Interest Analysis.  X - x 13.` ` In considering petitions filed under Section 310(b)(4) in the past, we traditionally have examined several public interest factors, including: (1) the extent of alien  X -participation in the parent corporation; (2) the nature of the license (i.e., whether the license at issue is common carrier or broadcast); (3) national security interests; and (4) the effect on  X-competition and competitors. In   considering this case, we analyze whether the public interest will be disserved by CWI's control of VSAT facilities under the factors the Commission has applied in Section 310 cases. In addition, we consider factors related to CWI's unique position in the U.S. telecommunications market.  X-x14.` ` In examining the extent of alien participation in the parent corporation of a Title III radio licensee, we traditionally have considered where the parent corporation is incorporated (in the United States or elsewhere); the citizenship of the stockholders of the  X-parent corporation and the officers and directors of the parent corporation; and whether there are intermediate corporations between the licensee and the parent corporation that are  X-incorporated in the United States , are owned by U.S. citizens or interests, and have U.S. officers and directors.  Xe-x15.` ` In those instances in which the Commission has authorized alien ownership or participation in excess of the Section 310(b)(4) statutory benchmark, the Commission has considered the level of alien presence in light of the extent of U.S. presence in other areas  X -relevant to the public interest determination under Section 310(b)(4).T 9 X-ԍXxSee supra n.12.(#T In GRC Cablevision,  X -Inc., for example, where the Commission allowed 60 percent alien ownership of a licensee's parent, it specifically noted that the majority of the parent's board of directors was comprised  X-of U.S. citizens and the parent itself was a U.S. corporation.my9 X$-ԍXxSee GRC Cablevision, 47 F.C.C.2d at 468.(#m Similarly, in Teleport  X -Transmission Holdings, the Common Carrier Bureau approved 60 percent alien ownership in a licensee's parent where there was 75 percent U.S. presence in the corporate roles of officers"!*0*(( "  X-and directors.{9 Xy-ԍXxSee Teleport Transmission Holdings, 8 FCC Rcd at 3065.(#{ These two decisions represent the highest percentage of alien ownership in a parent corporation of a nonbroadcast radio licensee previously approved, although there are numerous other instances in which alien ownership in excess of the benchmarks has been  X-approved.Gy9 X-  @ԍXxSee, e.g., supra n.12; see also Fox Television Stations, Inc., File No. BRCT940201KZ   (Jul. 28, 1995) (alien corporation permitted to continue to own 99 percent corporate equity   capital and 24 percent of shares of broadcast licensee's parent corporation where U.S.  X -  ?citizen exercises de facto and de jure control and applicant has demonstrated good faith reliance on earlier Commission rulings).(#G  X-x16.` ` In this case, CWI's ultimate parent corporation, C&W plc, is incorporated in the United Kingdom and is 92 percent alienowned. All of C&W plc's officers and directors are foreign nationals, except for one U.S. director. On the other hand, two intermediate U.S. corporations CWI and CWH would exist between the VSAT licensee and C&W plc. In addition, according to CWI, 55 percent of its directors and 88 percent of its officers are U.S. citizens. Similarly, 55 percent of CWH's directors and 85 percent of CWH's officers are U.S. citizens. Thus, both CWI and CWH have more than 50 percent U.S. directors and 85 percent or more U.S. officers.  X -x17.` ` Although the level of foreign ownership in CWI's ultimate parent corporation is significant and controlling, there is substantial U.S. participation in CWI and CWH. In the past, we have found alien foreign controlling interests in U.S. radio licensees to be consistent with the public interest when they are counterbalanced by significant U.S. participation in other areas. Thus, assuming that other public interest factors support approval, the significant and controlling alien ownership and management of CWI does not preclude a finding that CWI's proposed control of VSAT facilities is consistent with the public interest.  X- x 18.` ` In addition, the Commission traditionally has found that alien ownership of common carrier radio licensees raises far fewer policy concerns than that of radio broadcast licenses. We have concluded that concern about the effect of alien ownership is lessened when common carrier radio licenses are involved because they are "passive" in nature and  X-there is no control over the content of transmissions.9 X)!-ЍXxSee MCI/BT Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3964; Teleport Transmission Holdings, 8 FCC Rcd  X"-at 3063; IDB Communications Group, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 4652, 4653 (Com. Car. Bur.  X"-1991); Data General Corporation and Digicom, Inc., 2 FCC Rcd 6060 (Dom. Fac.  X#-Div., Com. Car. Bur. 1987).   (#ƹ The VSAT licenses at issue in this proceeding are to be used to provide common carrier, rather than broadcast, services. In general, common carrier VSAT services are passive in nature. VSAT licensees' customers,  Xe-not the licensee, control the content of the transmissions. Thus, allowing CWI's participation"e: 0*(("  X-in a VSAT licensee is consistent with our existing precedent.T9 Xy-ԍXxSee supra n.19.(#T  X-x19.` `  Another factor traditionally considered by the Commission in evaluating alien ownership and participation is whether national security concerns are implicated. One of Congress' principal reasons for enacting Section 310 was its concern about national security  X-and the idea of preventing alien activities against the government during the time of war.Hy9 X-ЍXxSee generally S. Rep. No. 781, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1934). See also Moving  X -Phones Partnership L.P. v. FCC, 998 F.2d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (referring to "national security policy underlying section 310(b)" and indicating that "the rationale is equally applicable to common carrier radio stations, as they, also, are a part of the nation's communications network"). The original national security concerns about limiting foreign ownership in a parent corporation have been somewhat alleviated because today there is a plethora of service providers so that no single licensee can manipulate adversely the entire wireless or wireline services in the United States.(#  Xv-We find that no national security concerns are at issue in this proceeding.  X_-  XH-x20.` ` Finally, CWI proposes that we also consider, as an additional factor in our Section 310(b)(4) public interest analysis, the extent to which the United Kingdom affords equivalent entry opportunities for U.S.based companies seeking to control VSAT operations. CWI states that the United Kingdom has an open entry policy for VSATs that permits domestic and international operations pursuant to a class license, requiring no prior administrative action. PanAmSat argues that the Commission also should examine the entry policies of other countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, where CWI and its affiliates own or control dominant or monopoly telecommunications service providers.  Xy-x21.` ` We find no reason to disagree with CWI's assertions regarding the openness of the U.K. market to U.S.based entities for the control of VSAT operations. Indeed, in the  XK-BT/MCI Order, we observed that the U.K. telecommunications market is one of the most  X4-liberalized markets in the world.4 9 Xn-ЍXxSee MCI/BT Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 3972 (28 percent alien ownership in parent  XW-corporation of common carrier licensee). CWI appears to assert that, because of the ties of its ultimate parent corporation to the United Kingdom, noted in  2 above, the  X)!-United Kingdom is its "home market." (#Ƥ In addition, it appears that CWI is correct about the openness of the U.K. VSAT market to U.S. entities. Open entry for the control of domestic and international VSAT facilities in the United Kingdom is available pursuant to class license. No prior administrative authority is needed to conduct VSAT operations, and providers of any"0*(("  X-nationality are permitted to directly operate the VSAT facilities. 9 Xy-ЍXxSee CWI Petition at Appendix B (U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, Class License to Run Telecommunication Systems for the Provision of Satellite Telecommunication Services (Aug. 2, 1991).)(#  We decline, however, to  X-take the approaches recommended by CWI and PanAmSat. In our Foreign Carrier Entry  X-NPRM, we have proposed that foreign entry conditions become an explicit public interest  X-consideration in Section 310(b)(4) determinations. As noted above, we believe it more appropriate to address the direct relevancy of the openness of a foreign market in a Section 310(b)(4) public interest determination in the context of the pending rulemaking proceeding currently under consideration. Of course, CWI, like other holders of Section 214 authorizations, will be subject to any rules of general applicability which may be adopted in  XH-the Foreign Carrier Entry NPRM proceeding.  X -x22.` ` We also find that enabling CWI to employ VSAT facilities on a common carrier basis will serve the public interest by enhancing competition in the provision of global network services, to the benefit of U.S. consumers. CWI has been an active participant in the U.S. communications market for a number of years. It currently is the fifth largest U.S. long distance carrier, providing additional competition to the benefit of U.S. consumers. CWI now claims it must have control of VSAT facilities to compete vigorously with other U.S. carriers for the provision of seamless global network services. We believe that, given CWI's depth of experience and involvement in the U.S. communications marketplace, CWI's control of VSAT facilities and subsequent competitive offering of global network services also should yield considerable procompetitive benefits for U.S. consumers.  X-x23.` ` For the foregoing reasons, we find that, on balance, CWI's proposed  X-controlling interest and participation in a VSAT licensee is not contrary to the public interest  X-and, therefore, permissible under the terms of Section 310(b)(4) .  X-x` ` 4 . Other Issues.  X- x24.` ` Hughes raises an additional issue regarding the types of services CWI would seek to provide if we were to grant CWI's petition. A provider of VSAT services, Hughes states that conventional VSAT operations, including its own, generally are provided on a noncommon carrier basis. Hughes is concerned that, because CWI does not describe the specific common carrier services it wishes to provide, CWI's petition may erode the notion that VSAT services typically are provided on a noncommon carrier basis. Hughes thus requests that the Commission require CWI to describe with particularity the specific kinds of operations in which it desires to engage.  X -x25.` ` We disagree with Hughes that CWI's request could blur the distinction between noncommon carrier and common carrier VSAT services. We recognize that most VSAT services are provided on a noncommon carrier basis. CWI's business plan, however, calls"" K0*((!" for it to provide VSAT services on a common carrier basis. We see no reason to inquire into why CWI wishes to provide these services on a common carrier basis. Our rules and policies do not discourage or prohibit such activity. Global network services provided via VSAT facilities may be offered on a common carrier basis, pursuant to Title II, and CWI has chosen to do so. This authorization does not in any way affect the distinctions between noncommon carrier and common carrier services or the continued ability of entities, including Hughes, to provide noncommon carrier VSAT services.  WH<#Xj9 xOG;X#B.xCWI's Section 214 Application  X1-#Xj\  P6G;9XP#  X -x26.` ` CWI also seeks authority under Section 214 of the Act to provide private line services, not interconnected to the public switched network, to Mexico and various points in  X -Central and South America, using VSAT facilities acquired from existing sources.h 9 Xe -ЍXxCWI previously has been granted Section 214 facilities authorization to operate  XN-terrestrial private lines between the United States and Canada. See Cable & Wireless  X7-Communications, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd 236 (Intl. Fac. Div., Com. Car. Bur. 1991).(#h No comments or oppositions were filed, other than AT&T's request for deferral of CWI's related  X -petition for declaratory ruling.  X-x` ` 1. Analysis of the Application. x` `  Xb-x27.` ` As discussed above in paragraph 12, we deny AT&T's request to delay ruling  XK-on CWI's application until after we have issued an order in the Foreign Carrier Entry NPRM rulemaking proceeding. We currently examine applications filed by foreign carriers or their U.S. affiliates for international Section 214 authority on a casebycase basis. We balance our policy in favor of open entry against the potential for undue discrimination by the foreign carrier against unaffiliated U.S. carriers. The potential for such discrimination occurs when foreign carriers are permitted to offer endtoend service in competition with U.S. carriers that must then interconnect with them on the foreign end in order to complete U.S. international calls.  X|-x28.` ` In this case, neither CWI nor any of its affiliates own an equity interest in any foreign carrier operating in Mexico or the Central and South American countries CWI seeks to serve. Thus, this application raises no concerns regarding discrimination against U.S. carriers on the foreign end. In addition, as we discussed in paragraph 22 above, CWI's facilitiesbased provision of common carrier VSAT services should create procompetitive benefits for U.S. customers by fostering lower prices and increased service choices. Accordingly, we find that the public convenience and necessity would be served by granting CWI's Section 214 application. "! K0*(( "  X-x` ` 2. Regulatory Status of CWI.  X-x29.` ` Under Section 63.10(a)(1) of our rules, a U.S. carrier that has no affiliation with foreign carrier in the particular country it seeks to serve will be considered presumptively nondominant for the provision of international communications services on that  X-route.T9 X-ԍXx47 C.F.R.  63.10(a)(1).(#T Because CWI and its affiliates do not have any affiliation with any foreign carriers in the countries it seeks to serve, we will regulate CWI as a nondominant carrier for the provision of international common carrier VSAT services to the countries listed in the Appendix.  X - IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X -x30.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a declaratory ruling of Cable & Wireless, Inc., File No. 60SATMISC95, that the public interest would not be served by prohibiting Cable & Wireless, Inc. or its U.S. affiliates from obtaining control of VSAT licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act is GRANTED.  Xy-x31.` ` Upon consideration of the application and view of the foregoing, IT IS CERTIFIED that the present and future public convenience and necessity require grant of the application by Cable & Wireless, Inc.  X-x32.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that application File No. ITC95367 IS GRANTED, and Cable & Wireless, Inc. is authorized to: Xxa. lease or acquire from Orion Satellite Corporation and operate the satellite circuits specified in the Appendix, between appropriately licensed U.S. earth stations and the Orion satellite, connecting with similar circuits between the satellite and the overseas points listed in the Appendix, furnished by its correspondents;(# Xxb. lease or acquire from PanAmSat Corporation and operate the satellite circuits specified in the Appendix, between appropriately licensed U.S. earth stations and the PAS1 satellite, connecting with similar circuits between the satellite and the overseas points listed in the Appendix, furnished by its correspondents;(# Xxc. lease or acquire from the Columbia Communications Corporation and operate the satellite circuits specified in the Appendix, between appropriately licensed U.S. earth stations and the Columbia satellites, connecting with similar circuits between the satellites and the overseas points listed in the Appendix, furnished by its correspondents; (#  X#-Xx(# Xxd. lease or acquire from U.S. domestic satellite systems and the Morelos and"h$ y0*((F#" Solidaridad satellite systems and operate channels of communication listed in the Appendix, between appropriately licensed U.S. earth stations and U.S. domestic satellite systems and the Morelos and Solidaridad satellite systems, connecting with similar circuits between the satellites and the overseas points listed in the Appendix, furnished by its correspondents. (# Xxe. lease and operate necessary domestic connecting facilities;(# Xxf. lease a onehalf interest in and operate any necessary overseas connecting facilities; and(# Xxg. use the facilities authorized herein to provide noninterconnected private line services via VSAT facilities between the United States and the points specified in the Appendix.(# Xx(#  X -x33.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither CWI nor any persons or companies directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by CWI, or under direct or indirect common control with it, shall acquire or enjoy any right, for the purposes of handling or interchanging traffic to or from the United States, its territories or possessions, which is denied to any other United States carrier by reason of any concession, contract, understanding, or working arrangement to which CWI or any persons or companies controlling or controlled by CWI are  X-parties. See also 47 C.F.R.  63.14.  X-x34.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that our authorization of CWI to provide private lines as part of its authorized services is limited to the provision of such private lines only between the United States and the countries listed in the Appendix that is, private lines which originate in the United States and terminate in one of the countries listed in the Appendix, or which originate in one of the countries listed in the Appendix and terminate in the United States. In addition, CWI may not and CWI's tariff must state that its customers may not connect private lines provided over these facilities to the public switched network at either the U.S. or foreign end, or both for the provision of international switched basic services, unless authorized to do so by the Commission upon a finding that the destination country affords resale opportunities equivalent to those available under U.S. law in accordance  X -with Regulation of International Accounting Rates, Phase II, First Report and Order, 7 FCC  X-Rcd 559 (1991), Order on Reconsideration and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  X-7 FCC Rcd 7927 (1992), petition for rulemaking pending.  X!-x35.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI shall file copies of any operating agreements entered into with its foreign correspondents with the Commission within 30 days of their execution and shall otherwise comply with the filing requirements set forth in Section 43.51 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  43.51. x  X@&-x36.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI shall file a tariff pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  203, and Part 61 of the Commission's rules, 47")' 0*((%" C.F.R. Part 61, for the services authorized in this Order. x  X-x37.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI shall file the annual reports of overseas telecommunications traffic required by Section 43.61 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  43.61.  Xv-x38.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI shall file annual circuit status reports in  X_-accordance with the requirements set forth in Rules for Filing of International Circuit Status  XH-Reports, CC Docket No. 93157, Report and Order, FCC 95280 (adopted Jul. 12, 1995).  X -x39.` ` This ruling and order is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 may be filed within 30 days of the date of the public notice of this  X -ruling. (See Section 1.4(b)(2)). x` `  x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William F. Caton x` `  hh@Acting Secretary  X-#Xn4  pG;|X#T" 0*((V"  X-4APPENDIXă  X-#Xj\  P6G;9XP#CWI is authorized to establish and operate circuits on the PAS1 satellite system for the provision of its authorized service between the United States and the countries listed below, not interconnected to the public switched network. The circuits authorized are listed in parentheses.  X_-Argentina (7 E1) hh@hpp  XH-Belize (7 DS0) hh@  X1-Brazil (7 E1)  Chile (3 E1)  X -Colombia (5 E1) hh  X -Costa Rica (1 E1) hh@hpp  X -Ecuador (12 DS0) hh@hpp  X -Guatemala (9 DS0) hh@hpp  X -Guyana (12 DS0) hh@hpp  X-Honduras (8 DS0)  Mexico (5 E1) Panama (7 DS0) Paraguay (8 DS0) Peru (8 DS0) Suriname (5 DS0) Uruguay (12 DS0) Venezuela (5 E1) CWI is authorized to establish and operate circuits on the Columbia satellite system for the provision of its authorized service between the United States and the countries listed below, not interconnected to the public switched network.  Xe-Belize (7 DS0) hh@ Falkland Islands (5 DS0) Marshall Islands (5 DS0) Suriname (5 DS0) CWI is authorized to establish and operate circuits on the Orion satellite system for the provision of authorized service between the United States and the countries listed below, not interconnected to the public switched network.  X"-Belize (7 DS0) hh@ Falkland Islands (5 DS0) Marshall Islands (5 DS0) Suriname (5 DS0) "#'0*((%"  X-q APPENDIX (cont'd) ă CWI is authorized to establish and operate circuits on the Morelos, Solidaridad and U.S. domestic satellite systems for the provision of its authorized service between the United States and the countries listed below, not interconnected to the public switched network. Belize (7 DS0)  X_-Venezuela (5 E1) hh@ CWI is authorized to establish and operate circuits on the Morelos and Solidaridad satellite systems for the provision of its authorized service between the United States and the countries listed below, not interconnected to the public switched network. Mexico (5 E1)