2. The wording of the statute implies that non-radio common carriers are subject to these limitations, but FCC case law has limited the provision's applicability to radio licensees. See Foreign Ownership of CATV Systems, 77 F.C.C. 2d 73 (1980), in which the FCC declined to apply section 310 (b) restrictions to cable television.
3. See Adam D. Thierer,"A Policy Maker's Guide to Deregulating Telecommunications, Part 4: Why Telecommunications Protectionism Should Be Ended," The Heritage Foundation, March 2, 1995.
4. FCC Report and Order in the Matter of Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign-Affiliated Entities, FCC 95-475, IB Docket No. 95-22, November 28, 1995, 69-70. 5. James G. Ennis and David N. Roberts, "Foreign Ownership in US Communications Industry: The Impact of Section 310," International Business Lawyer 19, May 1991,. 245.
6. J. Gregory Sidak, Foreign Investment in Telecommunications, University of Chicago Press, publication date 1997.
7. 37 Stat. 302, section 2 (1912).
9. Hearings on H.R. 8301 before the House Committee on Interstate Commerce, 73d Congress, 2d sess., 1934, 26.
11. Sorin A. Bodea, "The Impact of Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934: Economic and National Security Issues," incidental paper of the Program on Information Resources Policy, Harvard University Center for Information Policy Research, August 1992, 5.
12. Senator Robert C. Byrd, statement in the Congressional Record, May 25, 1995, S7493.
13. Comments of AT&T before the FCC, Docket No. 95-22 (undated), 39.
16. Thierer, 4, and J. Gregory Sidak, "Why Limit Foreign Investment in Telecommunications?" On the Issues series, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (undated). The same analysts also suggest that the protectionist effect of section 310 (b) is quite significant, both in terms of making American firms less competitive, and in restricting the ability of foreign firms to offer capital and expertise to American firms and greater choice to American consumers.
17. Quote contained in Bodea, 7.
19. See Stephen R. Konigsberg, "Think Globally, Act Locally: North American Free Trade, Canadian Cultural Industry Exemption, and the Liberalization of the Broadcast Ownership Laws," Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 12, no. 281 (1994): 307, for a brief description of attempts to liberalize audio-visual policies in the Uruguay Round of GATT talks.
21. GAO, "Foreign Investment: Analyzing National Security Concerns," March 1990, 11-12.
22. Noe v. FCC, 260 F.2d 739 (DC Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 924 (1959).
23. Letter dated April 24, 1995, Congressional Record, 25 May 1995, S7494. 24. Congress, House, Testimony of Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, Department of Commerce: Hearings on H.R. 514 Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade & Hazardous Materials of the House Committee on Commerce, 104th Cong., 1st sess., 3 March 1995. 25. Congressional Record, June 13, 1995, S8253.
26. FCC, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign-affiliated Entities, FCC 95-93, IB Docket No. 95-22, Adopted February 7, 1995, footnote 16.
28. Linda Spencer, Foreign Investment in the United States: Unencumbered Access (Washington, DC: Economic Strategy Institute, May 1991), 6.
29. Author's note: "Economic security" is itself an undefined term!
30. LTC Raymond A. Gauger, LTC Randy C. Hinds, Lt Col David K. Holmes, and LTC Marc A. Jamison, U.S. National Economic Security in a Global Market, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, National Security Program Discussion Paper 90-03, May 1990, 137-138.
31. Sorin A. Bodea, "The Impact of Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934: Economic and National Security Issues," Program on Information Resources Policy, Harvard Center for Information Policy Research, August 1992, 5.
32. Comments on FCC docket 95-22 by Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, 2.
33. Reply Comments of Heftel Broadcasting Corporation on FCC Docket 95-22, 28 April 1995, 10.
35. Ibid., 9.
37. Comments of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., on FCC Docket 95-22, 11 April 1995, 5.
39. Comments of Arch Communications Group on FCC Docket 95-22, 8.
40. FCC Report and Order,72, para 184.
44. "An Awareness Document," 2nd ed., 5 December 1994, 3-12.
45. George H. Bolling, AT&T, Aftermath of Antritrust, National Defense University, Washington, DC, 1983, 8.
47. Sydney W. Head and Christopher H. Sterling, Broadcasting in America: A Survey of Electronic Media (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990), 488.
48. Ithiel de Sola Pool, "Direct Broadcast Satellies and the Integrity of National Cultures," in Nordenstreng and Schiller, eds, National Sovereignty and International Communication (Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1979), 141.
50. Graham Walker, "Sovereign Satellites?" The World Today 51, no. 10 ( October 1995): 84.
51. Frank J. Stech, "Preparing for More CNN Wars," in J.N. Petrie, ed., Essays on Strategy XII (NDU Press, Washington, DC, 1994), 237.
53. "Old World, New Frontier in Cyberspace," The Washington Post, 12 December, 1995, C4.
54. Martin C. Libicki, What is Information Warfare? (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, August 1995), 37.
55. Although some assert that the "string of mega-mergers" in the industry will result in oligopoly. See"The Tele-Barons," The Washington Post, 4 February 1996, C1.
56. These potential impacts may be brought into focus through France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom AG's purchase of 20 percent of Sprint Corp. That transaction was approved by the FCC in December 1995 under the new reciprocity rule.
57. See "From Language to Literature, a New Guiding Lite," The Washington Post, 5 September 1995, A1