Mr. O'CONNELL. I might say this was prior to the Ford Foundation recommendations which came out recently for a satellite system to do this same sort of thing. That is, to tie together the educational TV systems of the country.

Mr. WRIGHT. I am sorry to interupt, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RANDALL. There is no reason to be. I just think we should pinpoint here and point out that right now they are using cables, are they not; isn't that the point, and this is simply a proposal 'way down the road? That is what we are talking about here?

Mr. O'CONNELL. That is right.

Mr. RANDALL. And is this part of some of the proposals that were made by Ford Foundation?

Mr. O'CONNELL. No. No, these exist now.

Mr. RANDALL. These are your-they exist so far as cables are concerned.

Mr. O'CONNELL. And microwave-mostly microwave.

Mr. RANDALL. And microwave.

Thank you very much. You may proceed, please.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Soon after its initiation, the current trend in development of State communications systems was brought to my attention. At about this same time, the Office of Civil Defense, Department of the Army, requested policy guidance as to which department or agency should take the lead in Federal-State assistance communications matters. The Office of Civil Defense action stemmed from a request by the State of Nebraska for matching funds in its development of a statewide system for normal day-to-day and emergency use. To provide this guidance, we need to determine the following: How shall the national communications system and the State communications networks complement one another and serve the best interests of the Nation?

How shall the assistance provided by many Federal agencies to States for telecommunications purposes be funneled through a focal point in each State for coordinated development of State systems?

How shall State communications facilities be financed, wholly or in part, by the Federal Government when two or more States are involved or national interests are present?

How shall Federal and State communications programs and objectives be kept in phase?

How shall we create an effective Federal-State partnership to guide telecommunications policy formulation on the domestic scene?

Chart No. 4 shows the States which now have operational communications systems, wholly or partly financed by the Federal Government and those which have systems in the planning stage. Some systems are taking on a national perspective. See charts No. 5 and No. 6.

During periods of natural disaster (29 alone in 1965) and civil disturbances, there is an urgent need to use the Federal Government's, State governments', and the common carriers' facilities on an interconnected basis for the preservation of life and property.

A need for better coordination in this area has been demonstrated in Hurricane Betsy, the Watts riots, the Alaskan earthquake, the Northeast United States power blackout, and other past crises.

We have not yet obtained enough of a data base of information upon which to proceed rapidly in this area, but we are working closely with State officials, particularly those in Nebraska and Colorado. This Office and the Office of Civil Defense appear to be the agencies primarily concerned with this matter, although many agencies of Government are involved in the provision of Federal assistance and are aware of the problems involved.

I will skip over to satellite communications.

Obviously, this committee has had a continuing interest in this field, and here, of course, we have had substantial progress. Perhaps the best way to indicate progress is to review the space communications capabilities as they exist today and as they will exist within the next few years. This chart (chart 7) shows the present operational capability both in terms of the space segment and earth terminal capability. (Chart 7, referred to above, follows:)

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE
GLOBAL SYSTEM PROGRAM

Mr. O'CONNELL. 240 voice channels are available between Europe and the United States in the space segment.

Six earth terminals have been constructed and are ready for service. Mr. RANDALL. Does your statement, or do the charts, point out those six?

Colonel JOHNSON. Yes. These are the ones in Europe, on up here, in Italy, in France, United Kingdom [indicating].

Mr. RANDALL. In other words, four over there [indicating]. Colonel JOHNSON. One operating in Maine, and one ready for operation in Japan.

Mr. RANDALL. Four in Europe, one in America, and one in the Orient?

Colonel JOHNSON. That is right.
Mr. RANDALL. Thank you.

Mr. O'CONNELL. The Intelsat I space segment which was launched in 1965 continues to perform reliably.

Colonel JOHNSON. These are in Hawaii, the west coast, the State of Washington, Canada, one at Ascension Island, Spain, here in southeast Asia, and Hong Kong, the Philippines, and two in Australia.

PLANS FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE

Mr. O'CONNELL. During the remainder of 1966 and throughout 1967, the communications satellite capability in the Atlantic will be augmented and commercial service will be introduced in the Pacific area. Before the end of 1966 we will have implemented communications satellite space segment capability which can serve approximately 75 percent of the populated areas of the earth's surface. Implementation of commercial service will depend upon completion of earth terminals which are progressing as shown on this overlay: (chart 8, referred to, follows:)

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE
GLOBAL SYSTEM PROGRAM

Mr. O'CONNELL. During the 1966-67 time period, specific progress will be made as follows:

The implementation of 11 additional earth terminals as shown on this chart.

The launching of up to four additional communications satellites, two more in the Atlantic and two more in the Pacific area.

Colonel JOHNSON. One of these in the Atlantic is intended to replace the so-called Early Bird which is scheduled to be retired.

Mr. WRIGHT. You speak of the implementation of commercial service. What exactly will that mean?

67-906-66-19

Mr. O'CONNELL. All we have been talking about so far, sir, is commercial service furnished through Intelsat, the international satellite organization that owns the space segments, and

Mr. WRIGHT. The whole system is private?

Mr. O'CONNELL. The whole system is privately owned by a consortium of 53 nations, 53 different national entities.

Mr. WRIGHT. But not the national governments of these countries; private individual and investor groups?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Well, in a great many of the countries, the PTT's, the post, telephone and telegraph, a government entity, are the operating entities at their ends. They own the earth stations and operate in conformance with the operation of the rest of the telecommunication facilities in their nations.

Mr. WRIGHT. When we speak of commercial service we imply that the owners of the system, the corporation, will be at liberty to charge a rate for the use of the system, for reception from the system. Mr. O'CONNELL. That is correct.

Mr. WRIGHT. And transmision?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes; in accordance with tariffs which, in the United States for our use, are set by the Federal Communications Commission. Of course, in this country we have a commercial organization, the Communications Satellite Corporation, chartered by the 1962 act of Congress, which acts as the U.S. entity, and which is involved in

this.

There are some other private companies in some of the nations that are associated with it, but more of them are Government entities, I would say.

Mr. WRIGHT. And the rates to be charged either to the Government or to the private receivers would be regulated by the FCC within the United States?

Mr. O'CONNELL. That is right, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you.

Mr. RANDALL. Just an additional point of information. You said that in many of the foreign governments there is a common description, I think you said the PTT's.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Well, in France it is the Poste Téléphonique et Télégraphique.

Mr. RANDALL. That is just as to France?

Mr. O'CONNELL. As to France. The British Post Office is the counterpart in Great Britain.

Mr. RANDALL. I see.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Great Britain is now planning to transform their government post office operations to a corporate structure.

Mr. RANDALL. It is very close to the Government, but a separate public corporation?

Mr. O'CONNELL. It will be a public corporation.

Mr. RANDALL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. O'CONNELL. In Great Britain, this is a very interesting change in national philosophy that they are going through.

KDD is the counterpart in Japan. The Japanese have the same general format. They have two corporations, one to handle the domestic business and one to handle the international business. These are

largely Government corporations, but they function as private corporations.

Mr. RANDALL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. O'CONNELL. During 1968, the global communications satellite system of Intelsat will be further extended in capability as shown on this overlay.

(Chart 9 follows:)

Mr. O'CONNELL. In this time period we should have in the order of 38 or more active earth terminals. The space segment for this time period is expected to consist of eight fully operational synchronous satellites.

Mr. RANDALL. What is the time table on that?

Mr. O'CONNELL. 1968.

Mr. RANDALL. You will have fully synchronous satellites at that time?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Eight fully operational synchronous satellites and some 38 active earth terminals.

Mr. RANDALL. Do you have a chart that will show the distribution of those synchronous satellites somewhere?

Colonel JOHNSON. It is in the statement, sir, and shown here.
Mr. O'CONNELL. Indicate them on the chart.

Colonel JOHNSON. There will be four in the Atlantic, assuming one for support of international air traffic; three in the Pacific, and one in the Indian Ocean area, according to present plans.

Mr. RANDALL. Fine. Thank you, sir.