STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
Re: Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees 
under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, IB Docket No. 11-133
I support today’s Notice asking questions about the Commission’s processes regarding foreign 
ownership matters under section 310(b) (4) of the Telecommunications Act. Foreign ownership is an 
important issue that can go to matters of national security and national competitiveness, and this is truer 
than ever in this age of technology revolution. So we need to be sure, in whatever we do going forward 
on this item, that we understand the extent of foreign ownership in our telecommunications industries, 
what impact it has had, what direction it is tending, and what have been its benefits and costs to American 
consumers, American businesses and America’s well-being.  We need to be sure the right questions get 
asked here and that we avoid any outcome that might not be in the interests of our trade policy and other 
national interests.
So while I do not oppose exploring reasonable ways to relax unnecessary filing requirements, I 
don’t want us to assume going in that they are patently or unnecessarily onerous. Some of the proposals 
here may make good sense: for example, issuing foreign ownership decisions in the name of the U.S. 
parent of the licensee, the entity to whom section 310(b)(4)'s foreign ownership requirements applies, 
rather than the licensee. But there are several others where we must be cautious and thoughtful: the 
current distinction between WTO and non-WTO countries is a good example. Any proposal to do away 
with this distinction in the name of making life easier on applicants strikes me as not without some risk.
The number of WTO countries has shot up from 69 in 1998 to 153 today.  The relatively few remaining 
non-WTO countries include Iran and Libya. I will keep an open mind as we analyze the record, but it is 
not at all clear to me that we should be giving these countries the presumption of open markets that we 
have accorded WTO countries.
As to the cost to parties to comply with our filing requirements, I'll be looking for specific, 
credible evidence. Anecdotal evidence suggests to me that the regulatory burdens associated with our 
foreign ownership reviews have hardly discouraged foreign investment in the United States telecom 
market, but it is critical that we have the hard information before us in order to make good and accurate 
determinations. Reducing corporate costs in a worthy goal, but it must never come at the expense of 
ignoring our clear Congressional mandate. I also want to emphasize the importance of Commission 
coordination with our federal partners in this area. We must continue to work closely with our fellow 
expert agencies such as the Department of Justice and the United States Trade Representative to properly 
evaluate the effects of proposed foreign ownership of licensees. We bring an expertise to that dialogue 
that no one else possesses. Additionally we must always be cognizant of our special FCC charge to 
regulate the public airways in the public interest.  
Congress put serious and I think generally clear obligations on the FCC to probe deeply all 
aspects of foreign ownership, and we need to be vigilant that nothing we do in any of these proceedings 
ham-strings us from conducting the depth and breadth of analysis necessary to ensure that the intent of 
Congress in section 310 is met.
My thanks to Mindel De La Torre and our fine International Bureau team for bringing this item to 
us. I look forward to a fulsome record and to working with my Bureau and Commission colleagues to 
craft workable and effective processes in this important area.