AT&T’s benevolence and bad faith
April 14, 2003 | 12:00am
As the controversy between our local telecom carriers and the American giant carrier AT&T rages, the latter has been rightfully accused of bad faith by the former. As the US war against Iraq seems to be ending, as of this writing at least, one cannot help but look back and re-examine those US policies that have provoked strong reaction from a large number of foreign governments in the past.
Sometime in the mid-Sixties, a concerted hue and cry was provoked by what was called the Bonner Amendment to the Shipping Act of the US wherein the US Federal Maritime Commission was given regulatory powers with regard to the terms under which non-American ship owners undertook the carriage of goods to and from the United States. Led by the United Kingdom, the states enacted their respective legislation to provide defensive measures against American policy, which was harsh and unfair, to say the least.
As far as I can remember, in the mid-Eighties a parallel controversy erupted, triggered by the application of the American Export Administration Act, specifically because of US initiatives and measures directed against non-American corporations that entered into contracts relating to the construction of the West Siberian pipeline. Led by the United Kingdom again and the European community, a howl of protest reverberated, and a strong assertion of illegality was hurled against the actions of the US authorities, the aim of the US being to prevent the re-export of machinery of American origin and the supply of products derived from American data. Let us note here that anti-cartel legislation in quite a number of European states then was based on the very principles adopted by the US.
The courts of the United States, the US government, and foreign governments, in reacting to US policies executed and measures undertaken, assume that there are certain limits to enforcement jurisdiction but there is no consensus on what these limits are. In fact, the British government’s position appears to be that a state acts in excess of its own jurisdiction when its measures purport to regulate acts which are done outside its territorial jurisdiction and "which have no, or no substantial effect within its territorial jurisdiction." What those limits are remains a critical issue.
As early as 1957, during my student days, the classic view pronounced by Judge Jennings very clearly and specifically, remains etched in my memory as the most rational. He said that "extraterritorial jurisdiction may not be exercised in such a way as to contradict local law at the place where the alleged offense was committed." The abusive behavior of the United States’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is so obvious in this war that AT&T continues to wage against our local telecom carriers, for it was AT&T that accused our carriers of "whipsawing," very definitely alleging that it was committed within Philippine jurisdiction. There is no way jurisdiction of the FCC, through any of its divisions or bureaus, can be accepted by our country.
This is bad faith pure and simple. But the benevolence of AT&T, I also do remember, was displayed in a grand manner so that memories of a magnificent event remain clear in my mind. This happened several years ago at the International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU) Geneva Telecom, a conference-cum-exhibit held in Geneva every four years bigger than no other. Hotels get fully booked not only in Geneva but in Lausanne, even in the neighboring cities of France. If you have been invited by the ITU to be a speaker in the conference, there is of course no hassle – your reservation is guaranteed at the best and most accessible hotel and you are provided with a vehicle to bring you all over the place to attend the sessions of the conference and visit the unbelievably huge exhibit site. I do remember this particular event because the "Internet" was then still such a novel and exciting word, and the problems spawned by it in all their dimensions were dissected at the sessions.
However, it has always been the exhibit participated in by the different telecom and IT companies displaying all the innovations created by human genius that provided an exciting picture of the creativity of the human mind, but at the same time, reminded one that technology’s many inventions can be integrated so easily and skillfully into the kill power of weapons of destruction. This we are seeing with frightening clarity today. There is this prison of violence instinctive it seems in the human spirit of the leaders of the strong world which seems impossible to extinguish.
The late John F. Kennedy once said during his presidency that this generation will determine whether man will progress to heights of technological achievements never ever imagined as possible, or succeed in exterminating himself from the face of the earth.
I do remember the first opening plenary session where the utilization of the new exciting innovations was discussed to provide the sublime solution to the sublime problem of all time – universal access for the impoverished, underdeveloped and struggling developing world, which included India and the Philippines.
AT&T chairman Armstrong, and Alcatel-France chairman & CEO Tschuruk, together with the Indian Telecommunications Minister and myself, and the Netherlands’ chairman of their regulatory board, were the participants. Being the opening plenary, the hall was filled to capacity. The session became a classic clash of government’s pleas for a more systematic and greater push for the rationalization and liberalization of the different telecom sectors of the world. It was of utmost importance, all five of us however agreed, that the new technologies be harnessed for the unconnected world in order to give life to the words "universal access." Armstrong’s and Tschuruk’s rhetoric of benevolence were indeed impressive.
The same benevolence overflowed with the excellent champagne that AT&T’s Armstrong served aboard his yacht to all the dignitaries at the conference in attendance: chairmen and presidents of the great and less great telecom companies; ministers and deputy ministers networking with the private sector world. Even chairmen and presidents of investment banks and venture capital firms were in attendance.
I went to the yacht with two close friends from the Philippines: one, the founding chairman of Multinational Investment Bancorporation, Ramon K. Ilusorio, and Joanne de Asis, chairman of Global Capital Partners based in New York. By the time the yacht docked at a charming place after about two hours of cocktails, most everyone was indeed pining for food as they were ushered into the magnificent venue for an exquisite dinner where a big tent protected the guests from the chilly night, as a repertoire of classical and contemporary music capped what indeed was a great dinner. We saw one other Filipino at the dinner, Mel Velarde, one of the Philippines’ captains of the telecom industry. What is it in us that, when we see a Filipino compatriot in foreign shores, it’s like old "home week" for us?
AT&T’s benevolence glowed through every phase of that dinner. As everyone endeavored to network with everyone, I could not help but say to myself, "We are indeed riding the great technology wave!" It was such an exciting feeling but that painful yearning for your country to be part of it is within you. Then you become aware, as you see the faces of leaders all around you, that sure we should be impressed by the new technology, but we shouldn’t be distracted by it, or fooled into thinking that technology unto itself is the solution to anything. This dinner happened quite a number of years ago, and even then, one gets to thinking already that computers may someday simulate nuclear explosions, and help pressure the sanctity of the international test ban. But no computer has the humanity to know why civilization needed that ban, or the insight to negotiate the treaty.
That is a far bigger and a more critical puzzle than the puzzle triggered by the lesser war of the Philippine telcos and AT&T. AT&T’s traditional benevolence, I have every reason to believe, may still rise to the level of what’s rational and fair, and trample that element of bad faith. It was John Milton who so wisely said: "Who overcomes by force hath overcome but half his foe."
Sometime in the mid-Sixties, a concerted hue and cry was provoked by what was called the Bonner Amendment to the Shipping Act of the US wherein the US Federal Maritime Commission was given regulatory powers with regard to the terms under which non-American ship owners undertook the carriage of goods to and from the United States. Led by the United Kingdom, the states enacted their respective legislation to provide defensive measures against American policy, which was harsh and unfair, to say the least.
As far as I can remember, in the mid-Eighties a parallel controversy erupted, triggered by the application of the American Export Administration Act, specifically because of US initiatives and measures directed against non-American corporations that entered into contracts relating to the construction of the West Siberian pipeline. Led by the United Kingdom again and the European community, a howl of protest reverberated, and a strong assertion of illegality was hurled against the actions of the US authorities, the aim of the US being to prevent the re-export of machinery of American origin and the supply of products derived from American data. Let us note here that anti-cartel legislation in quite a number of European states then was based on the very principles adopted by the US.
The courts of the United States, the US government, and foreign governments, in reacting to US policies executed and measures undertaken, assume that there are certain limits to enforcement jurisdiction but there is no consensus on what these limits are. In fact, the British government’s position appears to be that a state acts in excess of its own jurisdiction when its measures purport to regulate acts which are done outside its territorial jurisdiction and "which have no, or no substantial effect within its territorial jurisdiction." What those limits are remains a critical issue.
As early as 1957, during my student days, the classic view pronounced by Judge Jennings very clearly and specifically, remains etched in my memory as the most rational. He said that "extraterritorial jurisdiction may not be exercised in such a way as to contradict local law at the place where the alleged offense was committed." The abusive behavior of the United States’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is so obvious in this war that AT&T continues to wage against our local telecom carriers, for it was AT&T that accused our carriers of "whipsawing," very definitely alleging that it was committed within Philippine jurisdiction. There is no way jurisdiction of the FCC, through any of its divisions or bureaus, can be accepted by our country.
This is bad faith pure and simple. But the benevolence of AT&T, I also do remember, was displayed in a grand manner so that memories of a magnificent event remain clear in my mind. This happened several years ago at the International Telecommunications Union’s (ITU) Geneva Telecom, a conference-cum-exhibit held in Geneva every four years bigger than no other. Hotels get fully booked not only in Geneva but in Lausanne, even in the neighboring cities of France. If you have been invited by the ITU to be a speaker in the conference, there is of course no hassle – your reservation is guaranteed at the best and most accessible hotel and you are provided with a vehicle to bring you all over the place to attend the sessions of the conference and visit the unbelievably huge exhibit site. I do remember this particular event because the "Internet" was then still such a novel and exciting word, and the problems spawned by it in all their dimensions were dissected at the sessions.
However, it has always been the exhibit participated in by the different telecom and IT companies displaying all the innovations created by human genius that provided an exciting picture of the creativity of the human mind, but at the same time, reminded one that technology’s many inventions can be integrated so easily and skillfully into the kill power of weapons of destruction. This we are seeing with frightening clarity today. There is this prison of violence instinctive it seems in the human spirit of the leaders of the strong world which seems impossible to extinguish.
The late John F. Kennedy once said during his presidency that this generation will determine whether man will progress to heights of technological achievements never ever imagined as possible, or succeed in exterminating himself from the face of the earth.
I do remember the first opening plenary session where the utilization of the new exciting innovations was discussed to provide the sublime solution to the sublime problem of all time – universal access for the impoverished, underdeveloped and struggling developing world, which included India and the Philippines.
AT&T chairman Armstrong, and Alcatel-France chairman & CEO Tschuruk, together with the Indian Telecommunications Minister and myself, and the Netherlands’ chairman of their regulatory board, were the participants. Being the opening plenary, the hall was filled to capacity. The session became a classic clash of government’s pleas for a more systematic and greater push for the rationalization and liberalization of the different telecom sectors of the world. It was of utmost importance, all five of us however agreed, that the new technologies be harnessed for the unconnected world in order to give life to the words "universal access." Armstrong’s and Tschuruk’s rhetoric of benevolence were indeed impressive.
The same benevolence overflowed with the excellent champagne that AT&T’s Armstrong served aboard his yacht to all the dignitaries at the conference in attendance: chairmen and presidents of the great and less great telecom companies; ministers and deputy ministers networking with the private sector world. Even chairmen and presidents of investment banks and venture capital firms were in attendance.
I went to the yacht with two close friends from the Philippines: one, the founding chairman of Multinational Investment Bancorporation, Ramon K. Ilusorio, and Joanne de Asis, chairman of Global Capital Partners based in New York. By the time the yacht docked at a charming place after about two hours of cocktails, most everyone was indeed pining for food as they were ushered into the magnificent venue for an exquisite dinner where a big tent protected the guests from the chilly night, as a repertoire of classical and contemporary music capped what indeed was a great dinner. We saw one other Filipino at the dinner, Mel Velarde, one of the Philippines’ captains of the telecom industry. What is it in us that, when we see a Filipino compatriot in foreign shores, it’s like old "home week" for us?
AT&T’s benevolence glowed through every phase of that dinner. As everyone endeavored to network with everyone, I could not help but say to myself, "We are indeed riding the great technology wave!" It was such an exciting feeling but that painful yearning for your country to be part of it is within you. Then you become aware, as you see the faces of leaders all around you, that sure we should be impressed by the new technology, but we shouldn’t be distracted by it, or fooled into thinking that technology unto itself is the solution to anything. This dinner happened quite a number of years ago, and even then, one gets to thinking already that computers may someday simulate nuclear explosions, and help pressure the sanctity of the international test ban. But no computer has the humanity to know why civilization needed that ban, or the insight to negotiate the treaty.
That is a far bigger and a more critical puzzle than the puzzle triggered by the lesser war of the Philippine telcos and AT&T. AT&T’s traditional benevolence, I have every reason to believe, may still rise to the level of what’s rational and fair, and trample that element of bad faith. It was John Milton who so wisely said: "Who overcomes by force hath overcome but half his foe."
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
