Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287
Articles
Brazil
Sri Lanka
United Kingdom
Sweden
00. Editorial
United States
Latin America
Egypt
Jordan
Yemen
Thailand
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
2011/05/18
2011/05/19
2011/05/20
2011/05/21
2011/05/22
2011/05/23
2011/05/24
2011/05/25
2011/05/26
2011/05/27
2011/05/28
2011/05/29
2011/05/30
2011/05/31
2011/06/01
2011/06/02
2011/06/03
2011/06/04
2011/06/05
2011/06/06
2011/06/07
2011/06/08
2011/06/09
2011/06/10
2011/06/11
2011/06/12
2011/06/13
2011/06/14
2011/06/15
2011/06/16
2011/06/17
2011/06/18
2011/06/19
2011/06/20
2011/06/21
2011/06/22
2011/06/23
2011/06/24
2011/06/25
2011/06/26
2011/06/27
2011/06/28
2011/06/29
2011/06/30
2011/07/01
2011/07/02
2011/07/04
2011/07/05
2011/07/06
2011/07/07
2011/07/08
2011/07/10
2011/07/11
2011/07/12
2011/07/13
2011/07/14
2011/07/15
2011/07/16
2011/07/17
2011/07/18
2011/07/19
2011/07/20
2011/07/21
2011/07/22
2011/07/23
2011/07/25
2011/07/27
2011/07/28
2011/07/29
2011/07/31
2011/08/01
2011/08/02
2011/08/03
2011/08/05
2011/08/06
2011/08/07
2011/08/08
2011/08/10
2011/08/11
2011/08/12
2011/08/13
2011/08/15
2011/08/16
2011/08/17
2011/08/19
2011/08/21
2011/08/22
2011/08/23
2011/08/24
2011/08/25
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Antananarivo
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Alexandria
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embasy Bonn
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Brazzaville
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangui
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Belfast
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Cotonou
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chiang Mai
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Chengdu
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
DIR FSINFATC
Consulate Dusseldorf
Consulate Durban
Consulate Dubai
Consulate Dhahran
Embassy Guatemala
Embassy Grenada
Embassy Georgetown
Embassy Gaborone
Consulate Guayaquil
Consulate Guangzhou
Consulate Guadalajara
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Hong Kong
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kolonia
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Krakow
Consulate Kolkata
Consulate Karachi
Consulate Kaduna
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Lusaka
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Lome
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy Libreville
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Leipzig
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Mission Geneva
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Mogadishu
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maseru
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Merida
Consulate Melbourne
Consulate Matamoros
Consulate Marseille
Embassy Nouakchott
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Nuevo Laredo
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Consulate Nagoya
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Praia
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Moresby
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Podgorica
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Ponta Delgada
Consulate Peshawar
REO Mosul
REO Kirkuk
REO Hillah
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Surabaya
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy Tirana
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
Consulate Thessaloniki
USUN New York
USMISSION USTR GENEVA
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Mission CD Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
US Delegation FEST TWO
UNVIE
UN Rome
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vientiane
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AF
ADANA
ASEC
AFIN
AMGT
AE
AORC
AID
AR
AO
AU
ASEAN
AGOA
AFGHANISTAN
AFFAIRS
AMED
APER
ASECARP
APEC
AEMR
AS
AA
ANET
AFLU
ABLD
AL
ASUP
AJ
APECO
AMER
ABUD
AODE
AM
AFSN
AESC
AND
AG
ALOW
AROC
AVIANFLU
ATRN
ACOA
AEGR
AMGMT
AADP
AFSI
ACABQ
APRM
AZ
AIDS
ASE
AGAO
ADCO
ABDALLAH
ARF
AIDAC
ACOTA
ASCH
AC
ASEG
AGR
ACS
AMCHAMS
AN
AMIA
ASIG
ADPM
ADB
ANARCHISTS
ALOWAR
ARM
AUC
AINF
AINT
AORG
AY
AVIAN
AMEDCASCKFLO
AK
ARSO
ARABBL
ASO
ANTITERRORISM
ARABL
AOWC
AGRICULTURE
ALJAZEERA
AMTC
AFINM
AOCR
ABER
ARR
AFPK
ASSEMBLY
ASSK
AZE
AORCYM
AINR
AGMT
AEC
ACKM
APRC
AIN
ASCC
AFPREL
ASED
APERTH
ASFC
ASECTH
AFSA
AOMS
AORCO
ANTXON
ARC
AFAF
ADIP
AIAG
AFARI
AEMED
AORL
AX
ASECAF
AOPC
ASECAFIN
AFZAL
APCS
AMB
AGUIRRE
AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL
AIT
ARCH
AMEX
ALI
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AORCD
AVIATION
ARAS
AINFCY
ACBAQ
AOPR
AREP
ALEXANDER
ATRD
AEIR
AOIC
ABLDG
ASEX
AFR
ASCE
ATRA
ASEK
AER
ALOUNI
AMCT
AVERY
APR
AMAT
AEMRS
ASPA
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ALL
AECL
ACAO
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORD
AFL
AME
ADM
ASECPHUM
AGIT
ABT
ASECVE
AGUILAR
AT
ABMC
ALZUGUREN
ANGEL
ASR
ANTONIO
BMGT
BEXP
BM
BG
BL
BA
BR
BTA
BO
BY
BBSR
BLUE
BK
BF
BTIO
BELLVIEW
BE
BU
BN
BH
BD
BC
BTC
BILAT
BT
BX
BRUSSELS
BP
BB
BRPA
BUSH
BURMA
BMENA
BESP
BIT
BBG
BGD
BMEAID
BAGHDAD
BEN
BIO
BMOT
BWC
BLUNT
BURNS
BUT
BGMT
BAIO
BCW
BOEHNER
BFIF
BOL
BASHAR
BIMSTEC
BOU
BIDEN
BZ
BFIN
BTRA
BI
BHUM
BOIKO
BERARDUCCI
BOUCHAIB
BORDER
BEXPC
BTIU
BTT
BIOS
BEXB
BGPGOV
BOND
BLR
CE
CG
CH
CVR
CASC
CU
CI
CD
CO
CDG
CB
CJAN
CPAS
COM
CVIS
CMGT
CT
CENTCOM
CNARC
CTERR
COUNTER
CHIEF
CDC
CTR
CBW
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CY
CA
CM
CS
CWC
CN
CITES
CF
CWG
CIVS
CFIS
CASCC
CROATIA
CONS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CASA
COE
CJ
CHR
CODEL
CR
CBC
CACS
CHERTOFF
CAS
CONTROL
CONDITIONS
CONDOLEEZZA
CITEL
CV
CLINTON
CHG
CZ
CON
CTBT
CEN
CRIMES
COMMERCE
CLOK
CRISTINA
CFED
CARC
CND
CTM
CARICOM
COUNTRYCLEARANCE
CBTH
CHINA
CSW
CICTE
CJUS
CYPRUS
CW
CAMBODIA
CENSUS
CIDA
CRIME
CBG
CBE
CMGMT
CAIO
CEC
CARSON
CPCTC
CEDAW
COMESA
CVIA
CWCM
CEA
COSI
CAPC
CGEN
COPUOS
CGOPRC
COETRD
CKGR
CFE
CQ
CITT
CIC
CARIB
CVIC
CLO
CAFTA
CVISU
CHRISTOPHER
CACM
CIAT
CDB
CIS
CUL
CHAO
CNC
CL
CSEP
COMMAND
CENTER
COL
CAN
CAJC
CUIS
CONSULAR
CLMT
CIA
CBSA
CEUDA
CAC
CROS
CIO
CPUOS
CKOR
CVPR
CONG
CONTROLS
CEPTER
CVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGKIRF
CDCE
DPOL
DEMARCHE
DHS
DR
DA
DISENGAGEMENT
DEMOCRATIC
DEFENSE
DJ
DY
DARFUR
DHRF
DEA
DTRO
DPRK
DO
DARFR
DOC
DRL
DK
DOJ
DTRA
DOMESTIC
DAC
DOD
DEAX
DIEZ
DEOC
DELTAVIOLENCE
DCOM
DMINE
DRC
DCG
DPKO
DOMESTICPOLITICS
DE
DB
DOT
DEPT
DOE
DHLAKAMA
DHSX
DS
DKEM
DAO
DCM
DANIEL
DEM
DAVID
DCRM
ETRD
EAGR
ETTC
EAID
ECON
EFIN
ECIN
EINV
ELAB
EAIR
ENRG
EPET
EWWT
ECPS
EIND
EMIN
ELTN
EC
ETMIN
EUC
EZ
ET
ELECTIONS
ENVR
EU
EUN
EG
EINT
ER
ECONOMICS
ES
EMS
ENIV
EEB
EN
ECE
ECOSOC
EK
ENVIRONMENT
EFIS
EI
EWT
ENGRD
ECPSN
EXIM
EIAD
ERIN
ECPC
EDEV
ENGY
ECTRD
EPA
ESTH
ECCT
EINVECON
ENGR
ERTD
EUR
EAP
EWWC
ELTD
EL
EXIMOPIC
EXTERNAL
ETRDEC
ESCAP
ECO
EGAD
ELNT
ECONOMIC
ENV
ETRN
EIAR
EUMEM
ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID
EREL
ECOM
ECONETRDEAGRJA
ETCC
ETRG
ECONOMY
EMED
ETR
ENERG
EITC
EFINOECD
EURM
EENG
ERA
EXPORT
ENRD
ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC
EGEN
EBRD
EVIN
ETRAD
ECOWAS
EFTA
ECONETRDBESPAR
EGOVSY
EPIN
EID
ECONENRG
EDRC
ESENV
ETT
EB
ENER
ELTNSNAR
ECHEVARRIA
ETRC
EPIT
EDUC
ESA
EFI
ENRGY
ESCI
EE
EAIDXMXAXBXFFR
EETC
ECIP
EIAID
EIVN
EBEXP
ESTN
EING
EGOV
ETRA
EPETEIND
ELAN
ETRDGK
EAIDRW
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
EPEC
ENVI
ELN
EAG
EPCS
EPRT
EPTED
ETRB
EUM
EAIDS
EFIC
EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM
EAIDAR
ESF
EIDN
ELAM
EDU
EV
EAIDAF
ECN
EDA
EXBS
EINTECPS
ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ
EPREL
EAC
EINVEFIN
ETA
EAGER
EINDIR
ECA
ECLAC
ELAP
EITI
EUCOM
ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID
EARG
ELDIN
EINVKSCA
ENNP
EFINECONCS
EFINTS
ECCP
ETC
EAIRASECCASCID
EINN
ETRP
EAIDNI
EFQ
ECOQKPKO
EGPHUM
EBUD
ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ
ENERGY
ELB
EINDETRD
EMI
ECONEFIN
EIB
EURN
ETRDEINVTINTCS
EIN
EFIM
ETIO
ELAINE
EMN
EATO
EWTR
EIPR
EINVETC
ETTD
ETDR
EIQ
ECONCS
EPPD
ENRGIZ
EISL
ESPINOSA
ELEC
EAIG
ESLCO
EUREM
ENTG
ERD
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
ECINECONCS
ETRO
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECUN
EFND
EPECO
EAIRECONRP
ERGR
ETRDPGOV
ECPN
ENRGMO
EPWR
EET
EAIS
EAGRE
EDUARDO
EAGRRP
EAIDPHUMPRELUG
EICN
ECONQH
EVN
EGHG
ELBR
EINF
EAIDHO
EENV
ETEX
ERNG
ED
FR
FREEDOM
FINREF
FJ
FI
FRELIMO
FOREIGN
FAA
FETHI
FAS
FTAA
FRB
FAO
FCS
FINANCE
FWS
FTA
FEMA
FDA
FLU
FRANCISCO
FBI
FORCE
FO
FARC
FK
FT
FCSC
FAC
FM
FMGT
FINV
FCSCEG
FARM
FERNANDO
FINR
FIN
FINE
FIR
FDIC
FOR
FOI
FCUL
FKLU
FMLN
FISO
FIXED
GM
GMUS
GG
GR
GE
GAZA
GT
GH
GZ
GJ
GLOBAL
GV
GABY
GOI
GA
GCC
GB
GY
GATT
GC
GUAM
GEORGE
GTIP
GOV
GOMEZ
GUTIERREZ
GL
GKGIC
GF
GU
GWI
GARCIA
GTMO
GN
GANGS
GIPNC
GAERC
GREGG
GUILLERMO
GASPAR
GERARD
GI
HK
HR
HUMANR
HUMAN
HO
HA
HUMANRIGHTS
HU
HHS
HIV
HUM
HRKAWC
HILLEN
HILLARY
HDP
HUMRIT
HSTC
HUMANITARIAN
HCOPIL
HADLEY
HURI
HL
HRETRD
HOURANI
HG
HARRIET
HESHAM
HI
HNCHR
HARRY
HRECON
HRC
HOSTAGES
HEBRON
HUMOR
HSWG
HYMPSK
HECTOR
HN
HYDE
HUD
HRPGOV
HIGHLIGHTS
ID
ILC
IS
IZ
ICAO
IMO
ITU
IR
IAEA
ICRC
IPROP
IT
IBRD
ISRAELI
IRAQI
ISSUES
ITRA
IV
IO
IGAD
IRAQ
IN
IMF
ICTR
ISCON
IADB
IDB
IEA
INR
IWC
ICCAT
ILO
INMARSAT
IOM
ICJ
IQ
ISPA
ITRD
IPR
INTELSAT
ISN
IAHRC
INTERNAL
IFAD
IICA
IHO
IRAN
IL
IRCE
IC
INTELLECTUAL
IRM
IE
ICTY
IDLI
IFO
ISCA
INF
INL
ISRAEL
INV
IBB
INFLUENZA
ISPL
ITER
ITIA
INRA
ISAF
IACHR
INTERPOL
IFR
IRS
INRB
IEF
ISAAC
ICC
INDO
IIP
IATTC
INAUGURATION
IND
INS
IZPREL
IACI
IEFIN
INNP
ILAB
IA
IMTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
IFIN
IRAJ
IX
ICG
IF
ITPHUM
ITA
IP
IACW
IK
IUCN
IZEAID
IRPE
IDA
ISLAMISTS
ITF
INRO
IBET
IDP
IRC
ISO
ICES
IRMO
ITPGOV
IQNV
IMSO
IRDB
IMET
INCB
IFRC
JA
JO
JP
JM
JCIC
JOHN
JE
JEFFERY
JS
JUS
JN
JOHNNIE
JAMES
JKUS
JOSEPH
JML
JAWAD
JSRP
JIMENEZ
JOSE
JKJUS
JK
JAPAN
KMDR
KPAO
KPKO
KJUS
KCRM
KGHG
KFRD
KWMN
KDEM
KTFN
KHIV
KGIC
KIDE
KSCA
KNNP
KHUM
KIPR
KSUM
KISL
KIRF
KCOR
KRCM
KPAL
KWBG
KN
KS
KOMC
KSEP
KFLU
KPWR
KTIA
KSEO
KMPI
KHLS
KICC
KSTH
KMCA
KVPR
KPRM
KE
KU
KZ
KFLO
KSAF
KTIP
KTEX
KBCT
KOCI
KOLY
KOR
KAWC
KACT
KUNR
KTDB
KSTC
KLIG
KSKN
KNN
KCFE
KCIP
KGHA
KHDP
KPOW
KUNC
KDRL
KV
KPREL
KCRS
KPOL
KRVC
KRIM
KGIT
KWIR
KT
KIRC
KOMO
KRFD
KUWAIT
KG
KFIN
KSCI
KTFIN
KFTN
KGOV
KPRV
KSAC
KGIV
KCRIM
KPIR
KSOC
KBIO
KW
KGLB
KMWN
KPO
KFSC
KSEAO
KSTCPL
KSI
KPRP
KREC
KFPC
KUNH
KCSA
KMRS
KNDP
KR
KICCPUR
KPPAO
KCSY
KTBT
KCIS
KNEP
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KNNB
KGCC
KINR
KPOP
KMFO
KENV
KNAR
KVIR
KDRG
KDMR
KFCE
KNAO
KDEN
KGCN
KICA
KIMMITT
KMCC
KLFU
KMSG
KSEC
KUM
KCUL
KMNP
KSMT
KCOM
KOMCSG
KSPR
KPMI
KRAD
KIND
KCRP
KAUST
KWAWC
KTER
KCHG
KRDP
KPAS
KITA
KTSC
KPAOPREL
KWGB
KIRP
KJUST
KMIG
KLAB
KTFR
KSEI
KSTT
KAPO
KSTS
KLSO
KWNN
KPOA
KHSA
KNPP
KPAONZ
KBTS
KWWW
KY
KJRE
KPAOKMDRKE
KCRCM
KSCS
KWMNCI
KESO
KWUN
KPLS
KIIP
KEDEM
KPAOY
KRIF
KGICKS
KREF
KTRD
KFRDSOCIRO
KTAO
KJU
KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW
KEN
KO
KNEI
KEMR
KKIV
KEAI
KWAC
KRCIM
KWCI
KFIU
KWIC
KCORR
KOMS
KNNO
KPAI
KBWG
KTTB
KTBD
KTIALG
KILS
KFEM
KTDM
KESS
KNUC
KPA
KOMCCO
KCEM
KRCS
KWBGSY
KNPPIS
KNNPMNUC
KWN
KERG
KLTN
KALM
KCCP
KSUMPHUM
KREL
KGH
KLIP
KTLA
KAWK
KWMM
KVRP
KVRC
KAID
KSLG
KDEMK
KX
KIF
KNPR
KCFC
KFTFN
KTFM
KPDD
KCERS
KMOC
KDEMAF
KMEPI
KEMS
KDRM
KEPREL
KBTR
KEDU
KNP
KIRL
KNNR
KMPT
KISLPINR
KTPN
KA
KJUSTH
KPIN
KDEV
KTDD
KAKA
KFRP
KWNM
KTSD
KINL
KJUSKUNR
KWWMN
KECF
KWBC
KPRO
KVBL
KOM
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KEDM
KFLD
KLPM
KRGY
KNNF
KICR
KIFR
KM
KWMNCS
KAWS
KLAP
KPAK
KDDG
KCGC
KID
KNSD
KMPF
KPFO
KDP
KCMR
KRMS
KNPT
KNNNP
KTIAPARM
KDTB
KNUP
KPGOV
KNAP
KNNC
KUK
KSRE
KREISLER
KIVP
KQ
KTIAEUN
KPALAOIS
KRM
KISLAO
KWM
KFLOA
LE
LU
LH
LA
LG
LO
LY
LANTERN
LI
LABOR
LORAN
LTTE
LT
LAS
LAB
LAW
LVPR
LARREA
LEBIK
LAURA
LS
LOTT
LOVE
LR
LEON
LAVIN
LGAT
LV
LAOS
LOG
LN
LB
MOPS
MO
MARR
ML
MASS
MZ
MR
MNUC
MX
MV
MCC
MY
MEDIA
MTCRE
MG
MCAP
MOPPS
MP
MI
MK
MC
MD
MA
MU
MASC
MW
MT
MEPP
MN
MTCR
MH
MEPI
MIL
MNUCPTEREZ
MMAR
MICHAEL
MUNC
MDC
MPOS
MONUC
MAR
MGMT
MAS
MEPN
MENDIETA
MARIA
MONTENEGRO
MOOPS
MSG
MARITIME
MURRAY
MUKASEY
MOTO
MCA
MFO
MEX
MRSEC
MMED
MACP
MAAR
MINUSTAH
MCCONNELL
MAPP
MGT
MARQUEZ
MANUEL
MNUR
MCCAIN
MF
MOHAMMAD
MOHAMED
MNU
MFA
MILITANTS
MINORITIES
MTS
MLS
MILI
MIAH
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MED
MARAD
MNVC
MINURSO
MNUCUN
MIK
MARK
MBM
MPP
MILITARY
MAPS
MNUK
MILA
MTRRE
MACEDONIA
MICHEL
MASSMNUC
MUCN
MQADHAFI
MPS
MARRGH
MRCRE
MTRE
MORALES
MAP
MCTRE
MHUC
MOPSGRPARM
MOROCCO
MCAPS
NL
NU
NS
NI
NPT
NATO
NO
NG
NATEU
NSF
NZ
NAS
NP
NDP
NLD
NGO
NEPAD
NAFTA
NASA
NEA
NGUYEN
NIH
NK
NIPP
NONE
NR
NANCY
NEGROPONTE
NRR
NERG
NSSP
NSG
NSFO
NE
NATSIOS
NFSO
NATIONAL
NTDB
NT
NCD
NTSB
NRC
NELSON
NAM
NH
NPG
NEC
NSC
NFATC
NMFS
NATOIRAQ
NAR
NZUS
NARC
NCCC
NA
NC
NEW
NRG
NUIN
NOVO
NATOPREL
NEY
NV
NICHOLAS
NPA
NW
NARCOTICS
NORAD
NOAA
NON
NTTC
NKNNP
NMNUC
NUMBERING
ODIP
OIIP
OPRC
OSCE
OREP
OTRA
OPET
OSCI
OVIP
OECD
OCII
OUALI
OPDC
OEXC
OFPD
OPIC
OFDP
OPCW
OECV
OAS
OM
OMIG
ODAG
OPREP
ORA
OIC
OEXCSCULKPAO
OIG
OASS
OFFICIALS
ORTA
OSAC
OIL
OIE
OEXP
OPEC
OPDAT
OMS
OES
OHI
OMAR
OCRA
OFSO
OCBD
OSTA
OAO
ONA
OTP
ORC
OAU
OXEC
OA
ODPC
OPDP
OVIPPRELUNGANU
OASC
OSHA
OPCD
OTR
OPPI
OPCR
OF
OFDPQIS
OSIC
OHUM
OSTRA
OASCC
OBSP
OFDA
OPICEAGR
OIM
OGAC
OTA
OTRAORP
OPPC
OESC
OCEA
OVP
ON
OPAD
OTAR
OCS
ODC
OTRD
OCED
OSD
ORUE
OREG
PHUM
PINR
PTER
PGOV
PREL
PREF
PL
PM
PHSA
PE
PARM
PINS
PK
PUNE
PO
PALESTINIAN
PU
PBTS
PROP
PTBS
POL
POLI
PA
PGOVZI
POLMIL
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POLM
PD
POLITICS
POLICY
PAS
PMIL
PINT
PNAT
PV
PKO
PPOL
PERSONS
PING
PBIO
PH
PETR
PARMS
PRES
PCON
PETERS
PRELBR
PT
PLAB
PP
PAK
PDEM
PKPA
PSOCI
PF
PLO
PTERM
PJUS
PSOE
PELOSI
PROPERTY
PGOVPREL
PARP
PRL
PNIR
PHUMKPAL
PG
PREZ
PGIC
PBOV
PAO
PKK
PROV
PHSAK
PHUMPREL
PROTECTION
PGOVBL
PSI
PRELPK
PGOVENRG
PUM
PRELKPKO
PATTY
PSOC
PRIVATIZATION
PRELSP
PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ
PMIG
PREC
PAIGH
PROG
PSHA
PARK
PETER
POG
PHUS
PPREL
PS
PTERPREL
PRELPGOV
POV
PKPO
PGOVECON
POUS
PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN
PWBG
PMAR
PREM
PAR
PNR
PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO
PARMIR
PGOVGM
PHUH
PARTM
PN
PRE
PTE
PY
POLUN
PPEL
PDOV
PGOVSOCI
PIRF
PGOVPM
PBST
PRELEVU
PGOR
PBTSRU
PRM
PRELKPAOIZ
PGVO
PERL
PGOC
PAGR
PMIN
PHUMR
PVIP
PPD
PGV
PRAM
PINL
PKPAL
PTERE
PGOF
PINO
PHAS
PODC
PRHUM
PHUMA
PREO
PPA
PEPFAR
PGO
PRGOV
PAC
PRESL
PORG
PKFK
PEPR
PRELP
PREFA
PNG
PGOVPHUMKPAO
PRELECON
PINOCHET
PFOR
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PRELC
PREK
PHUME
PHJM
POLINT
PGOVPZ
PGOVKCRM
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PECON
PEACE
PROCESS
PLN
PRELSW
PAHO
PEDRO
PRELA
PASS
PPAO
PGPV
PNUM
PCUL
PGGV
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGIV
PRFE
POGOV
PEL
PBT
PAMQ
PINF
PSEPC
POSTS
PHUMPGOV
PVOV
PHSAPREL
PROLIFERATION
PENA
PRELTBIOBA
PIN
PRELL
PGOVPTER
PHAM
PHYTRP
PTEL
PTERPGOV
PHARM
PROTESTS
PRELAF
PKBL
PRELKPAO
PKNP
PARMP
PHUML
PFOV
PERM
PUOS
PRELGOV
PHUMPTER
PARAGRAPH
PERURENA
PBTSEWWT
PCI
PETROL
PINSO
PINSCE
PQL
PEREZ
PBS
RS
REFUGEES
RW
RP
RELFREE
RO
REGIONAL
RIGHTS
REACTION
REPORT
RU
RENAMO
RIGHTSPOLMIL
REFORM
RM
REFUGEE
REL
RELATIONS
ROW
RREL
REGION
RATIFICATION
RBI
RICE
ROOD
RODENAS
RUIZ
RODHAM
ROBERT
RGY
ROY
REUBEN
RELIGIOUS
RUEHZO
RODRIGUEZ
RUEUN
RELAM
RSP
RF
RSO
RCMP
REO
ROSS
RPTS
RENE
REID
RUPREL
RMA
RI
REMON
RPEL
RFE
RFIN
RA
RAFAEL
RAY
RUS
RPREL
ROBERTG
RECIN
RAMONTEIJELO
SNAR
SP
SN
SMIG
SL
SOCI
SU
SG
SF
SENV
SZ
SOE
SCUL
SY
SO
SR
SYR
SE
SA
SW
SIPDIS
SCIENCE
SADC
SI
SCI
SOCIETY
SC
SAARC
STR
SECRETARY
SANC
SSH
ST
SNA
SGWI
SEP
SOCIS
SETTLEMENTS
SPECIALIST
SK
SHUM
START
STET
SCVL
SREF
SCHUL
SCUIL
SYRIA
SECURITY
SPCE
SYAI
SMIL
SOWGC
STEPHEN
SNRV
SKCA
SENSITIVE
SECI
SNAP
SPP
SCUD
SOM
SPECI
SMIGBG
SENC
SCRM
SGNV
SECTOR
SENVEAGREAIDTBIOECONSOCIXR
SENVSXE
SASIAIN
SACU
SENVSPL
SWMN
STEINBERG
SOPN
SOCR
SCOI
SCRS
SILVASANDE
SWE
SARS
SNARIZ
SUDAN
SENVQGR
SM
SNARKTFN
SAAD
SD
SAN
SIPRNET
STATE
SENS
SUBJECT
SFNV
SECSTATE
SSA
SPCVIS
SOI
SOFA
SCULKPAOECONTU
SPTER
SKSAF
SENVKGHG
SHI
SEVN
SANR
SPSTATE
SMITH
SCOM
SH
SNARCS
SNARN
SIPRS
SNARM
SIPDI
SCPR
SNIG
SELAB
SULLIVAN
SENVENV
SECDEF
SOLIC
SOIC
SPAS
SASC
SOSI
SEC
SEN
SENVCASCEAIDID
TU
TH
TW
TSPA
TRGY
TPHY
TBIO
TIFA
TS
TZ
TX
TSPL
TT
TK
TC
TINT
TERFIN
TERRORISM
TIP
TURKEY
TI
TECHNOLOGY
TNGD
TRSY
TRAFFICKING
TOPEC
TPSL
TP
TD
TR
TA
TIO
TREATY
TO
THPY
TECH
TRADE
TPSA
TG
TAGS
TF
TRAD
THKSJA
TVBIO
TNDG
TN
TBIOZK
TWI
TV
TWL
TRT
TWRO
TSRY
TTPGOV
TAUSCHER
TRBY
TRBIO
TL
TPKO
TIA
TGRY
TSPAM
TREL
TNAR
TBI
TFIN
TPHYPA
TWCH
THOMMA
THOMAS
TERROR
TRY
TBID
TPP
TE
THANH
TJ
TBKIO
UNGA
USUN
UN
UG
UNSC
UK
UP
US
UNCTAD
UNVIE
UNHRC
USTR
UNAMA
UNCRIME
UNESCO
UV
UNDP
UNHCR
UNCSD
UNCHR
UZ
USAID
UNEP
UNO
UNPUOS
UY
UNDC
UNCITRAL
UNAUS
UNCND
UA
UNMIK
USTDA
USEU
USDA
UNICEF
UR
UNFICYP
USNC
USTRRP
UNODC
UNRWA
UNOMIG
USTRPS
USAU
USCC
UNEF
UNGAPL
UNFPA
UNSCE
USSC
UGA
UEU
UNMIC
UNTAC
UNION
UNCLASSIFIED
USPS
UNA
UMIK
USOAS
UNMOVIC
UNFA
UNAIDS
UNCHC
USGS
UNSE
UNRCR
UNTERR
USG
UE
UAE
UNWRA
UNCSW
UNSCR
UNCHS
UNDESCO
UNPAR
UNC
UB
UNSCS
UKXG
UNGACG
UNREST
UNHR
USPTO
UNFCYP
USCG
UNIDROIT
UNSCD
UPU
UNBRO
UNECE
USTRUWR
UNCC
UNESCOSCULPRELPHUMKPALCUIRXFVEKV
VM
VE
VT
VETTING
VN
VZ
VIS
VC
VTPREL
VIP
VTEAID
VTEG
VOA
VA
VTIZ
VANG
VISIT
VO
VENZ
VAT
VI
VEPREL
VEN
WFP
WTO
WHO
WTRO
WBG
WMO
WIPO
WA
WI
WSIS
WHA
WCL
WE
WMN
WEBZ
WS
WAR
WZ
WMD
WW
WILLIAM
WEET
WAEMU
WM
WWBG
WWT
WWARD
WITH
WMDT
WTRQ
WCO
WEU
WALTER
WRTO
WB
WHTI
WBEG
WCI
WEF
WAKI
WHOA
WGC
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 07MEXICO4399, SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF COMPETITION IN MEXICO'S
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #07MEXICO4399.
| Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07MEXICO4399 | 2007-08-16 22:21 | 2011-08-25 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | Embassy Mexico |
VZCZCXYZ0008
PP RUEHWEB
DE RUEHME #4399/01 2282221
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 162221Z AUG 07
FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8458
UNCLAS MEXICO 004399
SIPDIS
INFO ALL CONSULATES IN MEXCIO COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC, PRIORITY
FCC WASHDC PRIORITY
NSC WASHDC, PRIORITY
INFO ALL US CONSULATES IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC PRIORITY
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
STATE FOR WHA/MEX, EB/IFD/OIA, AND EB/CIP
STATE PASS TO USTR FOR MCHALE AND HINCKLEY
FCC FOR EMILY TALAGA
USDOC FOR 4320/ITA/MAC/WH/ONAFTA/GERI WORD
ITA FOR MICHELLE O'NEILL AND DAMON GREER
NTIA FOR JANE COFFIN
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECPS ECON EINV PGOV MX
SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF COMPETITION IN MEXICO'S
BROADCASTING AND TELECOM SECTORS
REF: A. MEXICO 4344
¶B. MEXICO 4291
¶C. MEXICO 3931
¶D. MEXICO 2506
¶E. 06 MEXICO 6542
¶F. 06 MEXICO 1716
¶1. (U) SUMMARY: Below is an analysis and English-language summary
of the 900-page final decision by Mexico's Supreme Court (SCJN) that
some provisions of the April 2006 Radio and Television Law are
unconstitutional. The Court threw out the most blatant
anti-competition measures that led the 2006 Law to be dubbed the
"Televisa" law because it favored the duopolies Televisa and TV
Azteca that dominate broadcasting in Mexico. The Court decision
supports competition because it has prevented this broadcast duopoly
from becoming stronger by eliminating those provisions that most
favored them. We will have to see if President Calderon and Congress
will use the space opened by the Court's decision to make changes to
actually promote competition in broadcasting and/or other telecom
services. The Calderon Administration and Congress will have to
decide how public bidding for frequencies can proceed in light of
the Supreme Court's ruling against public auctions. The Ministry of
Communications and Transport (SCT) is seeking support from the
August 20-21 North American Leader's Meeting in order to facilitate
its efforts to promote competition at least in some parts of
Mexico's telecom sector. End Summary
--------------
EMBASSY ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION:
-------------
The key points of the Court's ruling are:
The April 2006 Radio and TV Law is Valid
--------------------
¶2. (U) The Court ruled that the April 2006 Radio and Television Law
is valid, and only declared certain articles invalid.
Foreign Investment Still Not Allowed in Broadcasting
-------------------------
¶3. (U) The Court declined to comment on foreign investment in
broadcasting. The 47 Senators who filed the Constitutional challenge
to the Radio and TV Law opposed foreign investment in broadcasting,
and believed that the Radio and TV law would allow foreign
investment in broadcasting allowing broadcasting companies to
provide triple play services (video, data and phone). Their
reasoning was that the Radio and TV law's provision allowing
broadcasting companies to render "additional telecommunications
services" would enable these companies to use the more flexible 2006
Telecommunications Law to allow foreign direct investment in
broadcasting. The Court ruling did not give the Senators the
explicit rejection of foreign investment in broadcasting that they
wanted, but the Court's silence on this point leaves matters under
the Foreign Investment Law, which does prohibit foreign investment
in broadcasting.
COFETEL, The Telecom Regulator,
is strengthened (But Not Enough)
--------------------
¶4. (U) By approving those provisions of the 2006 Radio and TV Law
that strengthened Cofetel, the Court has given Cofetel more teeth
and autonomy. Analysts have said, however, that the Radio and Law
TV did not do enough to strengthen Cofetel or make it into a fully
independent regulator.
¶5. (U) The Court's decision that the Senate cannot object to the
appointment of Cofetel Commissioners was widely expected, but it is
unclear what will happen to the legal challenges filed by current
Undersecretary for Communications Rafael Del Villar and SCT Director
of Legal Affairs Gonzalo Martinez Pous. Rumors abound that the two
Commissioners who took Del Villar's and Gonzalez's place when the
Senate rejected their nominations will have to step down and
President Calderon will bill able to appoint two Commissioners, who
would presumably be close to him rather than to former-President Fox
or to Televisa and TV Azteca. Del Villar and Gonzalez have said
publicly that they would not seek to become Cofetel Commissioners if
they win their challenge.
¶6. (U) The Court ruled that those Cofetel Commissioners who were
replaced by new Commissioners under the Radio and TV Law could have
been eligible to remain at Cofetel. The Court, however, did not say
that the new Cofetel Commissioners should step down, nor that all
Cofetel Commissioners must be replaced. Post does not think all
Cofetel Commissioners would be replaced because such a move would
negatively affect investment.
The Broadcast Duopolies Lose Some Power
------------
¶7. (U) The Court's elimination of Article 28 of the April 2006 Radio
and TV law is a step forward for competition. Article 28 would
have given broadcasting companies already holding spectrum a strong
competitive advantage over new competitors. As digitalization
proceeds, Televisa and Azteca would have been able to retain
freed-up spectrum and use it for new telecommunications services
without bidding and without being explicitly obliged to pay. New
market entrants would have had to bid and pay for such spectrum. The
Senators who filed the Court challenge believed the Radio and TV Law
also favored Telmex by allowing it to instantly provide video
services without bidding or having to pay. Telmex, however, is
still waiting for government permission to provide video services
under the Convergence Accord approved by the Fox Administration (Ref
E). (In December 2006, a court rejected the injunction filed by one
cable TV company that had blocked Telmex from providing video
services. Telmex expects to meet the Accord's requirements for
number portability and interconnection, and start providing video
services in early 2008.)
The Ruling Promotes Competition
-----------------
¶8. (U) The ruling on the Radio and TV Law is believed to be the
first time the Supreme Court has over-ruled laws that blatantly
favor one company, in this case Televisa and TV Azteca. It was also
the first time a Supreme Court ruling like this was made completely
public, including broadcast on the judicial TV channel of a public
hearing before the Supreme Court, and publication on the internet of
the Court's 500-page draft decision and its 900-page final decision.
Throughout its ruling, the Court stressed the importance of free
competition and made the Federal Competition Commission (Cofeco) a
mandatory part of the process of allocating broadcast frequencies.
Unclear how Congress and the
President Will Decide to Allocate
Frequencies
-----------------
¶9. (SBU) In the short run, however, public bidding for frequencies
will remain disrupted by the Court's actions. It remains unclear
how public bidding for spectrum will work now that the Court has
eliminated "subastas publicas" (public auctions). One of the
justifications for the Radio and TV Law was that the old process for
allocating spectrum was completely non-transparent, bids for
spectrum were not made public and the Ministry of Communications and
Transportation (SCT) had complete discretion on which bid to choose.
Public auctions is a more transparent process. In fact, one U.S.
broadcasting company interested in entering the TV market through
partnership with Mexican broadcasters told Embassy Officers that the
court challenge to public auctions was a step backwards, because it
suspended what progress the government was making in opening at
least regional television frequencies for public bidding. The Court
did affirm public bidding, however. But since the Court rejected
public auctions, the Calderon Administration and the Congress will
have to decide how to conduct public bidding for frequencies.
Loopholes Remain
----------
¶10. (U) One of the nine Supreme Court judges Genaro Gongora
Pimentel, published his own interpretation of the Court's ruling to
explain why he did not agree with the majority. Post agrees with
Pimentel that the final ruling was not sufficiently detailed on some
key points and left some loopholes that could be misinterpreted by
lawyers. Post expects that the Congress will have to fill in these
gaps.
Embassy Comment:
-------------
¶11. (U) The April 2006 Radio and TV Law, despite its flaws, was a
much-needed measure to replace the obsolete radio and television law
of 1960. It would have been better for Congress to have passed a
more comprehensive reform that did not so blatantly benefit the
handful of broadcast companies that already dominate Mexican media
and telecommunications. Rather than having been rushed leading into
the July 2006 Presidential elections, reforming Mexico's
telecommunications and broadcasting should have been a more careful
process used to promote competition and allow triple play and
technological convergence. Instead, the April 2006 Law was done on a
fast track, pushed by Televisa and other economic and political
interests. Now that the Supreme Court has eliminated those parts of
the April 2006 law that most blatantly stifled competition, it will
be up to the Calderon Administration and Congress to pass a new law
that allows the competition needed for Mexico's telecom and
broadcast systems to move into the modern age.
¶12. (SBU) As indicated by its recent proposal for the North American
Leaders Meeting August 20-21 (refs A and B), SCT seems to want to
promote some competition in telecommunications. On August 3, during
the HLCC U.S.-Mexico telecom negotiations, SCT Secretary Tellez and
Undersecretary Del Villar said they were trying to convince
Calderon's Office to make a bold proposal at this August Security
and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit that the Presidents of the
U.S. and Mexico and Canada's Prime Minister announce a goal of
making the necessary policy and regulatory changes so that telecom
carriers can have low cost "local" calling rates regardless of
whether the call is within a country or across the U.S.-Mexico
border. SCT wants to do this to pressure Telmex to dramatically
lower its international "interconnection" rates it charges U.S.
carriers to complete a call from the U.S. to Mexico. SCT hopes to
strengthen its efforts to promote competition by linking them to
efforts under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to
improve competitiveness in North America. While they may be willing
to take on Telmex at least to some extent in order to meet President
Calderon's goal of modernizing telecommunications, SCT is not yet
willing to take on Televisa and TV Azteca. SCT officials have been
careful to say both publicly and privately that allowing a third
national television network would have to be a decision by President
Calderon himself.
¶13. (U) Begin Embassy Summary of the Final Ruling:
------------------------------
Title of Ruling: "Constitutional violations and Supreme Court of
Justice's ruling re. Telecommunications and Broadcasting Laws"
(1) Complaint from the 47 Senators that filed the challenge): The
process in which the law was approved violates the Constitution
because it was approved by the Chamber of Deputies with mistakes in
the text and sent to the Senate, which changed the text with only a
notice from the Chamber.
Ruling: The Court did not agree. The Court ruled that corrections
made by the Chamber did not modify the general content of the law,
but made it more accurate.
(2) Complaint: The creation of Cofetel is an exclusive faculty of
the Executive, and Congress cannot intervene.
Ruling: The Court did not agree. The Court said Cofetel was created
by the Executive in a previous decree, so Cofetel as an independent
body was not created in this April 2006 Radio and TV Law by
Congress.
(3) Complaint: Senators cannot ratify or object to the appointment
of Cofetel's commissioners. (Article 9-C)
Ruling: The Court agreed with the accusing party that Senators
cannot object to the appointment of commissioners, since this is the
Executive's exclusive right. The Court ruled that the Senate can
only ratify the following Executive's appointments: the Attorney
General, Ministry of Finance high-level officials; the Army; and
Ambassadors. The Court ruled that the Executive will appoint
Commissioners.
(4) Complaint: Congress cannot force the Ministry of Communications
and Transport (SCT) to issue Cofetel's regulations in a period of 30
days. Congress cannot tacitly eliminate SCT regulations and
transfer them to Cofetel, such as broadcasting regulations, which
were under the Department of Radio and Broadcasting under SCT.
Ruling: The Court did not agree. The Court ruled that a law is
more important than regulations. The Court said that when a previous
law is eliminated, its regulations are automatically eliminated.
The Court also said that there is no need to establish a period of
30 days since the Constitution obliges the Executive to implement a
law. (Embassy Comment: Cofetel and the industry have loudly
complained that SCT has so far failed to issue Cofetel regulations
for implementing either the 2006 Radio and TV Law, or the 2006
Telecommunications Law. End Comment)
(5) Complaint: The way Congress decided on Cofetel Commissioners
over a staggered period violates the Constitution. Although
staggered terms is a positive measures to protect Cofetel from the
pressure of elections and give continuity to its operations, by
approving the reform legislators just wanted to protect Cofetel
Commissioners selected by broadcasting companies (duopolists
Televisa and TV Azteca) from the new Mexican President (since it was
possible that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador could have won). (Embassy
Comment: Obrador was a leftist candidate strongly opposed to most
business monopolies in Mexico, and critical of Televisa and Azteca
for favoring the ruling party in their TV broadcasts. End
Comment).
Ruling: The Court agreed with staggered terms for Cofetel
Commissioners.
(6) Complaint: It goes against democracy and equal opportunity of
employment that former Commissioners were not eligible to remain in
Cofetel. Congress invaded the Executive's scope of action.
Ruling: The Court agreed with this complaint, ruling that former
commissioners could have been eligible to remain in Cofetel.
(Embassy Comment: The Court did not say that the former
Commissioners should be re-instated. End Comment.)
(7) Complaint: By excluding broadcasting services from the
Telecommunications Law and including them under a different law (the
2006 Radio and TV Law), legislators created an exemption regime
preventing technological convergence. The reform created a special
telecommunications regime for broadcasting services. Under this
provision, Telmex would have been allowed to provide "additional"
video services not established in its concession contract via its
network without being forced to comply with content regulations.
The existence of two laws would make it difficult for the Federal
Competition Commission (Cofeco) to determine "relevant markets,"
i.e. to determine monopolies or anti-trust practices. Monopolies
would allege that convergent services provided by them were covered
by two different laws. On the other hand, existing broadcasting
companies would have been allowed to provide telecommunication
services through the spectrum assigned to them for broadcasting
purposes only, without paying anything in exchange and without
bidding for that spectrum (which will be released after the
digitalization process). They would have been able to keep the
spectrum. Article 28 of the Radio and TV Law provided a
preferential treatment to existing broadcasting companies and
discriminated against, and represented a trade barrier against,
those companies interested in obtaining frequencies to provide
telecommunication services since they alone would have to
participate in a bidding process.
Ruling: The Court agreed that allowing broadcasting companies to
keep and use at no cost the spectrum freed up through
digitalization, thereby getting free concessions to provide
telecommunications services, would stimulate the creation of
monopolies and prevent fair competition particularly for
telecommunications companies and new competitors that had to
participate in bidding.
(8) The power granted to Cofetel to sanction dominant companies
violates the Constitution because Cofetel cannot determine relevant
markets (monopolies and anti-trust practices) in the
telecommunications sector. The only authority that can do that is
the Federal Competition Commission (Cofeco). The law also failed to
determine the sanctions to be applied to dominant companies.
Ruling: The Court did not agree. It said that the 2006 Federal
Telecommunications Law establishes in what cases Cofetel can impose
sanctions, and that Cofetel can use the concepts established in the
Federal Competition Law to determine relevant markets. The Court
said it would not be invading Cofeco's scope of action because the
Constitution also establishes a prohibition of monopolies.
(9) Complaint: The power granted to Cofetel to collect fees for the
right to use spectrum violates the Constitution since this power
belongs to the Ministry of Finances.
Ruling: The Court did not agree. The Court said the Constitution
does not specify that Ministry of Finance is the only agency in
charge of collecting fees for use of such rights. Other government
agencies can collect such fees.
(10) The power granted to Cofetel to intervene in international
telecommunication violates the Constitution because a responsibility
of the Executive Power.
Ruling: The Court did not agree. The Court said that Cofetel, as
an independent body but hierarchically subordinated to SCT, can
intervene in international matters, and along with the Foreign
Ministry to accede to agreements. The Court said this power will be
included in Cofetel's internal regulation.
(11) The power granted to Cofetel with regard to broadcasting
issues violates the Constitution because it is an issue under the
responsibility of the SCT.
Ruling: The Court did not agree. The Court said that Cofetel, as
an independent body but hierarchically subordinated to SCT, can
oversee broadcasting issues. The Court said that the power to
oversee broadcasting issues will be included in Cofetel's internal
regulations, and that international standards establish that
broadcasting and telecom issues should fall under the same
regulator.
(12) Complaint: The fact that broadcasting companies could obtain
permission to provide telecommunications services by merely
requesting it from the authority without paying anything in
exchange, or having to compete for the frequencies, violates the
Constitution. The government has the right to administer the
spectrum, recover and bid frequencies. (Article 28)
Ruling: The Court agreed. The Court ruled that frequencies have to
be granted through public biddings to guarantee free competition and
prevent the creation of monopolies. In addition, the government has
the right to receive a payment in exchange.
(13) Complaint: The 2006 Radio ant TV Law violates equity
principles since it discriminates between broadcasting concessions
(commercial companies) and permits (social companies). Those
requesting permits have to comply with more requirements.
Ruling: The Court partially agreed.
(14) Complaint: The reform violates the rights of community and
indigenous radio broadcasters.
Ruling: The Court did not agree.
(15) Complaint: The accusatory party questioned the use of public
auctions based only on economic considerations as the mechanism to
grant concessions for the use of spectrum. (Article 17-G)
Ruling: The Court agreed. The Court said this aspect of the law
was unconstitutional because it ignored the "social side" of
broadcasting services by allowing concessions to be granted only on
the basis of economic power and not the public/social role of the
broadcaster, the programming, and the effective use of the spectrum.
The Court said that granting concessions based only on economic
criteria violates the Constitution because it stimulates the
creation of monopolies. The Court determined that concessions will
be granted according to the congruence between the program and the
use of the frequency, as well as the result of the public bidding
process.
(16) Complaint: Having two laws, one for telecommunications and one
for broadcasting, becomes an obstacle for the Federal Competition
Commission (Cofeco) to determine monopolies and implement sanctions
in a technological convergence market. Some companies considered to
be dominant companies (monopolies) for some services
(telecommunications or broadcasting) could use their power to block
the entrance of competitors in other markets (telecommunications or
broadcasting). Monopolies can allege that there are two different
markets: telecommunications and broadcasting.
Ruling: The Court did not agree. The Court said that although
there are two laws, both coincide in technological convergence. The
Court said that technological convergence will allow a company to
provide triple play services. The Court said the April 2006 Radio
and TV law links the regulation of broadcasting and
telecommunications in accordance with by international standards.
The Court said the existence of two laws will not prevent Cofeco
from determining monopolies or relevant markets since there are
clear rules for such determinations.
(17) Complaint: The fact that broadcasting companies can renew
their concessions automatically and keep their spectrum over
interested third-parties without the need to bid for it or to comply
with new quality requirements violates the Constitution, especially
because telecommunication companies have to comply with certain
obligations and even new ones imposed by the authority. (Article 28
and 28-A)
Ruling: The Court agreed. Although the Court said that concessions
can be renewed, broadcasting companies have to participate in a
public bidding process to renew their concessions.
(18) Complaint: To bid for a concession, companies must have the
favorable opinion that the company would not become a monopoly from
the Federal Competition Commission (Cofeco). The Radio and TV Law
only required that the company provide evidence that it had
requested Cofeco's opinion. (Article 17-E V)
Ruling: The Court agreed that this violates the Constitution. The
Court said companies must provide a favorable opinion from Cofeco
when participating in public bidding for a concession.
(19) Complaint: The reform authorized neutral foreign investment in
the broadcasting sector. Only Mexicans can invest in the
broadcasting sector (with the exception of cable TV). Since the
April 2006 Radio and TV Law considered the provision of "additional
telecommunication services," foreigners could use this to invest
more than 49% in broadcasting.
Ruling: The Court side-stepped this issue by saying the analysis of
this Article is not needed since Article 28, in which broadcasting
companies were allowed to provide telecommunication services without
bidding for them, was considered to be illegal.
(20) Complaint: Concessions are for 20 years.
Ruling: The Court agreed that concessions for 20 years violate the
government's right over the spectrum and its responsibility to
administer the adequate and effective use of the spectrum. The
Court said that not even the investment made by the industry
justifies the 20-year term. The Court suggested changing the text
to "grant concessions up to 20 years" in order to give to the
government the possibility of not renewing a concession and
recovering the spectrum. (Article 16)
(21) Complaint about electoral propaganda/advertising: Only
political parties and not their candidates can purchase publicity
time from broadcasting companies.
Ruling: The Court did not agree.
BASSETT