During most of the 20th century, global media tended to heavily rely on regulation, planning, and coordination by national governments. Occasionally, goals and agendas of one nation would conflict with those of another with regard to communication through the media. In addition, it quickly became apparent that because global media crossed national boundaries, some form of intergovernmental coordination was needed in order to maintain an international flow of media messages. To some extent during the Cold War era, global communication entailed heavy‐handed attempts by various national governments to manage the image of their own respective nations through media representation. At the same time, developing nations sought to ensure that they would eventually find a significant place in the ever‐evolving global system of electronic communication.

For these sorts of reasons, in addition to a desire to establish international technical standards where possible, various NGOs and IGOs arose during the 20th century to serve the needs of global media. NGOs, or nongovernmental organizations, are sometimes international, and may receive some government funding. They operate independently from national governments, although they may receive some funding from them. An intergovernmental organization, or IGO, typically consists of various national governments as well as other entities, such as profit‐making organizations and even multinational corporations. An example of an IGO is the International Telecommunication Union, or ITU, while an example of an NGO is the World Wide Web Consortium, or the W3C. Both of these are discussed later in this chapter.

Throughout much of the world, the first few decades of electronic media in the early 20th century tended to be dominated by government control, often administered by or in conjunction with what came to be known as a PTT, or government postal, telephone, and telegraph agency. A general trend in capitalist nations late in the 20th century, however, saw a lessening of governmental influence and a strengthening of the role of profit‐making corporations, especially multinational or transnational corporations, as wielding influence over the structure, nature, and function of the media.

This has been the case not only within individual nations, but in an international sense as well. To some extent, as a result, lesser‐developed nations may have become more challenged in attempting to argue for their needs and moral rights in a media world increasingly dominated by economic forces rather than by IGOs. Even where IGOs and NGOs do come into play, those organizations are often largely dominated by commercial business interests. In addition, a trend has been away from dominance by IGOs and toward commercial dominance.

As a ready example, the prominent communications satellite provider Intelsat began in 1964 as an IGO. By the early 1970s over 80 countries were participating. By the 1990s, however, governments began to increasingly take a back seat in the operation of Intelsat while commercial interests increasingly prevailed. By 2001, Intelsat had become privatized and therefore commercialized. This was the result of a fundamental shift which became evident in world media beginning in the 1980s.

That shift came about largely because of three interrelated factors. First, media technology had become, by this time, far more complex, sophisticated, and expensive. National governments found it increasingly difficult to regulate, let alone coordinate, national media systems. This was partly because of the second interrelated factor, which was a downturn in the world economy, but also because governments were, from that time on, at a distinct disadvantage in terms of having a handle on communication technology. That was because the technology was evolving so quickly that governments were challenged to keep up with the changes.

Already by the 1980s, the shift to some forms of digital media, although limited at that time, had begun. Only profit‐making corporations, for the most part, possessed the finances and the know‐how to remain on the cutting edge of new media technology developments. Costs of media production had skyrocketed at the same time that the global economy had seen a downturn. Media technology was changing too rapidly for national governments. Privatization of the media, hence commercialization, became highly attractive to national governments which had grown accustomed to managing the far simpler media technologies of an earlier era.

As a third interrelated development, personalized media began to proliferate. This enabled individuals to largely bypass official media content in those countries which were limited to government (public) broadcasting. VCRs (videocassette recorders) and videotapes, for example, became widely available. Direct broadcast satellite (DBS) dishes became common in many parts of the world. Commercial‐based cable TV began to appear in countries formerly limited to state services. From the standpoint of governmental control, the media world was spinning out of control.

Yet another huge factor in the shift of power has been the explosive growth of the Internet and web‐based media, with over four billion Internet users as of early 2018. In addition, two‐thirds of the world’s population owns a mobile phone, most of them being smartphones. The fastest Internet growth rates are being observed in Africa. Adoption is taking place with amazing speed in Central Africa and Southern Asia.¹

The World Wide Web (WWW), as a subset of the Internet, is increasingly assuming a dominant place in the overall media mix. At the same time, the web is by nature global, which takes it out of the control of any one national government. National governments have found it increasingly difficult to even understand the Internet, let alone control it, especially while it continues to develop and evolve with lightning‐like speed.

Such NGOs as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and such IGOs as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) seek to coordinate use of the web on a global scale. The web is, however, fast developing into new and completely unanticipated forms. Such organizations do not always possess the means to force compliance with internationally agreed‐upon standards and principles with regard to either the web or more traditional forms of the media. Even the US has refused, at times, to comply with ITU strictures.

As already stated, in an earlier era, coordination of global media largely rested in the hands of national governments, IGOs, and NGOs. By the 1980s, the balance of power began to shift largely from governments and IGOs to profit‐making corporations. This was a natural consequence of several factors, including the growing complexity of media technology and, most significantly, a rise in costs associated with the media.

With the emergence of newer digital and web‐based media technologies and accompanying constant sweeping changes in media technology, however, this shift from governmental and intergovernmental control to corporate dominance has accelerated. Where NGOs play a role in international telecommunication governance, major media corporations like Apple and Google tend to assume prominent participatory roles in those organizations.

This shift to greater corporate dominance is not just the result of technological change, but social change as well. Reports suggest that trust of government and NGOs is at an all‐time low.² Distrust of big business has also mounted, but major corporations appear to be emerging, in many cases, as seemingly the best qualified entities to coordinate the fast‐changing world of digital media. Distrust of the media is also a factor, but not one which seems to have hindered media consumption.

Governments and IGOs may debate global media needs and may set global media strategies. It is becoming increasingly evident, however, that broad sweeping changes in world media will emerge as the result of, by and large, commercial‐based innovation and not by IGO policy debates. Intergovernmental agencies like the ITU may establish strategies, make reports, identify needs, and formulate principles, but most, if not all, of this can be overridden in an instant by the unexpected appearance of new technological options which emerge as the result of market forces.

International Telecommunication Union

The ITU is a United Nations agency. In fact, it is the oldest specialized agency of the UN, having been established before the United Nations was formed, in 1865. As we move through the 21st century, some critics question the relevance of this 19th century creation. Such questions largely center on the increasing dominance of the Internet in global communication. International coordination of the Internet is certainly debated, and debated heavily, in meetings of the ITU. Yet to what extent the ITU can actually coordinate or regulate international use of the Internet in any effective manner is part of the debate.

Although the concept and design of the WWW was formulated outside of the United States, it was built on the foundation of the much older Internet, which was a US creation. At the same time, however, some Chinese spokespeople have been suggesting that China should play a leading role in establishing Internet rules and parameters. The rationale behind these suggestions is that China has the largest number of Internet users of any nation on the planet, more than twice the number of users in the US. After the US gave up its control of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) in 2016, the agency concerned with domain names and IP addresses, there are some hints that China may be wanting to fill what it perceives as a void. As the director of Beijing University's Institute of Internet Governance and Law put it, for example,

Now is the time for China to realize its responsibilities. If the US is willing to give up its running of the Internet sphere, the question comes as to who will take the baton and how would it be run?

He ended by suggesting that China was transitioning from being a “participant” in the Internet to “having a leading and dominant role in it.”³

Another issue surrounding the role of the ITU in the 21st century has been, at times, a marked tendency toward international stalemates when it comes to establishing or revising global media policy. This became particularly evident in 2012 as representatives of ITU member nations met in Dubai at the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). Issues regarding the Internet and mobile media were prominent on the agenda. Eventually, a revised version of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) was signed, but only 89 out of the 151 countries attending actually signed the document. The US declined to sign.

The ITRs of the ITU emerged from attempts to coordinate use of telegraph systems sending Morse code messages in the 19th century. This resulted in various international treaties which came together into the first ITR in 1988. Since that time, however, world media systems have become increasingly dominated by a trend referred to earlier, that being a tendency toward increasing control by economic forces accompanied by a diminished role played by governments. The processes of liberalization and privatization have taken the place of heavy‐handed government dominance and control.

A vital issue in 1988 in ITR terms was what is known as the telephony accounting rate system, which concerned international phone calls. Under that system, the country in which the call originated paid the country which was being phoned, under a prearranged “accounting rate.” Developed nations, especially core nations, much more commonly phoned developing countries than the other way around. This became viewed as a sort of subsidy program by which developing countries acquired hard currency.

Then, however, the existing system collapsed. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) in the United States decided in 1997 to ignore the system. Other countries then did the same. This was because, since 1988, global media had fundamentally changed, the result of “market liberalization, reduced regulation, increased competition, and the rise of the Internet and mobile wireless industries.” Those changes had, by this time, “drastically changed the global communications landscape.”⁴

Then, as the Internet came increasingly into play, various countries found themselves operating under new arrangements not specified in the ITR, but allowed by it. The Internet was essentially established on the basis of these ad hoc arrangements. This eventually led to the call for a revised ITR which, in turn, led to the 2012 debacle. Shortly afterward, charges surfaced which alleged that much of the power and dominance in global media, including the Internet, was not in the hands of governments or the ITU anyway, but was instead held primarily by huge multinational tech and media corporations.

These developments appear tied to the issue of which countries agreed to the ITR revision and which were opposed. Most of those which signed were developing countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, joined by Russia and China. Core Western‐based nations in North America and Europe, plus Japan, were opposed. Those nations which opposed were smaller in number but appear, in some ways, greater in power.

As one observer phrased it, “Though smaller in number,” those refusing in 2012 accounted for “probably two‐thirds of the telecommunications and Internet economy.”⁵ In addition, that writer refers to what he calls “ITU phobia,” a view that the ITU wields more power than it actually does.

This is the view that the agency somehow has the potential to wrest power over the Internet out of the hands of core nations, giving control instead to lesser‐developed countries. Much of this “phobia” arises from the perception that those countries in the latter group may have radically different agendas from those of core nations.

At the same time, however, both national governments and IGOs appear frustrated in their attempts to rule an unruly Internet. A 2017 article in the Guardian expressed this frustration in terms of a battle between “two sides,” the Internet and governments. The writer referred to what they called

the frustration among governments and the way that the Internet, and Internet companies, seem to elude and ignore the rules by which everyone else has to live. From encrypted apps used by terrorists (but also by peaceful activists) to online abuse, and fake news to hacking and radicalization, the friction between the two sides is growing….Internet companies, meanwhile, suggest that governments should butt out because these companies control the tools that can sort out the problems.⁶

This last sentence points to a significant and growing issue: Do national governments, and even international coordinating bodies like the ITU, possess the knowledge and the means to manage the Internet? Should they, instead, simply “butt out,” leaving such matters in the hands of profit‐driven companies? The ITU does continue to help establish international standards, but those standards are frequently disrupted by market forces. In addition, the ITU does not directly concern itself with technical standards which apply to all areas of electronic communication, and the ITU has little real basis for enforcement anyway.

As Milton Mueller of the Internet Governance Project expressed it, “The realist view of the ITU is that it is a weak and declining IGO. The industry on which it is based, circuit‐switched telephony, is everywhere in decline.” He added that telecommunications industries are “driven by transnational standards, private sector organizations, and businesses.” Mueller further noted that in the 1990s, the World Trade Organization (WTO) simply bypassed the ITU to redefine the telecommunications industry as “trade in services.” The WTO then acted on its own to formulate new, liberalized “global rules.”⁷

Another observer noted that with regard to Internet security issues, the ITU has “not enjoyed an especially privileged role” in the “key organizations” which are directly involved in this area, such as ICANN and the IETF (the Internet Engineering Task Force). Further, there is “considerable resistance” to giving IGOs such as the ITU “a more privileged role here.”⁸

Even in areas of global communication in which the ITU could be expected to have a better handle on international needs, issues, and technologies, the agency has not always effectively played a leading role. In establishing frequency ranges for use by digital audio broadcasting (DAB), for example, the US refused to go along with ITU‐established guidelines when the US established its own alternative service (known as IBOC, for in‐band on‐channel) instead. This has resulted in the odd quirk of DAB usage in Europe for digital local radio, while the US uses the IBOC alternative instead for local over‐the‐air digital radio.

The ITU has been frustrated in its attempts to coordinate international use of the Internet, largely because the ITU has, historically, relied primarily on intergovernmental cooperation. Unlike other spheres of international activity in which the ITU has been involved, it remains unclear just who, exactly, holds the reins of power where the Internet is concerned. That power does not appear to be concentrated in the hands of governments, nor does it appear to entirely lie vested in media corporations.

As far back as 2003 and 2005, when the WWW, as a subset of the Internet, was a new innovation to most people, the ITU began to hold World Summits on the Information Society (WSIS). Emphasis was placed on intergovernmental agreement, although some nongovernmental stakeholders were included in discussions.

This was the case although, even in that early era, nongovernmental stakeholders had already played a key role, such as in coordination of standards for domain names and web addressing. This was followed by the partitioning of discussion and debate regarding various specific aspects of the Internet into work by separate standards and policy groups, with little clarity as to which group was managing which aspect of Internet operations,⁹ and with no assurance that policies and recommendations would be adopted anyway.

In 2017, the ITU held a World Telecommunications Development Conference (WTDC), an event which occurs every four years. At the event, use of new satellite and high‐altitude technologies were identified as potential tools to use in expanding broadband Internet coverage to the entire planet. This is essentially the plan which has been discussed by entities as varied as Google, Facebook, and the government of China, to make broadband Internet access universal. Such proposals will be discussed later in this chapter.

The UN’s Broadband Commission has established goals of at least a broadband plan or strategy in every country by 2025. If current proposals are any indication, however, global broadband coverage may come about by then as the result of plans by commercial businesses, not IGOs. SpaceX, the commercial enterprise led by Elon Musk, CEO of car manufacturer Tesla, may possibly become the first to implement a global broadband Internet system fueled by low‐earth‐orbit (LEO) satellites.

International Internet connectivity (IIC) is the term used to refer to the interconnection of countries and major cities for Internet communication. This is an area which remains of particular concern to the ITU, since Internet connections frequently cross national boundaries. In establishing guidelines in this area, the ITU is following in its own historical footsteps. This is because the ITU was formed in 1865 largely out of concern for international coordination of telegraph lines which similarly crossed national borders.

In addition, the ITU still holds WSIS forums. These are termed the world's largest annual “ICT for development” gatherings. Policy statements were signed by 130 “high‐ranking officials” of the WSIS stakeholder community in 2018, but a perusal of the names and credentials reveals a pronounced absence of corporate participants.¹⁰

The United Nations Group on the Information Society, or UNGIS, is a United Nations interagency group chaired by the ITU. UNGIS attempts to implement the objectives of the WSIS.

The ITU is examining the future of digital technologies and policies to ensure the multilateral trading system works for all. This ecommerce movement and impact – think Amazon and China‐based Alibaba – has transformed global trade. Another major focus is on artificial intelligence (AI), a primary concern of the most prominent China‐based web platforms, and the potential impact of a new era of digital technologies. Specific action areas are affordable broadband issues, cybersecurity, the spread and role of information and communication technologies (ICTs), and further narrowing the digital divide.

Finally, the Secretary‐General of the ITU is Houlin Zhao of China. His appointment to this senior global position is a clear reflection of China's expanding global role and desire to increase its new role globally. China has been expanding its foreign aid and international footprint, particularly across Africa. China wants to move from the semiperipheral zone to core nation status; to a large extent it wants to use international activities, including foreign aid, to promote its global presence. China ultimately, within a few decades, wants to become the global leader of the global economy.

This global expansion by China, as well as others, has been made easier to accomplish in a shorter period of years with the “America First” foreign policy of the US President Donald Trump. Trump proudly uses the term “nationalist” to describe himself. He openly dislikes other presidents and prime ministers who support a global philosophy, role, and the expansion of global trade. These other leaders openly support international organizations, such as the United Nations and its specialized agencies.

By contrast, among other actions, the US is pulling out of UNESCO and leaving the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Trans‐Pacific trading partnership, the UN Human Rights Council, the Iran nuclear accord, and has been threatening to pull out of the WTO itself; finally, a global trade war is being created by Trump's tariffs. The global vacuum created by President Trump's “America First” mantra and actions have only served to embolden other leaders around the world who view the world and their role in it very differently. And they, particularly China, are taking full advantage of the US's abdication of its role as the global leader.

Internet Governance Organizations

As already noted, the ITU maintains some coordinating efforts with regard to the Internet. Various other organizations coordinate international Internet usage, with varying degrees of actual impact. Some of the more prominent include the Global Commission on Internet Governance; ICANN; IETF; the Internet Society (ISOC); UNGIS; and W3C.

These groups are varied in terms of their scope and influence. Some, like ICANN and the W3C, have clearly wielded power and have established standards which have been actually implemented where the web is concerned. Others, like the Global Commission on Internet Governance and ISOC, have not always been as successful at ensuring that their recommendations are adopted.

International Copyright Agreements

Nothing exists which could be termed an international copyright law, per se, but close to 180 countries have agreed to the international copyright treaty known as the Berne Convention. The agreement is more fully referred to as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

This treaty, which is the most significant international agreement in the area of copyright, is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO. The Berne Convention has been modified a number of times since it was first signed in 1886.

In addition, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which was first agreed to in 1996, extends copyright specifically to software and databases. In the same year, the issue of how national governments should enforce copyright law was addressed in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. That agreement is administered by the WTO.

The role played by copyright in global media is discussed more fully in Chapter 9.

Television Standards Organizations

Throughout the analog era, global broadcast television was dominated by several completely incompatible systems. The primary systems were (1) NTSC (National Television Systems Committee), as used in the United States and a few other countries, including Japan; (2) PAL, which prevailed in most of Europe; and (3) SECAM, the standard in the USSR and various Communist or formerly Communist nations. A variant of PAL called PAL‐M was essentially just used in Brazil.

The advent of digital technology did not entirely eradicate the brick walls between nations which had been erected due to incompatible analog television systems. DVD releases adopted a system of zoned incompatibilities, for instance, with some disks issued for Region 1, occupied by the United States, and other disks designated for other specific world regions identified by other zone numbers.

The introduction of high‐definition digital television (HDTV) in most parts of the world merely continued the sort of incompatible broadcast TV standards which had dominated during the analog era. Where NTSC had dominated in the US, ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) standards guided the implementation of over‐the‐air digital high‐definition television. ATSC standards extend to cable and satellite TV, not just broadcast television. Standards are based on ideas formulated in 1995 by a coalition of media and electronics companies known as the Grand Alliance.

In addition to the US, ATSC is also used in Mexico, Canada, and South Korea. Other incompatible systems in use in other parts of the world are DVB‐T, ISDB‐T, and DTMB. DVB‐T is by far the most popular in terms of the extent of world territory using this system. DVB‐T is in use in Europe, Russia, most of Africa, much of the Middle East, and Australia, in addition to various other nations. DTMB is, essentially, the Chinese system, while ISDB‐T prevails throughout most of South America and Central America.

Other aspects of television standards, as well as standards for film, are coordinated on an international basis by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE). SMPTE members include various high‐profile media corporations, many of which are US‐based. Members include such entities as Apple, Amazon, CBS, Fox, Sony, Netflix, and Universal.

Satellite Launch Organizations

The economic state of the international communication satellite field has been something of an enigma for the last several years. Although global digital media systems have grown tremendously, even in many former underdeveloped regions, this has not always resulted in a corresponding growth in the satellite industry. Much of the growth which has occurred has been outside of the United States, and much of that has involved LEO satellites.

The majority of communication satellites take one of two forms: geosynchronous (GEO) satellites and LEO satellites. The communication satellites which are most prominently used for television, along with other communication services, are GEO. They are termed GEO satellites because their orbits are in synch with the rotation of the earth. As the earth rotates, GEO satellites orbit along with that rotation, at an elevation of about 22,300 miles above the Equator.

At that elevation and in their position in an Equatorial path, the orbits of these satellites are synchronous with the earth’s rotation. This means that GEO satellites are, in effect, parked in space. As the earth moves, these satellites move with it, so that the satellite’s “footprint,” or coverage area on the earth, always remains the same. This means that, when viewed from the earth, the satellite appears stationary. For this reason, GEO satellites are also termed geostationary satellites. Geostationary and GEO are both terms for the same phenomenon, only expressed using different analogies.

Because all geostationary (geosynchronous) satellites orbit about 22 300 miles above the Equator, the spaces they occupy, referred to as orbital “slots,” are finite in number and have been in high demand. In earlier decades, much debate in the ITU centered on concerns that “have not” nations should have some of the very important GEO orbital slots reserved for their future use before they were all assigned on a first‐come first‐served basis to core nations.

Arguments along those lines seemed more cogent and more urgent, and probably reached more receptive ears, back in the days when coordination of satellite launches was dominated by coalitions of national governments. Since then, however, the satellite launch field has become increasingly dominated by commercialization and privatization, as in most other areas of electronic communication. This has resulted in market factors playing a bigger role than political debate as the communication satellite industry has evolved.

The operational life of communication satellites has been increasing, at the same time that existing satellites are being used more efficiently. Communication satellites use onboard send‐and‐receive units called transponders, named for their ability to both transmit (trans‐) signals to the earth and respond (‐ponder) to signals uplinked from the earth. Current satellite transponders can handle more traffic – more TV channels or other data – than before, and as well, current satellites last longer.

These factors have resulted in a diminished need for new communication satellite launches among the core nations. What was a satellite boom in the 1990s turned into a buyer’s market by the early 2000s. Most of what looks on paper like growth in the satellite field has come through increased use of LEO satellites, which still perform valuable functions but which do not possess all the benefits of geostationary orbits. LEO satellites orbit at an elevation of only about 100 to 1240 miles above the earth, as compared to the 22 300‐mile height of GEO satellites.

In general, satellite revenue growth has been down in the US, with slight growth globally, but with that growth lagging behind overall economic growth. Satellite manufacturing revenue has been down. Boeing announced in 2017 that it did not expect any rebound in the communication satellite field.¹⁷ Expected growth in use of LEO satellites is one factor currently hindering investment in GEO satellites.

With all the tremendous growth in Internet communication around the world, as discussed in later chapters, increases in connectivity have not been able to keep up with increases in the world population. After a startling burst of increase in the number of connected regions, reports suggest that global expansion of the Internet has stalled.¹⁸ That report comes from the ITU’s Broadband Commission.

This hindrance to further growth in the global Internet has prompted plans to increase coverage by implementing a system of high‐altitude communication technologies, including both GEO satellites and LEO satellites. Currently, the bulk of the discussion seems to center around LEO plans.

A GEO plan, however, calls for the use of a newer generation of geostationary satellites, called high‐throughput satellites (HTS). Traditional geostationary satellites used a single wide beam to cover a wide area on the earth, but newer HTS satellites use a multi‐beam approach to tremendously increase coverage. At the same time, speed and reliability are both greatly enhanced.

HTS usage is to be supplemented by non‐geostationary satellite orbits (NGSOs), using lower‐elevation satellites which operate in swarms, like a flock of birds. Although a number of NGSO satellites are needed, their cost is just a tiny fraction of the cost of geostationary satellites.

Yet another technology which can add to the arsenal of new technologies used to close the digital divide is the use of high‐altitude platform stations (HAPS). HAPS systems use drones or balloons at altitudes of perhaps around 12 to 30 miles as satellites to precisely aim Internet connections to specific locations. Both Google and Facebook have been discussing such approaches as possibilities.¹⁹

Early in 2018, much discussion in tech news centered around plans by SpaceX to launch a number of satellites in an effort to achieve global Internet coverage. At the same time, the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) was planning its own LEO tests with similar aims in mind.

The CASIC proposal calls for some 156 satellites to provide global broadband Internet available everywhere on the planet, even “in the desert, on the sea, or onboard an airliner.”²⁰ Unlike geostationary satellites, which orbit the earth at about 22 300 miles above the Equator, the satellites to be used in the Chinese proposal orbit the earth at an elevation of only about 620 miles. The plan is for this system to be fully operational throughout the world by 2022.

The SpaceX proposal is known as Starlink. One concern regarding the proposal, which calls for thousands of additional satellites, is a perceived potential for an eventually increased presence of space debris.

Some warn that such debris could eventually collide into operational satellites, causing extensive damage. Not only that, but it is said that collisions could reportedly cause a domino‐like effect known as the Kessler Syndrome, the phenomenon in which one collision could cause a chain reaction resulting in more collisions, with “weaponized” pieces flying toward the earth.²¹

Several organizations have arisen over the decades to internationally coordinate satellite launches and usage. Changes in the nature and prominence of these organizations have reflected, in general, a shift from dominance by national governments to control by market forces.

Intelsat currently operates the world’s largest GEO satellite backbone, with about 50 satellites along with an extensive terrestrial (ground‐based) support network. Intelsat began as an IGO in 1964 with 11 member countries. Intelsat became a private company, however, in 2001. This reflects a general shift by this time, from satellite launch and operation as a government activity to a commercial endeavor.

Inmarsat was formed as an IGO in 1979 by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The organization’s involvement with satellite communication centered on maintaining contact with ships at sea. This was a function which, much earlier, was handled by pioneering systems of telegraphy using radio.

Inmarsat customers came to comprise media organizations, however, along with such users as the oil industry, airlines, and governments. In 1999, Inmarsat became the first IGO to become a private company. The company is especially known today for its involvement in mobile satellite services.

By 1993, around the time that the Internet was beginning to emerge as a major factor in worldwide communication, the US government began advocating the creation of what was termed a global information infrastructure, or GII. The important role to be played by communication satellites in that overall infrastructure prompted the formation of the Satellite Super Skyway Coalition. This was an organization composed of major entities in the satellite field.

Out of that organization, the Satellite Industry Association (SIA) was created in 1995 as a forum involving major US companies involved with communication satellites. The Global Satellite Coalition, or GSC, was formed in 2018 with some of the world’s leading satellite industry associations as members. Of all the founding member organizations, the SIA was the only one from the US.

International coordination of communication satellites is intrinsically tied to use of communication for other than media purposes. Proposals suggest, for example, that global satellites could be used to prevent major storms by transmitting short and intense laser pulses through a process referred to as laser inversion. At the same time, the US government has made its system of global positioning satellites (GPS) available to the world community. Satellite usage plays a vital role in autonomous (non‐driver‐operated) vehicles.

All of this, of course, could create extreme challenges in times of war, since multiple countries possess the capability to destroy satellites which are in orbit. Greater use of satellite interconnection for Internet access could pose international risks. Satellite usage can control a vast variety of human functions, as can the Internet. The Internet of Things is a term which refers to a huge variety of web‐based processes which are used in order to operate physical devices and appliances, including those involved in home monitoring and security, medicine, industrial equipment control, and so on.

Conclusions

By the early 20th century, systems of electronic communication, including broadcasting, were assuming central roles in the daily lives of individuals across the globe. Already by the 19th century, with the advent of telegraph and then telephone systems, a need for some system of international coordination of global electric (later electronic) communication was widely viewed as essential.

This led to the establishment of international agreements, treaties, and organizations, such as the ITU, formed in 1865. In addition, national governments dominated the management of communication within many countries, taking organizational structures developed in the 19th century for postal, telegraph, and telephone systems and applying them to broadcasting systems in the 20th century, after the emergence of radio in the 1920s.

Intergovernmental coordination played a vital role in global media development throughout most of the 20th century. By the 1980s, this had begun to dramatically change. The world economy was in a slump, and governments were strapped for cash. This occurred at the same time that national governments found themselves increasingly challenged to manage electronic communication systems within their own borders, let alone on an international scale through their involvement in international agencies.

These factors led to a shift toward greater dominance by market forces in terms of media coordination and control, both domestically (within each nation) as well as internationally. Then, beginning in the early 1990s, the form of Internet usage known as the WWW suddenly emerged. Ever since, the WWW has continued to play an ever‐increasing role in global media.

A unique facet of the web is that it would be difficult to identify any single entity as controlling or “owning” the web. This has frustrated efforts by IGOs to coordinate Internet usage, at the same time that the web is evolving in ways which are often surprising and unexpected. Much of the technological innovation has been brought about by commercial businesses, some by individuals, but virtually none originates with national governments or with IGOs.