The Chairman of the American Delegation to the North and Central American Radio Conference (Sykes) to the Secretary of State

Sir: I herewith have the honor of transmitting my report as Chairman of our Delegation to the North and Central American Radio Conference held in Mexico City.

[Page 591]

I wish to say that the delegates and technical advisers worked most harmoniously and were in unanimous accord on all propositions presented.

The Ambassador of the United States to Mexico and his assistants ably assisted us in all of our endeavors.

Respectfully submitted,

Eugene O. Sykes

The Chairman of the American Delegation to the North and Central American Radio Conference (Sykes) to the Secretary of State

Sir: I have the honor to submit herewith the following report of the work of the North and Central American Regional Radio Conference which met at Mexico City from July 10, 1933, to August 9, 1933.

I. Personnel of Delegation

The Delegation of the United States consisted of:

  • Delegates:
    • Hon. Eugene O. Sykes, Chairman, Federal Radio Commission, Chairman of the Delegation
    • Hon. Schuyler Otis Bland, Representative in Congress from Virginia
    • Hon. Roy Tasco Davis, Minister to Panama
  • Technical Advisers:
    • Dr. Charles B. Jolliffe, Chief Engineer, Federal Radio Commission
    • Dr. Irvin Stewart, Treaty Division, Department of State
    • Mr. E. K. Jett, Chief Engineer, Communications Section of the Engineering Division, Federal Radio Commission
    • Mr. Andrew D. Ring, Assistant Chief, Broadcast Section, Federal Radio Commission
    • Mr. Gerald C. Gross, Chief, International Relations Section, Federal Radio Commission
  • Secretary:
    • Mr. Joseph C. Satterthwaite, Third Secretary of the American Embassy, Mexico City.

The American Delegation, with the exception of Mr. Gross, who arrived on July 4, and Mr. Satterthwaite, arrived at Mexico City on July 8, 1933.

First Plenary Session

The first plenary session was held at 11:00, July 10, 1933, in Pan–American Hall of the Ministry of Finance.

[Page 592]

The following countries were represented, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, United States of America, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua:

  • Canada:
    • Lawrent Beaudry
    • C. P. Edwards
  • Costa Rica:
    • L. Greñas Gooding
    • Ing. Ricardo Bravo
  • Cuba:
    • Ramón de Castro Palomino
  • El Salvador:
    • Carlos Espinosa Herrera
  • United States of North America:
    • Eugene O. Sykes
    • Schuyler Otis Bland
    • Roy T. Davis
  • Technical advisers:
    • Charles B. Jolliffe
    • Irvin Stewart
    • E. K. Jett
    • Andrew D. Ring
    • Gerald C. Gross
  • Guatemala:
    • Manuel Echeverría y Vidaurre
  • Honduras:
    • William E. Beakes
  • Mexico:
    • Lie. Fernando G. Coronada
    • Ing. Ignacio Avilez
    • Ing. Enrique Vaca
  • Technical advisers:
    • Julio Prieto
    • Francisco Castro Herrera
    • Javier Stávoli
    • Alfredo Alvarez
    • Anselmo Mena
    • Fernando Zubiría
    • Manuel Sánchez Cuén
    • Juan Buchanan
  • Nicaragua:
    • Salvador Calderón Ramírez

The Secretary of Communications and Public Works, Miguel M. Acosta, delivered an address of welcome. Fernando G. Coronada, Chairman of the Mexican Delegation, also greeted the delegates.

These addresses were replied to by the Chairman of the Delegation of the United States. The Chairman of the American Delegation moved that Mr. Coronada be elected Chairman of the Conference. (Unanimously carried.)

[Page 593]

The Chairman of the Delegation of the United States was unanimously elected as First Vice President and Mr. Manuel Echeverria y Vidaurre, delegate of the Republic of Guatemala, was elected as Second Vice President.

The credentials committee was then selected, Mr. Gooding, delegate for Costa Rica, and Mr. Roy T. Davis, delegate of the United States, were the two members of this committee.

Whereupon at 12:10 the meeting was adjourned.

Second Plenary Session

The second plenary session was held at 10:00 a.m., July 11. All delegates and technical advisers of the various countries were present. The rules for the internal regulations of the Conference, which had been presented by the Mexican Delegation were then adopted. (Copy of these rules is hereto attached as Exhibit A).15

A committee was then appointed to report at the next plenary assembly what committees should be appointed for the Conference. The members of this committee were Dr. C. B. Jolliffe of the United States, Mr. Avilez of Mexico and Mr. Carlos Espinosa Herrera of El Salvador. This committee was allowed a maximum of three days for presenting its report to the plenary assembly.

Third Plenary Session

On July 13, at 5:00 p.m. the third plenary session was held and the following committees were established:

Committee on General Matters.
  • (All those of a nature other than technical)
  • Chairman—Eugene O. Sykes, U. S. A.
  • Vice Chairman—Luis Greñas Gooding, Costa Rica.
Technical Committee on Broadcasting.
  • Chairman—Ignacio Avilez, Mexico.
  • Vice Chairman—C. B. Jolliffe, U. S. A.
Technical Committee on Services Other Than Broadcasting.
  • Chairman—C. P. Edwards, Canada.
  • Vice Chairman—E. K. Jett, U. S. A.
Drafting Committee.
  • Chairman—Salvador Calderón Ramírez
  • Vice Chairman—Ramón de Castro Palomino

The real work of the conference was then begun in the meetings of these three committees, detailed reports of which are now set out.

Report of Committee No. 1 on General Matters

Committee No. 1 was organized to consider general matters not falling within the competence of the technical committees. The [Page 594] Chairman of the American Delegation was chosen as Chairman of the Committee and Mr. L. Greñas Gooding, delegate from Costa Rica as Vice Chairman.

The committee held its first meeting after the other committees had begun their labors. The Chairman submitted the following list of suggested topics for the consideration of the committee:


Each Government is entitled to adequate facilities so far as they are available.
Frequency assignments shall be made so as to avoid interference.
The International Telecommunication Convention and Radio Regulations shall be applicable except as to matters covered by regional agreement.
Installations of national defense services shall be exempted as under Madrid Convention.16 (Art. 39 of Madrid)
Provision for duration and denunciation of regional agreement.


Broadcasting is a national service.
No Government shall grant facilities to be used primarily to reach an audience in another country.
No Government shall grant facilities to a person refused facilities by his own Government when the service sought to be established is substantially the same.
It is contrary to good international relations for a Government to permit a broadcasting station within its territories whose service area extends to the territories of another contracting government to broadcast for a national of such other Government a program which would not be permitted by such other Government.
No Government shall authorize the construction or operation of a broadcasting station on board ship.

At the request of the other delegations the American Delegation presented proposals for each topic, which proposals are contained in the minutes of the closing plenary session attached to the present report.17 Committee sessions were then suspended to permit the other delegations to study the American proposals and also to permit the holding of informal discussions. It became apparent early that the Mexican delegation, in particular, intended to insist that broadcasting is an international service. The American position that broadcasting is a national service logically followed from Article 7, Section 6, of the General Radio Regulations annexed to the International Telecommunications Convention of Madrid which had been signed on behalf of all of the countries represented at the Mexico City Conference with [Page 595] the exception of Mexico. Unfortunately, however, with the exception of those of Canada and the United States, the delegations were unwilling to accept the position assumed by their several governments in signing the Madrid regulations.

After informal discussions had disclosed the inability of the Mexican and American Delegations to agree on the fundamental question of broadcasting as a national service, and the use of exclusive frequencies for border stations, the Committee again met to permit the several delegations to present written proposals on matters within the competence of the committee. It was the impression of your Delegation that these proposals would be submitted without supporting argument in order that agreement at a later date might not be made more difficult. Apparently there was a misunderstanding, for the Mexican Delegation presented a lengthy argument for inclusion in the record. Your Delegation then indicated its intention to file a counter argument whereupon the Mexican Delegation agreed that its argument should be expunged from the record. As the record is issued by the Mexican Government it should, therefore, contain no arguments in support of the various proposals presented to Committee No. 1. The Mexican proposals18 are also contained in the minutes of the closing plenary session attached hereto.

The Delegations of Cuba, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua submitted a written statement18 accepting the Mexican proposals without reservation. It is our understanding that these delegations had been in consultation with the Mexican Delegation and that the statement was written with the assistance of the Mexican Delegation. Honduras was not represented at the session at which the statement was filed.

The Canadian Delegation took the position19 that in view of the difference of opinion between Mexico and the United States, agreement was clearly impossible. That delegation therefore took no stand with respect to the various proposals.

Inasmuch as it was impossible for the committee to agree upon the proposals presented to it, those proposals were incorporated in the records of the Conference but were not made the basis of recommendation by the Conference.

Border Stations

When it became apparent that agreement upon the allocation of exclusive broadcasting frequencies to countries was contingent upon an agreement between Mexico and the United States, formal committee sessions were suspended and informal conversations between the [Page 596] two Delegations were held. Your Delegation took the position that an understanding with respect to border stations was a necessary preliminary to the assignment of frequencies. In our opinion the facts were clear that border stations were being operated to serve audiences in the United States rather than in Mexico.

The Mexican Delegation first took the position that each Government should determine for itself what frequencies it should use for broadcasting and where it would locate the stations using such frequencies. Their basic contention was that there was an analogy between the high seas and the air and that occupancy of broadcasting channels by stations authorized by one government could not affect the right of another government to use those channels. Your Delegation pointed to the provisions of the Washington and Madrid radio conventions and regulations as protecting prior established American stations from interference by Mexican stations. The respective positions were not argued at length as the delegations sought to reach agreement upon a basis of compromise.

Throughout, the Mexican position was that it was of no concern to the United States where broadcasting stations were located in Mexico. In the later stages of the informal conversations the Mexican Delegation intimated that the enforcement of the recently issued Mexican radio regulations21 would automatically lead to a change in the character of the programs broadcast from border stations. If those stations could not exist under the new regulations, they would disappear and with their disappearance the problem would be eliminated. The Mexicans, however, indicated that they could give no written assurance that their regulations would be enforced.

They further stated that it would be impossible for them to eliminate border stations. When demanding twelve exclusive frequencies, they indicated that such frequencies were necessary to provide for stations authorized or operating. There were six such stations on the American border and the Mexicans insisted that an exclusive frequency must be provided for each of these stations. Your Delegation felt that it could not possibly justify a surrender of six frequencies for border stations even if an agreement upon other matters were satisfactorily arranged. As the Mexicans were adamant on the point, the informal discussion proved fruitless and formal meetings were resumed.

Report of Committee No. 2 on Broadcasting

The Committee on Broadcasting was organized as follows:

  • Mr. Ignacio Avilez, Mexico, Chairman.
  • Dr. C. B. Jolliffe, United States, Vice-Chairman.
  • Mr. Carlos Espinosa Herrera, El Salvador, Secretary.
  • Mr. G. C. Gross, United States, Secretary.
  • Mr. A. D. Ring, United States.
  • Mr. Ricardo Bravo, Costa Rica, Cuba and Nicaragua.
  • Mr. W. E. Beakes, Honduras and Guatemala.

At the request of the Chairman, each nation presented a list of the broadcast stations in operation and those contemplated in the immediate future. These lists are attached as Annex I.22 In all lists except that of the United States, Canada and Mexico, the high power stations are only plans. The list of the United States stations gives the number of stations operating simultaneously at night, all stations being in operation. The list of Canadian stations includes only those now in operation with no reference to their national plan. The Mexican list includes stations in operation and certain high power stations which have been authorized as well as two stations for which requests have been made but no authorization granted.

The representative of each nation except the United States stated the number of exclusive frequencies required for his nation assuming that a station of 5 kw or more required an exclusive channel. These requirements were as follows:

Canada 8 (estimated, representative not present)
Cuba 8
Guatemala 3
Costa Rica 5
El Salvador 3
Honduras 2
Mexico 20
Nicaragua  2

Attempts were made to reduce this number without much success. On the basis that 5 kw stations could be duplicated in North America, Mexico reduced their needs from 20 to approximately 15 channels. Canada submitted the national plan for radio of that country which is familiar to the United States and which includes six exclusive channels. Canada informally offered to permit the sharing of any of these channels provided protection was given up to the lmv/meter contour.

The needs of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and El Salvador for very high power stations were based on a desire for international broadcasting and the dissemination in the United States and Europe of national propaganda and advertising of their products, principally coffee.

[Page 598]

The characteristics of the propagation and service rendered by high power broadcasting stations were discussed at length. Technically it was explained that broadcasting in the frequency band 550 to 1500 kc is suitable only for a national service and that it is impossible to accomplish effective advertising with a high power station at 1500 miles or more from the listening public which it is desired to reach. The needs or hopes of these nations in obtaining international broadcast service by means of high power stations were not based apparently on scientific facts but only upon the representatives’ ideas of what they would like to have and what would be ideal if it could be accomplished. The discussion also revealed a grave doubt as to the ability of these nations to build such stations if the frequencies were available. Informally it was learned that attempts have been made to interest outside capital in such a project.

The question of border stations was discussed briefly in this Committee but the arguments used were similar to those used in other committees which are given in more detail elsewhere in this report.

The Committee was unable to make any progress on the assignment of frequencies so concurrently Mr. Avilez and Dr. Jolliffe attempted to work out an agreement informally which would meet the needs of Mexico and the United States. In these informal discussions it developed that the national needs of Mexico had not been well developed. Mr. Avilez has a very vague plan for giving service to all the population of Mexico but it could not be developed as to the number of frequencies required or the method of use. It was clear, however, that the Mexican Government intended to protect the stations located on the United States–Mexico border.

In order to be definite, the United States offered to clear three channels in the band 550–1500 for the exclusive use of Mexico and to arrange for the shared use of six channels for stations of 5 kw, two of these channels to be shared with Canada. In addition it was pointed out that a large number of stations of 1 kw could be established in Mexico on the channels now used as regional channels in the United States.

It was shown that this number of channels would give a primary service to all of the populous centers of Mexico and a secondary service to the sparsely populated districts. The populous centers could also be provided with alternate program service by stations on shared channels. This service would be approximately as good as that given in sections of the United States which have corresponding distributions of population.

This proposal of the United States was flatly refused and the Mexican delegation stated that their needs could only be met by twelve exclusive channels for the use of Mexico. All attempts to [Page 599] determine what was behind this demand were futile and there was no basis for agreement. Consequently, the informal negotiations were a failure and no agreement could be reached.

Since it was impossible to reach an agreement between the United States and Mexico, it was considered useless to attempt to go further into the needs of the other nations.

It was decided in the Committee to agree on those things which could be agreed upon and leave pending the assignment of broadcast frequencies to nations.

The matters on which there was agreement are given under broadcasting in the final report of the Conference. Those points are of special interest to the United States.

The assignment of frequencies to broadcast stations on the basis of multiples of 10.
The maintenance of the operating frequency within plus or minus 50 cycles per sec. of the assigned frequency.
Exchange of information concerning the assignment of frequencies and power.

These recommendations if put into effect will probably reduce the interference to stations of the United States. The exchange of information between nations will make it possible to get the information in advance and give opportunity for protest or suggestions for change in advance of construction.

Probably the most important accomplishment of the work of this committee was the exchange of technical information. The United States made explanation of the engineering principles of assignment of frequencies to broadcast stations. It is believed that if these explanations are followed up by informative material from time to time that the technical men of the various countries may be given information which will be useful to them in making assignments without causing interference to stations of the United States.

The present lack of technical information on broadcasting of the representatives of Mexico, Cuba and Central America made technical discussions difficult and of little use. Sound technical reasons given by the representatives of the United States were either misinterpreted or ignored. It is believed that a thorough understanding of the problem by all the countries is necessary before final and satisfactory agreements can be reached.

Report of Committee No. 3

Technical Committee on Services other than Broadcasting.

Personnel of the Committee.
Committee No. 3 consisted of:
  • Commander C. P. Edwards, Chairman, Canada.
  • Mr. E. K. Jett, Vice-Chairman, United States.
  • Mr. G. C. Gross, Secretary, United States.
  • Mr. W. E. Beakes, Guatemala and Honduras.
  • Mr. Enrique Vaca, Secretary, Mexico.
  • Mr. Julio Prieto, Mexico.
Dr. C. B. Jolliffe (United States) and Colonel Arthur Steel (Canada), members of Committee No. 2, also attended meetings of Committee No. 3 and assisted with the formulation of the report of the Committee.
This Committee was assigned the following subjects on the agenda, viz:
  • Subject 1. Technical Matters
    • Frequencies to be assigned to the various services between 100–550 kc and 1500–6000 kc.
    • Kinds of channels
    • Width of channels
    • Tolerance
    • Power
  • Subject 2. Needs of the various countries.
  • Subject 3. Assignment of frequencies to the various countries.

The results of these studies are given in Section A23 of the recommendations adopted by the Conference.

Inasmuch as the United States was the only country represented that had prepared proposals to offer under the foregoing topics, it was decided to accept them as a basis for the work of the Committee.

It was also decided that the Technical Committee on Broadcasting should advise this Committee of the frequencies outside the present broadcast band 550–1500 kc which might be required for broadcasting. In answer to this request the Chairman of Committee No. 2 advised that for the present it was not possible to give a categoric reply, but he would be glad to advise Committee No. 3 on this point as soon as the matter had been discussed. Since no further reply was received, and in view of the United States’ proposals to allocate frequencies above 1500 kc to broadcasting, it was decided “that the band of frequencies between 1500 and 1600 kc should be left unassigned pending a decision of Committee No. 2 (Broadcasting).” However, Committee No. 2 failed to take any action on this matter, whereupon it was the sense of this Committee that the band 1500–1600 kc should be left unassigned but would be available for use in accordance with the provisions of existing international regulations.

Inasmuch as Mexico did not sign the General Radio Regulations annexed to the Telecommunication Convention of Madrid, 1932, the [Page 601] Committee agreed to omit specific reference to these regulations and in lieu thereof to attach to the report an exact copy of Articles 7 and 19 of the Madrid Regulations. These are given as Appendices Nos. 1 and 2,24 respectively, of the Conference Report.

There was considerable discussion as to whether frequency bands should be assigned to countries. The Canadian Delegation was of the opinion that the procedure followed in the Ottawa agreement of 1929 in setting aside certain bands of frequencies for the exclusive use of Nations should be adopted by this Conference. However, the United States and Mexican Delegations stood squarely for the view that frequency bands should be allocated to specific services on the basis of shared use of all frequencies between the countries provided undue interference does not result to the service of another country. The Canadian Delegation later agreed to this proposition with the understanding that in certain bands to be specified, both the United States and Canada would exercise careful judgment before making frequency assignments to stations.

The Committee made several minor changes in the allocation of frequency bands to services between 1600 and 3500 kilocycles proposed by the United States after it was shown by the Canadian representative that the proposals were too restrictive to provide for the continued operation of certain Canadian stations. For example, it was shown that Canada is using the band 1500–1600 kc for the maritime mobile service, and the stations now operating could not continue to operate their present equipment on frequencies above 1715 kc. As a result it was agreed to designate the band 1600–1650 kc for the maritime mobile service.

After considerable discussion in the consideration of the Tolerance Table the Canadian representative moved to change the proposals of the United States so as to specify a tolerance of 0.03 per cent for new stations in the fixed service. The United States Delegation agreed to this after it was stated that Canada could not meet the more stringent requirements of 0.02 per cent.

The report of the Committee is entirely satisfactory to the United States.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In addition to our informal discussions with the Mexican Delegation in trying to reach some agreement with reference to border stations of high power and also the number of exclusive channels to be used by Mexico, we were in constant communication with Ambassador Daniels and he discussed the matter fully with Dr. Puig, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, all with an effort to try to reach some agreement. In other words, your Delegation exhausted every possible means within [Page 602] its power to reach a fair agreement with the Delegation from Mexico about these matters. When we were satisfied that no such agreement could be reached, then we suggested that the committees report upon those matters upon which agreements had been reached, and that the records show no arguments but merely the various proposals upon which agreements had not been reached, that this was desirable because of possible further negotiations. We are glad to say that these suggestions were followed as is reflected by the last meeting of the plenary session wherein the reports of the various committees were adopted.

Copies of the report of this meeting are herewith attached.

It is also to be noted that in our informal conversations with the Mexican Delegation we were repeatedly told by them that it was their intention to strictly enforce their radio regulations. After the final plenary session and before the delegations had actually signed the minutes thereof, your writer was again assured by Mr. Avilez of the Mexican Delegation that these regulations would be strictly enforced and that Mexico would as soon as possible put into effect the agreements reached by the Conference. If this is done it may result in a gradual elimination of the border stations.

The final plenary session was held on August 9, 1933 (copies of the minutes in both Spanish and English are hereto attached). These minutes were finally signed by the delegations on Friday, August 11, 1933. Our Delegation left Mexico City by train the night of August 11 and arrived in Washington on the morning of August 15, 1933.

Respectfully submitted,

Eugene O. Sykes

Minutes of the Closing Plenary Session of the North and Central American Regional Radio Conference Held August the 9th, 1933

In the City of Mexico, at 11:35 a.m., August the 9th, 1933, the following Delegates and Advisors of the North and Central American Regional Radio Conference met at the Panamerican Room of the Department of Finance and Public Credit:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I.—The United States Delegation submitted the following proposals:

1.—The following provisions are agreed upon in conformity with the terms of Article 13 of the International Telecommunications Convention signed at Madrid, December 9th, 1932.

Except as to matters specifically covered by this Agreement, the provisions of that Convention and of the General Radio Regulations annexed thereto shall be applicable to the region of North and Central America.

[Page 603]

2.—The contracting governments retain their full freedom in regard to radio installations not covered by Art. 9 of the Telecommunication Convention signed at Madrid, December 9th, 1932, and particularly the military stations of land, maritime or air forces.

However, these installations and stations must so far as possible, comply with the regulatory provisions concerning aid to be rendered in case of distress and measures to be taken to avoid interference. They must also, so far as possible, comply with the regulatory provisions concerning the types of waves and the frequencies to be used, according to the nature of the service which the said stations carry on.

Moreover, when these installations and stations exchange public correspondence or engage in the special services governed by the regulations annexed to the Telecommunication Convention, they must, in general, comply with the regulatory provisions for the conduct of such services.

3.—The assignment of frequencies to radio stations shall be made in such a way as to avoid interference between the radio stations and services of the North and Central American region.

4.—It is the object of the present agreement to insure to each of the contracting governments radio facilities adequate to meet its needs, so far as such facilities are available.

5.—With a view to making the most efficient use of the limited number of frequencies available for broadcasting, the contracting governments agree that broadcasting stations shall be licensed only to provide a national service within the territories of the licensing government. Each government, therefore, agrees not to issue a license nor to continue in effect an existing license for any broadcasting station within its territories when it appears that such station is designed primarily to reach an audience within the territories of another contracting government. In determining the audience a station is primarily designed to reach, the following factors among others shall be considered: the location and power of the station, the places from which the programs originate, the type of programs transmitted (including the language or languages used in connection with announcements and other spoken parts of the program), the nationality of the audience within the service area of the station, and the ownership and control of the station and of its programs (including indirect ownership and control).

6.—When a person whose application for a license for a broadcasting station or for a renewal of such license has been denied by any of the contracting governments because the granting of such application would not be in the public interest, applied either directly or indirectly to another contracting government for the use of broadcasting frequencies covered by the present agreement, the government to which the application is made shall receive from the government which has denied the prior application evidence of such denial. If the latter government notifies the former that in its opinion the effect of the granting of the application would be to permit the applicant to carry on within the territories of the government which has denied the earlier application the service for which facilities have been denied, the application shall be denied.

[Page 604]

The term “person” as used in the preceding paragraph shall include any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation filing an application for broadcasting frequencies, as well as any person having or who had an interest in the person, firm, partnership, association or corporation filing such application, and any firm, partnership, association or corporation in which one or more such persons are interested.

The term “either directly or indirectly” as used in the first paragraph shall include all cases where a person, as previously defined, is an applicant or is interested in a firm, partnership, association or corporation which is an applicant for facilities.

Where a government has already granted or hereafter shall grant facilities which would have been denied under paragraph 1 had it possessed information as to the prior denial of facilities by another contracting government, it shall revoke the license for such facilities as soon as possible under its laws and regulations upon receipt from such other government of information concerning such denial.

7.—Each government agrees that, in the absence of the written consent of the government of which the person concerned is a national, it will not permit a national of another contracting government to manage, operate, or control any broadcasting station within its territories, when such national of the other government has, for any reason, been denied by the government of which he is a national, an application for the erection of a broadcasting station or an application for a license to operate a broadcasting station, or for the renewal of an existing license. The foregoing provision shall apply equally when the denial was of an application made by a firm, partnership, association or corporation in which such person was interested.

8.—It is hereby declared to be contrary to good international relations for a contracting government, in the absence of the written consent of the government of which the person concerned is a national, to permit a national of another contracting government to broadcast over any broadcasting station within its territories when such national of the other government has, for any reason, been denied by the Government of which he is a national, an application for the erection of a broadcasting station or an application for a license to operate a broadcasting station, or for the renewal of an existing license. The foregoing provision shall apply equally when the denial was of an application made by a firm, partnership, association or corporation in which such person was interested.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph include broadcasting from station studios, broadcasting from other places when the broadcast is carried to the station either by radio or wire lines of any character, and the use of electrical transcriptions, phonograph records, or other devices by which programs may be recorded and later broadcast.

9.—It is hereby declared to be contrary to good international relations for a contracting government to permit the broadcasting over any station within its territories, by or on behalf of persons, firms, partnerships, associations or corporations which are nationals of another contracting government, of programs of a type which have caused the administrative authorities of such other contracting government to deny an application for a station license or for a renewal thereof.

[Page 605]

10.—It is hereby declared to be contrary to good international relations for a contracting government to permit broadcasting stations within its jurisdiction to broadcast programs advocating the sending of money or correspondence to or the purchase of commodities or services at a place within the territories of another contracting government when such other contracting government has indicated that it objects to the broadcasting of such programs.

11.—Each of the contracting Governments agrees that it will not permit the construction or operation of a broadcasting station upon any vessel under its jurisdiction.

12.—The present agreement shall go into effect July 1, 1934. It shall remain in effect until January 1, 1939, and thereafter until the expiration of one year from the day upon which it shall be denounced by any of the contracting governments. Such denunciation shall affect only the government in whose name it shall have been made.

II.—The Mexican Delegation submitted the following proposals:

—Each State has the right to use and utilize such broadcasting elements as are offered both by natural resources and technical development, without any limitations other than those established by international agreement or treaties.
—Each State maintains full liberty in connection with radio installations used for such services as are of a military character or for national defense.
—Each State is free to use and avail itself of such frequencies as are assigned to it, through stations installed at any point of its territory.
—The assignment of frequencies should be made with a view to eliminating interferences.
—Any provison made covering radio communication, should be fully stated, without referring to the General Radio Communication Regulations derived from the International Telecommunications Convention of Madrid.
—No government may permit the broadcasting of programs offending public order, morals, good habits, institutions or officers of any other
—No government may permit within its territory any broadcasting activities by any physical or moral persons, or by their dependents, to whom another government has denied permission to carry on such activities, provided that, in the opinion of the first government, such denial is justified or in accordance with its laws.
—International agreements covering radio communication will be of limited duration, and they should contain such provisions as may be required for their denouncement.

III.—The Delegations from Cuba, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua submitted the following statements:

“The Delegates from Cuba, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua have carefully examined the proposals drawn up by the Delegations of the United States and of Mexico, and regret to state that they do not agree with those submitted by the former, as they [Page 606] differ from their requirements and from the principles on which their institutions and laws are based.

“They stated at the same time that the proposals made by Mexico are perfectly in accord with the requirements of their respective countries and their fundamental principles. Therefore, they unanimously adhere to the proposals formulated by the Delegation of the United States of Mexico.”

The Delegations from Mexico and the United States of America could not come to an agreement as to their respective points of view.

The Canadian Delegation reserved judgment on the proposals submitted by Mexico and by the United States of America.

  1. Not printed.
  2. For text of the Telecommunication Convention, signed at Madrid, December 9, 1932, see Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. i, p. 873; for analysis of the Convention, see Report to the Secretary of State by the Chairman of the American Delegation, pp. 11–17.
  3. Post, p.602.
  4. Post, p. 605.
  5. Post, p. 605.
  6. Post, p. 606.
  7. Mexico, Dirección general de correos y telegrafos, Reglamento para el establecimiento y operación de estaciones radio fusoras y radio experiomentales (México, D. F., 1933).
  8. Not printed.
  9. Not printed.
  10. Not printed.