The sweeping agreement of the World Trade Organization that just took Geneva by storm is nothing if not an unprecedented deal to open global telecom markets to investment and competition. But the deal gets blurry when it comes to the Internet and the constantly changing nature of the bits flowing through it.
The potential conundrum partly revolves around Internet-based multimedia communications that may become more the norm than a fanciful pursuit for diehard techies. Soon, many observers predict, video telephony over the Internet could become the communications medium of choice, leaving voice telephony somewhere in the Dark Ages.
So did the visionaries in Geneva seize this historic opportunity to include such burgeoning new services under the umbrella of "basic telecommunications services" covered in the WTO pact? Well, not exactly, but such murkiness probably was necessary to get any WTO agreement at all.
Here's how it happened: Video services specifically excluded from the market-opening, deregulatory provisions in the WTO pact include terrestrial broadcast television. In addition, late in the talks, the United States decided to exclude most satellite services as well as digital radio services from its offer - primarily because other countries hadn't included them in theirs. Some other countries are understandably concerned that, given free reign, the US could further impose its creepy, Walt Disney-based culture around the world.
And the ages-old concern about culture corruption is at the root of the blurry treatment of Internet video. Most observers expect straight videoconferencing to pass muster, but what happens when a video conference becomes essentially a one-way multimedia presentation with a question-and-answer period? What about an interactive or pseudo-interactive foray into video phone-sex or telemarketing calls? Is that really content? Should it not be covered by the WTO because it's essentially broadcasting?
Washington lawyer Kenneth Robinson, who has observed the WTO talks closely, says all these questions most likely will create consternation and frustration for the next few years. It's likely that many such issues will be treated on a case-by-case basis. That means that companies trying to enter foreign markets will have to wait for the OK from each respective government (all with different priorities, motivations, and biases) before gaining full market access for some of these new services.
Another possibility is that everyone will wait until the next negotiation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to revive this whole issue. Those talks will occur in 2000. Until then, global Internet video communications may be left in limbo.
