Working the Nation State: Submarine Cable Actors, Cable Transnationalism and the Governance of the Global Media System, 1858–1914

Why do states in conflict with each other also sustain resilient cooperation in international regulation? Britain and telegraphy, 1860s–1914

“…More ink has been spilled over the question of whether the submarine cable companies captured states and Britain in particular (Müller-Pohl, 2013;Winseck and Pike, 2007) or the states manipulated the companies, than over any other question in telegraphy policy (Hills, 2002;Hugill, 1999;Kennedy, 1971). Certainly, the 1871 decision to allow the companies to attend ITU conferences and to lobby but not vote, to adhere to regulations voluntarily in some areas but through their states to be subject to Regulation 27 rule against price competition does not support the argument for their full capture of the Union.…”

“…Capture of British state policymaking on telegraphy by the submarine cable companies, as Müller-Pohl (2013) and Winseck and Pike (2007) have argued, has some prima facie evidence in its favour. Pender, and later, Denison-Pender, of the Eastern group, were able ask for and secure favours from British diplomats in difficult negotiations with foreign states over landing rights concessions following the Treasury decision in principle in 1867 to allow this support to given on a case-by-case basis, where wider British interests could be argued to be at stake (Headrick and Griset, 2001; however all British cable companies sought and sometimes obtained such diplomatic support: e.g.…”