| FCC Mandates DTV Standards
and Deadlines |
8/8. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has required that most TV
sets be built with digital TV tuners. Specifically, the FCC
announced, but did not release, a Second Report and Order and
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in Media Bureau Docket No.
00-39. However, the FCC issued a press
release, and FCC Commissioners and staff described the
order at the FCC's meeting on August 8.
The FCC order mandates technology standards, and sets
deadlines for compliance with those standards, for all but the
smallest TV sets. The order requires that by 2007 all TV sets
with screen sizes larger than thirteen inches and all TV
receiving equipment, such as videocassette recorders (VCRs)
and digital versatile disk (DVD) players and recorders,
include digital television (DTV) reception capability.
The order will require consumers to spend more money for TV
sets. Equipment manufacturers are free to produce TV sets with
DTV tuners, but very few consumers have chosen to buy these.
The FCC order will eliminate this consumer choice.
The order was adopted by a vote of 3-1. Commissioner Kevin Martin
dissented.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell
wrote in his prepared
statement [PDF] that "consumers will expect their
television sets to go on working in the digital world just as
they do today. This includes the ability to receive broadcast
signals. Indeed, the expectation that TV sets receive
broadcast signals is so ingrained that consumers simply assume
this functionality is incorporated into their television set.
That is what today’s Order is all about."
Also, while Powell acknowledged that consumers will have to
pay more for TV sets, "economies and efficiencies of
scale will drive these costs down."
Commissioner Kathleen
Abernathy wrote in her prepared
statement [PDF] that "Today's decision is a difficult
balancing act between the need to continue to promote the DTV
transition and a desire to protect consumers from excessive
price increases for television sets." She explained that
she opted for the former for several reasons. First, she wrote
that "the transition from analog to digital television is
statutorily mandated and is not driven by market forces".
Second, "the transition remains stalled". Third,
"the phaseout of analog only television sets from the
market gives consumers access to digital broadcast signals
during the transition and protects consumers from disruption
of service at the end of the transition". Finally,
"consumers necessarily will face additional costs as a
result of the transition".
Commissioner Michael
Copps wrote in his prepared
statement [PDF] that "The bottom line is that we must
get the DTV transition back on track."
Phase In Schedule. The FCC order requires that 100% of
units with screen sizes over 36 inches must include DTV tuners
by July 1, 2005. 100% of units with screen sizes of 25 to 36
inches must include DTV tuners by July 1, 2006. 100% of units
with screen sizes of 13 to 25 inches must include DTV tuners
by July 1, 2007.
Statutory Authority. The FCC release also addresses its
statutory authority for issuing this order. It states that the
FCC's authority "is established by the 1962 All Channel
Receiver Act (ACRA), which provides the FCC with the
``authority to require´´ that television sets ``be capable
of adequately receiving all frequencies´´ allocated by the
FCC for ``television broadcasting.´´ The authority provided
under the ACRA applies to all devices used to receive
broadcast television service, not just those used to receive
analog signals."
Kenneth Ferree, Chief of the FCC's Media Bureau, elaborated on
statutory authority after the FCC meeting. He said that it is
based upon 47 U.S.C.
§ 303, which provides, in part, that "the Commission
from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or
necessity requires, shall ... (s) Have authority to require
that apparatus designed to receive television pictures
broadcast simultaneously with sound be capable of adequately
receiving all frequencies allocated by the Commission to
television broadcasting when such apparatus is shipped in
interstate commerce, or is imported from any foreign country
into the United States, for sale or resale to the
public".
Broadcasters. Edward Fritts, P/CEO of the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB), praised the FCC's order in a release.
He stated that "Today's FCC decisions represent the most
important action on digital television since adoption of the
DTV standard in 1996. FCC Chairman Powell and the Commission
recognized the Congressional imperative to stimulate the DTV
marketplace, and deserve enormous credit for taking
pro-consumer steps to jump start the transition. Cable
carriage and other issues still need attention to ensure that
consumers have access to local digital and high definition
broadcast signals. Nonetheless, today's FCC action goes a long
way towards delivering the digital promise to all
Americans."
The NAB also sent a letter
[4 pages in PDF] to all members of Congress.
Producers of TVs and other consumer electronics devices are
less enthusiastic. The Consumer
Electronics Association (CEA) criticized the FCC's order,
and stated that it will challenge it in court. See, following
story, titled "CEA Will Appeal FCC DTV Order". |
|
|
| CEA Will Appeal FCC DTV
Order |
8/8. Consumer Electronics
Association (CEA) P/CEO Gary Shapiro stated after the Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) meeting on August 8 that the CEA will challenged the
FCC's DTV order in court. He did not state when, or in which
circuit court, but he stated that "Our board met last
week and unanimously authorized us to go forward with a
lawsuit on this." Shapiro added that "We don't think
there is legal grounds, or policy grounds, for this."
Shapiro spoke to reporters outside the FCC's Commission
Meeting Room just after the meeting. He said that "So few
Americans are using antennas now. Only -- less than ten
percent of American homes rely for their primary -- on
antenna. This whole solution has nothing to do with the
transition to HDTV. It has to do with a well intentioned but
misguided effort to return broadcasters to glory years when
there were only three networks and everyone had this big ugly
antenna. The fact is, Americans have rejected antennas. ...
They want cable. They want satellite. They want prerecorded.
And, they want their broadcasting over cable."
Shapiro added that "Broadcasters, despite getting seventy
billion dollars worth of spectrum for free from the
government" have not provided compelling programming. He
continued that "Consumers love HDTV. But, they don't want
to want to have to spend extra money to get an over the air
signal, when, in reality, ninety percent of them are relying
on cable and satellite. So, this so called solution will have
nothing to do with the HDTV transition, quite frankly. What we
think will happen from this -- it will turn consumers off
potentially. If they have to buy something that they know they
are not going to use, and they know they are spending a lot of
extra money for it, we have great concerns it will start to
affect HDTV deployment in a negative way. We think the
Commission is very well intentioned. But, the answer here
really is, if seventy percent of Americans are relying on
cable to get their broadcast signal, then let's set a national
plug and play cable standard, as Congress has asked the FCC to
do, time and time again. We don't think the Commission has the
authority to regulate how TV sets are built, and we intend to
challenge this action in court."
One reporter asked, "Are you a little surprised that a
Republican dominated Commission would slap a regulation as
onerous on you guys?" Shapiro responded, "Well, as
the Chairman and a number of the Commissioners indicated, this
is government intervention into the marketplace. I think the
Chairman used the words, ``industrial policy´´. We believe
that the government should not tell consumers what they have
to buy. ... But, the fact is, that by forcing every consumer
to buy a digital tuner, we are concerned about the
repercussions, whether consumers will say, this isn't for
me."
Shapiro added that the CEA would not file a petition for
review until after the FCC publishes its order in the Federal
Register. Then, it would have sixty days to either request
reconsideration, or file a petition for review with a Court of
Appeal. He did not state whether the CEA would request
reconsideration first. Nor did he state in which circuit the
CEA would file. He did say that the plaintiff would be the CEA.
The CEA also issued a release
which quotes Shapiro as stating that "The FCC has just
imposed a multi-billion dollar annual TV tax on American
consumers".
FCC Chairman Michael Powell
anticipated, and rebutted, the CEA's arguments in his written
statement [PDF] in support of the DTV order. He noted that
the CEA is "vehemently opposed to phasing in DTV tuners
in television sets" but is in favor of requiring
consumers to purchase an external set-top box. Powell wrote
that "This would be a far more expensive proposition for
consumers, given that these boxes currently cost about $500.
It is incredible that CEA supports an alternative that would
cost consumers 150% more than CEA's own cost projections for
the DTV tuner ($500 for the set top box vs. $200 for the
tuner)."
Powell also argued that the "CEA's claim that a tuner
requirement would be an unreasonable burden on television
manufacturers is refuted by the willingness of Thomson and
Zenith to voluntarily incorporate DTV tuners on a phased-in
basis." |
|
|
| Commissioner Martin
Dissents from DTV Order |
8/8. Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) Commissioner Kevin Martin
dissented from the adoption of the DTV order. He said that he
prefers market based forces to government regulation, and that
this order will impose increased costs on all consumers who
buy TV sets, while only a small percentage will use mandated
tuners to receive over the air broadcasts.
Martin wrote in his dissent that "I prefer market based
forces to government regulation, and I am particularly
cautious when regulation imposes a cost to consumers or
requires consumers to purchase a product they may not use. In
such situations, I believe the better course of action usually
is to refrain from regulation and instead to provide consumers
with a choice. If government intervention is necessary,
however, I believe it must be clear that the benefits outweigh
the costs."
 Martin (at right) continued that
"Currently, consumers can choose whether to spend the
extra money to purchase a television that includes a digital
tuner. This Order sets out deadlines by when television
manufacturers must include digital tuners, so that all
but the smallest televisions will be able to receive digital
broadcast signals "over the air." Today, however,
few consumers receive their video programming only
through over the air broadcasting. Instead, the vast majority
of consumers receive broadcast programming through their cable
or satellite provider. Even as the transition to digital is
made, these consumers will probably prefer to continue to
receive their video programming through cable or satellite.
Thus, taking action on digital broadcast tuners alone, as we
do to today, confers a real benefit only on the relatively
small percentage of consumers (approximately fifteen percent)
who do not rely on cable or satellite for broadcast reception.
The costs, however, will be borne by every consumer who buys a
television. I therefore fear that the costs of this
requirement, as an isolated action, exceed the benefits, and I
am not persuaded that it is the right step."
Martin was appointed to the FCC last year by President Bush.
He is a Republican who previously worked as a legal advisor to
former FCC Commissioner Harold Furcthgott Roth. Of the current
set of Commissioners, he is the strongest proponent of free
market economics and less regulation. |
|
|
|
| FTC Files and Settles
Complaint Against Microsoft Regarding Privacy and Security |
8/8. The Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) brought and settled an administrative complaint
[6 pages in PDF] against Microsoft
alleging violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (FTCA) in connection with Microsoft's privacy
and security practices. The complaint focuses on Microsoft's
sign-on and online wallet services named Passport and Passport
Express Purchase.
For example, the complaint alleges that Microsoft
"represented, expressly or by implication, that it
maintained a high level of online security by employing
sufficient measures reasonable and appropriate under the
circumstances to maintain and protect the privacy and
confidentiality of personal information obtained from or about
consumers in connection with the Passport and Passport Wallet
services", whereas, in fact, Microsoft "did not
maintain a high level of online security ..."
The FTC and Microsoft simultaneously entered into an Agreement
Containing Consent Order [8 pages in PDF]. Microsoft
admitted to no violations of federal law. Microsoft will pay
no fine. However, the agreement, which has a twenty year
duration, imposes numerous requirements for Microsoft's
information security program.
The FTC has statutory authority under many statutes regarding
privacy. For example, recently the Congress has given it
authority to regulate financial privacy (under the Gramm Leach
Bliley Act) and children's privacy (under the Children's
Online Privacy Protection Act). However, this action is based
on no specific grant of authority regarding privacy practices.
It is based on the broad Section 5(a) of the FTCA.
This action demonstrates a willingness on the part of the FTC
to take action against companies based on their actions
related to consumer privacy, even in the absence of
legislation that specifically addresses that conduct. This
action alleged violation of Section 5(a) of the FTCA, which is
codified at 15 U.S.C.
§ 45. It provides, in part, that "Unfair methods of
competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive
acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby
declared unlawful."
This action is also notable to the extent that the complaint
does not allege any instance of consumer harm. For example, in
another recent FTC action involving the security of consumer
personal information, involving Eli Lilly, the company
actually disclosed the e-mail addresses of hundreds of
consumers who used the drug Prozac. See, administrative
complaint [PDF] and Agreement
Containing Consent Order [PDF] in that action. In
contrast, in the present action, there is no allegation that
the security of any consumer personal information has been
compromised.
This action is a major victory for the Electronic Privacy Information
Center (EPIC), and other groups, which filed a pair of
complaints with the FTC regarding Microsoft's privacy
practices and its Passport service.
The EPIC and others submitted their original complaint
[PDF] to the FTC on July 26, 2001, and an updated
complaint [PDF] on August 15, 2001. Both complaints
pertained to Microsoft's Passport and privacy, and alleged
violation of Section 5 of the FTCA. See also, story titled
"EPIC Complains about Microsoft Passport" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 250, August 16, 2001, and story
titled "EPIC Complains to FTC About Windows XP" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 236, July 27, 2002.
Microsoft put a pleasant spin on the action. It stated in a release
that it "reached an agreement" with the FTC, without
mentioning either that a complaint had been filed, or that it
had been accused of violating federal law.
At least one group was not pleased with the FTC's action.
Steve DelBianco, VP of the Association
for Competitive Technology (ACT), stated in a release that
this is a "wakeup call for the entire industry".
He said that "This complaint and order effectively sets a
new standard for making privacy and security promises to
consumers. ... The bar has been raised when the FTC requires a
twenty year consent order without a single actual breach of
security or privacy. While we applaud the commission’s
decision to hold the industry to the highest standards, we are
worried about a consent order that seems disproportionate to
the actual findings of the investigation.
He also asserted that the EPIC had "fabricated dozens of
accusations". He concluded that "While Microsoft has
both the financial and legal wherewithal to survive this kind
of ``witch hunt,´´ a smaller e-commerce company would not be
so lucky. Just the hint of a government investigation in
today’s climate could be devastating to an un-established
e-commerce company in the process of building a trusting
relationship with its customers."
Harris Miller, President of the Information
Technology Association of America (ITAA), stated in a release
that "the 'net' effect of this decision is to raise the
bar for all companies doing business in cyberspace." |
|
|
| Rep. Boucher Writes FCC re
DTV Transition |
7/25. Rep. Rick
Boucher (D-VA) wrote a letter
to Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell
regarding transition to digital television. He urged the FCC
to deal with both DTV tuners and digital cable signals.
Rep. Boucher wrote that "I am among those who have urged
action with respect to mandatory inclusion of DTV tuners in
larger screen size television receivers, where enhanced
resolution would be evident to consumers. Taking this
action alone, however, would confer a benefit, at most,
on the fifteen percent of consumers who do not rely on cable
or satellite for signal acquisition, while imposing
significant, redundant costs on all other purchasers.
This is why I have also urged you, twice, to take steps to
resolve obstacles to the use of DTV receivers to tune digital cable
signals as well."
Rep. Boucher also stated that "I further understand that,
while technical obstacles toward joint inclusion of cable and
broadcast DTV tuners have been substantially overcome, the ``PHILA´´
license issues, as to which I have written you twice before,
are no closer to resolution."
He urged the FCC to "use its jurisdiction to call the
parties together, to hammer out acceptable license terms plus
any proposed amendments to FCC regulations, to assure that the
final license provisions exert only such licensee powers as
FCC rules allow." |
|
|
| CATO Opposes DTV Mandates |
8/5. Adam
Thierer, Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute, wrote a essay
titled "The HDTV Fiasco Gets Worse: TV Set and Cable
Mandates On the Way".
He wrote that "America's 15 year high definition
television (HDTV) industrial policy experiment has been a
failure by almost any standard. Although this long and
miserable history is too long to recall here, suffice it to
say, the grand vision of the broadcast industry and public
policymakers has become an expensive joke. And just when you
think things can't get worse, Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) are now readying new rules to
roll the burden of rolling out a service nobody wants onto the
backs of television set manufacturers and cable network
providers."
Thierer concluded that "the government's ``damn the
consequences´´ HDTV industrial policy has absolutely zero
probability of working according to schedule and is likely to
derail entirely. Ironically, it will probably be the
broadcasters themselves who eventually put an end to it with
small rural affiliates recognizing they simply cannot afford
to keep up this charade. The real question is, how long do we
have to wait before this happens and how many more victims
will this industrial policy fiasco claim before policymakers
finally admit defeat?" |
|
|
| Legislators Urge DOJ to Use
Intellectual Property Laws Against P2P Systems |
7/25. Rep. Lamar
Smith (R-TX), Sen. Joe
Biden (D-DE), and other Representatives and Senators,
wrote a letter
to Attorney General John Ashcroft urging the Department of
Justice to "vigilantly enforce intellectual property laws
on the Internet to punish online theft of our copyrighted
works and to deter such conduct.
They elaborated that "Such an effort is increasingly
important as online theft of our nation's creative works is a
growing threat to our culture and economy." They cited
the "staggering increase in the amount of intellectual
property pirated over the Internet through peer to peer
systems".
 Rep. Smith (at right) and the others
offered three suggestions. First, "Prosecute operators of
peer to peer systems who intentionally facilitate mass
piracy". Second, "Prosecute individuals who
intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over peer
to peer networks". And third, "Create more Computer
Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIPs) units around the
country with expanded authority to prosecute Internet
piracy".
Rep. Smith and Sen. Biden are the Chairmen of the Crime
Subcommittees in the House and Senate. |
|
|
| WorldCom Restates Earnings,
Again |
8/8. WorldCom stated
in a release
that "its ongoing internal review of its financial
statements has discovered an additional $3.3 billion in
improperly reported earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) for 1999, 2000, 2001
and first quarter 2002."
WorldCom added that "This amount is in addition to the
previously reported $3.8 billion in overstated EBITDA in the
year 2001 and first quarter 2002. As a result, WorldCom
intends to restate its financial statements for 2000.
Previously the company announced that it intends to restate
its financial statements for 2001 and first quarter
2002." |
|
|
| NTIA Announces Agenda for
Convergence Roundtable |
8/8. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) announced the agenda
and speakers for its Wednesday, August 14, roundtable to
address issues relating to the convergence of communications
technologies, including the Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM)
Protocol.
At 1:00 PM there will be a panel titled "Convergence
Technologies -- Their Viability and Utility in a Competitive
Marketplace". At 2:45 PM there will be a panel titled
"Privacy, Security, Authentication, and other Policy
Issues Relating to Convergence Technologies". See, NTIA
release and notice
in the Federal Register. |
|
|
| People and Appointments |
| 8/6. The U.S.
Bankruptcy Court (SDNY) approved the appointment of former
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh as Examiner in the
WorldCom bankruptcy cases. See, DOJ
release. |
|
|
|
| Customs Service Loses 2,251
Computers |
8/8. Sen. Charles
Grassley (R-IA) wrote a letter
to Treasury Secretary Paul
O'Neill requesting that a report written by the Treasury
Department's Office of
Inspector General (OIG) regarding the loss of computers
and other items by the U.S.
Customs Service be made public. Sen. Grassley wrote in
this letter that "The report on Customs states that the
Customs Service -- an agency whose responsibilities include
tracking material -- has managed to lose or have stolen a
stunning 2,251 computers."
The OIG report is titled "Protecting the Public: U.S.
Customs Control Over Sensitive Property Needs To Be
Improved". It is numbered OIG-02-109, and dated August 5,
2002.
 Sen. Grassley further wrote that
"the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) maintains that the
Treasury OIG report is ``Law Enforcement Sensitive´´ and
should not be disclosed to the public. Customs' position is
simply untenable. I am very concerned that Customs' view is
that because information is embarrassing to management that
justifies that it be labeled Law Enforcement Sensitive.
Management at Customs may be sensitive to a report that shows
significant waste of taxpayer money but that does not justify
seeking to suppress the information."
Sen. Grassley also suggested that the actual number of lost
computers could be higher than 2,251. He wrote that this
number "represents approximately 5 percent of total FY
2001 inventory. The situation is so bad at Customs that the IG
stated: ``We judged the risk of loss or theft of computers to
be high.´´ Even more troubling, the report stated that this
number may be low because: `` ... [Customs] lacked reliable
property records and physical inventories for computers there
was no reasonable assurance that the information on Customs'
computer inventory and losses was reliable.´´" |
|
|
| Friday, August 9 |
9:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force
will hold a public workshop titled "Spectrum Rights
and Responsibilities". First, Thomas Krattenmaker (Mintz
Levin) will give an historical view of spectrum rights and
responsibilities. Second, there will be a panel titled
"New Technologies and Spectrum Usage Rights". The
moderators will be Charla Rath (Verizon Wireless) and Paul
Kolodzy (FCC); the panelists will be David Farber
(University of Pennsylvania), David
Siddall (Paul Hastings),
Peter Pitsch (Intel),
Victor Tawil (MSTV), Steve
Sharkey (Motorola),
Bruce Fette (General
Dynamics), and Gee Rittenhouse (Lucent). Third, there will
be a panel titled "Modeling Licensed and Unlicensed
Spectrum Usage Rights". The moderators will be Michele
Farquhar (Hogan & Hartson)
and David Furth (FCC); the panelists will be Martin
Cave (Warwick Business School), Tom
Hazlett (Manhattan
Institute), Steve Stroh (Focus On Broadband Wireless
Internet Access), Michael
Calabrese (New
America Foundation), Larry Miller (LMCC/ AASHTO), David
Wye (AT&T Wireless), Michael Kurtis (Kurtis & Associates),
Jennifer Warren (Lockheed
Martin), and Joe Gatusso (NTIA). See, FCC
notice [PDF]. Webcast. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting
Room, 445 12th Street, SW.
Day two of six of the American Bar Association's annual
meeting. See, TLJ's
complete listing of technology law related events.
Location: various hotels across Washington DC. Highlights
include the following:
• 11:00 AM. Program titled "Justice Department
Takes Action Against Credit Card Companies For Unfair Trade
Practices". Location: Mayflower, Senate Room,
Promenade Level.
• 2:00 PM. Program titled "Whatever Happened
to Broadband?" Location: Marriott Wardman Park,
Cotillion Ballroom South, Mezzanine Level.
• 2:30 PM. Program titled "Antitrust and
Intellectual Property for the Transactional Lawyer".
Location: Hyatt Regency, Regency Foyer, Ballroom Level.
• 3:00 PM. Program titled "Adapting the Legal
Requirements for Electronic Promissory Notes and Electronic
Chattel Paper to Commercial Realities". Location:
Hyatt Regency, Regency A, Ballroom Level.
• 3:45 PM. Program titled "Information
Security: The Role of Law and Lawyers". Location:
Marriott Wardman Park, Cotillion Ballroom South, Mezzanine
Level. |
|
|
| Saturday, August 10 |
Day three of six of the American Bar Association's annual
meeting. See, TLJ's
complete listing of technology law related events.
Location: various hotels across Washington DC. Highlights
include the following:
• 9:00 AM. Program titled "Applied E-Risk
Management: Real Problems, Real Solutions". Location:
J.W. Marriott Capitol Ballroom Salon G, B Level.
• 9:30 AM. Program titled "The Boston
Strangler Returns - A High Tech Hearing on the Murder of Mary
Sullivan". Location: Marriott Wardman Park, Hoover,
Mezzanine Level.
• 2:00 PM. Program titled "HIPAA Enforcement
and Litigation Risk Management: The Crisis Ahead".
Location: Marriott Wardman Park, Cotillion Ballroom South,
Mezzanine Level.
• 2:00 PM. Program titled "The Virtual Lawyer:
Law Practice on the ’Net -- Without a Net".
Location: Marriott Wardman Park, Coolidge, Mezzanine Level.
• 2:30 PM. Program titled "Telemarketing and
Cybermarketing at the Crossroads: Legislative and Regulatory
Developments". Location: Hyatt Regency, Columbia A,
Ballroom Level.
• 3:00 PM. Program titled "Securing and
Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights Abroad: Recent
Developments in International Protection of Patents,
Copyrights and Trademarks". Location: Willard,
Ballroom, Lower Level.
• 3:45 PM. Program titled "Cybercrime: An
International Problem for Every Lawyer, Business and Country".
Location: Marriott Wardman Park, Cotillion Ballroom South,
Mezzanine Level. |
|
|
| Sunday, August 11 |
Day four of six of the American Bar Association's annual
meeting. See, TLJ's
complete listing of technology law related events.
Location: various hotels across Washington DC. Highlights
include the following:
• 9:30 AM. Program titled "Spying on
Terrorists (and You): Public Needs v. Private Rights".
Location: Marriott Wardman Park, Cotillion Ballroom South,
Mezzanine Level.
• 10:30 AM. Program titled "Telemarketing and
Cybermarketing at the Crossroads: Legislative and Regulatory
Developments". Location: Hyatt Regency, Columbia A,
Ballroom Level.
• 2:00 PM. Program titled "China -- IP Issues
Of Olympic Proportions". Location: Marriott Wardman
Park, Cotillion Ballroom North, Mezzanine Level.
• 2:00 PM. Program titled "Electronic Privacy
and Surveillance in the 21st Century". Location:
Marriott Wardman Park, Cotillion Ballroom South, Mezzanine
Level.
• 2:30 PM. Program titled "Expert Witnesses in
Antitrust Litigation: Making (or Breaking) Your Case".
Hyatt Regency Ticonderoga, Ballroom Level.
• 2:30 PM. Program titled "Oops, I Did it
Again: How Lawyers Might Inadvertently Violate Their Ethical
Obligations by Using Technology They Don’t Fully Understand".
Location: Hyatt Regency, Capitol Room, Lobby Level. |
|
|
| Monday, August 12 |
Day five of six of the American Bar Association's annual
meeting. See, TLJ's
complete listing of technology law related events.
Location: various hotels across Washington DC.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)
"regarding the sunset of the statutory requirements under
section 272 imposed on Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) when
they provide in-region, interLATA services and seeks comment
on whether, and if so, under what conditions, the structural
and nondiscrimination safeguards established in section 272
should be extended by the Commission either generally or with
respect to specific states." See, notice
in the Federal Register. |
|
|
| Tuesday, August 13 |
Day six of six of the American Bar Association's annual
meeting. See, TLJ's
complete listing of technology law related events.
Location: various hotels across Washington DC.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The State Department's International
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet. See, notice
in Federal Register. Location: Room 1105, State Department. |
|
|
| Wednesday, August 14 |
| 1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) will host a
roundtable meeting regarding the convergence of communications
technologies, including the Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM)
Protocol that facilitates convergence between the Internet and
the public switched telephone network. See, NTIA
release, agenda,
and notice
in the Federal Register. For more information, contact Wendy
Lader, NTIA Office of Policy Analysis and Development, at 202
482-1150 or wlader @ntia.doc.gov.
Location: Room 4830, DOC, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW. |
|
|
| More News |
8/8. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS), formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA),
updated its web site
regarding Commercial Encryption Export Controls.
8/8. The Intellectual Property
Owners Association (IPO) filed an amicus
curiae brief [28 pages in PDF] with the Supreme Court in Eldred
v. Ashcroft, a case involving a constitutional challenge
to the Copyright
Term Extension Act (CTEA). The IPO argues that the CTEA
should be upheld, either under the copyright clause, or the
commerce clause, of the Constitution.
8/7. The International
Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) commented on
President Bush's signing of the Trade Act of 2002, which gives
the President trade promotion authority. IIPA President Eric
Smith stated in a release
[PDF] that "For America’s copyright industries to
remain successful in global markets, it is essential that the
President, in consultation with Congress and the private
sector, have effective and credible authority to negotiate
bilateral, regional and multilateral trade agreements ... We
can now move forward more effectively in our joint efforts to
achieve strong intellectual property rights protection and,
particularly, enforcement worldwide and to secure
non-discriminatory market access for all U.S. creative
products ... The copyright industries in the IIPA look forward
to obtaining these results in the Free Trade Agreement
negotiations now ongoing with Singapore and Chile, in new FTAs
now being planned, and with all countries in the Americas in
the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), now that TPA is in
place." |
|
|
| About Tech Law Journal |
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for entities with multiple subscribers. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for law students, journalists,
elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch, and state officials. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert and
news items are not published in the web site until one month
after writing. See, subscription
information page.
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy
Policy
Notices
& Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2002 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All
rights reserved. |
|
|