2/12. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and others introduced S 2084, the "Internet Tax Ban Extension and Improvement Act". The title of the bill is not descriptive of its content. The bill would nominally extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act through November 1, 2005. However, it would also allow a range of new taxes that could be imposed by state and local governments.

The original moratorium, contained in the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), was passed in late 1998. It was extended in 2001. The extended moratorium expired on November 1, 2003.

	Sen. Lamar Alexander

The original cosponsors of S 2084 are Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), Sen. Kay Hutchison (R-TX), Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH). Many are veterans of prior battles to defeat, weaken, and shorten the term of the internet tax moratorium.

Sen. Alexander's bill was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee, which has already passed a bill to extend the tax moratorium.

On July 31, 2003, the Senate Commerce Committee amended and approved S 150, the "Internet Tax Non-discrimination Act of 2003" by voice vote. See, amendment in the nature of a substitute [4 pages in PDF]. See also story titled "Senate Commerce Committee Approves Bill to Extend Internet Tax Moratorium" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 709, August 1, 2003.

In addition, on September 17, 2003, the full House passed HR 49, its version of the "Internet Tax Non-discrimination Act".

In summary, the original Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) imposed a temporary ban on taxes on internet access, and multiple or discriminatory taxes on e-commerce, subject to a grandfather clause. It expired in 2001. But, the Congress passed the Internet Non-Discrimination Act (INDA) in late 2001. It extended the ban of the ITFA through November 1, 2003. This extension has expired.

In the current Congress, the House version of the extension bill, which is again titled the "Internet Non-Discrimination Act" makes the ban of the ITFA permanent. It also eliminates the grandfather clause. Finally, it provides that the moratorium applies to telecommunications services, "to the extent such services are used to provide Internet access".

In the current Congress, the Senate version of the INDA that was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee makes the ban of the ITFA permanent, sunsets the grandfather language of the ITFA after October 1, 2006, provides that the moratorium applies to telecommunications services "to the extent such services are used to provide Internet access", and adds an exemption for any taxes imposed to fund universal service subsidies.

1998 ITFA. The Congress passed the original Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) in the closing days of the 105th Congress. The Senate version of the bill, S 442 ES (105th), was ultimately added to the huge Omnibus Appropriation Bill, which was passed by both houses, and signed by former President Clinton in October of 1998. It became Public Law No. 105-277.

Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) (at left) sponsored the House version of the bill. (He is also the sponsor of HR 49 in the current Congress). Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) sponsored the Senate bill. Sen. Wyden has throughout been one of the leading proponents of creating and maintaining the moratorium.

The ITFA's moratorium employs short and simple terms. The key language (which is at Section 1101(a) of the ITFA, and codified at 47 U.S.C. 151 note) provides as follows:

  "(a) Moratorium.--No State or political subdivision thereof shall impose any of the following taxes during the period beginning on October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act--
    (1) taxes on Internet access, unless such tax was generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998; and
    (2) multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce."

Thus, it is a moratorium on taxes on internet access, and multiple or discriminatory taxes on e-commerce; it lasts for three years; and it grandfathers existing taxes that were "generally imposed and actually enforced".

The ITFA also established the "Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce" to write a report to Congress. This Commission, which came to be known as the Gilmore Commission, completed its study. This is not an issue in the current debate.

Finally, the ITFA contains some exceptions and definitions that are relevant to the current debate.

Subsection 1101(e) lists exceptions to the moratorium. Subsection 1101(e)(3) contains definitions. Subsection 1101(e)(3)(D) defines "Internet access service" as follows: "The term 'Internet access service' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term does not include telecommunications services."

Section 1104 is the general definitions section. Subsection 1104(5) defines "Internet access" as follows: "The term 'Internet access' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to users. Such term does not include telecommunications services."

Extension in 2001. Rep. Cox introduced HR 1552, the "Internet Non-Discrimination Act" (INDA) of 2001, on April 24, 2001, in the 107th Congress. The House passed the bill on October 16, 2001. The Senate passed the bill on November 15, 2001. President Bush signed the bill on November 28, 2001. It became Public Law No. 107-75.

It is a remarkably short and simple bill. Its only substantive language provides that "Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking `3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act' and inserting `on November 1, 2003'."

That is, all that it did was extend the duration of the moratorium.

And of course, November 1, 2003 has passed. There is no moratorium in effect.

HR 49. The House has passed a bill extending the moratorium.

Rep. Cox introduced the bill on HR 49, the "Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act", on January 7, 2003. See, story titled "Rep. Cox and Sen. Wyden Introduce Bill to Make Permanent Net Tax Ban" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 580, January 10, 2003.

The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing on April 1, 2003. See, story titled "House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Bill to Make Internet Tax Moratorium Permanent" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 635, April 2, 2003.

The Subcommittee approved the bill on May 22, 2003. The full Committee amended and approved the bill on July 16, 2003. See, story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves Internet Tax Bill", also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 700, July 17, 2003.

The full House passed the bill on September 17, 2003.

The key language of HR 49 amends Section 1101(a) of the ITFA to read as follows:

"(a) MORATORIUM- No State or political subdivision thereof may impose any of the following taxes:
(1) Taxes on Internet access.
(2) Multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce."

That is, is leaves unchanged the taxes that are banned. It continues the moratorium on taxes on internet access, and multiple and discriminatory taxes on e-commerce. However, it deletes the grandfather language (thus eliminating grandfathering of taxes that were "generally imposed and actually enforced" in 1998). It also deletes any reference to a termination of the moratorium (thus making it permanent). The bill also deletes another reference to grandfathering that was included in the original ITFA.

There is one other significant provision in HR 49. It is as follows: "CLARIFICATION- The second sentence of section 1104(5), and the second sentence of section 1101(e)(3)(D), of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) are each amended by inserting `, except to the extent such services are used to provide Internet access' before the period."

This was added to the bill during the House Judiciary Committee markup on July 16, 2003. Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) (at left) offered the amendment. It provides that the moratorium applies to telecommunications services, "to the extent such services are used to provide Internet access", thus clarifying that the ban on internet access taxes extends to broadband DSL and wireless services provided by phone companies or others.

That is, the 1998 ITFA imposed a moratorium on taxes on internet access, but, the ITFA's definition of "internet access" excluded "telecommunications services". Rep. Watt (at left) stated that some states currently impose a tax on DSL service when it is sold as part of a package with phone service. Thus, internet access, when provided by DSL, is taxed, while other technologies for providing broadband internet access are not taxed. He stated that his amendment would clarify that DSL service is covered by the ban on internet access taxes.

S 150. Sen. George Allen (R-VA) introduced S 150, also titled the "Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act", on January 13, 2003. The Senate Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, held a hearing on July 16, 2003. See, story titled "Senate Commerce Committee Holds Hearing on Internet Tax Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 700, July 17, 2003.

On July 31, 2003, the Committee amended and passed the bill. See, story titled "Senate Commerce Committee Approves Bill to Extend Internet Tax Moratorium" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 709, August 1, 2003. However, the full Senate has not passed either this bill, or the House version.

S 150, as amended by the Senate Commerce Committee, permanently extends the moratorium on internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on e-commerce.

S 150 expands the scope of the grandfather provision, and sunsets it after three years.

S 150 also contains Rep. Watts' language providing that the moratorium applies to telecommunications services "to the extent such services are used to provide Internet access".

Finally, S 150 contains an exception for taxes collected to fund universal service subsidies. It provides that "Nothing in the Internet Tax Freedom Act shall prevent the imposition or collection of any fees or charges used to preserve and advance Federal universal service or similar State programs authorized by section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934."

There is also a related bill, S 52, also titled the "Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act", which was introduced by Sen. Wyden on January 7, 2003. However, S 150 has become the vehicle for extending the moratorium. Nevertheless, S 150 is often referred to as the Allen Wyden bill, even though Sen. Wyden is technically not a cosponsor of S 150.

S 2084. Sen. Alexander's just introduced bill, S 2084, is titled the "Internet Tax Ban Extension and Improvement Act". It is an internet tax ban extension to the extent that it extends the ban contained in Section 1101 of the 1998 ITFA to November 1, 2005. The extension would also be retroactive, back to November 1, 2003, when the ban expired. Thus, there would be no gaps in the application of the ban.

However, the rest of this detailed bill creates exceptions, exclusions, and other opportunities for state and local governments to impose taxes that the original ban was passed to prevent.

S 2084 contains language that is related to Rep. Watts' amendment. However, it drafted more narrowly to allow more activities to fall outside of the moratorium on internet access taxes. HR 49 and S 150 both provide that the moratorium applies to telecommunications services "to the extent such services are used to provide Internet access". S 2084 provides that the moratorium does not apply to "telecommunications services, except to the extent such services are purchased, used, or sold by an Internet access provider to connect a purchaser of Internet access to the Internet access provider".

S 2084 deletes the grandfather language from 1101(a), only to add a pair of far broader grandfather clauses in a newly created Section 1104.

The ITFA grandfathered taxes on internet access that were "generally imposed and actually enforced" in 1998. S 2084 preserves this clause but then adds qualifying language.

It provides, in part, that "Section 1101(a) does not apply to a tax on Internet access ... that was generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998, if, before that date, the tax was authorized by statute and either -- (1) a provider of Internet access services had a reasonable opportunity to know by virtue of a rule or other public proclamation made by the appropriate administrative agency of the State or political subdivision thereof, that such agency has interpreted and applied such tax to Internet access services; or (2) a State or political subdivision thereof generally collected such tax on charges for Internet access."

This section of S 2084 lacks clarity. But, it lends itself to the interpretation that a state or local government may impose a tax on internet access, in the absence of having actually collected the tax, or even having promulgated a rule or ordinance, merely if it can show that it had articulated its interpretation that it could impose the tax. Evidence of this interpretation could be satisfied by any "public proclamation" -- which raises the question of what is a "public proclamation".

S 150 contains similar language. This taxing authority goes beyond the notion of grandfathering.

S 2084 also carves out three exceptions to the moratorium. First, like S 150, it contains an exception for taxes imposed for the purpose of providing universal support subsidies. But, it adds two exceptions not contained in S 150.

It creates an exception for taxes imposed for the purposes of funding 911 or E911 programs.

It may also be relevant that some states have a history of diverting E911 fees to fund other government programs. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) introduced S 1250, the "Enhanced 911 Emergency Communications Act of 2003 " in July of 2003 to, among other things, address this diversion. It would also require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review twice a year fees charged to customers for enhancing 911 services. States would be required to certify that no E911 fees are being used for other purposes. The FCC would be required to notify Congress of states that divert E911 funds. Finally, the NTIA would be required to withhold grant funds to states that are found by the FCC to divert E911 funds.

The Senate Commerce Committee report on this bill states that "Currently, over 40 States have established some type of wireless fee or surcharge on consumers' mobile phone bills to fund, either in whole or in part, PSAP upgrades for wireless E-911 service. In the States relying on monthly surcharges, subscribers' fees range from 20 cents to $2 per month, with the average about 60 cents per month." It adds that "Recently, State lawmakers and administrators have begun investigating the use of E-911 funds, and have discovered instances in which E-911 funds have been used for purposes other than the provision of E-911 service. Observers claim as many as 11 States have been `raiding' their collected E-911 funds to satisfy other State obligations." See, Senate Report 108-130

S 2084 also creates exceptions for any taxes levied on "net income, capital stock, net worth, or property value".

That is, state and local governments could tax the internet access providers, who would then pass on this cost to their customers through higher prices. The net effect on consumers would be similar to a tax their internet access.

S 2084 also contains a section titled "Accounting Rule" which facilitates the ability of state and local governments to impose taxes on bundled service offerings that include internet access. It states that "If charges for Internet access are aggregated with and not separately stated from charges for telecommunications services or other charges that are subject to taxation, then the charges for Internet access may be subject to taxation unless the Internet access provider can reasonably identify the charges for Internet access from its books and records kept in the regular course of business." This section restates the delineation of telecommunications and internet access: "The term `charges for telecommunications services' means all charges for telecommunications services except to the extent such services are purchased, used, or sold by an Internet access provider to connect a purchaser of Internet access to the Internet access provider."

Sen. Rockefeller, an original cosponsor of the bill, stated that Sen. Allen and Sen. Wyden "have proposed legislation that would permanently bar States and cities from taxing Internet access, and they have defined the service broadly that many experts believe it will undermine some telecommunications taxes on which States currently depend. I am not interested in providing enormous tax breaks to the telecommunications industry, and so I oppose their approach. Taxes that businesses currently pay to access the Internet backbone are reasonable costs of doing business. I hope that my colleagues will not be intimidated by claims that those of us who oppose tax breaks for telecommunications companies actually want to tax people's e-mails." See, Congressional Record, February 12, 2004, at page S1295.

Reaction to S 2084. Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) President Ken Wasch stated in a release that "Contradicting its name, this new legislation represents a means to empower states to not only begin taxing Internet access, but to do it in a way that will leave consumers wondering what hit them ... This legislation makes a mockery of tax and technological neutrality, and it denies consumers a real choice in high speed access to the Internet."

Wasch continued: "Let's be clear: This legislation would create a regime whereby taxes are applied to Internet access services and email. In fact, these taxes would be applied on the back-end, so it is the worst kind of taxation. If this legislation were enacted, consumers could expect their bill for DSL and wireless high-speed Internet access to increase significantly. Consumers could be looking at billions of dollars in taxes levied on Internet access through a back door."

"The legislation's sponsor, Senator Lamar Alexander, stated explicitly last year that he supports taxation of Internet access. This legislation seems to underscore that point", said Wasch.

Similarly, David McClure of the US Internet Industry Association (USIIA) said in a release that S 2084 "is a hoax".

The USIIA release asserts that it "allows taxation of the connection between the ISP and the Network Access Point (NAP), taxation of the Internet backbone, taxation of Internet connections required for redundancy and quality-of-service agreements, and any other Internet connections or circuits. These taxes would be passed along to consumers, and would significantly increase the cost of both broadband and dial-up Internet services."

BellSouth issued a release which states that "Even opponents of Internet tax freedom now concede the importance of keeping the internet tax free from State and local taxation. The bill they introduced today falls far short of accomplishing that objective. Instead the ``Alexander-Carper´´ legislation will leave millions of Americans vulnerable to increased costs every time they access the Internet. This will result in nothing more than a massive tax increase for millions of consumers." BellSouth adds that it support S 150.

BellSouth further states that this quote is attributable to the "Consumer Internet Access Coalition", of which BellSouth is a member. (A Google search for this coalition only turns up references to this release.)

BellSouth is an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) that offers internet access services via DSL.

2/13. Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) wrote letters to Congressional leaders notifying them of President Bush's intent to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA) with Thailand. See, letter [10 pages in PDF] to Rep. Denny Hastert (R-IL), the Speaker of the House, and redundant letter [PDF] to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

The letters also set forth the objectives and goals of the negotiations, including goals regarding electronic commerce, protection of intellectual property rights, and telecommunications market access.

Zoellick (at right) stated in a release [3 pages in PDF] that "We believe the United States has much to gain in pursuing a negotiation with Thailand. Thailand already is our 18th largest trading partner with $19.7 billion in total trade during 2002. The increased access to Thailand’s market that an FTA would provide would further boost trade in a wide range of both goods and services, enhancing employment opportunities in both countries".

The USTR release adds that "An FTA would create opportunities for U.S. manufacturers and service suppliers in a wide range of sectors, including information technology, telecommunications, financial services, audiovisual, automotive and medical and other equipment."

It also states that "bringing Thailand's intellectual property regime up to the standards set in other recent FTAs that the United States has negotiated will be a high priority of these negotiations."

Electronic Commerce. The USTR's letters to Congress state that one of the objectives of the negotiations is to "Seek to have Thailand affirm that it will allow U.S. goods and services to be delivered electronically to its market and to ensure that Thailand does not apply customs duties to digital products or unjustifiably discriminate among products delivered electronically."

Intellectual Property Rights. The USTR's letters to Congress state that the objectives in the area of intellectual property rights include to "Seek to establish standards to be applied in Thailand that build on the foundations established in the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and other international intellectual property agreements, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

The letters state that another objective is to, "In areas such as patent protection and protection of undisclosed information, seek to have Thailand apply levels of protection and practices more in line with U.S. law and practices, including appropriate flexibility."

Another objective is to "Seek to strengthen Thailand’s laws and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights, such as by ensuring that Thai authorities seize suspected pirated and counterfeit goods, equipment used to make such goods or to transmit pirated goods, and documentary evidence."

Finally, another objective of the negotiations is to "Seek to strengthen measures in Thailand that provide for compensation of right holders for infringements of intellectual property rights and to provide for criminal penalties under Thai law that are sufficient to have a deterrent effect on piracy and counterfeiting."

Other Issues. The USTR's letters also list a wide range of other objectives, regarding other sectors of the economy, and regarding labor and environment issues.

Another objective is to "Pursue a comprehensive approach to market access, including any necessary improvements in access to the telecommunications, financial services, professional services, or other sectors."

The USTR's letters also state that the negotiations will "Address possible issues involving competition-related matters, if appropriate."

And finally, another objective is to "Seek improved transparency and predictability of Thai regulatory procedures, specialized disciplines for financial services, and additional disciplines for telecommunications and other sectors as necessary." The letters say nothing about improving transparency and predictability of US regulatory procedures for telecommunications.

2/11. Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), held a press conference in Tokyo, Japan. See, transcript [7 pages in PDF]. He was asked about reducing the trade deficits. He stated that "China had a huge task to undertake with the WTO accession. As various reports from my office and others have shown, they undertook a large number of steps in terms of reducing tariffs and other things that were quite important. But because of the fact that we're running a deficit of about 125 billion dollars, it's even more important for them to make sure that they follow through on things like intellectual property rights protection, or not devising tax policies in a way that support industrial policy. For example, we've been having a dispute about the use of their value-added tax related to semiconductors." (Emphasis added.)

2/12. Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), held a press conference in Beijing, PR China. See, transcript [10 pages in PDF]. He was asked about China's non-compliance with its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations regarding protection of intellectual property rights. Zoellick stated that he did not discuss this issue on this trip. Nevertheless, he added that "Intellectual property rights is clearly a very important one that we discussed at length with the Chinese on a number of occasions. There’s issues about whether one is using value-added taxes, for example in the area of semiconductors, in a way that is not consistent with WTO rules."

The House and Senate will be in recess from February 16 through February 20 for the Presidents Day recess.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a three day workshop to be hosted by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on merger enforcement. See, notice and agenda. Location: FTC, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW, Conference Center.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) and Advanced Network Technologies Division (ANTD) will host a one day conference titled "Spam Technology Workshop". See, notice and conference website. The price to attend is $70. The deadline to register is February 3. Location: Building 101, Green Auditorium, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

9:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host a public roundtable meeting regarding the effectiveness of inter partes reexamination proceedings. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 30, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 249, at Pages 75217 - 75218. See also USPTO's February 17 notice. Location: USPTO, conference room, 2nd floor, Crystal Park 2, 2121 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.

Day one of a three day workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division titled "Advanced Information Technology (IT) Security Auditing". See, notice. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to update the record concerning petitions for reconsideration of rules that the FCC adopted in the 1997 access charge reform docket. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 16, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 11, at Pages 2560 - 2561.

9:00 AM - 5:15 PM. Day two of a three day workshop to be hosted by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on merger enforcement. See, notice and agenda. Location: FTC, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW, Conference Center.

10:00 AM. Jane Mago, Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, will host an event titled "briefing for members of the media". She will address "major issues". Persons intending to attend are requested to contact Meribeth McCarrick at 202 418-0654 or Meribeth.McCarrick@fcc.gov. Location: FCC, 8th floor South Conference Room (8-B516), 445 12th Street, SW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a luncheon program titled "Bursting the Bubble on Internet Pop-Up Ads?". The speakers will be Terrance Ross (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, attorneys for the Washington Post in Washington Post v. Gator), Arnold Lutzker (attorney for defendants in U-Haul v. WhenU.com), and Walter Effross (American University). Prices vary. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "DTV Reality -- It's Here". The speakers will include Rick Chessen, the Associate Bureau Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau, and head of the FCC's DTV Task Force. For more information, contact Peter Corea at 202 418-7931 or pcorea@fcc.gov or Ryan Wallach at 202 303-1159 or rwallach@willkie.com. Location: Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1875 K St., NW.

Day two of a three day workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division titled "Advanced Information Technology (IT) Security Auditing". See, notice. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. Day three of a three day workshop to be hosted by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on merger enforcement. See, notice and agenda. Location: FTC, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW, Conference Center.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Joe Whitley, General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prices vary. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: Morrison & Foerster, 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 5500.

4:00 PM. Michael Carroll (Villanova University School of Law) will present a paper titled "The Human Face of Deadweight Loss: Recognizing the Limits of Ignorance as a Justification for Uniform Intellectual Property Rights". For more information, contact Robert Brauneis at 202 994-6138 or rbraun@law.gwu.edu. Location: George Washington University Law School, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 716 20th Street, NW.

Day three of a three day workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division titled "Advanced Information Technology (IT) Security Auditing". See, notice. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Communications Vending Corp. v. FCC, No. 02-1364. Judges Sentelle, Randolph, and Tatel will preside. Location: Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) will host a tutorial titled "Capacity Enhancement Methods for Wireless Networks: Complementary Beamforming, Space-Time Coding and Space-Time Collaborative Communications". The speaker will be Vahid Tarokh, a professor of electrical engineering at Harvard. See, notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305), 445 12th Street, SW.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "Have Attorney's Fees Risen in Class Action Settlements?". See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding its review of the effectiveness of inter partes reexamination proceedings. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 30, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 249, at Pages 75217 - 75218.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding BellSouth's request for a declaratory ruling that the state commissions may not regulate broadband internet access services by requiring BellSouth to provide wholesale or retail broadband services to voice service customers of competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) using unbundled network elements (UNEs). BellSouth submitted its 334 page filing on December 9, 2003. See, "Emergency Request for Declaratory Ruling" (without attachments) [35 pages in PDF]. This is WC Docket No. 03-251. See, FCC notice [PDF].

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) regarding DRAFT Special Publication 800-60, titled "Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information Systems to Security Categories". See, Volume I [PDF] and Volume II [PDF]. Comments should be submitted to 800-60_comments@nist.gov. For more information, contact Elaine Frye at elaine.frye@nist.gov.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) its request that parties refresh the record regarding reconsideration of rules adopted in the 1999 access reform docket. This is CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, and CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, adopted August 5, 1999, and released August 27, 1999. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 21, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 13, at Pages 2862 - 2863.

The Senate will return from its Presidents Day recess, at 12:00 NOON.

The Supreme Court will return from the recess that it began on January 26.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in AT&T  v. FCC, No. 03-1017. This petition for review pertains to pay telephones. See, FCC brief [46 pages in PDF]. Judges Randolph, Rogers and Tatel will preside. Location: Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host panel discussion titled "European and American Approaches to Antitrust Remedies and the Institutional Design of Regulation in Telecommunications". The speakers will be Damien Geradin (University of Liege and College of Europe), Gregory Sidak (AEI), Abbott Lipsky (Latham & Watkins), and David Sibley (U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division). See, notice. Location: AEI, Twelfth Floor, 1150 17th Street, NW.

10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. Meg Bellinger, Associate University Librarian at Yale University, will give a speech titled "Stewardship in the Digital Age: Roles and Issues for Libraries for Preserving Our Cultural Heritage". For more information, call 202 707-1183. Location: Dining Room A, 6th Floor, Madison Building, Library of Congress.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its proposed rules regarding universal service subsidies for rural health clinics. Comments are due by February 23, 2004. Reply comments are due by April 7, 2004. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 24, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 247, at Pages 74538 - 74541.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its proposed rules regarding use of satellite earth stations on board vessels in the 5925-6425 MHz, 3700-4200 MHz, 14.0-14.5 GHz and 11.7-12.2 GHz bands. The NPRM is FCC 03-286 in IB Docket No. 02-10. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 22, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 14, at Pages 3056 - 3064.