8/5. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted, but did not release, an Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, that provides that facilities based broadband service providers and interconnected VOIP providers are subject to requirements under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).

Summary of the Order. The FCC issued a short release [PDF] that describes the unreleased order. It states that the FCC has determined that CALEA obligations extend to "facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers and VoIP providers that offer services permitting users to receive calls from, and place calls to, the public switched telephone network. These VoIP providers are called interconnected VoIP providers."

The FCC, in August of 2004, issued tentative conclusions that broadband internet access services (BIAS) and managed voice over internet protocol (VOIP) are subject to the requirements of the CALEA.

The FCC release states that the FCC has made its determination on two separate grounds. First, it states that "the definition of ``telecommunications carrier´´ in CALEA is broader than the definition of that term in the Communications Act and can encompass providers of services that are not classified as telecommunications services under the Communications Act."

Second, the release states that "these services can essentially replace conventional telecommunications services".

The release makes no mention of relying upon Title I ancillary jurisdiction.

There is a series of articles in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert 960, August 17, 2004, which offer the legal analysis that neither of these two legal arguments is tenable. Hence, the action by the FCC is better characterized, not as an implementation, but rather as an amendment, of the statute. And, since the FCC lacks authority to amend statutes, or to exceed its statutory authority, the present order is at risk of being overturned on judicial review.

The FCC release says nothing about how CALEA obligations will be applied to these providers. Nor is there anything about who will hold enforcement authority. Nor does it address the installation of surveillance equipment, the operation of surveillance activities, and other activities related to carrying out surveillance and intercepts. Nor does it address the NPRM's proposal regarding the use of private intercept management providers. Nor does it address cost recovery.

The FCC's Julie Veach, speaking at a news conference on August 5, stated that this order only addresses who is covered.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wrote in a separate statement [PDF] that "The Order that we adopt today is an important first step, but there is still more work ahead of us. In the next few months, we intend to issue a subsequent order that will address other important issues under CALEA such as cost recovery, standards, and enforcement."

The FCC release also states that "Because broadband Internet and interconnected VoIP providers need a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance with all relevant CALEA requirements, the Commission established a deadline of 18 months from the effective date of this Order, by which time newly covered entities and providers of newly covered services must be in full compliance."

However, since the FCC has only stated, in broad strokes, who is covered, but not what the new obligations are, there are not yet any rules with which to come into compliance. Moreover, the 18 month deadline allows sufficient time for affected entities to obtain from the Court of Appeals a judgment vacating the present order.

Tom Navin, Chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), stated at a news conference on Friday, August 5, that this item will be released "hopefully later this month".

The FCC's release does not provide titles or numbers for this item or proceeding. However, the NPRM issued in August of 2004 is FCC 04-187 in ET Docket No. 04-295 and RM-10865. Also, Commissioner Abernathy's statement recites the same two proceeding numbers.

What Is the CALEA. The CALEA is an act, enacted by the Congress in 1994, that requires telecommunications carriers "shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable of expeditiously isolating and enabling the government ... intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier ..."

The CALEA provides that telecommunications carriers must design their equipment and networks to facilitate lawfully conducted wiretaps and other intercepts. Statutes other than the CALEA address what intercepts are lawful.

The CALEA was enacted to require that cell phone service providers make their networks subject to wiretaps sought by law enforcement agencies (LEAs), such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and state and local police.

The CALEA applies to "telecommunications carrier", and exempts "information services".

This presents a threshold problem for the FCC and FBI. Not only are broadband service providers and interconnected VOIP providers arguably "information services", but the Supreme Court held in its June 27, 2005, opinion [59 pages in PDF] in NCTA v. Brand X that the FCC declaratory ruling that cable modem service is an information service is a permissible reading of the statute..

Thus, the FCC now argues that broadband service providers and interconnected VOIP providers are "information services" for the purpose of being classified as Title I services, but are not "information services" for the purposes of the CALEA. Moreover, the FCC now argues that broadband service providers and interconnected VOIP providers are not telecommunications carriers for the purposes of regulatory classification, but are telecommunications carriers for the purposes of the CALEA.

§ 102(8) of the CALEA, which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1001(8), provides the following definition of "telecommunications carrier".

(8) The term ``telecommunications carrier''--
   (A) means a person or entity engaged in the transmission or switching of wire or electronic communications as a common carrier for hire; and
   (B) includes--
      (i) a person or entity engaged in providing commercial mobile service (as defined in section 332(d) of this title); or
      (ii) a person or entity engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission service to the extent that the Commission finds that such service is a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service and that it is in the public interest to deem such a person or entity to be a telecommunications carrier for purposes of this chapter; but
   (C) does not include--
      (i) persons or entities insofar as they are engaged in providing information services; and
      (ii) any class or category of telecommunications carriers that the Commission exempts by rule after consultation with the Attorney General."

But then, § 102(8)(B)(ii) provides that a "telecommunications carrier" also "includes ... a person or entity engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission service to the extent that the Commission finds that such service is a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service ...".

Procedural History. The FBI has long been lobbying the FCC to expand the CALEA regulatory regime to apply to uncovered entities.

The FBI and DOJ submitted a petition for rulemaking [83 pages in PDF] on March 10, 2004. See, story titled "Summary of DOJ Petition for Rulemaking to Expand the CALEA to Cover Information Services" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 873, April 9, 2004.

On August 4, 2004, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (NPRM & DR) [100 pages in PDF] in response to this petition. See, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM and Declaratory Ruling Regarding CALEA Obligations" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 953, August 5, 2004. See also, stories titled "FCC Legislatively Expands Scope of CALEA Obligations" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 953, August 5, 2004, and "Powell Discusses Brand X Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 954, August 6, 2004.

The FCC released the text of this NPRM and DR on August 9, 2004. There is a series of stories on this item in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert 960, August 17, 2004:

• Summary of the FCC's CALEA NPRM
• Summary of the CALEA NPRM's Tentative Conclusion Regarding Broadband Internet Access Services
• Summary of the CALEA NPRM's Tentative Conclusion Regarding Certain VOIP Services
• Summary of the CALEA NPRM's Declaratory Ruling Regarding Push To Talk Services
• Summary of the CALEA NPRM's Substantial Replacement Analysis
• Summary of the CALEA NPRM's Future Services Analysis
• Summary of the CALEA NPRM's Private Intercept Management Provider Proposal

Comments by Commissioners. Several of the Commissioners appear to have undergone a conversion on the question of whether the FCC has statutory authority to make the determinations that it just announced.

In August of 2004 Commissioner Michael Copps was bluntly critical of the substantial replacement analysis. He wrote in a separate statement [PDF] that the NPRM "is flush with tentative conclusions that stretch the statutory fabric to the point of tear. If these proposals become the rules and reasons we have to defend in court, we may find ourselves making a stand on very shaky ground. It would be a shame if our reliance on thin legal arguments results in the CALEA rules being thrown out."

He wrote that "it strains credibility to suggest that Congress intended ``a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange´´ to mean the replacement of any portion of any individual subscriber's functionality."

Commission Copps wrote in his August 2005 statement simply that "We ensure that law enforcement officials will have the tools that they need to protect our country through the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act".

He added that "the Supreme Court’s Brand X decision makes it clear that the Commission’s ancillary authority can accommodate our work on homeland security". However, the FCC August 5, 2005 release is silent on the issue of whether the FCC has, or can, impose CALEA like obligations under Title I ancillary authority. It did raise this in its August 2004 NPRM, at Paragraph 59.

In August of 2004 Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy wrote in a separate statement [PDF] that "at the end of the day, the federal courts -- rather than this Commission -- will be the arbiter of whether we are authorized to take the actions proposed in this rulemaking, and we must remain mindful of that fact as we consider final rules."

In her August 5, 2005 separate statement [PDF] Abernathy wrote that "I believe we have interpreted the statute faithfully". However, she wrote that litigation is "inevitable", and she twice recommended that the Congress enact legislation.

She wrote that "because some might not read the statute to permit the extension of CALEA to the broadband Internet access and VoIP services at issue here, I have stated my concern that an approach like the one we adopt today is not without legal risk."

She added that "because some parties will dispute our conclusions, the application of CALEA to these new services could be stymied for years. For this reason, I continue to believe that the Commission, the law enforcement community, and the public would benefit greatly from additional Congressional guidance in this area."

In August of 2004 Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein wrote in a separate statement [PDF] that this NPRM "seizes upon notable but thin distinctions between definitions in CALEA and the Communications Act. Moreover, the item does not acknowledge fully and seek comment on existing precedent that is in tension with the tentative conclusions here. For example, whether or not the Commission ultimately appeals the decision in the Ninth Circuit’s Brand X case, which concluded that broadband access via cable modem includes a ``telecommunications service,´´ this Notice’s failure to seek comment on a legal analysis that would comport with the Circuit’s holding is an unnecessary failing."

In his August 2005 separate statement [PDF] Commissioner Adelstein wrote only that "I'm also pleased that we adopt a companion Order applying the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of interconnected VoIP services."

Law Enforcement Needs. Commissioner Abernathy wrote in her August 2005 statement that "I believe that the construction we adopt is reasonable, particularly given law enforcement's indisputably compelling needs."

This statement is notable for several reasons. First, the CALEA statute does not provide that "compelling needs" is a basis for expanding CALEA obligations to additional categories of entities.

Second, the FCC did not include in its NPRM a section regarding "compelling needs". That is, the August 2004 NPRM did not seek comment on whether telecommunications carriers and information service providers are now capable of providing the intercept capabilities for new technologies. Nor did the NPRM seek comment on the extent to which new information services are harming efforts by LEAs.

Commissioner Abernathy has reached a conclusion, without following notice and comment procedure.

The FCC release states that the order will meet "the needs of the law enforcement community". The first words of Chairman Martin's statement are "Responding to the needs of law enforcement ..." Moreover, in the companion policy statement regarding network neutrality, announced on August 5, 2005, the FCC release includes a provision regarding "the needs of law enforcement".

None of the documents released by the FCC define or describe the term "needs of law enforcement", or identify how determinations will be made regarding what are the evolving "needs of law enforcement".

Reaction. At least one group has already publicly announced that it may bring a legal challenge. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) wrote in its web site that "CDT believes the decision exceeds the terms of the statute. The ruling imposes undue burdens on innovation and threatens the privacy of Internet users. CDT is considering a court challenge."

Ed Black, P/CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), stated in a release that "We have yet to see the full text of the order, but CCIA is deeply concerned over what details have been released concerning the CALEA decision ... Initial indications suggest that the FCC has overstepped in granting too much authority to law enforcement."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also released a statement critical of the FCC's determination.

8/8. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) proposed, but did not introduce, Congressional legislation that would codify principles of network neutrality. On August 5, the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) announced, but did not release, a policy statement containing a somewhat different statement of network neutrality principles. The FCC policy statement carries no enforcement component.

See, story titled "FCC Adopts a Policy Statement Regarding Network Neutrality" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,190, August 8, 2005.

Rep. Boucher (at right) stated that "The FCC's recent adoption of a Policy Statement regarding the principles of Net Neutrality is an appropriate first step in ensuring that all persons continue to enjoy the unfettered ability to access and use the Internet in a lawful manner without being impeded by broadband network operators. However, the next step must be taken by the Congress in codifying the Net Neutrality principles and bestowing on the FCC the clear authority to enforce the principles".

However, Rep. Boucher's concept differs from the concept embodied in the FCC's policy statement. He issued a release that states that network neutrality encompasses the following: "ensuring unimpeded consumer access to any lawful content, applications and services on the Internet; allowing consumers to attach and use any device that does not harm the broadband network; and prohibiting broadband network operators from unreasonably favoring themselves or their affiliates in the provision of Internet services."

The FCC's policy statement does not include Rep. Boucher's provision regarding "prohibiting broadband network operators from unreasonably favoring themselves or their affiliates in the provision of Internet services". Instead, it contains a provision regarding FCC preservation of "competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers".

"The absence of a binding statute codifying the principles of Net Neutrality leaves a significant gap in our regulatory structure which will undoubtedly be exploited again by companies seeking to gain an inappropriate competitive advantage", said Rep. Boucher. "As the House and Senate prepare to reexamine our nation's telecommunications laws, we have an opportunity to use a light regulatory touch and insert into the statutory law the very common sense principles of Net Neutrality".

The Congress is not in session. Members cannot introduce bills until the Congress returns in September.

7/27. Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), now a civil libertarian, published an essay in his web site (also published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution) in which he addresses several issues, including the United Nation's (UN) Working Group on Internet Governance's (WGIG) efforts to establish a global internet regulator.

On July 18, 2005, the UN's WGIG released a report [24 pages in PDF] titled "Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance". This report states the UN's ambitious case for acquiring vast power to regulate various aspects of the operation and use of the internet. See, story titled "UN Seeks Vast Authority to Regulate Operation and Use of the Internet" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,178, July 20, 2005.

Barr (at right) He wrote that "A U.N. ``working group´´ -- talk about a oxymoron -- has proposed that this organization, which recently gave us the multibillion-dollar fiasco known as ``oil-for-food,´´ be given control of regulating the working mechanism of the Internet. You heard right: Put the United Nations in charge of the Internet! Of interest to those who understand the inner workings of the Internet, or who follow political machinations of world politics, is the makeup of this Working Group on Internet Governance. The membership reads like a list of the old, so-called ``nonaligned´´ nations group (which was anything but nonaligned), and includes such high-tech, free enterprise champions as Cuba and Iran." (Parentheses in original.)

He continued that "While such a proposal brings tears of laughter to those of us in the United States who understand that the magic of the Internet lies not in government regulation but in the free market and universal access, the fact that the United Nations proposes it play a role in regulating the Internet means, at a minimum, that the idea will be the subject of interminable bureaucratic deliberations. It will foster a permanent bureaucracy of its own, will cost millions, and will result in repeated tirades against the exploitation of the Internet by the developed nations against the interests of the Third World."

He concluded that "The meddling by the United Nations is boundless. It is aggravating. It is costly. But mostly, it is just plain wrong. And someone needs to stand up and tell it so."

Barr suggests that John Bolton, the new U.S. Ambassador to the UN, is appropriate for the task.

However, Michael Gallagher, the head of the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), stated bluntly, on June 30, 2005, that the U.S. will not yield to any UN request to take control of the domain name system (DNS). See, story titled "NTIA Rebuffs UN Efforts to Gain Control Over Internet Governance" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,166, July 1, 2005.

On September 19-30, The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) will host the third meeting of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom3) in Geneva, Switzerland, for the second meeting of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), to be held in Tunis, Tunisia, on November 16-18, 2005. See, WSIS web site.

8/8. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division filed a joint amicus curiae brief [41 pages in PDF], on the merits, with the Supreme Court, in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, urging reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir).

Trident, Inc., a subsidiary of Illinois Tool Works, holds U.S. Patent No. 5,343,226, which pertains to ink jet printer technology. Trident also makes ink. Moreover, its standard form licensing agreement allowing the OEMs to use its patented product requires the OEMs to purchase their ink for Trident systems exclusively from Trident. Independent Ink also makes ink, and competes with Trident.

Independent Ink filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (CDCal) against Trident and Illinois Tool Works. It sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity against Trident’s patents. It also alleged Trident was engaged in illegal tying and monopolization in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which are codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1 and § 2.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Trident on both claims. The District Court held that for patent tying to constitute a violation of the antitrust laws, the plaintiff must affirmatively prove market power.

The Court of Appeals issued its opinion [20 pages in PDF] on January 25, 2005. It held that "a rebuttable presumption of market power arises from the possession of a patent over a tying product". It further wrote that "Because no rebuttal evidence was submitted by the patent holder, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on the Sherman Act section 1 claim and remand for further proceedings. As to Independent’s Sherman Act section 2 claim, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment." The opinion is also reported at 396 F.3d 1342.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 20, 2005. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Patent Tying Antitrust Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,158, June 21, 2005.

The DOJ and FTC argue that "This Court's decisions under Section 1 of the Sherman Act restrict per se condemnation of tying arrangements to those situations in which the defendant has coercive economic power in the tying product market that it uses to impair competition in the tied product market. ... The Court of Appeals' application of a presumption that patents confer market power is inconsistent with the rationale of those decisions, and it conflicts with the court's teaching that per se rules are properly applied only to conduct that is almost always anticompetitive."

The DOJ and FTC continue that "There is no economic basis for inferring market power from the mere fact that the defendant holds a patent. That view is shared by diverse members of the antitrust community -- including scholars, enforcement agencies, and Congress. Such an inference would confound two quite distinct concepts: the legal right under intellectual property law to exclude a copyist's infringing products and the economic concept of market power. While a patent can provide significant protect from competition, only a small percentage of patents actually confer significant market power."

"The existence of a patent is relevant to the question of market power, and patentees may indeed possess such power in particular cases, but a court should consider evidence specific to the market at issue." The DOJ and FTC also argue that "The Court of Appeals was mistaken in concluding that this Court's decisions require courts to apply a presumption that patents confer market power."

The DOJ and FTC conclude that "Because the Court of Appeals misread this Court's decisions to require the presumption that patents confer market power, it noted but gave no weight to the mismatch between the presumption and the procompetitive policies of antitrust law. The presumption is an anomalous legal shortcut, encouraging meritless antitrust claims while discouraging innovation and efficiency-enhancing business practices. Those considerations confirm that the presumption should be rejected."

The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) also filed an amicus brief [25 pages in PDF], on the merits, in support of neither party, on August 4. It urges the Supreme court to eliminate the presumption of market power in patent antitrust tying cases.

The AIPLA argues that "the mere issuance of a patent neither defines a relevant product market nor conveys market power in a relevant market, except in very rare cases. Consequently, the presumption that patents nearly always define a market unto themselves and provide sufficient power to raise prices or restrict output is not based on actual experience. Because the presumption does not reflect market realities, the Court should reject them."

The AIPLA continues that "the presumption will encourage routine filing of tying antitrust claims, because the accusers would not need to confront market realities. Those filings may arise not only in cases of express ties, but also where a license arrangement may be argued to have a tying effect. The increased risk of treble-damage antitrust liability may discourage patent owners from enforcing their patent rights, and thus may lessen the value of those rights and the incentive to make and disclose innovations to the public."

Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) also filed an amicus brief [27 pages in PDF], on the merits, in support of Illinois Tool Works, and urging reversal, on August 5.

The IPO argues that "The burden of proving market power should be placed and remain on the antitrust plaintiff in a patent tying case, as it is in all other tying cases. There should be no presumption that because the tying product is patented, it somehow inherently defines the relevant market and mandates a finding of market power."

The IPO adds that "The Court should overturn the precedent of International Salt and Loew’s".

This case is Illinois Tool Work, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 04-1329, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals case number is 04-1196.

8/8. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin announced that he has directed the FCC's Enforcement Bureau "to review the settlement agreement reached by Sony BMG and the New York Attorney General and investigate any incidents in which the agreement discloses evidence of payola rule violations".

Martin wrote in a statement [PDF] that "If the Bureau determines violations of the payola rules have occurred, the Commission will take swift action. In addition, if the Bureau is presented with evidence of payola rule violations outside of the Sony BMG Music Entertainment settlement, it is to thoroughly investigate those complaints as well".

The Office of the New York Attorney General announced its settlement with Sony BMG in a July 25 release. It wrote that under the settlement agreement "one of the world's leading record companies and owner of a number of major record labels, has agreed to stop making payments and providing expensive gifts to radio stations and their employees in return for ``airplay´´ for the company's songs. Such payoffs violate state and federal law."

Martin added that "The FCC has longstanding rules prohibiting payola. These rules serve the important purpose of ensuring that the listening public knows when someone is seeking to influence them. Broadcasters must comply with these rules. The Commission will not tolerate non-compliance. While payola may not be a widespread practice in the broadcasting industry, to the extent it is going on, it must stop."

Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein (at right) issued a statement [PDF] in which he wrote that "I applaud the Chairman's decision to launch an investigation into the payola scandal uncovered by New State Attorney General Spitzer. The Commission has an affirmative, statutory obligation to enforce federal payola laws, and we should enforce them vigorously."

"I believe this payola scandal may represent the most widespread and flagrant violation of any FCC rules in the history of American broadcasting. Mr. Spitzer’s office has collected a mountain of evidence on the potentially illegal promotion practices of not only Sony BMG, but also other major record companies, independent promoters and several of the largest radio station groups."

"The airwaves belong to the public, not the highest bidder", said Adelstein.

The House will not meet on Monday, August 1 through Monday, September 5. See, House calendar and Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will not meet on Monday, August 1 through Monday, September 5. See, Senate calendar.

The Supreme Court is between terms. The opening conference of its October 2005 Term will be held on September 26, 2005.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Informal Working Group 3: IMT-2000 and 2.5 GHz Sharing Issues will meet. See, FCC notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, 6th Floor South Conference Room (6-B516).

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a the first part of a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Software Patent Primer: Acquisition, Exploitation, Enforcement and Defense". The speakers will be Stephen Parker (Novak Druce), Brian Rosenbloom (Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck), David Temeles (Temeles & Temeles), and Martin Zoltick (Rothwell Figg). The price to attend ranges from $95-$170. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

3:05 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) will meet by teleconference. The agenda includes receiving final report from the HSAC Private Sector Information Sharing Task Force. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 25, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 141, at Page 42583.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a the second part of a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Software Patent Primer: Acquisition, Exploitation, Enforcement and Defense". The speakers will be Stephen Parker (Novak Druce), Brian Rosenbloom (Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck), David Temeles (Temeles & Temeles), and Martin Zoltick (Rothwell Figg). The price to attend ranges from $95-$170. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

Deadline for every interconnected voice over internet protocol (VOIP) service provider to submit a report to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the status of its obtaining from every one of its subscribers an acknowledgment of receipt of the FCC mandated statement regarding E911, and regarding the status of its distribution of the FCC mandated VOIP warning stickers. See, the order contained in the FCC's document titled "First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" [90 pages in PDF], numbered FCC 05-116, adopted on May 19, 2005, and released on June 3, 2005. See also, the order contained in the FCC's document titled "Public Notice' [PDF], numbered DA 05-2085, and released on July 26, 2005. These orders were issued in FCC proceedings regarding extending elements of the regulatory regime for communications to internet protocol based services: "In the Matter of IP-Enabled Services", numbered WC Docket No. 04-36, and "E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers", numbered WC Docket No. 05-196.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM) regarding advancing the date on which all new television receiving equipment must include the capability to receive over the air DTV broadcast signals from July 1, 2007, to a date no later than December 31, 2006. The FCC adopted and released this item on June 9, 2005. This item is FCC 05-121 in ET Docket No. 05-24. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 6, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 128, at Pages 38845 - 38848. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts Order and NPRM Regarding Its Digital Tuner Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,153, June 14, 2005.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its airborne cellular proceeding. The FCC adopted its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) back on December 15, 2004. It is FCC 04-288 in WT Docket No. 04-435. See, story titled "FCC Announces NPRM on Cellphones in Airplanes" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,039, December 16, 2004. The FCC extended the reply comment deadline by order numbered DA 05-1712, and dated June 23, 2005. See also, notice in the Federal Register, Volume 70, No. 133, at Pages 40276 - 40277.

Effective date of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) final rules implementing Section 207 of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004. The FCC adopted its Report and Order on June 6, 2005, and released on June 7, 2005. It is FCC 05-119 in MB Docket No. 05-89. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 13, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 133, at Pages 40216 - 40225.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) portion of its order and NPRM regarding the extension of 911/E911 regulation to interconnected voice over internet protocol (VOIP) service providers. The FCC adopted, but did not release, this order and NPRM on May 19, 2005. The FCC released the text [90 pages in PDF] of this order and NPRM on June 3, 2005. See, story titled "FCC Releases VOIP E911 Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,148, June 6, 2005, and story titled "FCC Sets Deadlines for Comments on VOIP NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,167, July 5, 2005. See, FCC notice (DA 05-1905) [3 pages in PDF].

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), adopted on December 20, 2004, regarding whether to defer or eliminate the requirement in the rules that certain applications for equipment authorization received on or after January 1, 2005, specify 6.24 kHz capability. This item is FCC 04-292 in WT Docket No. 99-87 and RM-9332; See, notice in the Federal Register, June 15, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 114, at Pages 34726 - 34729.

Deadline to submit nominations of members to serve on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 145, at Page 43844.

Deadline to submit nominations of members to serve on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 145, at Pages 43844-43845.

Deadline to submit nominations of members to serve on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 145, at Pages 43845-43846.

Deadline to submit nominations of members to serve on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 145, at Pages 43846-43847.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of States' (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the CITEL Permanent Consultative Committee I, Telecommunication Standardization. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 13, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 133, at Page 40414. Location: undisclosed. The DOS states that "Access to these meetings may be arranged by contacting Julian Minard at minardje at state dot gov.

8/8. Sandra Harris, the Associate Regional Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Pacific Regional Office in Los Angeles, California, will leave the SEC at the end of September. See, SEC release.

8/4. Microsoft named Kevin Turner Chief Operating Officer. He previously was P/CEO of Sam's Club and EVP of WallMart Stores. See, Microsoft release.

8/8. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Political Action Committee $500 for not filing a 12 day pre-general election report in 2004. See, FEC release.

8/5. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Privacy Office will host a public workshop titled "Privacy and Technology: Government Use of Commercial Data for Homeland Security" on September 8 and 9, 2005. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 5, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 150, at Pages 45408 - 45409.

8/5. The General Services Administration (GSA) published a notice in the Federal Register that describes, and sets the comment deadline for, its proposal to establish a common infrastructure for electronically authenticating the identity of users of federal e-government services governmentwide. The GSA has named this the "E-Authentication Federation" and the "Service Component". Comments are due by September 6, 2005. See, Federal Register, August 5, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 150, at Pages 45391 - 45394.

8/5. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) released a paper [54 pages in PDF] title "Expensing Employee Stock Options", by Charles Calomiris of the AEI. This paper argues that "there is no legitimate basis for the proposed expensing of employee stock options", and that "neither the granting nor the exercising of stock options results in any gross or net costs to the firm, using the definition of cost employed by financial economists".

8/5. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released Draft Special Publication 800-85: NIST Special Publication 800-85 [111 pages in PDF] titled "PIV Middleware and PIV Card Application Conformance Test Guidelines (SP800-73 Compliance)". These guidelines provide an approach for development of conformance tests for personal identity verification (PIV) middleware and PIV card application products. The deadline to submit comments on this draft is 5:00 PM on August 26, 2005.

8/5. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced that ICAT vulnerability database has been completely rewritten and has become the National Vulnerability Database (NVD).

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 subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for journalists, federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.