4/25. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Task Force on Telecom and Antitrust held an oversight hearing titled "Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation and Nondiscriminatory Access".

The witnesses were Paul Misener (Amazon.com), Earl Comstock (CompTel), Timothy Wu (Columbia Law School),  and Walter McCormick (U.S. Telecom Association). That is, there were three proponents of network neutrality rules, and one opponent (McCormick).

McCormick wrote in his short prepared testimony [4 pages in PDF], which he read, that "I make the same commitment to you that our member companies make to their customers: We will not block, impair, or degrade content, applications, or services." He said that "If a consumer wants to call Sears, we don’t connect them with Macy's", and that "The FCC has made it abundantly clear that it will move swiftly to protect consumers' right to be in control of their Internet experience."

McCormick was clear throughout his testimony that he was referring to his member companies' relationships with their customers, as opposed to the content providers that their customers access via their facilities.

He also said that "Our side believes that businesses that seek to profit on the use of next-generation networks should not be free of all costs associated with the increased capacity that is required for delivery of the advanced services and applications they seek to market."

And, he stated that "If you want more, then you pay more, is as American as it comes. It is a straightforward market proposition. As companies move into live video and gaming and advanced services, they will be seeking more bandwidth."

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the full Committee, grilled McCormick about statements made by AT&T P/CEO Ed Whitacre regarding charging Google and other content companies for use of networks.

McCormick said that his member companies need to be able to manage their networks, offer virtual private networks, and provide secure facilities.

Wu wrote in his prepared statement [7 pages in PDF] that "Ninety-four percent of Americans have either zero, one, or two choices for broadband access. Many of us wish things were otherwise, but they are not. Given today’s market, it’s obvious that a firm like AT&T may earn, at the margin, more money by distorting competition among internet firms. It can, through implicit threats of degradation, extract a kind of protection money for those with the resources to pay up. It’s basically the Tony Soprano model of networking, and while it makes some sense for whoever is in a position to make threats, it isn’t particularly good for the nation’s economy, innovation, or consumer welfare."

Comstock wrote in his prepared testimony [30 pages in PDF] that common carrier principles should apply to broadband access. He wrote that "the Internet depends on basic common carrier rules to ensure the availability of an essential facility, namely the transmission networks over which Internet applications reach businesses and consumers. Those basic rules required all common carriers – incumbents and competitors alike -- to provide non-discriminatory service upon reasonable request, to permit attachment of devices to the network, and to interconnect their networks with other operators on a non-discriminatory basis. Without this historic legal foundation, the Net neutrality principles that the FCC has articulated to ``protect´´ the Internet fall well short of that goal".

Misener wrote in his prepared testimony [23 pages in PDF] the most detailed explanation of how telephone companies and cable companies might degrade service to some content providers. It is the same argument that he presented to the House Commerce Committee at its hearing on March 30, 2006. See, story titled "House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Holds Hearing on COPE Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,341, April 3, 2006.

Misener wrote in his testimony for this hearing that "For the foreseeable future, nearly all Americans will have two or fewer providers available: the phone company, the cable company, or both. And, unfortunately, consumers will continue to face discouragingly high costs of switching between them; equipment swaps, inside wiring changes, technician visits, long term contracts, and the bundling of multiple services all contribute to these costs."

He continued that "what exists for the vast majority of Americans is, at best, a duopoly of the local phone and cable companies. Widespread deployment of alternative broadband technologies capable of high quality video remains a distant hope and, with yet another mega-merger in the works (this time AT&T and BellSouth), the promise of inter-regional local phone company competition is all but dead." (Parentheses in original.)

He added that "content providers currently pay network operators for the amount of connection capacity they use, and network operators can charge consumers different prices depending upon how much bandwidth they use. This sort of connectivity ``tiering´´ makes perfect sense."

He concluded in his written testimony that "We ask that Congress keep the telco and cable operators from taking their market power over broadband Internet access and extending it to market power over broadband Internet content."

Trinko and Antitrust. Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) (at right), who presided, asked "What would happen to antitrust and enforcement if the Commerce bill is passed?"

Misener responded that "I am concerned that if that were to be passed, then the holding in Trinko might actually prevent antitrust enforcement in this area."

On January 13, 2004, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Verizon v. Trinko, reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir). The Supreme Court held that a claim alleging a breach of an ILEC's duty under the 1996 Telecom Act to share its network with competitors does not state a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. This is a significant victory for the ILECs. See, story titled "Supreme Court Holds That There is No Sherman Act Claim in Verizon v. Trinko" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 815, January 14, 2004. This opinion is reported at 540 U.S. 398.

See also, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Verizon v. Trinko" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 620, March 11, 2003; and story titled "FTC and DOJ Support Grant of Certiorari in Verizon v. Trinko Antitrust Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 570, December 18, 2002.

Comstock said of the Commerce Committee's COPE Act, "as drafted, it appears to give exclusive authority to the FCC, and then limit that authority" to the FCC's network neutrality statement. He continued that "the concern would be that it might be  interpreted, especially in light of Trinko, to have preempted antitrust enforcement. And that is a major concern."

Comstock continued that there is "These entities, particularly the Bell companies, are claiming protection under the filed rate doctrine. There are issues having to do with whether I am directly buying services from them, whether I am an indirect purchaser, with respect to the antitrust laws, that we need clarification on. And I think having that Commerce Committee language that FCC has exclusive authority to deal with these matters might pose some problems as well."

McCormick said, "I am sure that if there is a concern that that language would have any negative impact on antitrust enforcement, we could probably reach an agreement among the three of us to let it drop out, and let the antitrust laws govern". He added that "if that language in that bill is a concern to these constituents, we could probably reach an agreement".

Cannon then asked, "would your organization support codifying those principles in antitrust law."

McCormick responded, "No. We believe that the antitrust laws are very explicit."

He added that "traditional antitrust analysis is the analysis that ought to be applied to this marketplace" and that "we shouldn't be subject to double jeopardy".

McCormick may have meant merely that he would be willing to drop Title II of the COPE Act, which provides that the FCC is authorized to enforce its August 2005 policy statement [3 pages in PDF] regarding network neutrality through case by case adjudicatory proceedings. However, he was not clear. He did not make himself available to reporters after the hearing.

Comstock also addressed this issue in his prepared testimony. He wrote that "The Supreme Court’s Trinko decision has been interpreted by some courts as limiting the availability of the antitrust laws to protect consumers and competition in the communications arena. The Court reasoned that no antitrust action arose because the FCC and a State regulatory body were actively regulating the anti-competitive behavior being complained of, and dismissed the case without ever examining the effectiveness of that presumed regulatory oversight. Yet the FCC has recently made significant changes to the structure of our Nation’s communications laws through its interpretations of specific provisions Congress added in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, effectively removing any regulatory constraints on the behavior of incumbent telephone and cable network operators, and the Supreme Court in Brand X appears to support the FCC’s decision not to regulate."

He added that "COMPTEL urges the Committee to introduce and adopt legislation creating a specific antitrust remedy to enforce Net neutrality by prohibiting anticompetitive behavior by transmission network operators. By using the private enforcement mechanisms and treble damages available under the antitrust laws, Congress can create an effective alternative to the FCC’s apparent unwillingness to implement the pro-competitive rules adopted by Congress in the 1996 Act. Further, the Committee should also include specific language to address the misperception created by the Trinko case, and adopt new legislation that makes clear that the antitrust laws continue to apply in addition to any regulatory regime that may or may not be implemented by a regulatory agency. Compliance with a specific regulatory regime that is actually being enforced by a regulatory agency should be available as an affirmative defense to an antitrust claim, but the mere presence on the books of a regulatory regime that is not being enforced should not be allowed to nullify the procompetitive effect of the antitrust laws."

Foreign Owned Telecom Monopolies. Misener also wrote and spoke about anti-competitive behavior by foreign telecom companies, some of which are monopolies. He wrote that "foreign broadband Internet access network operators have plans to restrict world-leading American content companies' access to overseas consumers".

He elaborated that "Recent news reports confirm that foreign network operators such as Deutsche Telekom and Telecom Italia also are interested in extending their market power over their networks to market power over content. Thus, if U.S. policymakers were to allow American network operators to extract oligopoly rents from American content providers, our policymakers would be simultaneously setting a precedent for allowing foreign operators to exercise the same leverage over world-leading American Internet content companies and their customers."

"American policymakers must consider the effects of our domestic regulatory actions on our global competitiveness." Misener continued that "If foreign network operators, almost all of which face no competition and are fully or partly owned by foreign governments, with obvious incentives to favor non-American content companies, are allowed to extract discriminatory rents from American content companies, our competitiveness both as an industry and a nation will suffer. Put another way, even if it were sound policy for Congress to allow American network operators to extract oligopoly rents from American content companies, it could not be sound policy to set the precedent for foreign network operators to extort payments from world-leading American content companies. How could our trade representatives challenge such actions abroad if we permit them here at home? Clearly, we must not lay the groundwork for every network operator around the globe to extort payments from American Internet companies. The only way we can hope to prevent this outcome is to hold the line domestically: we must not allow consumer choice of content to be artificially restricted by network operators with market power."

Copyright Liability. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) advanced the argument, which McCormick disputed, that if broadband service providers negotiate agreements with content providers, such as future Grokster type companies, then this will weaken their argument that they are merely providers of dumb pipes who have no liability for the infringement that takes place over their networks.

Swedish Model. Rep. Cannon also used this hearing to obtain testimony on the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), and municipal offerings of broadband services.

Three witnesses said that they support extending the ITFA, and one (Wu) said "why not".

Misener expressed support for municipal offerings of services. Rep. Cannon also asked Misener if he was familiar with the "Swedish model". Misener claimed that he had "no recollection" of her.

4/25. The House Commerce Committee (HCC) began its mark up of HR __, a yet to be introduced bill to be titled the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006", or COPE Act. HCC members made opening statements. The HCC will begin consideration of amendments at 10:00 AM on Wednesday, April 26.

The HCC's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet amended and approved the COPE Act on April 5, 2006. See, stories titled "House Subcommittee Approves COPE Act", "House Subcommittee Rejects Network Neutrality Amendment", and "Amendment by Amendment Summary of Subcommittee Mark Up of COPE Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,344, April 6, 2006.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the Chairman of the HCC, and sponsor apparent of the bill, summarized the bill. Title I of the bill provides that certain cable operators may obtain a national cable franchise. Title II provides that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is authorized to enforce its August 2005 policy statement [3 pages in PDF] regarding network neutrality through case by case adjudicatory proceedings. Title III extends the E-911 regulatory regime to voice over internet protocol (VOIP) service. Title IV provides that state and local entities may provide any telecommunications, information or cable service.

Rep. Barton said that the markup would continue into Thursday if required, but that he did not expect this to happen.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the HCC, read a prepared opening statement. He said that  "this bill promises many consumers more harm than good".

"First, some consumers may actually lose cable service. The cable industry admits that once cable companies switch to a national franchise, they may not continue serving all of the households they currently are required to serve. ... Second, even if service is not withdrawn, the bill lets operators avoid maintaining or upgrading facilities in certain neighborhoods. ... Third, the bill removes a current requirement on cable operators that as part and parcel of using the public rights-of-way, the operators must provide service to all households in a franchise area."

He also criticized the network neutrality language as too weak. He said that "The bill before us permits the private taxation of the Internet. Private tax collectors could single out certain Web sites to pay extra fees while they select others for preferential treatment. The open and innovative Internet has flourished under network neutrality legal protections until last year. Why should this Committee turn over control of the free flow of the Internet to the whims of cable and telephone companies?"

He concluded that "I cannot support the legislation as drafted." He added that he will have amendments, but did not identify what they would be.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) criticized the bill's lack of a hard network neutrality mandate. He said he and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) would offer an amendment.

He also criticized the national franchise section's lack of a build out requirement. He said the Rep. Dingell would offer an amendment on that topic.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) raised the subject of 47 U.S.C. § 332. She said that states are using the "other terms and conditions" phrase to regulate wireless services, and that this needs to stop. She said that she will offer an amendment, along with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA).

Subsection 332(c)(3)(A) provides, in part, that "Notwithstanding sections 152(b) and 221(b) of this title, no State or local government shall have any authority to regulate the entry of or the rates charged by any commercial mobile service or any private mobile service, except that this paragraph shall not prohibit a State from regulating the other terms and conditions of commercial mobile services."

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) said that he and Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS), Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) would offer an amendment regarding VOIP/E911.

Rep. Jan Shakowsky (D-IL) said that the lack of stronger network neutrality language threatens the innovative nature of the internet. She said that she will offer an amendment.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) said that he would offer an amendment to give local governments more enforcement authority.

4/25. The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing titled "A Review of Current Securities Issues". The sole witness was Chris Cox, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He spoke about, among other topics, the SEC's plans for XBRL.

XBRL is an acronym for "eXtensible Business Reporting Language". The SEC states in a summary of XBRL that "Interactive data relies on standard definitions to ``tag´´ various kinds of information, turning SEC financial reports that have previously been text-only into documents that can be retrieved through computer searches, and analyzed in a variety of spreadsheet programs and analytical software."

Cox wrote in his prepared testimony [PDF] that "In a well ordered market, educated consumers can choose from a number of competitive products, and find what they want at a price they are willing to pay. But in order to educate themselves, investors need comparative facts. So while investors must bear the responsibility of learning what they can about their investment choices, the correlative duty of sellers of investment products is to provide the relevant information. What's more, in order for investors to make sound decisions, the seller's information has to be understandable, accessible, and accurate."

Cox (at left) then discussed four initiatives being implemented by the SEC that are relevant to this. He wrote that one of these is "Moving from long, hard-to-read disclosure documents to easy-to-navigate Web pages that let investors click through to find what they want". And, this will be accomplished through the use of "interactive data".

Cox said that "The beauty of interactive data is that it will not only make today's 10Ks, proxies, and mutual fund prospectuses more useful to investors, but it will also reduce much of the time and expense that companies currently devote to filing SEC reports."

"The key to making this happen is looking at the data on the forms independently from the forms themselves. That's what we mean by interactive data. Computer codes can tag each separate piece of information on a report, and tell us what it is: operating income, interest expense, and so forth. That way, every number in a report or financial statement is individually identified, both qualitatively and quantitatively."

"For individual investors, this means they'll be able to quickly search for any information they want without slogging through an 80-page document. And it means they could search through our database not by the names of individual reports, but instead just by looking up the companies that file them", said Cox.

"In hearings and briefings before this and other committees, you've heard the technology variously described as data tagging, or XBRL, or my personal favorite, interactive data. But whatever one calls it, the point is the same: to allow investors to more easily access, search, analyze, and compare data provided by public companies. The move to interactive data represents a sorely needed upgrade in the SEC's electronic disclosure regime."

Cox also said that "EDGAR may be electronic, but it isn't interactive. It doesn't begin to tap the potential of the Web. Because today's EDGAR filings are really just snapshots of paper reports that are stored in electronic form, the information they contain isn't searchable. Nor can it be used in any of the myriad ways that electronic data now speed around offices, home computers, and the Internet."

He concluded that "Our aim is to move from long, hard-to-read disclosure documents to easy-to-navigate Web pages that let investors click through to find what they want. We want to emancipate the data from the page, and let it find its way across the Internet and around the world in the form of RSS feeds, AJAX applications, and whatever comes next."

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) wrote in his opening statement that Chairman Cox's "technology-driven proposals promoting electronic delivery of proxy materials and the use of interactive data will empower shareholders to make better informed investment decisions."

See, the SEC's February 2005 rule changes that initiated the SEC's XBRL Voluntary Program.

Chairman Cox and other SEC Commissioners have frequently spoken about the XBRL program. See for example, speech of November 7, 2005, in Tokyo, Japan, and speech of November 11, 2005, in Boca Raton, Florida. See also, story titled "SEC Chairman Cox Discusses Use of Interactive Data in Corporate Reporting" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,250, November 9, 2005.

See also, story titled "AEI Paper Urges Quicker SEC Development of XBRL for GAAP" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,324, March 7, 2006.

4/25. President Bush renominated Kevin Martin to be a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). See, White House release and release.

Commissioner Michael Copps stated in a release [PDF] that "I am pleased that the President has renominated Kevin Martin as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Kevin has been both a colleague and a friend since we came to the Commission together in 2001. We work well together. Early on, I learned that Kevin was not only a savvy policymaker but a consensus builder as well. More importantly, I quickly discovered he was a man of his word and an individual of character and integrity. I look forward to continuing to work with him on the many important issues before the Commission."

Commissioner Deborah Tate stated in a release [PDF] that "The announcement today by President Bush regarding his intention to nominate Kevin Martin for a second term as Chairman of the FCC is great news. It's great news for consumers, for our country, and for those of us who are honored to serve with him here at the FCC. Beginning first as a state official, and now at the Commission, I have seen firsthand his commitment to competition and technology-neutral policies that will spur economic growth, always balanced with his deep sense of public service. Congratulations to Chairman Martin, and I look forward to working with him during this exciting digital era."

Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein wrote in a release [PDF] that "I welcome the White House’s announcement of the renomination of Kevin J. Martin as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  Chairman Martin has proven himself a dedicated public servant, a thoughtful policymaker, and an energetic colleague during our time together on the Commission.  I look forward to our continued work together as we address the many challenging issues before the Commission."

Martin stated in a release [PDF] that "I am honored to have been renominated for a second term as Commissioner and Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.  I thank President Bush for the privilege to continue to serve in his Administration. This is an exciting time of growth and innovation in the communications sector.  I look forward to working with the Administration, Congress, my fellow Commissioners and the talented staff at the FCC to provide all Americans with the services and opportunities offered by the best communications system in the world today."

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The House may consider HR 5020, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007", subject to a rule. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 9:45 AM for morning business. It will then resume consideration of HR 4939, the "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006".

8:00 AM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a breakfast. The speakers will be Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA). Registrations and cancellations are due by 5:00 PM on April 20. The price to attend ranges from $30 to $55. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave., NW.

9:00 AM - 12:45 PM. The Cato Institute will host a conference titled "Copyright Controversies Freedom, Property, Content Creation, and the DMCA". Lunch will follow the program. See, notice and registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

SHORTENED TO ONE DAY. 9:00 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee will meet. The BIS regulates exports. The agenda includes "VOIP Networks". See, original notice in the Federal Register, April 13, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 71, at Page 19164, and revised notice in the Federal Register, April 20, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 76, at Page 20389. For more information, contact Yvette Springer at 202-482-4814. Location: Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold a hearing titled "Parity, Platforms and Protection: The Future of the Music Industry in the Digital Radio Revolution". The witnesses will be Todd Rundgren (lead singer of The New Cars), Victoria Shaw (songwriter), Edgar Bronfman (Warner Music Group), Gary Parsons (XM Satellite Radio), Bruce Reese (Bonneville International Corp.), Mark Lam (Live365), and Anita Baker (singer). See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones hearings without notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee (HCC) will continue its mark up of HR __, the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006", or COPE Act. See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202 225-5735. Location: Room 2123 Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee's (SCC) Subcommittee on Technology will hold a hearing titled "Fostering Innovation in Math and Science Education". This hearing will address "the importance of science and mathematics education from kindergarten through graduate school in fueling future developments in the 21st Century’s high-tech innovation economy". Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) will preside. The witnesses will be Mary Ann Rankin (University of Texas at Austin), Paul Dugan (Washoe County School District), Thomas McCausland (Siemens Medical Solutions), and Ioannis Miaoulis (Museum of Science, Boston). See, notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202 224-8456, Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing titled "Authorizations of Customs and Trade Functions". See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Financial Services Committee's (HFSC) Subcommittee on Capitol Markets will hold a hearing titled "America’s Capital Markets: Maintaining Our Lead in the 21st Century". Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold an oversight hearing titled "The Department of Justice: Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Civil Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Executive Office for United States Trustees, and Office of the Solicitor General". The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

RESCHEDULED FOR APRIL 25 AT 2:15 PM. 2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold a hearing on judicial nominations.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Key Court Rulings Affecting Information Technology Practices and Stategies". It will cover "key recent court decisions affecting the protection, licensing and distribution of computer software, databases and other information content. It will also examine decisions on liability relating to the creation, use, procurement, security and support of information technology and information systems, the Internet and e-commerce". The speakers will include J.T. Westermeier (DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary). The price to attend ranges from $70-$125. For more information, call 202 626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will host an event titled "FISMA Phase II Workshop on a Program for Accreditation of Information Security Assessment Services". See, notice. Location: NIST, Red Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

The House will meet at 10:45 AM for legislative business. The House may consider HR 5020, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007", subject to a rule. See, Republican Whip Notice.

SHORTENED TO ONE DAY. Day two of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee. The BIS regulates exports. The agenda includes "VOIP Networks". See, notice in the Federal Register, April 13, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 71, at Page 19164. For more information, contact Yvette Springer at 202-482-4814. Location: Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

9:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing titled "Patent Harmonization". The witnesses will be Todd Dickinson (General Electric Company), Robert Armitage (Eli Lilly and Company), Gary Mueller (Digital Now, Inc.), and Pat Choate (author of Hot Property: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globalization). See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

9:30 - 11:30 AM. The House Science Committee will hold a hearing on HR 5143, the "H-Prize Act of 2006". The purpose of this bill is to incent technological innovation by providing for the government to give monetary awards to businesses, universities, and individuals that innovate. It would apply only to hydrogen energy technologies. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones hearings without notice. Press contact: 202-224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies will hold a hearing on the budget for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Location: Room 309, Capitol Building.

11:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee for the 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-07 Advisory Committee) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 1, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 40, at Page 10530. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-C305.

2:15 PM. Day one of a two day conference hosted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) titled "Federal Preemption: Law, Economics, and Politics". See, notice. Press contact: Veronique Rodman at 202-862-4870 or VRodman at aei dot org. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

3:00 - 4:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Science Board will hold a closed meeting to discuss vacancies. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 12, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 70, at Page 18779.

5:15 PM. Deadline to submit to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) post-hearing statements and briefs regarding the probable economic effects of the proposed U.S.-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement. (The hearing is scheduled for April 20.) See, notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 39, at Pages 10066-10067.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "How to Protect and Promote Your Client's Artwork and Commercial Images". The speakers will include Allison Cohen (attorney) and Laura Possessky (Gura & Possessky). The price to attend ranges from $70-$125. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

Deadline to submit comments to the Library of Congress's Copyright Office regarding its proposed fee increases, to take effect on July 1, 2006. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 28, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 59, at Pages 15368-15371.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding pulver.com's and Evslin's petition [18 pages in PDF] for a rulemaking regarding number porting in emergencies. See, FCC notice [PDF] and story titled "Pulver Asks FCC to Require Greater Number Porting in Emergencies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,329, March 14, 2006.

The Republican Whip Notice states that "there are no votes expected in the House".

9:00 AM. Day two of a two day conference hosted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) titled "Federal Preemption: Law, Economics, and Politics". At 9:00 AM, there will be a panel titled "Modern Preemption Regimes: Financial and Network Industries". The speakers will be Randy Picker (University of Chicago law school), Richard Epstein (University of Chicago law school), and Judge Douglas Ginsburg (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia). Picker focuses on technology and network industries (see, SSRN author page), while Macey focuses on financial industries. See, notice. Press contact: Veronique Rodman at 202-862-4870 or VRodman at aei dot org. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

10:00 AM. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) will host an event. The CDT notice states that this is a "press-only breakfast briefing" regarding "prospects for technology-related legislation", including "privacy, electronic copyright, data security, government wiretapping and ``network neutrality,´´" and other topics. The speakers, all from the CDT, will be Jerry Berman, Leslie Harris, Jim Dempsey, Ari Schwartz, Nancy Libin, John Morris, Paula Bruening, and David Sohn. Breakfast will be served. RSVP to David McGuire at dmcguire at cdt dot org or 202- 637 9800 x106. Location: CDT, 1634 I Street, NW, 11th floor.

Extended deadline to submit comments to the Library of Congress's (LOC) Section 108 Study Group in response to the LOC's notice in the Federal Register regarding, among other topics, expanding the scope of 17 U.S.C. § 108. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 31, at Pages 7999-8002.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its draft [33 pages in PDF] of its "Special Publication (SP) 800-89: Recommendation for Obtaining Assurances for Digital Signature Applications".

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to ENUM LLC's petition for limited waiver to allow it to obtain North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbering resources. See, FCC notice [PDF].

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to AT&T's April 7 petition for a limited waiver of section 61.42(g) of the FCC's rules so that it may exclude True IP to PSTN (TIPToP) service from any price cap basket in the upcoming 2006 annual access tariff filing. See, FCC notice [PDF].

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding privacy of consumer phone records. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 50, at Pages 13317-13323. See also, notice of extension [PDF]. The FCC adopted this NPRM on February 10, 2006, and released the text [34 pages in PDF] on February 14, 2006. See, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Privacy of Consumer Phone Records" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,308, February 13, 2006, and story titled "FCC Rulemaking Proceeding on CPNI May Extend to Internet Protocol Services" in TLJ Daily E-Mail alert No. 1,310, February 15, 2006. This NPRM is FCC 06-10 in CC Docket No. 96-115 and RM-11277.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Tegic Communications, Inc. v. Board of Regents of the University of Texas. The U.S. District Court (WDWash) dismissed Tegic's complaint seeking a declaration that its software for hand held devices does not infringe the UT's U.S. Patent No. 4,674,112. The Court held that ii lacks subject matter jurisdiction because of 11th Amendment Immunity. See, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss [PDF]. See also, collection of pleadings and other documents. This case is App. Ct. No. 2005-1553 and D.C. No. C05-0723L. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "An Overview of Health Information Technology: Challenges and Opportunities". The speakers will include Mark Mantooth (Department of Health and Human Services), William Braithwaite (eHealth Initiative), Benjamin Butler (Crowell & Moring), and Robyn Diaz (MedStar Health). The price to attend ranges from $15-25. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

2:00 PM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Competitive Technologies v. Fujitsu. This case is App. Ct. No. 2005-1237. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

2:00 PM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Technology Licensing v. Thomson. This case is App. Ct. No. 2005-1562. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in All Computers v. Intel. This case is App. Ct. No. 2005-1271. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

1:30 - 5:30 PM. The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) will hold a closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 21, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 77, at Page 20732. Location: National Library of Medicine, Conference Room B, NIH Building 38, Room 2S04, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD.

Day one of a four day conference hosted by the Association for Computing Machinery titled "16th Annual Conference on Computer, Freedom and Privacy". See, conference web site. Location: L'Enfant Plaza Hotel.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Digital Content and Enabling Technology: Satisfying the 21st Century Consumer". See, notice. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202 225-5735 or Paul Flusche (Stearns) at 202 225-5744. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2006 on November 6-24, 2006, in Ankara, Turkey. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Page 15798. Location: __.

TIME? The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will hold a hearing on the proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the U.S. and Malaysia. The USTR seeks comments and testimony on "electronic commerce issues", "trade-related intellectual property rights issues", "barriers to trade in services", and other topics. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 22, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 55, at Pages 14558-14559. Location: __.

Day two of a four day conference hosted by the Association for Computing Machinery titled "16th Annual Conference on Computer, Freedom and Privacy". See, conference web site. Location: L'Enfant Plaza Hotel.

4/25. The Senate confirmed Gray Miller to be a Judge of the U.S. District  Court for the Southern District of Texas by a vote of 93-0. See, Roll Call No. 93.

4/25. Eric Miller was named acting Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). See, FCC release. He previously worked on the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Division's Appellate Staff. Before that, he worked in the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). He is also a former law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) and FISA appeals court.

4/25. The House approved HR 4709, the "Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006", by a vote of 409-0. See, Roll Call No. 101.

4/24. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced S  2630, a bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of caller identification information. It was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. Both Senators are members.

4/24. The Supreme Court issued an order in Microsoft v. AT&T, a patent infringement case. See, Order List [8 pages in PDF] at page 1. It states that "The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition." This is a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir). The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether or not to grant certiorari. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion [20 pages in PDF] on July 13, 2005. It affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court (SDNY) that Microsoft infringed U.S. Reissue Patent No. 32,580, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). Microsoft is represented by Ted Olson of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. AT&T is represented by Stephen Neal of Cooley Godward. Gregory Coleman of Weil Gotshal & Manges filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Software & Information Industry Association. This is Sup. Ct. No. 05-1056, App. Ct. No. 04-1285, and D.C. No. 01-CV-4872. See also, Supreme Court docket.

4/24. The Supreme Court denied rehearing in Norman v. BellSouth Intellectual Property, a domain name dispute involving the domain bellessouth.com. This is Sup. Ct. No. 05-718.

4/21. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, released a statement regarding theft of intellectual property in the PR China. She wrote that "Small business owners in Maine and across our nation are fighting to remain competitive with countries such as China that flagrantly disregard intellectual property rights. Specialized shoe manufacturer New Balance has grown so concerned with the magnitude of this problem that they were forced to file suit against `New Barlan,´ a Chinese shoe manufacturer that sells nearly identical shoes." She added that "While I am pleased that progress was made during last week's U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade meetings, China must better protect U.S. intellectual property. The massive distribution of pirated music, movies, software, pharmaceuticals and manufactured parts has led to lost jobs, lost royalties and lost sales for American businesses -- small and large. I call upon law enforcement agencies from China and the United States to ramp up their efforts to develop and prosecute intellectual property cases. Fraudsters and thieves must be held accountable for intellectual property crimes."

4/20. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cancelled its Auction 67, which had been scheduled fro August. This was the 400 MHz Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service auction. See, notice of cancellation [PDF]. This is Docket No. 06-38.

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 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.