3/5. The U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir) issued its opinion [32 pages in PDF] in Qwest v. PUC Colorado and PSC Utah, a case regarding state approval of any "interconnection agreement".

47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(1) requires that "Any interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation or arbitration shall be submitted for approval to the State commission". In this consolidated appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments of the District Courts that agreements between Qwest and MCImetro are interconnection agreements that must be approved.

Qwest Corporation is a regional Bell operating company (RBOC) and incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) in the states of Colorado and Utah.

MCImetro Access Transmission is a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) that does business in the states of Colorado and Utah.

47 U.S.C. § 251 requires ILECs to interconnect with CLECs. Then, 47 U.S.C. § 252 requires that when ILECs receive a request for interconnection, they must either negotiate an agreement with the requesting party or submit to arbitration by a state regulatory agency. It further provides that the resulting interconnection agreement must be submitted to the state regulatory agency for approval.

The Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado (PUC Colorado) is the relevant state regulatory agency in Colorado. The Public Service Commission of Utah (PSC Utah) is the relevant state regulatory agency in Utah.

Also, 47 U.S.C. § 271 allows the RBOCs to offer long distance telephone service to their customers as long as they comply with certain conditions enumerated in the statute.

This case concerns whether agreements between Qwest and MCImetro are interconnection agreements that must be approved by the PUC Colorado and the PSC Utah pursuant to § 252, whether they are agreements wherein Qwest agrees to provide the services enumerated in § 271, or whether they are both.

The two companies previously negotiated an interconnect agreement covering 14 states that was submitted for approvals and obtained approved from the PUC Colorado and the PSC Utah. This case concerns a subsequent agreement titled "Qwest Master Services Agreement" that covered switching and shared transport.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) once had rules that required ILECs to provide these network element, but its Triennial Review Remand Order determined that switching and shared transport are no longer required elements in most instances. (These items remain on the § 271 list.) Hence, Qwest argued that the agreement is not an interconnection agreement within the meaning of § 252 that must be approved by the state regulatory agencies.

The PUC Colorado and PSC Utah both, independently, determined that the agreements must be submitted for approval under § 252. The U.S. District Court (DColo) and the U.S. District Court (DUtah) both affirmed. Qwest brought two appeals, which the Court of Appeals consolidated.

The Court of Appeals affirmed.

This case is Qwest Corporation v. Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 06-1132 and 06-4021, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, D.C. No. 04-CV-2596-WYD-MJW, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, D.C. No. 04-CV-1136-TC.

3/1. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave a speech in San Diego, California, in which he discussed the Department of Justice's (DOJ) enforcement of intellectual property laws, including its recent extradition from Australia to the U.S. of a leader of internet software piracy ring.

He said that "we are protecting investments in innovation by protecting intellectual property rights. From movies and music to business software, pharmaceuticals, and other hard goods, intellectual property is the engine of our economy. And where IP is stolen, business suffers."

Gonzales (at right) continued that "we have increased the resources devoted to protecting IP and correspondingly have increased prosecutions in this area. But in addition to prosecutions, we are also conducting outreach to prevent IP crimes from occurring in the first place."

He also discussed the DrinkOrDie prosecutions. He said that "last week, in one of the first ever extraditions for an intellectual property offense, the leader of one of the oldest and most renowned Internet software piracy groups was extradited to the United States from Australia."

Gonzales added that "The indictment against this individual, Raymond Griffiths, charges him with violating the criminal copyright laws of the United States as the leader of an organized criminal group known as DrinkOrDie, one of the oldest software piracy groups on the Internet."

The DOJ stated in a release on February 20, 2007, that a grand jury of the U.S. District Court (EDVa) returned an indictment back in 2003 that charges Griffiths with conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and criminal copyright infringement.

The DOJ release states that "DrinkOrDie was founded in Russia in 1993 and expanded internationally throughout the 1990s. The group was dismantled by the Justice Department and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as part of Operation Buccaneer in December 2001, with more than 70 raids conducted in the U.S. and five foreign countries, including the United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Australia. To date, Operation Buccaneer has resulted in 30 felony convictions and 10 convictions of foreign nationals overseas. Prior to its dismantling, DrinkOrDie was estimated to have caused the illegal reproduction and distribution of more than $50 million worth of pirated software, movies, games and music."

The text of Gonzales' March 1 speech and the February 20 DOJ release overlap.

Gonzales also touched on the DOJ's Antitrust Division's prosecutions related to DRAM price fixing. He said that the DOJ is "preserving the integrity of the marketplace and protecting fair competition by prosecuting cartels that try to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate markets. The division operates on the philosophy that the activity of cartels has no plausible justification -- that it is a direct assault on the competitive process and as such undermines the very foundation of our free market."

He elaborated that "we recently prosecuted four companies for fixing prices on the world’s most commonly used semiconductor memory product for computers. These companies were fined over $700 million -- the second largest amount of fines ever imposed in a single U.S. criminal antitrust investigation."

3/5. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the text [109 pages in PDF] of its Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in its proceeding titled "Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992".

This is the FCC's long delayed release of its video franchising order.

The FCC adopted, but did not release, this item on December 20, 2007. See, story titled "FCC Adopts Order Affecting Local Franchising Authorities" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,510, December 27, 2006.

Also, there were efforts in both the House and Senate in the 109th Congress to enact legislation regarding video franchising. The House approved its bill. The Senate Commerce Committee approved its own bill, but the full Senate took no action.

The order applies only to competitive entrants. It does not extend to incumbent cable operators. However, it tentatively concludes that it should. It requests further comments on this. Also, the FCC promises to complete the rulemaking, and issue its order, within six months. Six months would be September 5, just after the House and Senate return from the August recess.

FCC Chairman Martin summarized this item in his separate statement. He wrote that this item "finds that an LFA is unreasonably refusing to grant a competitive franchise when it does not act on an application within a reasonable time period, imposes taxes on non-cable services such as broadband, requires a new entrant to provide unrelated services or imposes unreasonable build-out requirements."

FCC Authority to Issue the Order. This order may be challenged on the grounds that the FCC lacks statutory authority. The order states that the FCC "has the authority to adopt rules to implement Title VI and, more specifically, Section 621(a)(1)."

However, the framework provided by Section 621 is that the local franchising authorities (LFAs) have authority over the franchising process, and that applicants for a second franchise who have been refused by the LFA have a right of appeal to the courts. This section contains no express grant of authority to the FCC to write rules, make findings, or give direction to the LFAs.

The FCC's order rests upon the clause in Section 621, "may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise". Opponents of this order argue that this is a limitation upon LFA authority that is enforceable by judicial review. The FCC argues that this clause implies that the FCC has authority to write rules. In effect, the FCC asserts that the Congress, without stating so, gave the states authority to administer the franchising process, but gave the FCC authority to write the states' underlying rules.

Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 541. Subsection (a)(1) provides that "A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 555 of this title for failure to comply with this subsection."

Incumbent cable companies, who face new competition from new video entrants, and local franchising authorities (LFAs), whose powers will be diminished by this FCC order, have both argued that the FCC lacks statutory authority. They argued in comments to the FCC that the judicial review provisions in Sections 621(a)(1) and 635 indicate that Congress gave the Courts exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce Section 621(a)(1), including authority to decide what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award.

The just released order states that "this argument reads far too much into the judicial review provisions. The mere existence of a judicial review provision in the Communications Act does not, by itself, strip the Commission of its otherwise undeniable rulemaking authority." (See, ¶¶ 53-64.)

The order also rejects arguments that the statute is unambiguous and needs no implementing regulations. The order also rejects the argument that the statute cannot give the FCC authority to regulate the awarding a competitive franchise, as opposed to the denial of a franchise.

The order also concludes that the statute does not reserve to the LFAs authority to determine the meaning of "unreasonably refuse".

The order also concludes that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 157notes, supports the conclusion that the FCC can write these rules. The FCC's order states that Section 706 "directs the Commission to encourage broadband deployment by utilizing ``measures that promote competition … or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.´´"

Actually, Section 706 directs the FCC and "each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction" to do this.

The order concludes that "we have clear authority to interpret and implement the Cable Act, including the ambiguous phrase “unreasonably refuse to award” in Section 621(a)(1), to further the congressional imperatives to promote competition and broadband deployment."

It adds that "Section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only an LFA's ultimate unreasonable denial of a competitive franchise application, but also LFA procedures and conduct that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise, whether by (1) creating unreasonable delays in the process, or (2) imposing unreasonable regulatory roadblocks, such that they effectively constitute an ``unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise´´ within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1)." (Footnotes omitted from this and other quotations of the FCC order.)

Summary of the Order's Discussion and New Rules. This item finds that "the current operation of the local franchising process in many jurisdictions constitutes an unreasonable barrier to entry that impedes the achievement of the interrelated federal goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment".

Hence, the FCC makes findings, renders clarifications, give direction, and adopts rules that address each of the problems with the current operation of the franchising process.

The order discusses buildout requirements at length. (See, ¶¶ 82-93.) The order states that "we find that it is unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a competitive franchise on the basis of unreasonable build-out mandates. For example, absent other factors, it would seem unreasonable to require a new competitive entrant to serve everyone in a franchise area before it has begun providing service to anyone. It also would seem unreasonable to require facilities-based entrants, such as incumbent LECs, to build out beyond the footprint of their existing facilities before they have even begun providing cable service". The order further addresses what might be unreasonable.

The order discusses franchising fees at length. (See, ¶¶ 94-109.) The order states that "any refusal to award an additional competitive franchise because of an applicant’s refusal to accede to demands that are deemed impermissible below shall be considered to be unreasonable."

The order then states, for example, that "We clarify that any requests made by LFAs unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap".

It also states that "We clarify that a cable operator is not required to pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable services. ... Thus, Internet access services, including broadband data services, and any other non-cable services are not subject to ``cable services´´ fees."

The order also discusses PEG/Institutional Networks. (See, ¶¶ 110-120.) It states that "we tentatively concluded that it is not unreasonable for an LFA, in awarding a franchise, to ``require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public, educational and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support´´ because this promotes important statutory and public policy goals.367 However, pursuant to Section 621(a)(1), we conclude that LFAs may not make unreasonable demands of competitive applicants for PEG and I-Net368 and that conditioning the award of a competitive franchise on applicants agreeing to such unreasonable demands constitutes an unreasonable refusal to award a franchise."

The actual rule changes are short and concise. The order creates a new §76.41 to the FCC's rules titled "Franchise Application Process".

First, subsection (a) of the new rule defines the term "Competitive Franchise Applicant" as "an applicant for a cable franchise in an area currently served by another cable operator or cable operators in accordance with 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)."

Incumbent cable operators remain unaffected. Although, the FCC's forthcoming second order may revise this.

Second, subsection (b) of the new rule provides as follows:

"A competitive franchise applicant must include the following information in writing in its franchise application, in addition to any information required by applicable state and local laws:
  (1) the applicant’s name;
  (2) the names of the applicant's officers and directors;
  (3) the business address of the applicant;
  (4) the name and contact information of a designated contact for the applicant;
  (5) a description of the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve;
  (6) the PEG channel capacity and capital support proposed by the applicant;
  (7) the term of the agreement proposed by the applicant;
  (8) whether the applicant holds an existing authorization to access the public rights-of-way in the subject f franchise service area as described under subsection (b)(5);
  (9) the amount of the franchise fee the applicant offers to pay; and
  (10) any additional information required by applicable state or local laws."

Third, subsection (c) of the new rule provides that "A franchising authority may not require a competitive franchise applicant to negotiate or engage in any regulatory or administrative processes prior to the filing of the application."

Fourth, subsections (d) and (e) of the new rule impose time limits upon LFA's. The FCC discusses this subsection at length. (See, ¶¶ 66-81.) Some critics refer to this as the "shot clock".

Subsection (d) of the new ruled imposes the time limits. It provides that "When a competitive franchise applicant files a franchise application with a franchising authority and the applicant has existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve, the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within 90 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. If a competitive franchise applicant does not have existing authority to access public rights-of-way in the geographic area that the applicant proposes to serve, the franchising authority must grant or deny the application within 180 days of the date the application is received by the franchising authority. A franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant may agree in writing to extend the 90-day or 180-day deadline, whichever is applicable."

The order explains that "We find that unreasonable delays in the franchising process deprive consumers of competitive video services, hamper accelerated broadband deployment, and can result in unreasonable refusals to award competitive franchises. Thus, it is necessary to establish reasonable time limits for LFAs to render a decision on a competitive applicant’s franchise application."

Subsection (e) of the new rule addresses the consequence of LFA failure to act within the time limits. It provides that "If a franchising authority does not grant or deny an application within the time limit specified in subsection (d), the competitive franchise applicant will be authorized to offer service pursuant to an interim franchise in accordance with the terms of the application submitted under subsection (b)."

Fifth, subsection (f) of the new rule addresses the effects of LFA denial of an application. It provides that "If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection (d) a franchising authority denies an application, the competitive franchise applicant must discontinue operating under the interim franchise specified in subsection (e) unless the franchising authority provides consent for the interim franchise to continue for a limited period of time, such as during the period when judicial review of the franchising authority’s decision is pending. The competitive franchise applicant may seek judicial review of the denial under 47 U.S.C. § 555."

Finally, subsection (g) of the new rule provides that "If after expiration of the time limit specified in subsection (d) a franchising authority and a competitive franchise applicant agree on the terms of a franchise, upon the effective date of that franchise, that franchise will govern and the interim franchise will expire."

Tentative Conclusion and Further NPRM. The order states that "We tentatively conclude that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs." (¶ 140)

The order notes that the "statutory provisions do not distinguish between incumbents and new entrants or franchises issued to incumbents versus franchises issued to new entrants."

Hence, the NPRM portion seeks comment on this tentative conclusion, the statutory authority for it, and "what effect, if any, the findings in this Order have on most favored nation clauses that may be included in existing franchises."

The FNPRM also addresses LFA mandates that video franchises provide customer service data on a franchise by franchise basis. The order states that "we tentatively conclude that we cannot preempt state or local customer service laws that exceed the Commission’s standards, nor can we prevent LFAs and cable operators from agreeing to more stringent standards. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion."

The order also states that the FCC "will conclude this rulemaking and release an order no later than six months after release of this Order."

Reaction. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking Republican on the House Commerce Committee (HCC), stated in a release that "The bipartisan work we did last Congress on cable franchising reform is already starting to bear fruit with statewide reform in some areas, and now the FCC is doing what it can on the municipal side, as well. This is good news, because the FCC's decision says we were right that the antiquated, city-by-city franchise process denies people the benefits of more video competition. Just about everybody realizes that now, and I'm happy to see that the FCC does, too. It's a shame that this job is getting done piecemeal, however, because Congress can't manage to pass comprehensive federal reform, but piecemeal is better than nothing."

However, Rep. Barton added that "I was disappointed to see that the FCC granted relief to new entrants like the phone companies, but not also to existing cable companies, large and small. By contrast, our legislation would have extended regulatory relief to cable operators, as well, once a phone company entered their markets. Only when all providers are set loose to compete against each other will consumers get the lower prices and higher quality that real competition always generates in a free market. My hope is that the FCC will remedy this inequity quickly in its ongoing proceeding."

Joe Savage, head of the Fiber to the Home (FTTH) Council, stated in a release that "We enthusiastically support the FCC's effort to fix the outdated and anti-competitive video franchising process ... This Order will help speed up the process of bringing consumers more choice, lower rates, and access to much higher-speed broadband networks."

He added that "The more fiber that is deployed, the more choices consumers will have in their home entertainment. ... And, given fiber's huge bandwidth advantages, today's FCC Order paves the way for a faster rollout of next-generation broadband throughout the country."

Walter McCormick, head of the USTelecom, stated in a release that the order "is a critical step forward in bringing consumers greater choices, exciting new services and vibrant video competition. Across the country, large and small telecom service providers are spending billions of dollars investing in new infrastructure to deliver high-speed Internet and innovative video services to their communities."

In contrast, Ben Scott of the Free Press stated in a release that "We have serious concerns about the authority of the FCC to issue these rules. ... Despite these unresolved questions of its legal authority, the FCC has issued this order with little regard for maintaining the public services that local governments have long protected. It is irresponsible to grant a blanket franchise without protections for public access TV and a reasonable build-out requirement to ensure that all households in a community enjoy the benefits of competition."

This item is FCC 06-180 in MB Docket 05-311. The FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [26 pages in PDF] on November 3, 2005. The FCC released the text of this NPRM on November 18, 2005. It is FCC 05-189. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Local Franchising of Video Services" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,247, November 4, 2005.

The FCC will shortly also publish a notice in the Federal Register. The petitions for review of this order will then be filed with the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

3/5. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was named Senate Republican Co-Chair of the E-911 Caucus. The other Co-Chairs are Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL). See also, E-911 Institute web site.

3/5. Fred Wentland joined Freedom Technologies, Inc. as Senior Vice President. Wentland is a former Associate Administrator for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Office of Spectrum Management. The founder and President of FTI is Janice Obuchowski, who was head of the NTIA during the administration of the first President Bush.

2/28. Oren Shaffer will retire as vice chairman and chief financial officer of Qwest Communications International Inc., effective April 1, 2007. John Richardson, who is currently controller and senior vice president of finance, will become executive vice president and chief financial officer. See, Qwest release.

The House and Senate will meet in joint session at 10:45 AM to hear Abdullah II bin Al Hussein, King of Jordan.

The House will take up HR 569, the "Water Quality Investment Act of 2007". See, Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar [PDF].

The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM. It will resume consideration of S 4, the "Improving America's Security by Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007", a bill that pertains to the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and unrelated matters.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day conference hosted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the proposed electronic Sentinel Network, to promote medical product safety. See, agenda. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 18, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 11, at Pages 2284-2285, and notice in the Federal Register, February 15, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 31, at Page 7441. The deadline to register to attend is February 28, 2007. Location: University System of Maryland Shady Grove Center, 8630 Gudelsky Dr., Rockville, MD.

9:00 - 11:00 AM. Day two of a two day meeting to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT). See, notice in the Federal Register, February 13, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 29, at Pages 6716-6717.

9:30 AM -12:30 PM. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division will hold another in their series of joint hearings regarding single firm conduct. This hearing will focus on different methods of evaluating monopoly power in single-firm conduct cases, including issues relating to market definition, the Cellophane fallacy, the use of direct evidence, single-firm markets, and technology markets. The speakers will be Andrew Gavil (Howard University School of Law), Richard Gilbert (UC Berkeley), Michael Katz (Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley), Philip Nelson (Economists, Inc.), Joseph Simons (Paul Weiss), Lawrence White (NYU's Stern School of Business). See, notice. Location: FTC Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

TIME CHANGE. 9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing to examine the policy implications of pharmaceutical reimportation from Canada. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

2:00 - 4:30 PM. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division will hold another in their series of joint hearings regarding single firm conduct. This hearing will focus on different methods of evaluating monopoly power in single-firm conduct cases, including issues relating to market definition, the Cellophane fallacy, the use of direct evidence, single-firm markets, and technology markets. The speakers will be Simon Bishop (RBB Economics), Thomas Krattenmaker (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati), Miguel de la Mano (Directorate General for Competition, European Commission), Joe Sims (Jones Day), and Irwin Stelzer (Hudson Institute). See, notice. Location: FTC Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

TIME CHANGE. 2:15 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws". The witnesses will be Thomas Barnett (Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division) and Deborah Majoras (Chairman of the FTC). Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) will preside. See, notice. Press contact: Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at Tracy_Schmaler at judiciary dot senate dot gov or 202-224-2154. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

2:30 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Digital Future of the United States: Part II -- The Future of Radio". The witnesses will include Mel Karmazin (CEO of Sirius Satellite Radio), Geoffrey Blackwell (National Congress of American Indians Telecommunications), Robert Kimball (RealNetworks), Gene Kimmelman (Consumers Union), and Peter Smyth (Greater Media). Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host a dinner. The speakers will include Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Gates will address online privacy, security, and internet safety. A reception will begin at 6:00 PM. Dinner will begin at 7:00 PM. Press contact: David McGuire at dmcguire at cdt dot org or 202- 637-9800 x106. Location: Ritz Carlton, 1150 22nd St., NW.

Day one of a three day conference of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) titled "IAPP Privacy Summit 2007". See, notice. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 Ninth St., NW.

TIME? The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an auction seminar for Auction 71, the broadband PCS spectrum auction to be held on May 16, 2007. See, DA 07-30 [69 pages in PDF].

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) International Bureau (IB) regarding a proposal to remove from the Section 214 Exclusion List those non-U.S. licensed satellites that have been allowed to enter the U.S. market for satellite services pursuant to the procedure adopted in the DISCO II order. See, FCC's Public Notice [4 pages in PDF] (DA 07-100). This proceeding is IB Docket No. 95-118.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM. for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar [PDF].

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day two of a two day conference hosted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the proposed electronic Sentinel Network, to promote medical product safety. See, agenda. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 18, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 11, at Pages 2284-2285, and notice in the Federal Register, February 15, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 31, at Page 7441. The deadline to register to attend is February 28, 2007. Location: University System of Maryland Shady Grove Center, 8630 Gudelsky Dr., Rockville, MD.

9:30 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing titled "The McNulty Memorandum's Effect on the Right to Counsel in Corporate Investigations". See, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty's memoranda [2 MB in PDF] which provide guidelines to federal prosecutors on using prosecutions, or threats of prosecution, to coerce waivers of the attorney client privilege. These practices diminish the AC privilege, undermine the work of corporate counsel, and expose corporations to third party lawsuits. See also, June 19, 2006, opinion [PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir) in In re Qwest Communications Securities Litigation, 450 F.3d 1179, certiorari denied, in which the Court rejected Qwest's argument that it could waive the AC privilege as to the government, put still assert the AC privilege in a Lerach class action. See also, "More News" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,395, June 20, 2006. See also, HJC notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

9:30 AM -12:00 NOON. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division will hold another in their series of joint hearings regarding single firm conduct. This hearing will focus on different methods of evaluating monopoly power in single firm conduct cases, including issues relating to market definition, the Cellophane fallacy, the use of direct evidence, single-firm markets, and technology markets. The speakers will be Andrew Chin (University of North Carolina School of Law), Robert Lande (University of Baltimore School of Law), Richard Schmalensee (MIT's Sloan School of Management), Alan Silberman (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal), and Michael Williams (ERS Group). See, notice. Location: FTC Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

9:30 AM. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, will participate in a panel discussion titled "Current Developments in Tax Policy" at the Tenant in Common Association's (TCIA) 2007 Spring Symposium. Location: Grand Hyatt, Constitution Ballroom, 1000 H St., NW.

10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science will hold a hearing on the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Location: Room H-309, Capitol Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold a business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of S 236, the "Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007". The agenda also includes consideration of several judicial nominees, including Thomas Hardiman (to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit). The SJC rarely follows its published agendas. Press contract, Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at 202-224-2154 or Courtney Boone (Specter) at Courtney_Boone at judiciary-rep dot senate dot gov or 202-224-2984. See, notice. Location: Room S-216, Capitol Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a hearing titled "Perspectives on the 2007 Trade Agenda". See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Morrow v. Microsoft, App. Ct. No. 2006-1512, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in a patent case involving Microsoft's smart tags technology. Location: Room 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

11:30 AM - 1:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Science Board's (NSB) Commission on 21st Century Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics will hold a partially closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 22, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 35, at Page 8032. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA. The public is excluded from attending the meeting. However, audio of the meeting will be available in NSF Room 1235.

12:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will host an event titled "Best Practices in Presenting (or Opposing) Transactions Before the FCC and the Antitrust Division of the US DoJ". The speakers will be Jim Bird (invited, head of the FCC's antitrust unit) and Hillary Burchuk (Department of Justice's Antitrust Division's Telecommunications and Media Enforcement Section). For more information, contact Teresa Lloyd at 202-986-8184 or tlloyd at llgm dot com. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) asserts that this event is a brown bag lunch hosted by its Transactional Practice Committee. Location: FCC, Conference Room 7 South, 445 12th Street, NW.

2:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (SCIIP) will hold a hearing titled "An Update -- Piracy on University Networks". See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science will hold a hearing on the Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Press contact: Kirstin Brost at 202-225-2771. Location: Room H-309 (limited seating), Capitol Building.

4:00 PM. Senior Privacy Advisor Toby Levin, International Privacy Policy Director John Kropf, Privacy Technology Director Peter Sand, and Privacy Compliance Director Rebecca Richards will participate on a panel discussion at the International Association of Privacy Professionals Privacy Summit 2007, Renaissance Hotel, 999 Ninth Street, NW.

RESCHEDULED FOR MARCH 15. 2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare advice on U.S. positions for the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Telecommunication Standardization Sector Study Group 3 (Tariff and accounting principles including related telecommunication economic and policy issues). See, notice in the Federal Register, January 11, 2007, Vol. 72, Number 7, at Page 1363. Location: undisclosed. See, rescheduling notice in the Federal Register, February 12, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 28, at Pages 6640-6641.

Day two of a three day conference of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) titled "IAPP Privacy Summit 2007". See, notice. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 Ninth St., NW.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM. for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's weekly calendar [PDF].

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee will hold a hearing titled "Combating Pretexting: H.R. 936, Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act". Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a panel discussion titled "Public Safety Communications: Time for a New Approach". The speakers will include Scott Wallsten (PFF moderator), Michael Calabrese (New America Foundation), Jeff Eisenach (Criterion Economics), Michael Gallagher (Perkins Coie), Steven Jones (First Response Coalition), and Janice Obuchowski (Frontline Wireless). See, notice and registration page. Location: Room B338, Rayburn Building./li>

8:00 AM - 6:00 PM. The Federal Bar Association will host its Annual Tax Law Conference. At 8:10 AM, there will be a panel on legislative developments. At 1:00 PM, Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, will give a a luncheon speech titled "Current Developments in Tax Policy". See, conference brochure [PDF]. Location: Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:00 - 3:00 PM. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a webcast continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Sourcing on a Global Basis- What to Do and How to Do It". The speaker will be Robert Zahler (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman). For more information, contact Mark Uncapher at muncapher at itaa dot org. Audio download copies will be sold after the event.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the Copyright Office (CO) regarding the January 31, 2007, meeting of the Section 108 Study Group in Chicago, Illinois. See, 17 U.S.C. § 108 and notice in the Federal Register, December 4, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 232, at Pages 70434-70440.

Day three of a three day conference of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) titled "IAPP Privacy Summit 2007". See, notice. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 Ninth St., NW.

Deadline to submit requests to participate as a panelist at the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) workshop titled "Proof Positive: New Directions in ID Authentication" on April 23-24, 2007. See, FTC release and notice in the Federal Register, February 26, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 37, at Pages 8381-8383.

Start of Daylight Savings Time in U.S. and Canada.

10:00 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee will hold its second meeting. See, Public Notice [PDF] (DA 07-734). Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305), 445 12th Street, SW.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Federal Information Systems Security Educators' Association (FISSEA) titled "FISSEA 20: Looking Forward ... Securing Today". See, notice. The price to attend is $360, not including hotel. Location: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD.

Deadline to submit to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) certain Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) related information -- system security and integrity (SSI) plans for providers of facilities based broadband internet access and interconnected voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services. See, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order [PDF] adopted on May 3, 2006, and released on May 12, 2006. It is FCC 06-56 in ET Docket No. 04-295. See also, notice in the Federal Register, December 27, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 248, at Page 77625.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Ninth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in its proceeding titled "Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band". The FCC adopted this item at its December 20, 2006, meeting. It is FCC 06-181 in PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT Docket No. 96-86. See, FCC's Public Notice [3 pages in PDF] (DA 07-41) and notice in the Federal Register, January 10, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 6, at Pages 1201-1204.

Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) regarding the U.S. request to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for consultations regarding refunds, reductions or exemptions from taxes and other payments owed to the government by enterprises in People's Republic of China. See, notice in the Federal Register: February 21, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 34, at Pages 7914-7915.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare advice on U.S. positions for the Organization of American States (OAS) Inter-American Telecommunications Commission's Permanent Consultative Committee II (Radiocommunication, including Broadcasting). See, notice in the Federal Register, January 11, 2007, Vol. 72, Number 7, at Page 1363, and revised notice in the Federal Register, February 12, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 28, at Pages 6640-6641. Location: undisclosed.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Federal Information Systems Security Educators' Association (FISSEA) titled "FISSEA 20: Looking Forward ... Securing Today". See, notice. The price to attend is $360, not including hotel. Location: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) regarding the request submitted by Hand Held Products for a determination that the hearing aid compatibility obligations in Part 20 do not apply to its mobile computing line of devices. See, FCC's Public Notice [PDF] (DA 07-103). This proceeding is WT Docket No. 01-309.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding Verizon's February 9, 2007, petition requesting a waiver of Section 61.42(g) of the FCC's rules in order to continue to exclude the services in FCC Tariff No. 20 from price cap indexes in annual access tariff filings. This pertains to services transferred from Verizon Advanced Data, Inc. (VADI) to Verizon. See, FCC Public Notice [3 pages in PDF] (DA 07-799). This proceeding is WC Docket No. 07-31.

8:00 AM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a breakfast. The speaker will be Richard Barth (Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security). The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 5:00 PM on March 8. The price to attend ranges from $30-$55. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave., NW.

9:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission". Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Internet Governance 101". The speakers will include David Gross (Department of State), Beckwith Burr (Wilmer Hale), Joe Sims (Jones Day), and Russ Hanser (Wilkinson Barker Knauer). The price to attend ranges from $15 to $20. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1250 H St NW B-1 Level.

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.