8/9. Verizon and Google announced that they have reached an agreement regarding the regulation of broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers, which they urge the Congress to adopt as legislation.

See, two party proposal titled "Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal" and Google statement titled "A joint policy proposal for an open Internet".

Google's Alan Davidson wrote that this is a "suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers".

Core Consumer Protections. This proposal includes variations upon the three core consumer protection provisions found in the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) August 2005 Policy Statement, as well as various proposals styled as "network neutrality" or "internet freedom", such as the rules proposed by the FCC in October of 2009. See, "Text of Proposed Internet Regulation Rules" and related stories in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2.008, October 23, 2009.

See also, TLJ chart comparing the key language of the FCC's 2005 Policy Statement, the FCC's 2009 proposed rules, and the just released Verizon Google proposal.

That is, the Google Verizon proposal addresses consumers' accessing the content of their choice, consumers' running the applications and using the services of their choice, and connecting the devices of their choice.

Also, the Google Verizon proposal, like the 2005 policy statement and the 2009 proposed rules, subjects these three principles to the BIAS providers' reasonable network management practices (RNMP). However, the just announced proposal provides that a broader range of activity qualifies as RNMP. It also shifts some responsibility for determining what constitutes RNMP from the FCC to standard setting organizations.

The RNMP language of the just released proposal provides that BIAS providers "are permitted to engage in reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider's network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network."

The three core consumer protection provisions are also subject to a major limitations. They do not apply to wireless BIAS providers.

Thus, the proposal provides that non-wireless BIAS providers are prohibited from preventing their users from "sending and receiving lawful content of their choice", "running lawful applications and using lawful services of their choice", and "connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service".

Also, the devices item is more limited in this proposal than other network neutrality proposals. For example, the FCC's proposed rules provide an exception only for devices that harm the network. The Google Verizon proposal contains exceptions for devices that harm the network, as well as those that harm a service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service.

Competition. One element of the FCC's 2005 policy statement, and the FCC's 2009 proposed rules, is absent from the Google Verizon proposal -- the competition principle.

For example, the FCC's proposed rules provide that a BIAS provider "may not deprive any of its users of the user's entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers".

Non-Discrimination and Prioritization. A fundamental element of network neutrality proposals is the non-discrimination principle. This too is in the Google Verizon proposal. However, it contains a substantially watered down version.

The FCC's proposed rules, for example, provide simply that BIAS providers "must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner".

The just released proposal first exempts wireless BIAS providers, and then provides that non-wireless BIAS providers are "prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users." That is, discrimination is permissible if it is not both "undue" and does not cause "meaning harm to competition or to consumers".

Some discrimination that harms providers of other providers of content, applications or services, but which does not cause meaningful harm to competition or consumers, is permissible under the proposal.

However, the largest loosening of the non-discrimination principle is found in its concept of prioritization. The Google Verizon proposal adds that a BIAS provider "could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization."

The proposal does not define or explain the term "differentiated services".

Google's separate statement elaborates. It states that "our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options."

Various network neutrality proponents promptly labeled this as an exception that could swallow the rule.

For example, Benjamin Lennett of the New America Foundation (NAF) stated in a release that "The proposal's endorsement of differentiated services would completely undermine investment in the open Internet. Instead, such services incentivize providers to build a privatized broadband superhighway to carry the content and applications of only the largest Internet and media companies. This ``new Internet´´ would be completely managed and controlled by the ISPs, more like cable television than the open communication platform the nation has come to rely on for commerce and free speech."

Similarly, the Public Knowledge's (PK) Gigi Sohn stated in a release that "while there would be no pay for priority on the best efforts Internet, there are almost no limits on so-called ``managed services,´´ other than that they would need to be ``distinguishable in purpose and scope,´´ from the Internet. Thus, it is conceivable under the agreement that a network provider could devote 90% of its broadband capacity to these priority services and 10% to the best efforts Internet. If managed services are allowed to cannibalize the best efforts Internet, whatever protections are agreed to for the latter become, for all intents and purposes, meaningless."

On the other hand, Robert Atkinson, head of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), stated in a release that "A new generation of applications is emerging on the Internet that will ultimately require advanced treatment by network operators. Commercial Internet users have access to a wide array of service options today that they use to ensure that their most advanced applications, such as high-definition video conferencing, receive priority over more traditional applications such as web surfing. This is a constructive practice with considerable consumer benefit when implemented properly."

Transparency. The Google Verizon proposal contains a transparency requirement. This is the only requirement that it would impose upon wireless BIAS providers.

It states that All BIAS providers, including wireless, are "required to disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language about the characteristics and capabilities of their offerings, their broadband network management, and other practices necessary for consumers and other users to make informed choices."

Enforcement. The Google Verizon proposal addresses enforcement. It provides that BIAS is interstate, and that the FCC would have exclusive jurisdiction, thus eliminating state and local governments, as well as other federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), from enforcement.

It also proposes to preclude any private right of action.

It also proposes to deprive the FCC of rule making authority.

Finally, in the case of RNMP, it would require deference to standards setting organizations.

The Google Verizon proposal states that "The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions."

It also states that "The FCC could grant injunctive belief for violations of the consumer protection and non-discrimination provisions. The FCC would impose a forfeiture of up to $2,000,000 for knowing violations of the consumer-protection or non-discrimination provisions. The proposed framework would not affect rights or obligations under existing Federal or State laws that generally apply to businesses, and would not create any new private right of action."

The PK's Sherwin Siy stated in a release that "The section on ``case-by-case enforcement´´ directs the FCC to defer to rules set by industry-led advisory groups. Combined with the proposal's recommendation that the FCC have no rulemaking authority with respect to consumer protection and nondiscrimination, the agreement outsources the FCC’s powers and authorities to the very industries these rules are supposed to oversee."

In contrast, the ITIF's Atkinson stated in his release that "the framework captures the consensus that exists across the Internet ecosystem to the effect that case-by-case review of Internet business practices is preferable to overly-prescriptive rules".

Unrelated Issues. The proposal also addresses several issues that are not elements of network neutrality or internet freedom. For example, it proposes to expand the FCC's universal tax and subsidy program to cover broadband.

It also proposes to subject BIAS providers to disability access requirements. However, it does not propose to subject providers of applications or services to disability access requirements.

8/9. Some of the groups that have advocated that network neutrality mandates be adopted by Congressional legislation or by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules expressed opposition to Google and Verizon's legislative proposal. Some directly criticized Google.

Gigi Sohn, head of the Public Knowledge (PK), stated in a release that this agreement "is nothing more than a private agreement between two corporate behemoths, and should not be a template or basis for either Congressional or FCC action. It is unenforceable, and does almost nothing to preserve an open Internet. Most critically, it sacrifices the future of the mobile wireless Internet as this platform becomes more central to the lives of all Americans."

Joel Kelsey of the Free Press (FP) stated in a release that this agreement "would give companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T the right to decide which content will move fast and which should be slowed down. And it will destroy the open Internet as a platform for small business innovation and job creation, cementing companies', like Google's, dominant market power online."

The Free Press, and its allies, MoveOn.Org Civic Action, Credo Action, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Color of Change.org, also issued a joint statement. "The Google-Verizon pact isn't just as bad as we feared -- it's much worse. They are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google users won't be fooled."

Pact? As in Molotov Ribbentrop pact?

The PK and its allies continued that "this is not real Net Neutrality. And this pact would harm the millions of Americans who have pleaded with our leaders in Washington to defend the free and open Internet. President Obama, Congress and the FCC should reject this deal, restore the authority of the agency that's supposed to protect Internet users, and safeguard Net Neutrality once and for all."

The New America Foundation (NAF) stated in a release that "Now, the FCC, which until recently had been meeting with Google and Verizon behind closed doors, must decide if it will adopt rules written by two private corporations, or carry out its mission to protect the interests of the American public."

The NAF's Benjamin Lennett stated in this release that "We simply cannot afford to leave the open Internet to the whims of the largest Internet and communications companies, who have every incentive to create a market that prioritizes their own content and services, while limiting the potential of new startups, small businesses, and individual entrepreneurs.  The FCC must move forward with determining clear and enforceable rules to protect the open Internet for all users".

The PK also released a statement titled "Google Sold Out the Open Internet -- Help Us Protect It" on Monday morning, August 9, 2010.

The PK wrote, "Since late last year, we've been pushing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to place its authority to protect broadband consumers on firm legal ground. But faced with pressure from the largest cable and telephone companies, the agency has failed to act. Who is filling the void left by the FCC? Some of the world's largest corporations."

"In the absence of clear FCC authority, we can expect to see more deals like this in the near term. The largest telephone and cable companies and the largest web companies will carve up the Internet as they see fit, deciding who gets access to the Internet's fast lane while the rest of us are stuck in the slow lane", wrote the PK.

The PK further alleged that "some of the largest corporations on the web are lining up to put an end to the open Internet as we know it."

The PK concluded by asking its supporters to "Ask your member of Congress to demand that the FCC defend the open Internet NOW".

The Free Press (FP) also issued a release that contains the views of its allied groups. Becky Bond of Credo Action stated in this release that "Google's self-proclaimed motto is `don't be evil,´ but Google is about to cut a deal with Verizon that would end the Internet as we know it ... Google's corporate leadership needs to listen to its users and return to its roots as a strong defender of Net Neutrality."

Justin Ruben of MoveOn.org stated in this release that "Google has always presented itself as a different kind of corporate entity ... The fact that they are involved in a deal that would kill Internet freedom directly contradicts this image. We hope that Google will reconsider before they are seen as just another giant corporation out to make a buck regardless of the consequence."

8/9. Numerous other groups and individuals expressed their views on Google and Verizon's legislative proposal.

Tom Lenard, an economist who heads the Technology Policy Institute (TPI), stated in a release that "In my view, new regulation is not needed to preserve the open Internet. Nevertheless, the Verizon-Google proposal has to be viewed as a serious and constructive effort to address the policy impasse that the FCC has created for itself. The proposal has several good features. First, the proposal recognizes that wireless networks and markets are different from wireline broadband and should not be subject to the same requirements. Second, the proposal adopts a case-by-case approach for enforcing the proposal's consumer protection and non-discrimination requirements, which is a good thing. One improvement that could easily be made: require the FCC to apply a consumer welfare standard to these cases."

AT&T's Claudia Jones stated in a release that "We're not a party to this agreement, but will examine it closely. We remain committed to achieving a consensus solution to the net neutrality issue, either with the FCC or with the Congress. In that sense, the Verizon-Google agreement demonstrates that it is possible to bridge differences on this issue."

Robert Atkinson, head of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), stated in a release that "The common framework offered by Google and Verizon to the Congress is very useful starting point in the ongoing discussion of the Internet's evolution."

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) stated in a release that while "Verizon has shown itself to be among the more innovative and forward thinking Internet Access Providers ... It is especially unlikely that others in similar positions in the industry can be trusted to not abuse any rules with potential loopholes and weak preemptive enforcement authority, as evidenced by the deceitful and misleading lobbying campaign waged on this issue in recent years. Unfortunately, several decades of watching the communications industry evolve, both technologically and politically, leaves us skeptical that good faith implementation of the most positive principles enunciated by the agreement will happen absent clear FCC enforcement of Title II communications obligations and closing the many loopholes contained in the agreement."

Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), stated in a release that the "proposal falls short". She continued that "A spotty proposal from two companies is no substitute for real action that serves the public interest ... It is time for the FCC to step up and either issue rules or bring all parties -- including the public interest -- back to the negotiating table."

Consumer Watchdog (CW), a group that has also criticized the Google's proposed agreement with book publishers and the Authors Guild, stated in a release that "this proposal is nothing more than two corporations meeting together and trying to carve up the Internet for their own advantage".

CW's John Simpson stated in this release that "First, it sets up a two-tiered structure. There would be a so-called 'Public Internet,' but then the ISPs would be allowed to offer new premium services outside that basic service. How long to you think anything of interest would be available on the 'Public Internet'?"

"Second, no neutrality principles would apply to the wireless world. Everyone agrees mobile is clearly the Internet's future. Allowing data discrimination in the broadband wireless world completely undermines the future of the Internet."

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for morning hour, and at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider HR 1586 [LOC | WW], and HR 6080 [LOC | WW], the "Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010". See, Rep Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) schedule for the week of August 9, 2010, and schedule for August 10, 2010.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "The Legal Duty to Provide Information Security: Who, What, When, Where and How". The speaker will be Jay Westermeier (Finnegan). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. Reporters are barred from attending most DC Bar events. This event qualifies for CLE credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3488. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

9:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Commodities Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 145, at Page 44781. Location: CFTC, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st St., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to discuss preparations for the 2011 ITU-R World Radiocommunication Conference Preparatory Meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 21, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 118, at Page 35122. Location: 1200 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

Deadline to reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOI and NPRM) [222 pages in PDF] regarding high cost universal service subsidies and broadband. The FCC adopted and released this item on April 21, 2010. It is FCC 10-58 in WC Docket No. 10-90, GN Docket No. 09-51, and WC Docket No. 05-337. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 13, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 92, at Pages 26906-26916.

10:00 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Materials Technical Advisory Committee will hold a partially closed meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 28, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 144, at Pages 44227-44228. The BIS will teleconference this event. Location: DOC, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) [64 pages in PDF] that proposes to reclassify broadband internet access services as Title II services. The FCC adopted and released this NOI on June 17, 2010. It is FCC 10-114 in GN Docket No. 10-127. See, stories titled "FCC Adopts Broadband Reclassification NOI", "Reaction to FCC Reclassification NOI", and "Congress, the FCC, and Broadband Regulation " in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,097, June 18, 2010. See also, story titled "FCC Employs Fast Tracking and Stacking in Reclassification Proceeding" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,098, June 21, 2010. See also, notice in the Federal Register, June 24, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 121, at Pages 36071-36088.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) [30 pages in PDF] regarding Section 629 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 549(a), and enabling electronics manufacturers to offer smart video devices at retail that can be used with the services of any MVPD and without the need to coordinate or negotiate with MVPDs. The FCC adopted and released this item on April 21, 2010. It is FCC 10-60 in MB Docket No. 10-91, CS Docket No. 97-80, and PP Docket No. 00-67. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 14, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 93, at Pages 27264-27271.

Deadline to submit to the Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJ) objections to the negotiated royalty rates for the satellite carrier statutory license of the Copyright Act for the license period 2010-2014. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 13, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 133, at Pages 39891-39892.

Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding data collection forms for its Protected Repository for the Defense of Infrastructure Against Cyber Threats (PREDICT) initiative. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 14, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 113, at Pages 33629-33631.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding proposed changes to restriction practice in patent applications. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 14, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 113, at Pages 33584-33587.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to three public notices regarding FCC collection, use and dissemination of data. See, Media Bureau notice (DA 10-1195 in MB Docket No. 10-103), Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) notice (DA 10-1189 in WC Docket No. 10-132), and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) notice (DA 10-1223 in WT Docket No. 10-131). See also, FCC release.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft SP 800-125 [35 pages in PDF] titled "Guide to Security for Full Virtualization Technologies".

Deadline to submit comments to the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) request for information regarding the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). See, notice in the Federal Register, July 6, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 128, at Pages 38850-38853.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft NIST IR-7622 [86 pages in PDF] titled "Piloting Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Federal Information Systems".

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [99 pages in PDF] regarding access by telecommunications carriers and cable operators to utility poles. The FCC adopted and released this item on May 20, 2010. This item is FCC 10-84 in WC Docket No. 07-245 and GN Docket No. 09-51. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 15, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 135, at Pages 41337-41363. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts Pole Attachments Order and FNPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,087, May 26, 2010. See also, July 19, 2010, Public Notice (DA10-1323.)

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice [21 pages in PDF] requesting input and data on mobile wireless competition for the FCC's Fifteenth Annual Report on the State of Competition in Mobile Wireless. This item is DA 10-1234 in WT Docket No. 10-133.

1:30 - 4:00 PM. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion titled "Allocating Educational Spectrum". The speakers will be Richard Bennett (ITIF), Jim Johnston, and Noelle Ellerson (Association of School Administrators). The ITIF will webcast this event. This event is free and open to the public. See, notice and registration page. Location: ITIF, Suite 610a, 1101 K St., NW.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Part 1: Software Patent Primer: Acquisition, Exploitation, Enforcement and Defense". The speakers will be Stephen Parker (Westerman, Hattori), Brian Rosenbloom (Figg Ernst), Martin Zoltick (Rothwell Figg). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. Reporters are barred from attending most DC Bar events. This event qualifies for CLE credits. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3488. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft SP 800-130 [88 pages in PDF] titled "A Framework for Designing Cryptographic Key Management Systems".

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding amending its satellite television significantly viewed rules to implement Section 203 of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA). The FCC adopted this NPRM on July 22, 2010, and released the text [27 pages in PDF] on July 23, 2010. It is FCC 10-130 in MB Docket No. 10-148. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 28, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 144, at Pages 44198-44209.

8/9. Perhaps there is some similarity between how Google has approached and utilized the policy debates regarding imposing network neutrality mandates on broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers, and how it has approached and utilized the policy debates regarding fair use of works subject to copyright, to pursue its own financial objectives.

Google's books project, to the extent that its involved books still under copyright, was initially based upon Google's broad and unprecedented interpretation of the doctrine of fair use. Google did not obtain permission from rights holders. Rather, it relied upon limiting the rights of rights holders by law.

Google was long a leading advocate of broad fair use rights in public policy debates, and an ally and supporter of groups that advocate broad fair use rights.

Then, Google, which has been sued for copyright infringement, reached an agreement with publishers and the Authors Guild. It is seeking to establish a new legal framework, not via Congressional legislation, but through a wide ranging settlement of class action litigation. As the Department of Justice (DOJ) has pointed out in filings with the Court, the deal in some ways serves Google's interests to the exclusion of others.

There are similarities between Google's books deal and Google's network neutrality deal.

In the contexts of both fair use and network neutrality, Google neither acquired copyrights or permissions, nor built its own broadband network or contracted with network owners.

Rather, in both contexts, Google advocated a new legal regime that limited the rights of copyright holders and assignees, and a new legal regime that limited the freedom of BIAS providers to run their networks as they saw fit.

It both contexts, Google allied itself with, supported, and claimed the "public interest" interest title of, fair use and network neutrality proponents.

And then, in both contexts, Google negotiated a private deal, for the benefit of the parties to the deal, on the subjects of fair use and network neutrality.

In both situations, Google seeks to impose its private deal as a new legal regime, applicable to all. Although, in both contexts, the primary beneficiaries of the deals are the parties to the deal.

And finally, in both cases, Google left some of its erstwhile allies in the "public interest" community with a sense of abandonment and betrayal.

Google, like book publishers, movie and record companies, BIAS providers, and all other publicly traded companies, conducts its commercial and public policy advocacy activities in a manner that maximizes profits and shareholder value.

Background on Google Books. See, amended settlement agreement [173 pages in PDF] and original agreement marked up with amendments [179 pages in PDF], and story titled "Amended Settlement Agreement Filed in Google Books Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,015, November 16, 2009.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed pleadings criticizing components of the agreements. See, story titled "DOJ Files Pleading in Google Books Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,985, September 21, 2009, and story titled "DOJ Criticizes Amended Google Books Settlement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,043, February 12, 2010.

The Author's Guild filed a class action complaint against Google in the U.S. District Court (SDNY) on September 20, 2005. See, story titled "Author's Guild Sues Google for Copyright Infringement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,218, September 21, 2005.

Various large book publishers filed a complaint against Google in the same District Court on October 19, 2005. See, story titled "Major Book Publishers Sue Google for Digitizing Copyrighted Books" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,237, October 20, 2005. Both complaints alleged copyright infringement in connection with Google scanning and distributing books.

See also, story titled "University Publishers Accuse Google of Systematic Infringement of Copyright on a Massive Scale" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,142, May 25, 2005, story titled "Google, Publishers and Authors Debate Google's Print for Libraries Program" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,239, October 25, 2005, and story titled "Microsoft Counsel Says Google Systematically Violates Copyright" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,547, March 6, 2007.

8/9. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, and sets comment deadlines for, its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [110 pages in PDF] regarding changes to its universal service rural health clinics tax and subsidy program. Initial comments are due by September 8, 2010. Reply comments are due by September 23, 2010. The FCC adopted and released this item on July 15, 2010. It is FCC 10-125 in WC Docket No. 02-60. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 9, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 152, at Pages 48235-48272. See also, story titled "FCC Proposes to Expand Rural Health Clinic Universal Service Program" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,105, July 15, 2010.

8/9. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing recent Hart Scott Rodino (HSR) grants of early termination of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. See, Federal Register, August 9, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 152, at Pages 47810-47812.

8/6. The Copyright Office published a notice in the Federal Register that makes minor and nonsubstantial changes to its fourth triennial rules designating exemptions to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). See, Federal Register, August 6, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 151, at Pages 47464-47465. See also, story titled "Copyright Office Releases 4th Triennial DMCA Exemptions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,120, July 30, 2010.

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for a single recipient. 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 two months after writing.

For information about subscriptions, see subscription information page.

Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ credit card payments page.

TLJ is published by David Carney
Contact: 202-364-8882.
carney at techlawjournal dot com
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2010 David Carney. All rights reserved.