12/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) issued its opinion [98 pages in PDF] in US v. Warshak, which involves application of the 4th Amendment to the government's ex parte seizure of approximately 27,000 of Warshak's private e-mails.

The Court of Appeals held that a subscriber enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of emails that are stored with, or sent or received through, a commercial ISP. The government may not compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of a subscriber’s emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.

The Court of Appeals drew analogies between e-mail and USPS mail and phone calls, which cannot be opened or intercepted without a warrant. It did not speculate in dicta regarding the application of the 4th Amendment to other forms of data stored with third party service providers, or cloud computing.

Introduction. In the present case the Court of Appeals held that Warshak held a reasonable expectation of privacy, so that since the government seized his e-mail from his ISP without a warrant issued pursuant to the 4th Amendment -- it only had an order issued under a lower Stored Communications Act (SCA) standard -- it violated his 4th Amendment rights.

Ordinarily, this would lead to exclusion. However, the Court of Appeals also held that since the government relied in good faith upon the SCA, the exclusionary rule does not preclude admission into evidence of those e-mails. Warshak's conviction is therefore affirmed.

The key aspect of this opinion though is the precedent that it sets going forward that there is a 4th Amendment expectation of privacy in stored e-mail. The government needs a warrant to seize it.

This opinion maintains the relevance of the 4th Amendment to e-mail . This is a huge victory for advocates of privacy and liberty interests in the context of government surveillance and seizures in the context new information technologies. This opinion is a set back overreaching and overzealous government prosecutors and agents.

This opinion also works to remove one disincentive to adopt new technologies.

This is an opinion in an appeal from criminal convictions for crimes associated with the marketing of "nutraceuticals" and "natural supplements". The underlying criminal activity is not technology related.

This matter has been before the 6th Circuit before. TLJ wrote extensively about two earlier landmark opinions. (For a detailed summary of the underlying facts, see the 2007 story.)

Previously, a three judge panel of the 6th Circuit held that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in stored e-mail. However, an en banc panel then vacated the earlier opinion on ripeness grounds. Due to the criminal trial and conviction, the issue was indisputably ripe for the present opinion.

See, June 18, 2007, three judge panel opinion [20 pages in PDF], and story titled "6th Circuit Holds That People Have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in E-Mail Stored With, or Sent or Received Through, an ISP" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,597, June 19, 2007. See also, July 11, 2008, en banc opinion [15 pages in PDF], and story titled "6th Circuit En Banc Panel Holds Warshak Case Lacks Ripeness" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,794, July 15, 2008. Warshak I is also reported at 490 F.3d 455. Warshak II is also reported at 532 F.3d 521.

The present opinion affirms in part the convictions of Steven Warshak and Harriet Warshak for conspiracy, mail fraud and other offenses. What is notable about this long opinion, and what is covered in this story, is the Court's discussion of Warshak's challenge to his conviction on the basis that the District Court admitted into evidence e-mails which the government seized from his ISP without a warrant.

The government obtained from a magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court (SDOhio) an ex parte sealed order directing NuVox Communications (which is now Windstream) to give it e-mail of Warshak. The order also prohibited NuVox from disclosing the existence of the order. The orders stated that they were issued pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. § 2703, which is part of the SCA. The order allowed the government to delay notice to Warshak for 90 days. The government delayed notice for one year.

More specifically, the government first made a request, pursuant to S 2703(f), to NuVox to preserve and archive Warshak's e-mail. NuVox did so. It then obtained from the District Court a subpoena pursuant to § 2703(b) to seize archived e-mail. It then obtained from the District Court an ex parte court order under § 2703(d) that required NuVox to surrender any additional email messages. Warshak did not receive notice of either the subpoena or order for one year.

The Court of Appeals held that the government violated Warshak's 4th Amendment rights by compelling his ISP to turn over the contents of his emails. However, the Court of Appeals also held that since the government agents relied upon the SCA in good faith, reversal is unwarranted.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) filed an amicus curiae brief on the e-mail issues.

4th Amendment and Katz. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution provides, in full, that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Katz v. U.S. in 1967. It is reported at 389 U.S. 347. In that case the FBI conducted a warrantless wiretap of a public telephone booth used by the defendant, and introduced the product of those wiretaps into evidence in a criminal trial.

The Supreme Court, with Justice Potter Stewart writing the opinion, held that warrants based upon probable cause are required for telephone wiretaps, even when the call is placed from a public phone booth. Stewart wrote that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

Former Justice Harlan used the phrase "constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy" in his concurrence. He elaborated that "My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ``reasonable.´´" (Parentheses in original.)

The just released opinion of the 6th Circuit relies upon Katz and its progeny. There is no prior Supreme Court or Court of Appeals opinion on the applicability of the 4th Amendment to e-mail held by an ISP, other than Warshak I and Warshak II.

The Congress followed up on the Katz opinion when it enacted the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which is Public Law No. 90-351. It included the Wiretap Act, which is now codified at U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522. Two decades later the Congress extended meaningful statutory protection to electronic communications, including stored communications.

Court of Appeals Opinion. The Court applied the Katz two part method of analysis: (1) there must be a subjective expectation of privacy, and (2) it must be an expectation that society is expected to recognize.

"Turning first to the subjective component of the test, we find that Warshak plainly manifested an expectation that his emails would be shielded from outside scrutiny. As he notes in his brief, his ``entire business and personal life was contained within the ... emails seized.´´" The Court of Appeals continued that "Given the often sensitive and sometimes damning substance of his emails,15 we think it highly unlikely that Warshak expected them to be made public, for people seldom unfurl their dirty laundry in plain view."

"The next question is whether society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable. ... This question is one of grave import and enduring consequence, given the prominent role that email has assumed in modern communication. Cf. Katz, 389 U.S. at 352 (suggesting that the Constitution must be read to account for ``the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication´´). Since the advent of email, the telephone call and the letter have waned in importance, and an explosion of Internet-based communication has taken place. People are now able to send sensitive and intimate information, instantaneously, to friends, family, and colleagues half a world away. Lovers exchange sweet nothings, and businessmen swap ambitious plans, all with the click of a mouse button. Commerce has also taken hold in email. Online purchases are often documented in email accounts, and email is frequently used to remind patients and clients of imminent appointments. In short, ``account´´ is an apt word for the conglomeration of stored messages that comprises an email account, as it provides an account of its owner's life. By obtaining access to someone's email, government agents gain the ability to peer deeply into his activities. Much hinges, therefore, on whether the government is permitted to request that a commercial ISP turn over the contents of a subscriber’s emails without triggering the machinery of the Fourth Amendment." (Parentheses in original.)

"In confronting this question, we take note of two bedrock principles. First, the very fact that information is being passed through a communications network is a paramount Fourth Amendment consideration."

"Second, the Fourth Amendment must keep pace with the inexorable march of technological progress, or its guarantees will wither and perish."

The Court of Appeals continued, "With those principles in mind, we begin our analysis by considering the manner in which the Fourth Amendment protects traditional forms of communication. In Katz, the Supreme Court was asked to determine how the Fourth Amendment applied in the context of the telephone. There, government agents had affixed an electronic listening device to the exterior of a public phone booth, and had used the device to intercept and record several phone conversations. ... The Supreme Court held that this constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, ... notwithstanding the fact that the telephone company had the capacity to monitor and record the calls, ... In the eyes of the Court, the caller was ``surely entitled to assume that the words he utter[ed] into the mouthpiece w[ould] not be broadcast to the world.´´ ... The Court’s holding in Katz has since come to stand for the broad proposition that, in many contexts, the government infringes a reasonable expectation of privacy when it surreptitiously intercepts a telephone call through electronic means." (Citations omitted.)

"Letters receive similar protection", even though they had handed to USPS employees. The Court continued that "Given the fundamental similarities between email and traditional forms of communication, it would defy common sense to afford emails lesser Fourth Amendment protection."

"Email is the technological scion of tangible mail, and it plays an indispensable part in the Information Age", the Court reasoned. "It follows that email requires strong protection under the Fourth Amendment; otherwise, the Fourth Amendment would prove an ineffective guardian of private communication, an essential purpose it has long been recognized to serve."

"If we accept that an email is analogous to a letter or a phone call, it is manifest that agents of the government cannot compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of an email without triggering the Fourth Amendment. An ISP is the intermediary that makes email communication possible. Emails must pass through an ISP's servers to reach their intended recipient. Thus, the ISP is the functional equivalent of a post office or a telephone company. As we have discussed above, the police may not storm the post office and intercept a letter, and they are likewise forbidden from using the phone system to make a clandestine recording of a telephone call -- unless they get a warrant, that is." The Court of Appeals added that "It only stands to reason that, if government agents compel an ISP to surrender the contents of a subscriber’s emails, those agents have thereby conducted a Fourth Amendment search, which necessitates compliance with the warrant requirement absent some exception."

However, the Court of Appeals did not go so far as to hold that all stored e-mail will be subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, it noted that "a subscriber agreement might, in some cases, be sweeping enough to defeat a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of an email account".

Government agencies might thus request, or pressure, service providers in the future to include such exceptions in their terms of service and customer contracts. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have considerable leverage over service providers, and have a history of using that leverage to promote the policy goals of federal law enforcement agencies.

But, the Court of Appeals also wrote that "the mere ability of a third-party intermediary to access the contents of a communication cannot be sufficient to extinguish a reasonable expectation of privacy". It added, "we are unwilling to hold that a subscriber agreement will never be broad enough to snuff out a reasonable expectation of privacy".

The Court of Appeals then wrote a lengthy analysis of the SCA, and concluded that the government acted in good faith reliance upon the SCA, and therefore, the email evidence need not be excluded.

This was a unanimous three panel decision. Judge Keith wrote an additional opinion. He addressed only the email issues. He agreed with the opinion of the Court, including that there was good faith reliance by the government. However, he wrote that he was troubled by the government's request that NuVox preserve Warshak's stored and future email communications without Warshak's knowledge.

Stored Communications Act. The SCA is codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712.

The SCA, like the rest of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), was drafted (in 1986) when many internet protocol (IP) based technologies did not yet exist. The statute is obsolete and fails to provide investigators, judges, carriers, ISPs, and affected persons clear guidance regarding its meaning. It is out of date and in need of revision.

There are proposals for reform, and the House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on the Constitution has held hearings in the 111th Congress. See, story titled "Digital Due Process Coalition Proposes Changes to Federal Surveillance Law" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,068, March 31, 2010. The actions of the government in this case suggest that the government is sometimes able to exploit obsolete language. This gives the government incentive to oppose revisions to the ECPA.

The SCA, which is now applied to stored e-mail, does not use the terms "e-mail", "e-mail service providers", or "internet service providers". Rather, it uses the terms "remote computing service", "wire communication", "electronic communication", "electronic communications system", and "electronic communications service".

As the following recitation of statutory sections shows, the Congress made it easier for the government to seize the content of electronic communications from a "remote computing service" than from a "electronic communication service". The DOJ categorized NuVox as a "remote computing service".

18 U.S.C. § 2711 defines the term "remote computing service" (RCS) to mean "the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system".

18 U.S.C. § 2510 defines "electronic communications system" to mean "any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photooptical or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire or electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications". It defines "electronic communication service" to mean "any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications".

Section 2510 also defines "wire communication" as "aural transfer", and "electronic communication" as "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system ...".

Second, there are the provisions of the SCA that allow the government to seize electronic communications.

Subsection 2703(a) covers access to electronic communications held by a "electronic communications service". It provides that "A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant ...". However, the government did not obtain a warrant, and did not follow this route.

Alternatively, subsection 2703(a) provides that "A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) ...". The government did not follow this route either.

Then, subsection 2703(b) covers access to "electronic communications" held by a "remote computing service" (RCS). First, it provides that "A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication ... without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant ...". But, the government did not follow this procedure either. This too would have required a warrant.

Alternatively, subsection 2703(b) provides that the government may require the RCS to disclose contents of electronic communications "with prior notice from the governmental entity to the subscriber or customer if the governmental entity ... uses an administrative subpoena ... or ... obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) ...". The government followed this route, to a point. This procedure does not require a warrant, but it does require prior notice.

Subsection 2703(d) sets the standard for issuance of a subsection 2703(b) order: "if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." This relevance standard is much lower than the 4th Amendment's probable cause standard. It is much easier for government to meet this standard. And, in the present case, the government was able to convince a magistrate judge that it had satisfied this lower standard.

This route, however, requires prior notice to the individual. However, subsection 2703(b) adds the qualifier, "except that delayed notice may be given pursuant to section 2705". 18 U.S.C. § 2705, in turn provides for a maximum delay of 90 days if the court determines that one of several conditions is present. One of these, that there is "reason to believe" that prior notification would lead to "destruction of or tampering with evidence". The government sought such a delay, and obtained it from the court.

Hence, the government obtained an order to the ISP to turn over the content of e-mail, pursuant to the low standard of relevance (rather than probable cause). The order further allowed no notice to the individual for 90 days. However, the government did not provide notice after 90 days. Rather it waited for over one year. That is, the government violated the statute and the Court's order.

This case is US v. Steven Warshak, Harriet Warshak, and TCI Media, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 08-3997, 08-4085, 08-4087, 08-4212, 08-4429, and 09-3176, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati, D.C. Nos. 06-00111, 06-00111-001, 06-00111-2, and 06-00111-7, Judge Arthur Spiegel presiding. Judge Boggs wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge McKeague joined. Judge Keith wrote an opinion in which he concurred in the result.

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 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.

12/14. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), who will be Chairman of the House Commerce Committee (HCC) in the 112th Congress, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its long running antitrust merger review of the Comcast NBCU transaction.

In this letter, Rep. Upton (at right) discloses some of his understanding of the FCC merger review process, and how the FCC ought to conduct merger reviews. First, they should be conducted quickly, efficiently and on the basis of facts and data.

He stated that as the FCC completes its Comcast NBCU review, "I urge you to maintain control over the process. This is a time when parties come out of the woodwork seeking leverage. Do not let opportunistic competitors or special interest groups undermine your regulatory process by using the transaction review as a vehicle to implement their industry-wise policy wishes or unwarranted conditions."

He added that "I will be troubled if it appears that the Commission is using this transaction to accomplish broader, partisan objectives that it does not have the policy support to impose industry-wide, that it might not have the authority to pursue were it not presented with a license transaction, and that the parties cannot object to without risking their proposed endeavor."

He also stated that "Comcast and NBCU have argued that, separately, they do not have market power in their respective distribution and content markets and that there is little overlap in their transaction. They further argue that means they will still not have market power in either of those markets if vertically integrated. If that is true, no conditions are justified. If it is not true, then only transaction-specific issues backed by specific findings that they have the ability and incentive to exercise market power in a harmful way are warranted."

12/14. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) announced that Gary Andres will be the Staff Director of the House Commerce Committee (HCC) in the 112th Congress.

Andres has worked at Dutko Worldwide since 1993, and is currently its Vice Chairman of Public Policy and Research. His Dutko biography states that he "conducts and analyzes public policy polling projects for Dutko clients".

It also states that "His extensive writing career includes serving as a weekly columnist for the Weekly Standard Online, and regularly contributing to publications like the National Review, Real Clear Politics, and Roll Call. He also writes a monthly column on presidential/congressional relations for Politco. His weekly column in the Weekly Standard Online is nationally syndicated on the Hearst Newspaper Wire."

12/14. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an agenda for its event scheduled for December 21, 2010, titled "open meeting". It includes adoption of two items: BIAS rules and a 911 NOI.

First, the FCC is scheduled to adopt a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding "the transition from the current, voice-only 911 system to a broadband-enabled, next-generation 911 system".

There exists the argument that the FCC has a history of inhibiting innovation and deployment of enhanced emergency communications capabilities in its pursuit of other policy objectives. See for example, subsection titled "DOJ, FCC and VOIP Based Emergency Communications" in story titled "DOJ CRD Requires Kansas City to Modify its 911 Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,080, April 26, 2010.

Second, the FCC is scheduled to adopt a Report and Order that contains rules that regulate broadband internet access service (BIAS). This GN Docket Number 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave a speech at a school in Washington DC on December 14 in which he stated that "the FCC is moving to preserve the open Internet. It's a vital part of what we need to do unleash innovation and protect free speech, to foster broadband investment and promote a vibrant economy creating great jobs for students like you."

He added, "that's why it's essential that we move forward next week to adopt the first enforceable rules of the road to protect Internet freedom -- and why I’m so pleased to have broad support for the effort from across the spectrum, including the tech community, leading venture and other investors, carriers, labor, and civil rights organizations."

This event is scheduled for, but may not start at, 10:30 AM on December 21 in the FCC's Commission Meeting Room at 445 12th Street, SW. The FCC will webcast this event.

12/8. William Lake, Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau (MB) gave a speech [9 pages in PDF] in which he said that the FCC will adopt a NPRM on retransmission consent.

He said that "We have decided we should move forward with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to explore a number of available actions. The Media Bureau will prepare a Notice that will take a broad look at what more we might do to advance the statutory objectives of allowing retrans fees to be set by market forces while protecting the interests of consumers."

He also said that "Our rules provide some limited guidance" "about what good faith means". Also, "We may try to identify additional practices that will be treated as per se violations of the duty to bargain in good faith. We may be able to provide more specifics about the meaning and scope of the ``totality of the circumstances´´ test."

In addition, "we may propose to strengthen our notice requirement and extend it to non-cable distributors and broadcasters. If some of our broadcast rules are thought to interfere with market negotiations, we may want to look at those rules."

Lake also observed that "The broadcasters see their ad revenues down and see the allure of a dual revenue stream. And the distributors feel stress on the amounts they have planned to pay for programming. The cash demands of broadcasters are rising faster than the distributors' willingness to pay, and the result has been a growing number of cliffhanger negotiations -- and some that have fallen off the cliff."

He added that a "statutory regime that relies on private business negotiations to set the terms for carriage but then tells the Commission to make sure the parties are negotiating in good faith and to watch that retrans fees don’t produce unreasonable basic cable rates. So what we have is a form of regulated negotiation."

The retransmission consent regulatory regime was established by the Cable Act of 1992, and is further implemented by rules promulgated by the FCC.

47 U.S.C. § 325 provides that "No cable system or other multichannel video programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a broadcasting station, or any part thereof, except ... with the express authority of the originating station".

That is, broadcasters can charge cable companies and other MVPDs for retransmission of their programming. The companies have been negotiating retransmission consent contracts for 18 years.

Gordon Smith, head of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), stated in a release that "NAB strongly endorses educating consumers with the multiple options available to them in the exceedingly rare instance when a retransmission consent dispute arises, including the antenna TV option. In the final analysis, injecting Washington into private business negotiations that have a 99 percent success rate only serves to embolden pay-TV companies.

Smith added that "If the pay-TV giants succeed, there will be further migration of premiere sporting events like the Super Bowl away from free TV, and a reduction in financial resources that sustains quality foreign language programming, local news and entertainment to a growing audience of more than 30 million Americans who rely exclusively on over-the-air television."

Matthew Polka, head of the American Cable Association (ACA), praised Lake's announcement in a release. He wrote that there is a "broken retransmission consent regime that local TV stations have been abusing to gouge cable operators and their customers for many years, especially in small markets where ACA members are most active."

He continued that "Procedural reforms designed to supply consumers with timely information and protect them from broadcasters' `blackmail or blackout' stratagems are a solid first step".

He added that "As the FCC moves ahead with its rulemaking early next year, ACA looks forward to pointing out the many flaws in a regulatory scheme that permits broadcasters to charge discriminatory fees to small cable providers and gain even more bargaining leverage over ACA members by entering into collusive agreements where one TV station jointly negotiates retransmission consent with a second station in the same local market."

Corrie Wright of the Free Press stated in a release that "This is a good step toward resolving retransmission disputes, but the FCC will need to do more than just help cable companies and broadcasters. A definition of good faith bargaining does little to stop companies from threatening to pull channels from subscribers, and it does less to help consumers who have lost channels they paid for during a blackout."

Wright added that "Both sides of this market are broken, and the only lasting fix will be empowering consumers with information about the prices and terms for carriage of each and every channel in their subscription, as well as giving them the right to opt out of paying for any unwanted channels. In the event of signals being pulled, consumers certainly should not have to continue to pay for channels that they no longer receive."

See also, release of Gigi Sohn, head of the Public Knowledge (PK), praising Lake's announcement.

See also, related TLJ stories:

• "Senate Commerce Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Retransmission Consent" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,158, November 17, 2010.
• "Cablevision and News Corp. Write FCC Regarding Retransmission Consent" TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,147, October 28, 2010.
• "FP and PK Urge FCC to Consider Retransmission Consent Implications of Comcast NBCU Transaction" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,145, October 22, 2010.
• story titled "Sen. Kerry Releases Draft Retransmission Consent Bill" and "Copps Comments on Retransmission Consent" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,144, October 21, 2010.
• "New Jersey Senators Ask FCC to Take Action Regarding Retransmission Consent Negotiations" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,142, October 19, 2010.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The schedule includes consideration of S 30 [LOC | WW], the "Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009", and S 3386 [LOC | WW], the "Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act" under suspension of the. The schedule also includes possible consideration of HR 4853 [LOC | WW], the vehicle for extending certain expiring tax provisions, including the research and development tax credit.

The Senate will meet at 9:30 AM. It will resume consideration of HR 4853 [LOC | WW], the vehicle for extending certain expiring tax provisions.

9:30 AM. The Common Cause will host a news conference regarding Senate filibuster reform. For more information, contact Mary Boyle at 202-736-5770 or mboyle at commoncause dot org. Location: National Press Club.

RESCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 21. 10:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may hold an event titled "open meeting". The agenda may include adoption of a network neutrality order. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host an event titled "Intellectual Property Law 2010: Year in Review Series: Patent Update". The speakers will be Eric Wright (Stites & Harbison) and Bradley Wright (Banner & Witcoff). The price to attend ranges from $89 to $129. For more information, contact 202-626-3488. See, notice. CLE credits. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

Deadline to submit applications to participate in the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Auction 90, regarding certain VHF construction permits. See, FCC September 8, 2010, Public Notice (DA 10-1351 in AU Docket No. 10-147) and notice in the Federal Register, September 23, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 184, at Pages 57947-57952. See also, November 1, 2010, Public Notice (DA 10-2008 in in AU Docket No. 10-147). And see, notice in the Federal Register, December 1, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 230, at Page 74719-74731.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The schedule for the week also includes HR 4853 [LOC | WW], the vehicle for extending certain expiring tax provisions. See, Rep. Hoyer's notice.

8:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The Atlantic and Government Executive will host an event titled "Cyber Security Forum". See, notice. Location: National Press Club,13th Floor, 529 14th St. NW.

9:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering Council (NANC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 30, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 229, at Pages 74051-74052. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room (Room TW-C305), 445 12th St., SW.

9:30 AM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will hold a hearing titled "Espionage Act and the Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised by WikiLeaks". See, notice. The HJC will webcast this event. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

9:30 AM - 4:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Right Division (CRD) will hold a hearing regarding its four notice of proposed rulemakings (NPRMs) that propose to expand the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to regulate certain communications and information technologies. See, story titled "DOJ/CRD Releases Advance NPRMs Proposing Expansion of ADA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,111, July 26, 2010. Location: U.S. Access Board, 1331 F St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) will host a lunch. The speaker will be Erwin Chemerinsky. The topic will be "Approaches to First Amendment regulations with the distinctions between traditional mediums disappearing with a lot of discussion of the Fox indecency case". The price to attend ranges from $25 to $40. See, registration form. Registrations and cancellations are due by 12:00 NOON on December 14. Location: Hogan Lovells, 555 13th St., NW.

5:30 - 7:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Homeland Security and Emergency Communications Committee will host an event titled "Holiday Happy Hour Mentoring Opportunity for Young Lawyers. The speakers will include James Barnett (Chief of the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau). For more information, contact Jeff Cohen at jeff dot cohen at mail dot house.gov or Mark Brennan at mark dot brennan at hoganlovells dot com. Location: Mandarin Hotel, Empress Lounge, 1330 Maryland Ave., SW.

TIME? U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and European Commissioner for Trade Karel DeGucht will hold a closed meeting. See, OUSTR calendar.

TIME? Miriam Sapiro (Deputy USTR) will hold a closed meeting with the member companies of the Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC). See, OUSTR calendar.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [58 pages in PDF] regarding universal service subsidies and certain 3G and next generation wireless services. The FCC adopted and released this item on October 14, 2010. It is FCC 10-182 in WT Docket No. 10-208. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 1, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 210, at Pages 67060-67077. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Universal Service Subsidies for 3G and Next Generation Wireless" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,142, October 19, 2010.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding expanding the FCC's universal service program to subsidize certain 3G and next generation wireless services. The FCC calls this its "Mobility Fund". The FCC adopted and released this item on October 14, 2010. It is FCC 10-182 in WT Docket No. 10-208. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 12, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 218, Page 69374-69395. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Universal Service Subsidies for 3G and Next Generation Wireless" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,142, October 19, 2010.

The House may meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. The schedule for the week also includes HR 4853 [LOC | WW], the vehicle for extending certain expiring tax provisions. See, Rep. Hoyer's notice.

10:00 AM. Deadline for foreign governments to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) regarding its Special 301 out of cycle review of the Philippines and Thailand. These reviews pertain to identifying countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 12, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 218, at Pages 69519-69520.

11:00 AM. The Broadcasting Board of Governors will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 13, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 238, at Page 77613. Location: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW.

12:00 NOON. Deadline to submit initial comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) regarding its review of the operation, effectiveness, and implementation of and compliance with various telecommunications agreements, including the World Trade Organization (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 18, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 222, at Pages 70770-70771.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding the appropriate date for the termination of analog operations in the low power television and Class A television services. The FCC adopted and released this item on September 17, 2010. This item is FCC 10-172 in MB Docket No. 03-185. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 18, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 200, at Pages 63766-63773.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding assignment of telephone numbers associated with internet based Telecommunications Relay Service (iTRS), Video Relay Service (VRS) and IP Relay. The FCC adopted this item on September 16, 2010, and released the text on September 17. It is FCC 10-161 in CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196, and WC Docket No. 10-191. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 2, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 211, at Pages 67333-67341.

Rep. John Boehner's (R-OH) office announced on December 14 that "Members are advised it is possible the House could be in session and voting into the weekend".

EXTENDED TO JANUARY 31. Deadline to submit initial comments to the Library of Congress's (LOC) Copyright Office (CO) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding federal coverage of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 3, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 212, at Pages 67777-67781. This proceeding is LOC Docket No. 2010-4. See also, story titled "Library of Congress Issues NOI on Extending Copyright Act to Pre 1972 Sound Recordings" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,150, November 8, 2010. See also, extension notice in the Federal Register, December 1, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 230, at Pages 74749-74750.

10:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an event titled "open meeting". The agenda [PDF] includes adoption of two items: broadband internet access service (BIAS) rules and a 911 notice of inquiry (NOI). See, story titled "FCC Releases Agenda for December 21 Meeting" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,179, December 15, 2010. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host an event titled "False Patent Marking: Now What?". The speakers will be Elizabeth Winston (Catholic University law school), Robert Shaffer (Finnegan), Maureen Browne (Covington & Burling). See, 35 U.S.C. § 292, regarding false marking. See also, the December 28, 2009, opinion [16 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) in The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company construing Section 292. See also, HR 4954 [LOC | WW]], an untitled bill, and HR 6352 [LOC | WW], the "Patent Lawsuit Reform Act of 2010"; both would amend Section 292; the House has passed neither. And see, story titled "Representatives Introduce Bill to Amend Patent Act Regarding Remedies for False Markings" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,067, March 30, 2010. The price to attend ranges from $40 to $55. For more information, contact 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

No events listed.