Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
February 8, 2002, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 364.
TLJ Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues
NTIA to Hold Spectrum Summit
2/7. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced that it will host an event titled "Spectrum Summit" in Washington DC on April 4-5. The DOC stated in a release that the summit "will address spectrum allocation and efficiency, the spectrum requirements of new technologies, and regulatory processes."
The DOC stated further that "The first day of the Summit will feature industry and government spectrum users, economists, analysts and technologists; the second day will be devoted to working sessions focused on the commercial, international and federal government perspectives. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell is scheduled to participate, as is David Gross, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State."
Commerce Secretary Donald Evans called spectrum a "national resource".
Cato Scholar Decries Spectrum Socialism
2/4. Adam Thierer, Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute, stated that the current spectrum regulatory regime constitutes "spectrum socialism". He spoke at a press breakfast in Washington DC.
"Something has to be done about spectrum. Spectrum socialism that we have lived under for seven decades plus now is creating a real crisis in America. And there is always going to be this problem of how to get enough spectrum in the hands of entrepreneurs for the things we need so long as we have an allocation mechanism process that is so political in character. And, of course, you have a problem with the Department of Defense and other long time incumbent users of spectrum, trying to free up a lot of the holdings that they have."
"The broadcasters are the biggest sinners," said Thierer. He referenced the "squatter right mentality that they have of holding on to spectrum."
The problem, said Thierer, "is basically the fact that we have no property rights in wireless ether -- in wireless spectrum -- in America. We only have a regulatory allocation mechanism which licenses out parcels of spectrum for specific uses, to specific users, conditioned upon fulfilling certain types of public interest requirements. All that is a mouthful for saying that we could have property in wireless technologies".
"We did not choose that regulatory model. It was an option at the time that spectrum started to become commercialized. But they choose not to go that way. That has had some very serious and adverse consequences. And there are some questions about how the telecommunications and technology sector would have evolved absent that sort of regulatory regime. Nicholas Negroponte at MIT Media Labs posits that there might have been a switch between technologies, where you would have had nearly all of our voice and other types of services going -- our communications system -- going through the air. You would have had data and other types of high intensity bandwidth uses going through pipes -- and television. Instead we have got television, this bandwidth hog, up there. And, you have got voice wires, wires that do basic voice data."
FCC Releases Annual 706 Report
2/7. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its third annual report [118 pages in PDF] on the "deployment of advanced telecommunications capability". It concludes that broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner.
The report states that "we will use the terms ``advanced telecommunications capability´´ and ``advanced services´´ to describe services and facilities with an upstream (customer to provider) and downstream (provider to customer) transmission speed of more than 200 kbps in this Report."
The report finds that "there has been appreciable growth in the deployment of high speed services to residential and small business consumers in the past eighteen months. Moreover, these figures reveal that high speed services are available in many parts of the country and suggest that certain factors -- such as population density and income -- continue to be highly correlated with the availability of high speed services at this time."
The report also finds that "there were a total of approximately 7.8 million high speed (including advanced services) residential and small business subscribers, as of June 2001. Approximately 4.3 million of these residential and small business customers subscribed to services that meet the Commission’s definition of advanced services."
The report concludes that "the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans is reasonable and timely."
All four Commissioners also wrote separate statements. Chairman Michael Powell wrote in his statement that "I agree with the Report’s finding that broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely manner, notwithstanding my firm belief that the Commission’s central policymaking focus is and should remain the promotion of efficient broadband deployment."
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy wrote in her statement that she concurred with the conclusion of the report. She also wrote that "I recognize that subscription rates lag far behind our estimates of infrastructure investment and facilities deployment. Many commenters are discouraged that the ``take rate´´ for broadband remains less than 10 percent, even as estimates of availability approach 80 percent. But we must keep in mind the Commission's role under the 1996 Act. Section 706 directs us to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability -- not to ensure that consumers purchase particular services."
Commissioner Kevin Martin wrote a statement in which he concurred with the result. He also commented on the minimal definition of "advanced telecommunications services" and advocated removal of regulatory barriers. He wrote that "I am concerned about the transmission speed of the services that are available to most subscribers. In making our determinations of the availability of ``advanced telecommunications capability,´´ we measure the deployment of services that offer transmission speeds of at least 200 kbps. Many argue that Internet access services at such speeds are merely transitional and that true broadband services should be defined at a much higher speed."
He also argued that "government can, and should, focus on removing barriers to infrastructure investment and eliminating disincentives to deployment, both financial and regulatory. For example, I believe the government should commit to exercising self restraint in placing financial burdens on broadband. Currently, at every level, government too often sees broadband deployment as a potential revenue stream. Telecommunications services are subject to federal and state excise taxes -- the kind of taxes traditionally reserved for decreasing demand for products such as alcohol and tobacco. New entrants to the broadband market face federal, state, and local rights of way management fees and franchise fees, which are sometimes intended to generate revenue rather than recover legitimate costs. All of these financial burdens discourage deployment and should be minimized. Government should also endeavor to remove regulatory underbrush".
Finally, Martin argued that the FCC needs to change its own regulatory environment, and that the FCC should focus on facilities based competition.
Commissioner Michael Copps wrote a dissent. He wrote that "I am unable to determine whether the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans is or is not reasonable and timely. This is because we have not gathered data of adequate quality or granularity to fulfill our statutory responsibility under Section 706. I cannot therefore endorse the conclusions of the majority and must respectfully dissent from this Report."
Section 706. This report is required by Section 706 of the Telecom Act of 1996. See, 47 U.S.C. § 157. It provides that "The Commission and each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment."
The Act also requires the FCC regular report on "whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion." The Act also provided that "The term 'advanced telecommunications capability' is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology."
See also, FCC release [PDF]. This is Docket No. CC 98-146.
DOJ Receives Over 30,000 Comments on Microsoft Settlement
2/7. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Microsoft filed a Joint Status Report (JSR) with the U.S. District Court (DC) in the DOJ's antitrust case. The report summarizes the public comments on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ).
The JSR states that "over 30,000 public comments" were received. However, this was largely the result of e-mail campaigns waged by interested parties. The JSR states that of the 30,000 submissions, "Approximately 1,250 comments are unrelated in substance" to the RPFJ. "Roughly 2,800 comments are ``form´´ letters or emails -­ essentially identical text submitted by different persons".
The JSR continues that "Approximately 19,500 comments express an overall view of the RPFJ but do not contain any further discussion of it". In addition, "Approximately 2,900 of the comments can be characterized as containing a degree of detailed substance concerning the RPFJ. These substantive comments range from brief, one- or two-page discussions of some aspect of the RPFJ to 100- or more-page, detailed discussions of numerous of its provisions or alternatives. The essence of many of these substantive comments overlaps with other comments; that is, numerous comments address at least some of the same issues or raise similar arguments. Of the above substantive comments, approximately 45 can be characterized as ``major´´ comments based on their length and the detail with which they analyze significant issues relating to the RPFJ."
The JSR also provides a breakdown of supporters and opponents of the RPFJ. "Of the total comments received, roughly 7,500 are in favor or urge entry of the RPFJ, roughly 15,000 are opposed, and roughly 7,000 do not directly express a view in favor or against entry. For example, a significant number of comments contain opinions concerning Microsoft generally, e.g., ``I hate Microsoft,´´ or concerning this antitrust case generally, e.g., ``This case should never have been brought,´´ but do not state whether they support or oppose entry of the RPFJ."
The JSR goes on to suggest that, contrary to the requirement of the Tunney Act, that the DOJ not be required to publish all of the comments in the Federal Register. It states that the cost would be about $4 Million, which would have to be paid for by the DOJ.
15 U.S.C. § 16(b), which is also known as the Tunney Act, requires the DOJ to publish any proposed settlement of a civil antitrust case brought by the U.S. It also requires the DOJ to file and publish a competitive impact statement. Finally, it provides for a public comment process.
House Passes Cyber Security Research & Education Bill
2/7. The House passed HR 3394, Cyber Security Research and Development Act, by a vote of 400 to 12. See, Roll Call No. 13. The bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and other members of the House Science Committee, would authorize the funding of new research and education programs pertaining to cyber security.
Rep. Ralph Hall (D-TX), the ranking Democrat on the Committee, stated that this bill "will generate the basic knowledge needed to develop technologies to protect networked information systems, and will help train the kinds of computer security professionals who are in short supply today."
The money would go to a variety of research and education projects. The bill contains new or additional funding for five National Science Foundation (NSF) programs. It would authorize appropriations of $233 Million over 5 years to the NSF to make "network security research grants". It would authorize $144 Million over 5 years to the NSF to award to universities "to establish multi disciplinary Centers for Computer and Network Security Research." These programs would fund research regarding "authentication and cryptography; ... computer forensics and intrusion detection; ... reliability of computer and network applications, middleware, operating systems, and communications infrastructure; and ...privacy and confidentiality."
The bill would also authorize funding to be administered by the NSF for training undergraduate university students ($95 Million), community college students ($6 Million), and doctoral students ($90 Million) in cyber security fields.
The bill also authorizes funding for programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). One item authorizes $275 Million for NIST to assist universities that partner with for profit entities in long term, high risk, cyber security research. Another item authorizes $32 Million for in house research at NIST.
Rep. Boehlert stated that "I am convinced that, over time, HR 3394 will come to be seen as a fundamental turning point in the nation's approach to cyber security. This bill is the equivalent of legislation the Congress passed in the wake of the Sputnik launch in the late 1950s."
Technology industry groups supported passage of the bill. Business Software Alliance (BSA) P/CEO Robert Holleyman stated after passage that "While we cannot fully know the threats of tomorrow, we must do what we can to prepare for them through well planned basic cyber security R&D carried out in close partnership with industry. Chairman Boehlert's bill is a much needed boost in this direction". See, BSA release.
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) P/CEO Harris Miller stated that the bill "is critical to increasing cyber security research, to building a larger base of information security professionals, and to improving information sharing and collaboration among industry, government and academic research projects. ... I urge the Senate to pass the bill soon and the Congressional Appropriators to fund the activities." See, ITAA release.
There is no companion bill now to HR 3394 in the Senate. However, there are other cyber security R&D bills. See, for example, S 1900, the Cyberterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002, and S 1901, the Cybersecurity Research and Education Act of 2002, both sponsored by Sen. John Edwards (D-NC). See also, HR 3162, the USA PATRIOT ACT, which was signed into law last year. It authorizes funding of $20 Million for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC). See, Section 1016. Also, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) may introduce legislation soon.
PPI Advocates State Issued Smart ID Cards
2/7. The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a Democratic think tank, released a report [PDF] titled "Modernizing the State Identification System: An Action Agenda". It concludes that "our identification system is broken" and that Congress should require states to modernize, through such technologies as smart ID cards.
The report first identifies the problem. It states that the "Sept. 11 hijackings illuminated many holes in our domestic defense. Four of the five hijackers who crashed into the Pentagon, for example, had fraudulent ID cards obtained in Virginia." It adds that "The industries that rely on the wildly unreliable identification system we have today have watched identity theft grow into a major industry."
The report states that "If done properly, a new identification system can not only reduce the threat of terrorism as well as more common crimes, but also lead to significant economic benefits. Placing 21st century technology on our driver’s licenses and ID cards will jump start the New Economy, making offline and online transactions more convenient and more secure than ever before."
The report opposes a national ID card. Rather, it proposes "Modernizing the current system, in which the primary form of identification is issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles in each state".
The PPI report recommends that Congress "require states to issue ``smart ID cards´´ containing a standardized hologram and digitally encoded biometric data specific to each holder; set standards for initial identity verification; accelerate the linking of state DMV databases; provide grants and loans for additional state smart card applications; upgrade the system for foreign visitors to incorporate a similar ``smart visa´´ program; and create strict controls to protect privacy and prevent abuses."
The report was written by Shane Ham and Robert Atkinson. The PPI also announced that Rep. James Moran (D-VA) will introduce legislation based on the recommendations in the report. See, PPI release.
Comments on the 6th Anniversary of the Telecom Act of 1996
2/8. Former President Clinton signed the Telecom Act on February 8, 1996. Many groups, companies and individuals used the occasion of the sixth anniversary of the Act to comment upon the Act, industry participants, and the state of competition and services.
Robert Sachs, P/CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), wrote a letter [PDF] to Members of Congress. He wrote that "Since passage of the ‘96 Act, and spurred largely by the stable regulatory environment it fostered, the cable industry has invested more than $55 billion to provide consumers advanced broadband services including high speed Internet access, digital video, residential phone service, and interactive television. This amounts to an average capital expenditure of nearly $1,000 per cable customer in those cable systems which have been upgraded since the '96 Act. And to date, cable systems serving approximately 80 percent of the cable customers in the U.S. have been upgraded."
Walter McCormick, P/CEO of the United States Telecom Association (USTA), used the occasion to advocate passage of the Tauzin Dingell bill. See, USTA release.
The Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America condemned the Act, and various industries, in a statement. They wrote that "Now, six years later, consumers are left wondering, ``Where is all the competition?´´ The vast majority of Americans continue to have only one choice of cable company and phone company. Bills are more expensive and harder to understand. Advertisements for ``cheap´´ long distance plans hide the monthly fees that erase the supposed savings for many consumers. Complaints about service problems continue to stack up. The Telecommunications Act was based on a faulty premise. It called for the deregulation of the telecommunications industry before competition existed or competitive forces had developed. It was based on the naive assumption that firms wanted to enter each other's markets and compete. Relaxing the government oversight of cable and phone monopolies has allowed them to merge, consolidate their control of core markets, and begin to expand their monopoly power into adjacent markets."
FCC Announces Agenda for February 14 Meeting
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced the agenda for its open meeting of Thursday, February 14. See, FCC release.
The FCC will consider a Notice of Proposed Rule Making initiating an examination of the legal and policy framework under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for broadband access to the Internet provided over domestic wireline facilities.
The FCC will consider a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order concerning the system for assessment and recovery of universal service contributions.
The FCC will consider a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making to adopt new procedures for licensing spectrum in which both commercial and noncommercial educational entities have an interest. (MM Docket No. 95-31, and motion for stay of LPTV auction No. 81.)
The FCC will consider a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and First Report and Order inviting comments on revising the procedures for considering satellite license applications. (IB Docket No. 00-248.)
The FCC will consider a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to establish a uniform consumer complaint process applicable to all services regulated by the FCC which are not currently covered by the common carrier informal complaint rules. (CC Docket No. 94-93.)
The FCC will consider a First Report and Order to provide for new ultra-wideband devices. (ET Docket No. 98-153.)
The FCC will consider a Second Report and Order regarding the allocation and designation of the 4940-4990 MHZ band; and a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making concerning the service rules for this band. (WT Docket No. 00-32.)
People and Appointments
2/5. President Bush nominated Read Admiral Michael Lohr to be Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy.
More News
2/6. Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) introduced S 1913, a bill to establish an exchange program between the Federal government and the private sector to develop expertise in information technology management. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
2/7. The FCC stated that it released its annual report on telephone subscribership rates. It found that 95.1% of all households in the U.S. had telephone service in July 2001, up .7% from July 2000. See, FCC release [PDF].
2/7. The Copyright Office published a notice in the Federal Register that it is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on "the requirements for giving copyright owners reasonable notice of the use of their works for sound recordings under statutory license and for how records of such use shall be kept and made available to copyright owners." Comments are due by March 11, 2002. Reply comments are due by April 8, 2002. See, Federal Register, February 7, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 26, at Pages 5761 - 5767.
Rogan Speaks on Capitol Hill
2/6. James Rogan, the new Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), spoke at a luncheon on Capitol Hill hosted by the Congressional Economic Leadership Institute. He stated that patent pendency and quality is going to be his primary focus. Intellectual property, said Rogan, "is the number one export of the United States economy."
He stated that currently there are about 3,200 patent examiners to handle about 300,000 applications per year. "Trying to just move through the technical backlog in that area presents a real challenge. Now, right now we don't have a problem on the trademark side. We do have a big problem on the patent side. Much of that is a result of our technological increase in know how."
He pointed out that many early patent applications were one page long, but that has changed. "Particularly, in the biotechnology area, in computer software, and so forth, the patents that we get are so sophisticated and so complex that we sometimes get them on CD-ROM. We got one recently that came in on six CD-ROMs that has the equivalent of twelve million pages of data."
He also addressed funding. "As Chairman Coble said, funding becomes an important issue in all of that because the fees, theoretically, for the PTO are adjusted so that we are a performance based organization. Ideally, I think that what the Chairman was trying to say is he has been a supporter, and many in Congress have been supporters, of the notion that the PTO would be run by the user community through its fees, and that we would set the fees according to our needs. And that has been what we have tried to do over the last several years. But when those monies are diverted, it precludes us from being able to do things, such as be able to hire examiners, and make the changes that we need. The good news ... is that in the President's budget, that he just sent up to Congress, there is a whopping 21% increase in the PTO's budget for the purpose, almost exclusively for the purpose, of hiring new examiners." He said that the increase, if approved by the Congress, would enable the USPTO to hire 950 additional patent examiners.
Several Representatives attended, including Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), the Chairman of the House Courts, Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, who asked Rogan about consolidation of the USPTO from 19 buildings to one building. Rogan said that "we are spread all over Timbuktu out there," but should be moved into the Old Towne Alexandria facility by the end of 2003. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) pressed Rogan about protecting intellectual property rights in Columbia. Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) asked Rogan about China. Rogan acknowledged that "piracy has been a longstanding problem in the People's Republic of China".
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked if the President's budget request would enable the USPTO to reduce patent pendency. Smith added that "a lot of patents are out of date by the time they are approved." Rogan responded that he hoped that it would reduce pendency, but added, "I don't know." Rogan elaborated that "there are some things that are out of our control." For example, he said that pharmaceutical companies are not in hurry, because of delays in obtaining other government permits. He added that "the real problem right now is in the engineering arts" because the USPTO has to compete with the private sector to hire from a small pool of graduates.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), and Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) also attended. Tech Law Journal spoke with Rep. Kolbe after the luncheon about the House Appropriations Committee and the President's proposed budget for FY 2003 for the USPTO. Rep. Kolbe is a member of the Committee, and its Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary. He stated "I think that there is general support", but added that it is a "tough budget year" because of national defense and homeland security needs. He added that the USPTO may not get everything that it wants.
Friday, Feb 8
The House will not be in session.
9:00 AM - 12:30 PM. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) will hold the second in a series of joint hearings on antitrust and intellectual property. There will be two concurrent sessions, titled "Patent Law for Antitrust Lawyers" and "Antitrust Law for Patent Lawyers". See, FTC release and DOJ release. Location: Rooms 432 and 332, respectively, of the FTC, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
TO BE DECIDED ON THE BRIEFS. 9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Chameleon Radio Corp v. FCC, No. 00-1546. Judges Edwards, Sentelle and Silberman will preside.
10:00 AM. Chris Murck, Chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, will speak on the U.S. relationship with China after the September 11 events, and in advance of President Bush's trip to Beijing on February 21. He will also comment on China's membership into the WTO and its likely impact on the global marketplace. For more information, contact Micaela de Leon Vivero at mdeleon or 202 778-1024. Location: Murrow Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
CANCELLED. 10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled "Should the Government Promote Open Source Software? "
10:30 AM. The Department of Commerce (DOC) will host a homeland security technology fair. Location: Main Lobby, DOC, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW.
12:15 PM. The FCBA's Wireless Telecommunications Practice Committee will host a lunch. The topic will be "Hot Wireless Issues on the Hill". The price to attend is  $15.00. RSVP to Wendy Parish at by 12:00 NOON on February 6. Location: Sidley & Austin, Room 6-E, 1501 K Street, NW.
Tuesday, Feb 12
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in WorldCom v. FCC, No. 01-1218. Judges Tatel, Garland and Williams will preside.
9:30 AM. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services will hold a hearing to examine multilateral non-proliferation regimes, weapons of mass destruction technologies, and the war on terrorism. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on accounting and investor protection issues surrounding the problems with Enron and other public companies. The witnesses will be five former Chairmen of the SEC, Roderick Hills, Harold Williams, David Ruder, Richard Breeden, and Arthur Levitt. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.
12:15 PM. The FCBA's Common Carrier Committee will host a brown bag lunch. Kathleen Abernathy (FCC Commissioner) and Nanette Thompson (Chair of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska) will speak about universal service. RSVP to Rhe Brighthaupt at rbrighth Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1750 K St., NW, 10th Floor.
12:15 PM. The FCBA's Transactional Practice Brown Committee will host a brown bag lunch on wireless transactions. RSVP to Tina Screven at 202 383-3337. Location: Wilkinson Barker & Knauer, 2300 N Street NW.
2:30 PM. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing to examine the theft of American intellectual property at home and abroad. Location: Room 419, Dirksen Building.
Wednesday, Feb 13
Day one of a three day conference titled Biometric Consortium Conference. The sponsors include the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) and the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Security Agency (NSA), the Department of Defense's Biometric Management Office (BMO), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the Federal Technology Service (FTS) Center for Smart Card Solutions. See, conference web site. Location: Hyatt Regency Crystal City, Arlington, VA.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Science Committee will hold a hearing titled "R&D Budget for Fiscal Year 2003: An Evaluation". Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.
11:00 AM. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "Trade War or Tax Reform? The WTO Ruling on Tax Breaks for U.S. Exporters". The panelists will be Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), Chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, William Reinsch, National Foreign Trade Council, John Meagher, Price Waterhouse Coopers, and Chris Edwards, Cato Institute. Cato will web cast the event. A luncheon will follow the program. See, Cato event summary. Location: Cato Inst., 1000 Mass. Ave., NW.
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled "Administrative Oversight: Are We Ready For A Cyber Terror Attack?". Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) will preside. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
5:00 - 7:00 PM. The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee will host an event titled "Reception and Technology Fair". Each of the Co-chairs of the Internet Caucus, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), is likely to speak. The Co-chairs of the Wireless Task Force, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), are likely to speak also. Location: Room 902, Hart Building.
Thursday, Feb 14
Day two of a three day conference titled Biometric Consortium Conference.  See, conference web site. Location: Hyatt Regency Crystal City, Arlington, VA.
The Forum on Technology and Innovation (Tech Forum) will hold a event relating to cyber security. The speakers will be Richard Clarke (Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security), Vint Cerf (WorldCom), and Bruce Schneier (CTO of Counterpane Internet Security). The Tech Forum was founded by Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and the Council on Competitiveness.
9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. See, FCC release. Location: Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.
2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information Subcommittee will hold a hearing on privacy, identity theft, and protection of personal information. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will preside. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
About Tech Law Journal
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 entities with multiple subscribers. Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are available for law students, journalists, elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and executive branch, and state officials. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert and news items are not published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2002 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.