|House Approves Revised Version of Homeland Security Act
|11/13. The House passed
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, by a vote of
299-121, on Wednesday night, November 13. See,
Roll Call No.
477. It is a massive bill the creates a new Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), creates new powers and responsibilities, among other things.
President Bush submitted his first proposal to create a new DHS in June of 2002.
The House passed an earlier version of
the bill, HR 5005,
on July 26, 2002 by a vote of 295-132. The Democratic
controlled Senate did not act quickly on the bill, as did the Republican
controlled House. However, the Senate's objections were not related to the
information technology and cyber security related provisions of the House bill.
Since the November 5 general election, the legislation has been revised.
However, most of the key technology related provisions
from HR 5005 remain in HR 5710. Nevertheless, some of these provisions have
slightly different wordings, and new section or subsection numbers.
Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), the sponsor of the
bill, stated on the floor on November 13 that "this bill is essentially the same
bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last July".
FOIA Exemption. HR 5710 contains the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
exemption for certain critical infrastructure information voluntarily shared
with the federal government. It has been moved from Section 724 (of HR 5005) to
Section 214 (in HR 5710).
Cyber Security Entities Transferred. Section 201(g) of HR 5710 (which
was Section 202 of HR 5005) transfers several cyber security related entities to
the new DHS. It provides that "there shall be
transferred to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and obligations
of the following:
(1) The National Infrastructure Protection Center
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (other than the Computer Investigations
and Operations Section), including the functions of the Attorney General
(2) The National Communications
System of the Department of Defense, including the functions of the
Secretary of Defense relating thereto.
(3) The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office
of the Department of Commerce, including the functions of the Secretary of
Commerce relating thereto.
(4) The Energy Security and Assurance Program of the Department of Energy,
including the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center and the
functions of the Secretary of Energy relating thereto.
(5) The Federal Computer Incident Response
Center of the General Services Administration, including the functions of
the Administrator of General Services relating thereto."
Computer Security Division. The bill leaves the CSD at the NIST.
President Bush's original proposal provided for the transfer of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) to
the new DHS. However, last summer, the House Science Committee, and then, the
House Select Committee on Homeland Security, amended the bill to keep the CSD at
NIST. Technophile Members of Congress had opposed the transfer, as did many
technology groups, including the Computer &
Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and
Software and Information Industry Association
Privacy Officer. Section 222 of HR 5710 (which is similar, but not
identical, to Section 205 of HR 5005) creates a privacy officer for the new
department. HR 5710 provides that "The Secretary shall appoint a senior official
(1) assuring that the use of technologies sustain, and do not erode, privacy
protections relating to the use, collection, and disclosure of personal
information; (2) assuring that personal information contained in Privacy Act
systems of records is handled in full compliance with fair information practices
as set out in the Privacy Act of 1974; (3) evaluating legislative and regulatory
proposals involving collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by
the Federal Government; (4) conducting a privacy impact assessment of proposed
rules of the Department or that of the Department on the privacy of personal
information, including the type of personal information collected and the number
of people affected; and (5) preparing a report to Congress on an annual basis on
activities of the Department that affect privacy, including complaints of
privacy violations, implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, internal
controls, and other matters."
Under Secretary for Science and Technology. Section 301 of the HR 5005
created the position of Under Secretary of Science and Technology, and
established its responsibilities. This is now in Sections of 301 and 302 of HR
5710, with revised language.
Cyber Security Enhancement Act. HR 5710 also includes, at Section
225, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act. This section is related to
sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith
(R-TX). It passed the House as a stand alone bill on July 15, 2002. This section
contains provisions relating to sentencing guidelines for computer hacking
crimes, authority of Internet service providers (ISPs) and others to voluntarily
disclosure the content of communications to law enforcement and other government
entities, and other topics. See also, story titled "House Passes Cyber Security
Enhancement Act" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 470, July 16, 2002.
|FCC Releases AT&T Comcast Order
|11/14. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) released its
Opinion and Order [PDF] in the AT&T Comcast merger proceeding. This
order conditionally approves the merger.
This is the proceeding titled "In the matter of
Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses from Comcast
Corporation and AT&T Corp., Transferors, to AT&T Comcast Corporation,
Transferee". It is MB Docket No. 02-70. The FCC announced, but did not
release, this order earlier this week.
Some of the broadband Internet related parts of the Order are summarized
Unaffiliated ISP Access. FCC states that it will not mandate
nondiscriminatory access to unaffiliated ISPs. The Order notes that "Each
Applicant operates a proprietary broadband Internet access service. In addition,
Comcast has entered into an agreement with United Online, Inc (“United Online”)
pursuant to which United Online markets and sells a high-speed ISP service to
residential customers using Comcast’s cable modem platform. AT&T has entered
into similar agreements with EarthLink, Net1Plus, Internet Central and Galaxy
Internet Services. EarthLink began offering such service over AT&T’s systems in
greater Seattle in July 2002, and in New England in October 2002. In connection
with the TWE Restructuring Agreement, the Applicants will enter into a
“three-year non-exclusive agreement” with AOL Time Warner under which AOL
high-speed broadband service would be made available on AT&T Comcast cable
systems (the “AOL ISP Agreement”)."
The Order also notes that "Comcast, AT&T, and AT&T Comcast have entered into
an agreement with Microsoft, which provides that, for a specified period of
time, if AT&T Comcast offers a high-speed Internet service agreement to any
third party on any of its cable systems, AT&T Comcast will be obligated to offer
an Internet service agreement on non-discriminatory terms with respect to the
same cable systems to Microsoft’s ISP, The Microsoft Network (“MSN”)."
The Order states that "Several commenters are concerned about the ability of
unaffiliated ISPs to access the merged firm’s facilities, a concern the
Commission has addressed in prior cable mergers, and is addressing in our Cable
Modem NPRM. These commenters urge us to deny the merger, or, at a minimum, to
condition the merger on a requirement that the merged firm offer unaffiliated
ISPs nondiscriminatory access to their cable modem platform."
However, the FCC rejected these commenters' request. It wrote in the Order
that "We have never mandated, as a merger condition or in any other context,
that any cable operator provide access to its systems to unaffiliated ISPs. ...
Having evaluated, as we have in prior license transfer proceedings, the
Applicants' pre-merger and post-merger incentive and ability to deny
unaffiliated ISPs access to their cable systems, we conclude that the merger is
not likely to reduce unaffiliated ISP access to the Applicants' cable
systems. Therefore we will not condition the merger on such access or deny the
merger on these grounds."
Internet Content. The FCC also declined to imposed any conditions
regarding Internet content. The Order states that "Some commenters assert that
the merger would present harms affecting Internet content. Specifically, they
allege that: (1) the merged firm will have the incentive and ability to favor
affiliated broadband content and discriminate against unaffiliated content; (2)
the merged firm will limit access to its affiliated content, which would reduce
the amount of content available to subscribers of competing broadband access
services and harm competing providers of such services; and (3) the merged firm
will have monopsony power in the market for the purchase of broadband content.
Commenters claim that these concerns are particularly acute with regard to the
delivery of video programming over the Internet, an offering that would compete
not only with the merged firm's affiliated broadband content, but also with its
core multichannel video programming business. We conclude that the merger is not
likely to result in harms to the quantity, quality, or diversity of Internet
content, and we decline to impose conditions or reject the merger on the basis
of alleged harms to Internet content."
DSL Relief. The FCC also declined to provide regulatory relief to the
incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). The Order notes that "Several commenters assert that because the merged
firm will enjoy an unprecedented share of the broadband Internet access market,
the merger should be denied or conditioned on establishment of regulatory parity
for incumbent LECs, either by relaxing or removing regulations applicable to
incumbent LECs or by imposing requirements on the merged firm to make its
regulatory status more similar to that of incumbent LECs."
The FCC concluded in the Order that "We decline to relax or remove regulations applicable to incumbent LECs
in the context of this proceeding, to condition our approval of the merger on
actions that we may or may not take in the context of other proceedings, or to
impose new requirements on the merged firm in order to give the merged firm a
regulatory status of an incumbent LEC. We do not agree with incumbent LECs that
the merged entity’s size poses a risk of harm to DSL service, and we will not
reject the merger on these grounds."
FCC Antitrust Merger Reviews? FCC officials frequently state that the FCC
does not conduct antitrust merger reviews. Rather, they state that the FCC conducts reviews of
license transfer requests; and in so doing, it applies a public interest
For example, the Order asserts that "The DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission
(“FTC”) review mergers pursuant to section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits
mergers that are likely to substantially lessen competition in any line of
commerce. The Commission, on the other hand, is charged with determining whether
the transfer of licenses serves the broader public interest."
But then, the Order continues that its public interest analysis includes
competition analysis. And the Order, throughout, engages in competition
analysis. The words "competition" or "antitrust" appear in the Order over 80
In a related event,
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy gave speech regarding spectrum management
at a November 14 Cato Institute event. She was asked about public safety
concerns and the FCC's decision in the EchoStar DirecTV merger, which the FCC
declined to approve last month. She responded, in part,
that "that was really antitrust law".
|Federalist Society Panel Discusses Privacy and
|11/14. The Federalist Society hosted a
panel discussion titled "Telecommunications
Group: Privacy, Telecommunications, and Technology: Does
Emerging Technology Force New Privacy Considerations?" The speakers
were Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, Stewart Baker
of Steptoe & Johnson, Jerry Berman
of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT),
Reid Cox of the Center for Individual Freedom, and James Harper
of privacilla.org. Judge Stephen
Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, moderated.
Commissioner Abernathy gave a review of two FCC rulemaking proceedings, and
federal court reviews of those proceedings, that pertain to privacy: Customer
Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) and
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). CALEA is a
statute that was enacted in 1994 to enable law enforcement authorities to
maintain their existing wiretap capabilities in new telecommunications devices,
such as cell phones.
Abernathy (at right) reviewed the
of the U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir)
in US West v. FCC, which overturned an earlier FCC CPNI rule which
contained an opt in requirement. The Court held that carriers have a First
Amendment interest in using their customer information to communicate with
their customers. See, 182 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct.
2215 (Jun. 5, 2000).
Baker took issue with a Safire piece in the New York Times.
William Safire wrote an sensationalistic
op ed on November 14 titled "You Are a Suspect". In it he wrote that "Every purchase you make with a
credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you
fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic
grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every
event you attend" will go into one big government database run by "disgraced
admiral" John Poindexter.
Baker said that law enforcement authorities could have easily found 11 of the 19
hijackers of September 11 if they have made use of available commercial
databases. He added that if companies can use this data to market telephone
service plans, the government ought to be able to use to to protect the country
from terrorist attacks.
He said that "big government needs big information to fight terrorism" and that
"we need to be able to get to data in an efficient way". He added that we
currently have a "failed system for protecting privacy". He says there is too
much focus on getting permission ahead of time to conduct searches. Instead, the
focus should be more on auditing the users of data.
James Harper got
philosophical about the nature of privacy. He stated that "to generalize about
privacy is typically wrong". First, it is subjective. He cited religious and
political beliefs as examples. Some people proselytize and campaign, while
others are intensely private about their beliefs. He added that "very often, in
addition, many privacy debates carry a lot of other debates within them. In
Congress we deal with privacy, but it might be security you are talking about,
it might be spam. It might be any of half a dozen separate information policy
He offered a definition of privacy: "Privacy is a subjective condition that
exists when two factors are in place; first, when people have legal power to
control information about themselves, and second, exercise that power consistent
with their values and interests."
He stated, with respect to the subjective nature of privacy, that "Law and
regulation aimed at privacy is very likely only to be a fair approximation of
what Congress or regulators thought privacy should be at the time. And so, it is
sort of inherently flawed when you try to get to privacy through direct law or
He continued that "The second factor is exercise of legal power consistent with
interest and values. And, I think that is really the crux of the privacy
problem. It is getting people to understand how information moves in the
information economy, and then act according to their interests in light of that
knowledge. The Internet did change how information moves." He suggested that the
"online privacy problem, the telecommunications privacy problem, probably will
last about a generation, because teenagers today have fantastic knowledge, and
innate understanding of how information moves today in the online world."
Harper then applied the "legal power" component of his definition of privacy. He
said that "legal power implicates government. What does the government do to
erode power over personal information."
He then said that the second part of his definition, regarding exercise of that
power, "implicates markets". "How do companies learn about people's privacy
interests? How do they deliver them? How do individuals themselves learn what
their privacy interests are?"
Harper elaborated that "The two rule makings that Commissioner Abernathy
referred to fall into these two separate categories. Essentially, CALEA goes to
the question of what legal power telecommunications companies will have to offer
their users, and in those contexts, I encourage the FCC, and probably Congress
needs it more, to be as protective of consumers' power over information as they
possibly can. This will deliver privacy in the context of CALEA. In an area like
CPNI, the question is markets. And, I think, agencies and Congress are out of
their league when it comes to figuring out privacy. We have seen examples in
several different areas. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, Title 5
of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, HIPAA ... Each of them go to a version of privacy
that maybe have something to do with what people think is important to them.
But, most likely, what you have been delivered with those laws are higher
prices, less services available to you in the market place, and not much privacy
at all." See also,
prepared text of Harper's remarks.
Judge Williams related that he now get lots of privacy
notices in the mail, and that he immediately throws them away.
The panelists were asked about how to get away from the Supreme Court's
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), which held, in the context of pen
registers, that individuals have no expectation of privacy regarding information
that they convey or entrust to third parties.
Berman suggested the more productive route was to pass legislation protecting
privacy, rather than to rely on the courts. He said that when the public speaks
up on a privacy issue, the Congress will pass legislation.
Baker said that reconsidering Smith v. Maryland is an "appalling" idea. He
said the government needs that information.
Abernathy was asked whether there is a 5th Amendment takings clause issue when
the FCC restricts a company's right to use its customer data.
"Yikes!," responded Abernathy. "We didn't have to address that".
She offered the following reasoned legal analysis: "It's dicey."
|FCC Relieves Winning Bidders in Auction 35
|11/14. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) announced, but did not release, an Order that some Auction
35 winning bidders "that request dismissal of their pending applications will be relieved
of their bid obligations and receive a full refund of their deposits". See,
FCC release [PDF]. Auction 35 is the FCC's re-auction of spectrum previously
auctioned to NextWave, and now tied up by litigation.
The FCC announced also that "The relief granted today applies only to Auction No. 35 winning
bidders of licenses for C and F block Personal Communications Services spectrum that had
previously been licensed to NextWave Personal Communications Inc., NextWave Power Partners Inc., or
Urban Comm-North Carolina, Inc." The FCC further stated that "it will
waive default rules for bidders that elect the relief granted today. The Order also imposes no
restrictions on electing bidders’ ability to acquire such spectrum in future
auctions. Eligible winning
bidders must make an election not later than 45 days from the release of today’s
Order, which also includes
procedures for requesting dismissal and refunds and Department of Justice approval."
Michael Powell released a
statement [PDF]. He wrote that "The Auction 35
road endured by all the parties and the public has been long and difficult.
While bidders were forewarned of the risks attending the Auction, and the
Commission has pursued settlement and afforded bidders partial, interim relief,
barriers to licensing remain. As the months have passed and the economic
difficulties worsened, it has become increasingly clear that allowing the
eligible Auction 35 winners to exit the auction is the right course. I recently
outlined six components of a successful telecommunications recovery. Reduction
of debt was among its highest priorities. Although the Commission cannot cure
the capital crunch, it can remove the cloud of uncertainty that has followed the
Auction 35 winners. Approximately three weeks ago, the record in this docket
closed and today we take that step."
Kathleen Abernathy wrote in a
statement [PDF] that "I enthusiastically support today's Order. I have long
believed that the delays occasioned by extensive litigation, when combined with
significant changes in the marketplace over the last several years, lead us to
today's result. In light of the ongoing uncertainty regarding our ability to
award these licenses and current economic conditions, I do not believe the
public interest is served by tying up deposits and, perhaps worse, subjecting
carriers to the risk of having to produce billions of dollars on short notice if
the Commission prevails in the U.S. Supreme Court."
Kevin Martin wrote in his
dissenting statement [PDF] that "Today the Commission
finally takes action to relieve the winning
bidders in Auction No. 35 of their obligations. The history of this Auction
and the commensurate litigation has been long and tortured. This spring the
Commission refunded a substantial portion of the
monies on deposit to the winning bidders, but left their obligations in
place. In light of the on-going economic burden of these obligations and the
continuing litigation, the Commission should not keep these obligations in
place any longer. Indeed, I have long thought that the Commission could and should
provide an additional stimulus to the industry and the economy as a
whole by relaxing these obligations."
However, he dissented from "the decision's requirement that
carriers withdraw from the entire auction to be relieved of any of their
obligations. I do not see a need to require carriers to make a single election for all of
the markets awarded at auction as a condition to withdrawing from any one
The Cellular Telecommunication
and Internet Association (CTIA) stated in a
that "We appreciate the Commission's leadership in freeing up $16 billion in
wireless assets that had been held hostage for too long. This is a
straightforward solution - allowing those resources to be put to work creating
jobs in the telecomm sector and increasing service levels for wireless
consumers. It is also a fair solution, releasing bidders from a transaction that
never occurred. The Commission's action will help bring long-overdue certainty
and stability to the wireless marketplace."
On October 10, Secretary of Commerce
Donald Evans wrote a
letter to the FCC requesting that the FCC grant relief to the winning
bidders in Auction 35.
This is Order and Order
on Reconsideration (FCC 02-311), adopted November 14, 2002. This is WT Docket
No. 02-276. For more information, contact Bill Huber at 202
418-0660 or email@example.com.
|Senate Approves Dot Kids Bill
|11/13. The Senate passed HR 3833,
the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002, by unanimous
consent. The bill passed the House on May 26, 2002 by a vote of 406-2.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) explained
the bill on the Senate floor. He said that "the idea behind the ``dot kids´´
domain is very simple -- to create a space on the web that can be a
cyber sanctuary for kids. A place where parents and kids can be confident that
every site on the ``dot-kids´´ domain
contains materials that are suitable for children under the age of thirteen."
Sen. Dorgan added that "The bill calls for the creation of a sub-domain
under our Nation's country
code ``.us´´ called ``.kids.us´´
which will only host content that is age appropriate for children. A number of
safeguards were also put in this bill. ``Dot-kids-dot-us´´
will be monitored for content and safety; and should objectionable material
appear, it will be taken down immediately."
See also, story titled "House Passes Dot Kids Domain Bill",
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 436, May 22, 2002.
|Friday, November 15
|Day two of a three day conference of the
Federalist Society. At 1:30 - 3:00 PM
there will be a panel titled "Corporations, Securities and Antitrust Group: Competition and Regulatory
Federalism". The speakers will be Timothy Muris (FTC Chairman), Hewitt Pate (Antitrust
Division), and Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain (Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit). At 3:15 - 4:45 PM there will be a panel titled "Financial Services and Electronic Commerce Group: The USA PATRIOT Act,
Homeland Security, and the Financial Services Industry". The speakers will
be David Aufhauser, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Treasury), Andrew Cochran
(House Financial Services Committee), John Pickering (Balch & Bingham), James Rockett
(McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson), Mary Beth Buchanan (U.S. Attorney, Western District of Pennsylvania). See, schedule
and online registration
page. Location: Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Ave., NW.
9:00 AM - 3:30 PM. EntrepreneurPR will host an event titled "Small Business
Intellectual Property Conference". The scheduled speakers include Sharon Marsh
(Administrator for Trademark Policy and Procedure, USPTO) and Michael See (Small Business Administration).
The price to attend is $125. The
notice states that there are "no fees for members of the media or
government staff". Location: Room 311, Cannon House Office Building.
TIME? Day two of a two day conference hosted by
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
Association (CTIA) titled "Homeland Security Critical Issues Forum". Its
subject matter will include network security and reliability, physical and
cyber security, network vulnerabilities, and how other critical
infrastructures may impact CMRS networks. The event is closed to the public.
At 12:30 PM, Nancy Wong, Deputy Director, National Outreach and Awareness,
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO), will speak. A
release states that "Only lunch sessions are open to the media.
Credentials required for admittance." For more information, contact Kimberly
Kuo at 202 736-3202 or Kkuo@ctia.org.
Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel, Empire Ball Room, 2500 Calvert Street, NW.
CANCELLED: TO BE DECIDED WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT.
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(DCCir) will hear oral argument in Aerco Broadcast Corp v. FCC, No.
01-1466. Judges Sentelle, Henderson and Silberman will preside. Location:
Courtroom 20, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
11:00 AM. The CTIA and the White
House Office of the Federal Environmental Executive will hold a press
conference regarding the collection of used electronics for recycling.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton, District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams,
and others, will speak. For more information, contact Travis Larson at 202
736-3207 firstname.lastname@example.org. Location: The
Washington Monument, National Mall.
|Monday, November 18
|7:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The Information
Technology Association of America (ITAA), Northern Virginia Technology
Council, Business Software Alliance (BSA),
and others, will host a conference titled "Technology and Homeland Security: A
Symposium with Public Sector CIOs". The speakers include
Rep. Tom Davis
(R-VA), Steve Cooper (CIO of the Office of Homeland Security), and
Mark Everson (Office of Management and Budget). The price to attend is $65. To
register, or for more information, contact Michael Kerr at
email@example.com. Location: The Ritz Carlton Tysons Corner,
1700 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, VA.
8:00 - 11:00 AM. There will be an event titled "Homeland Security
Financing Briefing". The scheduled speakers include Mark Holman (Deputy
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security), Bill Hoagland (Staff
Director of the Senate Budget Committee), and Scott Lilly (Minority Staff
Director of the House Appropriations Committee). It is organized by Equity International. For more
information, contact Bill Loiry or Carrie Brown at 202 756 2244. Location:
Holeman Lounge, National Press Club, 529
14th St., NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the President's Critical Infrastructure
Protection Board regarding the document titled "National
Strategy to Secure Cyberspace", which was released on September 18.
For more information, contact Tommy Cabe at 202 456-5420. See,
notice in the Federal Register.
|Tuesday, November 19
|9:30 AM - 12:00 PM. The Department of
State's (DOS) Office of the Coordinator for International Communications
and Information Policy will host a public meeting to receive comments
regarding the role of International Mobile Satellite Organization (IMSO) with
respect to the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS),
aeronautical safety services, and service to rural and remote areas of
developing countries, including
the principle and the legal methodology of a possible extension or expansion
of IMSO's mandate. See,
notice in the Federal Register . For more information, contact Brian Hunt
at 202 647-5832 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Location: DOS, 2201 C Street NW.
12:15 PM. The
FCBA's Common Carrier Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speakers
will be the FCC Commissioners' wireline competition advisors. Location:
Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1875 K Street,
2nd Floor, NY Conference Room.
5:30 - 6:45 PM.
Richard Posner, Judge of the
U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir), will give a lecture titled "The Political
Economy of Intellectual Property Law" at an
AEI-Brookings Joint Center event. A
wine and cheese reception will follow at 6:45 PM. See,
online registration page.
Location: AEI, Wohlstetter Conference Center, 12th Floor, 1150 17th Street,
6:00 - 8:00 PM. The
FCBA will host a CLE seminar titled "The FCC’s Triennial Review of
Unbundled Network Elements: How Significant are UNE-P and other UNEs to Local
Competition?" Registrations and cancellations due by 5:00 PM on November 15.
Location: Dow Lohnes & Albertson, Suite 800, 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the FCC
regarding its request to refresh its record regarding customer proprietary
network information (CPNI) implications when a carrier goes out of
business, sells all or part of its customer base, or seeks bankruptcy
protection. This is the FCC's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
CC Docket Nos. 96-115, 96-149 and 00-257. See,
notice in the Federal Register.
Deadline to submit applications for planning and construction grants to
NTIA for public television facilities under the Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program (PTFP). See,
notice in the Federal Register.
|Wednesday, November 20
|8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The Commerce Department's
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
will host a one seminar titled "Essentials of Export Controls". It will cover
compliance with the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The price to
attend is $150. See,
notice. For more information, contact Yvette Springer at 202 482-6031.
Location: Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H. Street, NW.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House
Science Committee will meet to mark up several bills that are not related
to information technology. It will then proceed with a hearing titled "The
2001 Presidential Awardees for Excellence in Mathematics and Science
Teaching: Views from the Blackboard". Webcast. Location: Room 2318,
12:00 NOON. The
FCBA's Transactional Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch on the
Sarbannes Oxley Act. RSVP to Donna Farber at
Latham & Watkins, Lincoln Square Bldg., Suite
1000, 555 Eleventh St., NW.
12:30 PM. The
FCBA will host a luncheon. The speaker will be NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. The price is $45 for members,
$35 for government & law student members, and $55 for non-members.
Registrations and cancellations are due by 5:00 PM on November 15. For
more information, call 202 293-4000. Location: JW Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
|Thursday, November 21
|8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The Commerce Department's
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
will host a seminar titled "Technology Export Controls". It will cover
compliance with the U.S. export and reexport controls relating to technology,
software and encryption. The price to attend is $150. See,
notice. For more information, contact Yvette Springer at 202 482-6031.
Location: Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000 H. Street, NW.
12:15 PM. The
FCBA's Global Telecommunications Development Committee and International
Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "Financing
Telecom Projects in Developing Countries: The Role of OPIC, Export Import
Bank, and the International Finance Corporation (IFC)". The speakers will be
Roger Cohen (Export Import Bank), Brian Christaldi (OPIC), and Jean-Francois
Dupuy (IFC). For more information, contact Janet Hernandez at 202 736-1814.
RSVP to Julie Ilett at email@example.com
or 202 736-1819. Location: Coudert Brothers, 1627 Eye St., NW, 11th floor.
12:15 PM. The
FCBA's Cable Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speakers
will be John Wong and Michael Lance (Division Chief and Deputy Division Chief
of the FCC Media Bureau's Engineering Division). For more information call
Lisa Cordell at 202 939-7934. RSVP to Wendy Parish at
wendy @fcba.org. Location: NCTA, 1724
Massachusetts Ave., NW.
3:00 PM. Uma
Suthersanen will speak on "Copyright and Human Rights in Europe". She
is a Senior Research Fellow at the Queen
Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute in London. For more
information, contact Robert Brauneis at
firstname.lastname@example.org or 202
994-6138. Location: Faculty Conference Center, 5th Floor of Burns, George
Washington University Law School, 2000 H Street, NW.
6:30 - 10:00 PM. The
FCBA will host a charity auction. For more information, contact Heidi
Kurtz (FCBA) at 202 293-4000. Admission is free, and it is open to the public.
The event features a live auction, silent auctions, raffles, hours d’oeuvres
and a cash bar. Location: Capitol
Hilton Hotel, 16th and K Streets, NW.
|Friday, November 22
|Deadline to submit comments to the
ultrawideband report [110 pages in PDF] titled "Measured Emissions Data For Use In
Evaluating The Ultra-Wideband (UWB) Emissions Limits in the Frequency Bands
Used By The Global Positioning System". See also, FCC
public notice [3 pages in PDF]. The report was prepared by Stephen Jones
of the FCC's Office of Engineering and
Technology. He can be contacted at 301 362-2054 or
SKJones@fcc.gov. This is ET Docket No.
Deadline to submit comments to the The
in response to its requests for comments regarding whether to revise, clarify
or adopt any additional rules in order to more effectively carry out
Congress's directives in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).
notice in the Federal Register, October 8, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 195, at
Pages 62667 - 62681.
Deadline to submit a request to participate in roundtable meetings hosted
by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
regarding small business views on foreign patent challenges. The USPTO
is seeking comments, and holding roundtable meetings, pursuant to a
recommendation contained in a General Accounting
Office (GAO) report
[PDF] titled "Federal Action Needed to Help Small Businesses Address Foreign
Patent Challenges". This report was released on August 22, 2002. See also,
story titled "GAO Reports Foreign Patent Challenges Facing Small Businesses"
in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 497, August 23, 2002. See,
notice in the Federal Register, October 28, 2002, Vol. 67, No.208, at
Pages 65786 - 65787.
|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
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2002 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All