|Bush Administration Releases Final Cyber
|2/14. President Bush announced the release of a collection of documents
titled the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. It includes a
titled National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace (NSSC), and another titled Physical
Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets.
Among the NSSC's many conclusions is that "the
private sector is best equipped and structured to respond to an evolving cyber
threat". It encourages public private cooperation rather than government
mandates or regulation.
President Bush wrote in a
letter [1 page in PDF]
that "The way business is transacted, government operates, and national
defense is conducted have changed. These activities now rely on an
interdependent network of information technology infrastructures called
cyberspace. The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace provides a framework for
protecting this infrastructure that is essential to our economy, security, and
way of life." He added that "Securing cyberspace is an extraordinarily difficult
strategic challenge that requires a coordinated and focused effort from our
entire society -- the federal government, state and local governments, the
private sector, and the American people."
He also referenced the National Strategy in his weekly Saturday
address on February 15. He stated that "This
past week, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge issued strategic plans to
protect our critical infrastructure. These plans will guide local officials in
securing our nation's dams and power plants, electrical goods, computer networks
and communication systems."
states that its purpose "is to engage and empower Americans to secure the
portions of cyberspace that they own, operate, control, or with which they
It states that "Of primary concern is the threat of
organized cyber attacks capable of causing debilitating disruption to our
Nation’s critical infrastructures, economy, or national security. The required
technical sophistication to carry out such an attack is high -- and partially
explains the lack of a debilitating attack to date. We should not, however, be
too sanguine. There have been instances where organized attackers have
exploited vulnerabilities that may be indicative of more destructive
The NSSC lists too many recommendations and plans to enumerate here. However,
several of its statements regarding intelligence and international action may be
noteworthy. For example, it recommends strengthening cyber related
counterintelligence efforts. It states that "The FBI and intelligence community
should ensure a strong counterintelligence posture to counter cyber-based
intelligence collection against the United States government, and commercial and
educational organizations. This effort must include a deeper understanding of
the capability and intent of our adversaries to use cyberspace as a means for
It also references retaliation for cyber attacks. It states that "When a
nation, terrorist group, or other
adversary attacks the United States through cyberspace, the U.S. response need
not be limited to criminal prosecution. The United States reserves the right to
respond in an appropriate manner. The United States will be prepared for such
Finally, it provides that "The United States will encourage
other nations to accede to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime ..."
Robert Holleyman, P/CEO of the Business
Software Alliance (BSA), stated in a
release that "it is crucial for Congress and the Administration to ensure
that cyber security remains a key focus of the new Department of Homeland
Security and that the proper resources are allocated to establish the necessary
programs and improve the security of government networks."
Harris Miller, President of the Information
Technology Association of America (ITAA) stated in a
release that "We are gratified that after a full and open process, the
Administration has issued a plan that recognizes the need for partnership and
participation to protect cyberspace -- not mandates and government intervention."
|Senate Passes Do Not Call Implementation Act
|2/13. The Senate passed
the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, by unanimous consent. The House passed this
bill on February 12 by a vote of 418-7. See,
Roll Call No. 26.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the Chairman
of the Senate Commerce Committee,
spoke in support of the bill in the Senate. He stated that the
Commission (FTC) "proposed regulations to create a
national do no call registry that consumers can sign up for to avoid unwanted
solicitations. H.R. 395 authorizes the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to collect
offsetting fees from telemarketers to implement and enforce the registry as part
of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The legislation would authorize the FTC to
collect these fees from telemarketers for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007, and to
move forward this year on setting up this much-needed registry. The legislation
also directs the Federal Communications Commission to conclude its own
rulemaking regarding telemarketing calls which, given the FTC's lack of
jurisdiction over certain industries, is an important component in creating an
effective and comprehensive do not call option for consumers." See, Cong.
Record, Feb. 13, 2003, at S2500.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was one of
only seven members of the House to vote against the bill. He submitted a statement for the
(Feb. 13, 2002, at E243). He wrote that "I would remind those who support
federal intervention to ``put a stop´´ to telemarketing on the basis of its
annoyance, that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from
interfering in the areas of advertising and communications. In addition to
exceeding Congress' constitutional authority, legislation to regulate
telemarketing would allow the government to intrude further into our personal
|Federal Circuit Affirms in Intel v. VIA
|2/14. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (FedCir)
issued its opinion [MS Word] in
v. Via, a patent infringement case involving microchip
technology. Intel makes microchips. So does
VIA Technologies. Intel asserted that VIA
infringed a patent pertaining to its "Fast Write" technology. VIA asserted that
it practices several claims of the patent, but that it is licensed by Intel to
do so. VIA also argued that the patent is invalid. The District Court held on
summary judgment that
the cross license agreement at issue is ambiguous, and therefore to be construed
against the drafter, Intel. Hence, it held that there is no infringement by VIA. The District
Court also denied VIA's motion for summary judgment that the patent is not invalid. The
Appeals Court affirmed.
Intel is the assignee of
U.S. Patent No. 6,006,291
titled "High-throughput interface between a system memory controller and a
peripheral device". The abstract states that "A high-throughput memory
access interface allows higher data transfer rates between a system memory
controller and video/graphics adapters than is possible using standard local bus
architectures. The interface enables data to be written directly to a peripheral
device at either one of two selectable speeds. The peripheral device may be a
graphics adapter. A signal indicative of whether the adapter's write buffers are
full is used to determine whether a write transaction to the adapter can
proceed. If the transaction can not proceed at that time, it can be enqueued in
Intel promulgated a new industry standard for certain computer chip
specifications that relates to the electronic interface and signal protocols by
which devices in a computer system communicate with each other. In 1996, Intel
published the Accelerated Graphic Port (AGP) Interface Specification, Revision
1.0 (AGP 1.0), describing how AGP allows graphics devices to communicate with
the core logic without using the traditional Peripheral Component Interface (PCI)
bus. In 1998, Intel published
2.0, which added two new protocols known as date transfers at 4x and Fast
Write. Both 4x and Fast Write are optional protocols of AGP 2.0. See also,
Intel's AGP technology web site.
both AGP 1.0 and 2.0 on a reciprocal, royalty free basis. The AGP 2.0 agreement
provides for "a nonexclusive, royalty-free, nontransferable, non-sublicenseable,
worldwide license under its Interface Claims to make, have made, use, import,
offer to sell and sell products which comply with the AGP Interfaces; provided
that such license shall not extend to features of a product which are not
required to comply with the AGP Interfaces or to which there was a feasible
alternative to infringing a given claim." However, while the agreement includes
definitions of "Interface Claims" and "AGP Interfaces", it does not expressly
state whether chipsets that include the Fast Write technology are covered by the
Intel drafted the agreement, and VIA signed it. VIA produced chipsets that
supported Fast Write. VIA concedes that its chipsets practice at least claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 of the
'291 patent. However, it asserts that it is licensed to practice this patent
under a cross license agreement with Intel.
Intel filed a complaint in U.S.
District Court (NDCal) against VIA alleging patent infringement. VIA
counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of invalidity for
indefiniteness. The District Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement
to VIA on the ground that VIA was licensed to practice the patent.
It also denied summary judgment of invalidity.
Intel appealed the judgment of non-infringement. VIA cross appealed the
judgment of no invalidity. The Court of Appeals affirmed both judgments of the District
|Third Circuit Rules in Cell Tower Section
|2/12. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (3rdCir) issued its
opinion [PDF] in
Communications v. Easttown Township, a cell tower siting case.
Omnipoint is a wireless telecommunications provider that provides service in Easttown Township, Pennsylvania. It sought a variance from the Zoning Hearing
Board of Easttown to locate a tower in a residential district. It argued that
there is a gap in wireless telecommunications. Easttown denied the request.
Omnipoint filed a complaint in U.S.
District Court (EDPenn) against Easttown alleging violation of
the mobile services provisions of the Communications Act (see,
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i))
and Pennsylvania law. This is the second time this case has been to the Court of
Appeals. See, first opinion of the Court of Appeals, Omnipoint v. Easttown, 248
F.3d 101 (3d Cir. 2001), which remanded the case to the District Court. On
remand, the District Court rejected Omnipoint's claims on the basis that it
failed to establish a significant gap or unreasonable discrimination under the
Communications Act, or unconstitutional exclusion under Pennsylvania law.
In the present opinion, the Appeals Court vacated the District Court's
holding that there is no significant gap, but affirmed the rest of the District
Court's holding, and remanded.
|3rd Circuit Rules on Retroactivity of Cyber
|2/11. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (3dCir) issued its
opinion [4 pages in PDF]
v. Weber, a case
regarding retroactive application of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection
Act's (ACPA) protection of individuals' names, and the effect of re-registration
of a domain name. The Appeals Court held that while the ACPA does not apply
retroactively to registrations of domain names prior to the effective date of
the statute, it does apply to re-registrations of domain names after the
effective date, for which the original registration was before the effective
Background. Steven Weber registered the domain name schmidheiny.com in
February 1999. The ACPA took effect in November 1999. He re-registered the domain
name in the name of his company, Famology.com in June 2000
with a different registrar. In November 2000 he sent a letter to Stephan Schmidheiny
offering to sell him the domain name.
District Court. Schmidheiny filed a complaint in
U.S. District Court (EDPenn) against
Weber and Famology.com alleging violation of the ACPA. The District Court granted summary judgment
to Weber and his company on the grounds that Weber registered the domain name
before passage of the ACPA. It reasoned that the ACPA does not apply
retroactively, and a re-registration is not actionable under the ACPA.
Statute. The ACPA provides, at
15 U.S.C. § 1129, in
part, that "[a]ny person who registers
a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name
substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person's consent,
with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for
financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a civil
action by such person."
Appeals Court. The Appeals Court reversed. It wrote that "We
do not consider the ``creation date´´ of a domain name to control whether a
registration is subject to the Anti-cybersquatting Act, and we believe that the
plain meaning of the word ``registration´´ is not limited to ``creation
The Court noted that "The words ``initial´´ and ``creation´´ appear nowhere in
§ 1129, and
Congress did not add an exception for ``non-creation registrations´´ in § 1129(1)(B)."
The Court added that "We hold that the word ``registration´´
includes a new contract at a different registrar and to a different registrant.
In this case, with respect to Famology.com -- that occurs after the effective
date of the Anti-cybersquatting Act."
The Court also offered this rationale. "To conclude otherwise
would permit the domain names of living persons to be sold and purchased without
the living persons’ consent, ad infinitum, so long as the name was first
registered before the effective date of the Act. We do not believe that this is
the correct construction of the Anti-cybersquatting Act. We are therefore
satisfied that Famology.com, Inc. engaged in a ``registration´´ that is covered
by the Anti-cybersquatting Act."
|2/13. The U.S. District Court (EDCal)
sentenced Mohsin Mynaf to 24 months in prison and a three year term of
supervised release, and ordered him to pay approximately $201,738.70 in
restitution. He had previously plead guilty to six counts of criminal copyright
infringement, six counts of trafficking in counterfeit labels, and one count of
circumventing a technological measure that protects a copyrighted work, in
violation of 17 U.S.C.
§§ 1201 and 1204.
This is also known as the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). He made counterfeit videocassette movies
and labels, and in the process, circumvented security measures placed on analog
videocassettes containing copyrighted movies. See, CCIPS
2/13. A grand jury of the U.S.
District Court (CDCal) returned an indictment charging Mongkol Prapakamol
with ten counts of trafficking in counterfeit software and one count of
smuggling counterfeit software. He is accused of smuggling into the U.S.
from Thailand, and attempting to sell, counterfeit copies of Symantec's Norton
AntiVirus and SystemWorks, Intuit's Quicken, and video games published by
LucasArts and Activision. See, USAO
2/13. The Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) filed a complaint in U.S. District
Court (NDCal) against Kenneth Mellert and Roman Mayer alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
in connection with the use of inside information to buy stock of
PeopleSoft, a software company. The SEC stated in a
Mellert, a former PeopleSoft sales director, and Mayer, possessed inside
information that PeopleSoft "would be preannouncing an earnings shortfall at the
end of the day. ... Mellert called Mayer, and the two agreed that Mayer would
purchase $16,000 in PeopleSoft put options -- securities that would rise in
value if the Company's stock price fell." The SEC also stated that Mayer has
consented to a court order enjoining him from future violations, and ordering
him to pay disgorgement and penalties.
In addition, the U.S. Attorneys Office (USAO) for the Northern District of
California charged Mellert by criminal
information [2 page PDF scan] with insider
trading, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j and 78ff. See also, USAO
|2/12. The European Commission issued a
release regarding a "framework for electronic communications".
2/12. Microsoft published a brief
titled "Spiking The Spammers". It states that spam, which its defines as
"unsolicited commercial e-mail", "can be tamed further, by a combination of
advanced filtering technologies, consumer education and the cooperation of
industry and government". It argues that "new, strong laws are needed. At a
minimum, senders should not be allowed to misrepresent their identity, falsify
the subject of a message, or use automated means to gather e-mail addresses
without the owners' consent".
2/13. The National Infrastructure Protection Center
(NIPC) announced that it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S.
Customs Bureau and the National Response Center. See,
release and statement of NIPC Director James Plehal. The NIPC is an entity with computer
intrusion investigation responsibilities. It was transferred from
the FBI to the Department of Homeland Security by the Homeland Security Act.
|Sen. Edwards Proposes Homeland Intelligence
|2/13. Sen. John
Edwards (D-NC) introduced
the Foreign Intelligence Collection Improvement Act of 2003. It is a massive
bill -- 91 pages in PDF -- that is more than twice as long as
the first version of the Homeland Security Act. It would revise the way the
government conducts foreign
intelligence operations within the U.S., and the way
government stores, shares and safeguards information.
It is a major government reorganization bill. It would create a Homeland
Intelligence Agency within the Department of Homeland Security, and reduce the
responsibilities of the FBI. The bill does not expand the powers of the
federal government with respect to intelligence gathering. Rather, it is
premised upon the assumption that by moving certain functions to a new agency,
those functions will be conducted more effectively.
It also limits executive power, in two respects. First, a
substantial part of the bill is devoted to protecting privacy,
civil rights and Constitutional rights, particularly through the creation of an entity to safeguard these
rights. Second, it would increase
the ability of the Congress to oversee and control the operations of executive
The bill is a
carefully drafted, detailed government reorganization bill.
However, Sen. Edwards' explanation of his bill was a partisan and political
attack upon President Bush. Sen. Edwards (at right), who may run against Bush in
the 2004 Presidential election, proclaimed that "This President is failing the
test on homeland security. ... The bare minimum of homeland security
improvements we need -- $10 billion more this year -- costs less than half of
President Bush's tax cut just for 226,000 millionaires." See, Cong. Record,
Feb. 13, 2003, at S2487-8.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the bill is its proposal to create a new
entity titled the Homeland Intelligence Agency, that would take over certain
activities and operations of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI). Perhaps the
second most important aspect of the bill is its proposal to create an Office of
Privacy and Civil Liberties Protection within the new Agency.
The bill states that "It is the purpose of this Act to create a new element of the
Intelligence Community of the United States Government, within the Department of
Homeland Security, whose primary mission will be the collection and
dissemination of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence inside the United
States, including the plans, intentions, and capabilities of international
terrorist groups operating in the United States. The mission of such entity, the
Homeland Intelligence Agency, shall be conducted with appropriate respect for
the privacy and civil liberties of United States persons."
Title I of the bill, which is also carries the title "Homeland Intelligence
Agency Act of 2003", states that "The mission of the Homeland Intelligence
Agency shall be to support the Director of Central Intelligence ... as follows: (1)
By serving as the primary entity within the United States Government
responsible for collecting foreign intelligence on the plans, intentions, and
capabilities of international terrorists and terrorist groups operating inside
the United States."
The mission also includes "conducting operations to collect foreign
intelligence and counterintelligence within the United States, including foreign
intelligence and counterintelligence regarding United States persons, through
human sources and by other lawful intelligence collection means" and "conducting
operations to collect foreign intelligence and counterintelligence through the
use of electronic surveillance and physical searches pursuant to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act ..."
The mission further includes "conducting analysis, including identification
and assessment", and "assisting the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection of the Department of Homeland Security ... relating to
the identification and assessment of threats".
Finally, the mission includes "ensuring the prompt and efficient
dissemination of foreign intelligence reports to appropriate consumers in the
United States Government", and "facilitating the sharing of information between
the Agency and other elements of the United States Government, State
governments, and local governments".
Sen. Edwards explained in detail why activities of the FBI should be
transferred to this new entity. He stated that "This bill takes
away from the FBI the responsibility to collect intelligence on foreign
terrorist groups operating in America. And this bill gives that responsibility
to a new Homeland Intelligence Agency."
He said that "there is also no question that the FBI made many serious mistakes before
September 11. There was the Phoenix memorandum, a memorandum about suspicious
behavior at flight schools that the FBI did not follow up on. There was the
Moussaoui case, where the FBI had in its possession a computer full of critical
information, yet did not access the information there. There were even two
hijackers who the FBI knew were threats but did not track and stop."
"Part of the problem is bureaucratic resistance at the FBI", said Sen.
Edwards. "But the
reality is that the FBI is also a bureaucracy, and it is the nature of a
bureaucracy to resist change."
He continued that "Beyond the problem of bureaucratic resistance,
there is a more fundamental
problem with the FBI. That problem is the conflict at the base of the FBI's
mission, which is a conflict between law enforcement and intelligence. These are
fundamentally different functions. Law enforcement is about building criminal
cases and putting people in jail. Intelligence isn't about building a case; it
is about gathering information and putting it together into a bigger picture.
The FBI has never been built for intelligence. It has always been an agency that
hires people who want to be law enforcement officers, trains them to be law
enforcement officers, and promotes them for succeeding as law enforcement
The bill would also create an Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties Protection
within the new Homeland Intelligence Agency. (See, pages 15-37.) Its responsibilities
would include "assuring that the use of technologies by
the Agency sustain, and do not erode, privacy protections in the collection,
use, and disclosure of personal information".
It would have substantial authority, including the power to conduct audits
and inspections, "to
administer or take oaths, affirmations, or affidavits", and to "require the
production of evidence by subpoena". Its subpoenas would be enforceable in
District Court. It would have no prosecutorial power, but could refer cases
to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Sen. Edwards stated that his proposed agency "will do a better job
protecting our civil liberties. While
we will not give the new agency any new authorities, we will place new checks on
its ability to collect information about innocent people. Time and again, we
have seen this administration overreach when it comes to civil liberties. That
should stop, and this proposal will help stop it. We will require judicial
approval before the most secretive and invasive investigations of religious and
political groups. We will require greater public reporting and more internal
auditing. We will establish a new and independent office of civil liberties
within the new agency that is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights
of innocent Americans."
This bill would also create new requirements regarding submitting reports to the
Congress. The bill would also set a limited and short (two year) term for the
Director of the new agency. Thus, every two years the Senate would have the
opportunity to reject or accept the nominee.
|Monday, February 17
|Presidents Day. The House will be in recess for the Presidents Day
District Work Period from February 17 through 21. The Senate will be in recess
from February 17 through February 21. The FCC will be closed on
February 17. The National Press Club will be closed on February 17.
|Tuesday, February 18
|9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(DCCir) will hear oral argument in AT&T v. FCC, No. 01-1485. Judges
Tatel, Garland and Williams will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
4:00 PM. Michael
Meurer (Boston University School of Law) will present a paper titled
"Sharing Copyrighted Works". For more information, contact
Robert Brauneis at
202 994-6138 or
firstname.lastname@example.org. Location: George Washington University Law
School, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 720 20th Street,
Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [15 pages in PDF] in its proceeding
titled "In the Matter of Digital Broadcast Copy Protection". This NPRM
proposes that the FCC promulgate a broadcast flag rule, and seeks comment on
this, and related questions. This is MB Docket No. 02-230. See,
FCC release [PDF] and
Order [PDF] of October 11, 2002 extending deadlines. See also,
Order [PDF] of January 3, 2003.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
in response to its
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in the proceeding titled "In the matter of
Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum Based Services to Rural Areas and
Promoting Opportunities for Rural Telephone Companies To Provide Spectrum Based
Services". This is WT Docket No. 02-381. For more information, contact
Robert Krinsky at 202 418-0660. See also,
notice in the Federal Register, January 7, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 4, at Pages
723 - 730.
Extended deadline to submit comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (FNPRM), released
last month, regarding whether providers of various services and devices not
currently within the scope of the FCC's 911 rules should be required to
provide access to emergency services. This is CC Docket No. 94-102 and IB
Docket No. 99-67. See,
notice in the Federal Register, January 23, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 15, at
Pages 3214 - 3220, and
|Wednesday, February 19
|10:00 AM. BellSouth Ch/CEO Duane
Ackerman will speak about the future of the telecommunications industry. For
more information, contact Bill McCloskey at 202 463-4129. Location: Zenger
Room, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
11:15 AM - 2:00 PM. Secretary of the Treasury
will speak at a joint National Chamber Foundation and Policy Insiders
notice. Location: U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, 1615 H Street, NW.
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host
a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "The Role of In House Counsel". For more
information, contact Yaron Dori at
email@example.com or Ryan Wallach at
firstname.lastname@example.org. Location: Conference Room of
Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1875 K St.,
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Transactional Practice Committee
will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be FCC antitrust merger reviews.
The speakers will include Jim Bird (head of the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Office of General Counsel's
(OGC) Transactional Team) and Jim
Barker (Latham & Watkins). For more
information, contact Lauren Kravetz at 202 418-7944 or
email@example.com. Location: FCC, Room
1:00 PM. Deputy Secretary of Commerce
Sam Bodman will to speak
to a convention of over 350 aspiring engineers from middle schools on the
importance of science and technology. Location: Capitol Hill Hyatt Regency.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Copyright Office (CO) in response to
its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding the exemption of certain classes of works
from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that
control access to copyrighted works, pursuant to
17 U.S.C. § 1201.
See, CO summary of this
in the Federal Register: October 15, 2002, Vol. 67, No.199, at Pages 63578 -
comments already filed.
|Thursday, February 20
|9:30 AM. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. See,
Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The Department of State's International
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet. A
notice in the Federal Register states that the purpose of this meeting is
"to begin preparations for the meeting of the ITU Telecommunications
Development Advisory Group, which will take place March 19-21, 2003 in Geneva,
Switzerland", and/or "to prepare for the 2003 meeting of the
Telecommunications Development Advisory Group (TDAG)". The notice also states
requirements for admission. See, Federal Register, February 6, 2003, Vol. 68,
at Page 6250. Location: State Department.
9:00 - 11:30 AM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Public Safety National Coordination Committee, Interoperability
Subcommittee will meet at the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.
12:30 - 3:00 PM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Public Safety National Coordination Committee,
Technology Subcommittee will meet. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.
3:00 - 5:30 PM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Public Safety National Coordination Committee,
Implementation Subcommittee will meet. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.
|Friday, February 21
|9:00 AM. The Alliance for Public Technology
(APT) will host a policy forum and awards luncheon. The scheduled speakers
include Rep. Sylvester Reyes (D-TX),
Bruce Mehlman (Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Technology Policy), Kyle
Dixon (Special Counsel to FCC Chairman Powell for Broadband Policy), and
William Kennard (former FCC Commissioner), and Brett Perlman (Commissioner of
the Texas Public Utilities Commission). The program, which is titled "2003
Broadband Forum: Delivering the Promise: Strategies for Universal Broadband
Deployment", begins at 9:15 AM. The luncheon is at 12:00 NOON. The policy
forum is free; the luncheon is a fundraiser. See,
APT notice. Location:
National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th
9:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Public Safety National Coordination Committee will meet. See,
notice in the Federal Register, January 23, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 15, at Page
3252. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regarding
BellSouth's December 20, 2002
Petition for Forbearance [16 pages in PDF] from application of the separate subsidiary
provide international directory assistance service. BellSouth asked the FCC to
forbear from applying the structural separation requirements of
47 U.S.C. § 272
to allow BellSouth to provide international directory assistance service on an
integrated basis together with its local and nonlocal directory assistance
services. See, FCC
notice [2 pages in PDF]. This is CC Docket No. 97-172.
|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 subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2003 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All