|Sen. Smith Introduces Universal Service
7/9. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) and others
introduced S 1380,
the "Rural Universal Service Equity Act of 2003". It would require the
Communications Commission (FCC) to rewrite its high cost universal service
support rules to provide for distributing funds to telephone company wire
centers with the highest cost.
The FCC's universal service programs are cross subsidy programs under which some
phone service consumers are, in effect, taxed to subsidize the service of others. While
the FCC has long managed a universal service system, it was first codified by the
Telecom Act of 1996. See,
47 U.S.C. § 254.
(at right) described universal service as "a decades old Federal
program intended to keep telephone service available and affordable across
America. The Federal Universal Service Program has been a tremendous success." See,
Congressional Record, July 9, 2003, at
He said that "Yet many of the most rural States in America the very States the program was
intended to assist -- receive no funding at all. North Dakota, South Dakota,
Idaho, Iowa, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nebraska and other rural States
receive no funding under this program."
"When the FCC created this program in 1999, it determined which States would
be eligible for funding by comparing the average cost of providing telephone
service per line in each State to a benchmark tied to the national average cost
per line. If a State's average cost of service per line exceeded the benchmark,
that State would be eligible for funding. If the average cost was below the
national benchmark, it would not be eligible."
Sen. Smith continued that "This method is skewed, in part, because telephone
service in a metropolitan area is less expensive to provide than service in a
rural area. Customers in cities are closer to one another, and the same
facilities can serve more people at a lower cost. As a consequence, if you are
served by a larger carrier and you live in a State with a city--no matter how
rural an area, or no matter how far from the city you live--your State probably
receives no support."
He then summarized his bill. "The Act directs the FCC to replace the current
state-wide average formula with a
new formula that distributes funds to telephone company wire centers with the
highest cost. Wire centers are the telephone facilities where all of the
telephone lines in a given area converge. And because funds would be directed to
high-cost wire centers, as opposed to States with the highest average costs,
rural residents would no longer be penalized if they lived in a State with a
city hundreds of miles away."
The bill would requires the FCC to amend its regulations codified at 47 CFR
54.309 and 54.311. (See,
Part 54 of the FCC rules.) Specifically, the bill provides that "In calculating Federal
universal service support for eligible telecommunications carriers that serve
rural, insular, and high cost areas, the Commission shall ... revise the
Commission's support mechanism for high cost areas to provide support to each
wire center in which the incumbent local exchange carrier's average cost per
line for such wire center exceeds the national average cost per line by such
amount as the Commission determines appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the
equitable distribution of universal service support throughout the United
The bill is cosponsored by 10 Republicans, and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), who are
from states with large rural populations.
New Technologies and Universal Service Funding. The bill recites in its finding that "Local
telephone competition and emerging technologies are threatening the viability of
Federal universal service support." However, the bill would do nothing to change
the way universal service is funded, such as by taxing new communications
technologies. The bill states that one of its purposes is to "To begin
consideration of universal service reform."
Sen. Gordon also stated that "the Universal Service Program has challenges
beyond the inequities of the program for larger carriers. I look forward to
participating in the broader debate on how to reform the Universal Service
Program and ensure its long term viability and effectiveness. This bill will
help further that debate. However, broadly reforming the Universal Service
Program is complex and divisive. It may take years. And I do not believe the
inequities of the program for larger carriers should be allowed to continue
while Congress grapples with the broader issues."
BellSouth's Herschel Abbott stated in a
release that "This legislation is looking at the wrong end of the question.
It would cut off subsidy funding for phone service for people in some rural
parts of the country. Yet it does not address the crucial problem in ensuring
affordable universal telephone today -- that is, where does the money come from?
Technology now allows people to be connected in many ways, yet the
responsibility for funding universal service is not being borne by people making
connections through the internet. It is the funding side of the universal
service equation that is in peril, the distribution side should not be addressed
|GSA and OMB Release Draft E-Authentication
7/11. The General Services Administration's
(GSA) Office of Electronic Government and Technology published a
notice in the Federal Register regarding electronic authentication. The
notice attaches, and requests comments on, the draft policy titled "Draft E --
E-Authentication for Federal Agencies".
This notice states that "This attached GSA policy guidance provides agencies
with a policy for the use of electronic
authentication (or e-authentication) in electronic transactions. ... This
memorandum establishes a four level approach for authentication to ensure
trustworthy electronic transactions and to fulfill Federal privacy and
information security requirements. These four levels reflect an increasing
degree of confidence in the identity presented and represent a range of
The draft was prepared with support from the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). Comments are due by August 11, 2003. See, Federal Register, July 11, 2003,
Vol. 68, No. 133, at Pages 41370 - 41374.
|DC Circuit Upholds FCC Payphone Order
7/11. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its
opinion [17 pages in PDF] in New
England Public Communications Council v. FCC, upholding one of the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
U.S.C. § 276(a) prohibits "any Bell operating company that provides payphone
service" from subsidizing or discriminating in favor of its own payphone
service. It also authorizes the FCC to promulgate implementing regulations.
Pursuant to this authority, the FCC issued order requiring the Bell
operating companies (BOCs) to price the service lines used by payphone service
providers at forward looking cost based rates.
One group of petitioners, composed of BOCs, challenged the FCC's
authority to require a specific rate setting methodology for intrastate payphone
lines. The other group of petitioners, composed of payphone service providers
that use non-BOC local exchange carriers' payphone lines, challenged the FCC's
decision to limit the forward looking cost based methodology requirement to BOCs.
The Appeals Court denied all petitions, and affirmed the order of the FCC.
|4th Circuit Rules in Cybersquatting Case
7/9. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its
[PDF] in Hawes
v. Network Solutions, a case interpreting the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection
Act (ACPA), Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The District Court dismissed a two count complaint brought by a domain name
registrant against a company that claimed trademark rights in the domain name,
and the domain name registrar that transferred the domain name to that company.
The Appeals Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, in a opinion that could
be put to good use in civil procedure and trademark law courses.
Background. In April 1999 Christopher Hawes registered the domain name
lorealcomplaints.com with Network Solutions,
L'Oreal, is a French cosmetics company.
L'Oreal filed a complaint in a French court against Hawes alleging
infringement of its trademark. NSI then
transmitted a Registrar Certificate for the domain name to counsel for L'Oreal
in France, tendering control and authority over the registration of the domain
name to the French court, in accordance with NSI's standard agreement with
registrants. Hawes did not appear, and the court entered judgment for L'Oreal,
ordering that the domain name be transferred to L'Oreal.
Hawes then sent a letter to NSI stating
that if it transferred the domain name, pursuant to NSI's standard agreement and
the French order, he would file suit in a United States federal court seeking
judgment that his registration and use of the domain name were not unlawful.
Nevertheless, NSI then transferred the domain name to L'Oreal.
District Court. Hawes filed a two count complaint in
U.S. District Court (EDVa) against NSI and L'Oreal.
He alleged that NSI violated its standard agreement with registrants. He also
sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Lanham Act, as amended by
the ACPA, against L'Oreal. See,
15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D).
He sought a declaratory judgment that NSI's transfer of his domain name to
L'Oreal was improper, and that his registration and use of the domain name was
not unlawful. He also sought an injunction ordering the return of the domain
name. L'Oreal counterclaimed for trademark infringement and trademark dilution.
The District Court dismissed the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) of the FRCP. The District
Court dismissed the count against NSI on the grounds that Hawes did not allege a
violation of the ACPA against NSI. The District Court dismissed the count
against L'Oreal on the grounds that there
is no justiciable case or controversy, that the domain name was transferred
pursuant to a French court order rather than NSI's standard agreement, and that
28 U.S.C. § 2201
allows the court discretion not to grant injunctive relief.
L'Oreal dismissed its counterclaims. This appeal followed.
Statutes and Rules. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(i)(I)
provides that "A domain name registrar, a domain name registry, or other domain
name registration authority that takes any action described under clause (ii)
affecting a domain name shall not be liable for monetary relief or, except as
provided in subclause (II), for injunctive relief, to any person for such
action, regardless of whether the domain name is finally determined to infringe
or dilute the mark."
15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(i)(II), in turn, provides, in
part, that "A domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name
registration authority described in subclause (I) may be subject to injunctive
relief only if such registrar, registry, or other registration authority has ...
(bb) transferred, suspended, or otherwise modified the domain name during the
pendency of the action, except upon order of the court"
Also, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) provides that "A domain
name registrant whose domain name has been suspended, disabled, or transferred
under a policy described under clause (ii)(II) may, upon notice to the mark
owner, file a civil action to establish that the registration or use of the
domain name by such registrant is not unlawful under this chapter. The court may
grant injunctive relief to the domain name registrant, including the
reactivation of the domain name or transfer of the domain name to the domain
28 U.S.C. § 2201 provides, in part, that "In a case of
actual controversy within its jurisdiction ... as determined by the
administering authority, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an
appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any
interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or
could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final
judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such."
Rule 12, FRCP,
provides, in part, that "Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in
any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim,
shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except
that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion:
(1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, ... (6) failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, ..."
Appeals Court. The Appeals Court affirmed in part
(the dismissal as to NSI), reversed in part (the dismissal as to L'oreal), and
The Appeals Court first examined the complaint, which was
poorly drafted, and misstated the the statutory authority upon which it was
based. The Appeals Court concluded that the first count, against NSI, alleged a
violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(2)(D)(i)(II)(bb), while the second count, against
L'Oreal, alleged a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1114(2)(D)(v).
Then, the Appeals Court examined the District Court's
dismissal of the first count. It held that the District Court erred in
dismissing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), regarding lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. While the ACPA generally limited the liability of domain name
registrars, subsection (D)(i)(II)(bb) provides an exception, and that is what
Hawes plead. But, the Appeals Court continued that NSI also moved to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6), regarding failure to state a claim. The Appeals Court held
that Hawes failed to state a claim, and that the count against NSI should have
been dismissed for this reason.
The Appeals Court reasoned that "Hawes did allege that Network
Solutions tendered control over the domain name to the French court after
L'Oreal commenced an action in France against Hawes for infringing L'Oreal's
French trademarks, but the pendency of a foreign action is irrelevant to the
question of whether a registrar is exposed to liability under the Lanham Act.
This conclusion that the French proceedings are irrelevant to a registrar’s
liability under § 1114(2)(D)(i) is compelled by the language of the Lanham Act
as amended by the ACPA, as well as its scope and structure."
The Court continued that "The ACPA creates a cause of action for
cybersquatting against anyone who registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name
that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark with the bad-faith
intent to profit from the good will associated with the trademark.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1). It also
creates a cause of action for reverse domain name hijacking against trademark
owners who misuse or abuse their rights in bringing a cybersquatting action."
"The ACPA thus protects both trademark owners and
domain name registrants. In creating these causes of action, Congress intended
expressly to limit the liability of domain name registrars under the Act as long
as the domain name registrars comply with the conditions stated in § 1114(2)(D)(i)."
The Court added that "Without such limitation of liability, all
registrars would potentially have been exposed to the offense of cybersquatting
because they register and traffic in domain names that could be infringing or
diluting trademarks protected by the Lanham Act. See 15 U.S.C. §
1125(d)(1). Thus, § 3004 of the ACPA, which contains the language
codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(i) and is captioned ``Limitation on
Liability,´´ generally exempts domain name registrars from the liability imposed
by the Act for cybersquatting or reverse domain name hijacking. Because the
provisions conditioning the limitation of liability in § 1114(2)(D)(i) relate to
liability imposed by the Lanham Act as amended by the ACPA, cooperating conduct
by registrars with respect to foreign courts under foreign law is given no
relevance in interpreting § 1114(2)(D)(i)(II)(bb) insofar as it requires the
pendency of an ``action.´´"
The Court concluded that "In this case, there was no
anticybersquatting action or reverse anticybersquatting action under the ACPA
pending in any court at the time Network Solutions transferred the domain name <lorealcomplaints.com>.
Because there was no action adjudicating Lanham Act liability, there could be no
allegation that Network Solutions was not cooperating with a court in a domain
name dispute involving domain name hijacking or reverse domain name hijacking,
and thus there could be no basis to consider an exception from the limitation of
liability. Accordingly, the district court was correct in concluding that the
complaint failed to include a necessary averment of fact in support of a claim
to find Network Solutions’ conduct fell within the exception to the limitation
of liability granted by § 1114(2)(D)(i)." Hence, the Court wrote that "we agree
with the district court that the claim against Network Solutions must be
dismissed, but we affirm this conclusion on the basis of Federal Rule of Civil
Next, the Appeals Court examined the District Court's
dismissal of the second count, against L'Oreal. The District Court dismissed an
ACPA (D)(v) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The District Court dismissed, in part, because it held
that the transfer of the domain name was pursuant to a French court order,
rather than NSI's standard agreement, and one element of a (D)(v) claim is that
the transfer be pursuant to the registrar's policy. The Appeals Court ruled that
"Implicitly, the court concluded that the
element was a jurisdictional one. Again we disagree."
The Appeals Court explained. "But the statute makes none of
these elements jurisdictional. Rather, jurisdiction is conferred by the fact
that the cause of action provided under § 1114(2)(D)(v) is part of the ACPA
which amended the Trademark Act of 1946 (the Lanham Act), and as such is a civil
action relating to trademarks. Section 1338 of Title 28 confers subject matter
jurisdiction on federal courts for actions relating to trademarks. Thus, if
Hawes failed to allege any of the elements for a reverse domain name hijacking
claim, L'Oreal’s remedy would be to file a motion for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Although we agree with the
district court that the failure to allege one of the required elements would be
fatal to recovery, it would not be fatal to the district court's jurisdiction."
But, the Appeals Court continued that the District Court
misinterpreted the complaint. It wrote that "Fully and fairly read, the
complaint alleges that the transfer of the domain name took place pursuant to
Network Solutions' Domain Name Dispute Policy as contained in the Domain Name
Registration Agreement, and it was because of that policy, as interpreted by
Network Solutions, that the Registrar Certificate was filed with the French
court and that the domain name was ultimately transferred. Because L'Oreal is
alleged to have received the domain name <lorealcomplaints.com> on the basis of
Network Solutions’ interpretation of the scope of its ``Domain Name Dispute
Policy,´´ the second element for a cause of action under § 1114(2)(D)(v) would
appear to have been adequately alleged."
Hence, not only was it error to dismiss the count against
L'Oreal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but Hawes plead a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
The Appeals Court rejected the 28 U.S.C. § 2201
discretion argument in a single footnote. It wrote, "But a federal district
court possesses no
similar discretion in adjudicating an action brought under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v),
in which Congress created a new and independent cause of action and, unlike in §
2201, used no language indicating that a district court may exercise discretion
regarding whether to grant declaratory relief."
|House to Take Up Ag Approps Bill, With
Distance Learning, Telemedicine & Broadband Provisions
7/14. The House is scheduled to take up
the "Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2004" on Monday, July 14. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
This bill includes funding for, among other things, rural telecommunications, distance
learning and telemedicine, and broadband telecommunication programs.
The bill contains the following language regarding distance learning, telemedicine
and broadband grants and loans:
"For the principal amount of direct distance learning and telemedicine loans,
$300,000,000; and for the principal amount of broadband telecommunication loans,
"For grants for telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas, as
authorized by 7 U.S.C.
950aaa et seq., $25,000,000, to remain available until expended."
"For the cost of direct and guaranteed broadband loans, as authorized by
7 U.S.C. 901, et
seq., $9,116,000 ..."
"In addition, $8,000,000, to remain available until expended, for a grant
program to finance broadband transmission in areas that meet the definition of
`rural area' used for the Broadband Loan Program authorized by 7 U.S.C. 901."
The House Appropriations
Rpt.108-193, states that "For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and
Broadband Program, the Committee
provides an appropriation of $42,116,000, a decrease of $14,455,000 below the
amount available for fiscal year 2003 and an increase of $6,000,000 above the
budget request, including $25,000,000 for Distance Learning and Telemedicine
Grants, $9,116,000 for Broadband Telecommunications loan subsidy, and $8,000,000
for Broadband Grants."
On June 25, 2003, the House Agriculture
Committee held a hearing on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Rural Utility Service's (RUS) distance learning and
telemedicine programs. See, prepared testimony [in PDF] of
Tom Dorr (Under
Secretary, Rural Development, Department of Agriculture),
(University of Virginia Health System),
(Saltville Medical Center),
(Copenhagen Central School District),
(Texas Tech University Health Science Center), and
(University of South Alabama).
Dorr wrote in his prepared testimony that "Telemedicine projects
are providing new and improved health care services beginning with patient
diagnosis, through surgical procedures, and post-operative treatment. New
advancements are being made in the telepharmaceutical and telepsychiatry arenas
providing health care options never before available to many medically
under-served, remote, rural areas. Distance learning projects continue to
provide funding for computers and Internet connection in schools and libraries."
He continued that "Distance learning and telemedicine services
that can be deployed over broadband networks are literally changing the
landscape of rural America. They enable rural students to take virtual field
trips to places all over the world, from historic Williamsburg to the Louvre in
Paris. They provide life saving medical treatment over telemedicine networks –
allowing for specialists to guide surgeries hundreds of miles away! And there
are real economic benefits as well. Building on advanced telecommunications
platforms, distance learning and telemedicine technologies are not only
improving the quality of life in rural areas, but they are also making direct
contributions to the economies in rural areas by introducing the skills needed
for a high-tech workforce and promoting sound health care practices, including
preventative care initiatives."
|NAB Withdraws Support for Bill to Set
National TV Ownership Cap at 35%
7/10. The National Association of Broadcasters
(NAB) stated in a
amendments in recent weeks, the Senate Commerce Committee has modified S. 1046
in numerous ways that are unacceptable to the broadcast industry. We have
previously announced our opposition to that legislation. We would prefer a clean
bill that would codify the national television ownership cap at 35%."
The NAB continued that "However, in
evaluating the current legislative climate, we have concluded that is
politically and legislatively infeasible. Therefore, NAB is withdrawing its
support for legislation in the House and Senate. We remain grateful to
Congressmen Burr and Dingell and Senators Stevens and Hollings and other Members
of Congress for their longstanding support of free, local over-the-air
Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC)
(at right) responded in a release that "The NAB's recent about-face is regrettable, but
this battle is being fought for the American people and diversity of expression,
not the NAB. Americans from widely differing perspectives have made it quite
clear that they want the FCC's ruling reversed. We will continue to move forward
on our bill and work to ensure that the public airwaves serve the public
interest and not the economic interest of a few big media conglomerates."
On June 19, 2003, the Senate
Commerce Committee amended and passed
S 1046, the
"Preservation of Localism, Program Diversity, and Competition in Television
Broadcast Service Act of 2003". The bill, as amended, would roll back some of
the changes to the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) media ownership rules that the FCC announced at its June
2, 2003 meeting. See,
titled "Senate Commerce Committee Passes Media Ownership Bill", June 19, 2003.
On June 2, the FCC announced rules changes that raise the national TV
ownership cap from 35% to 45%. That is, one company can own TV stations reaching
no more than a 45% share of U.S. TV households. See, stories titled "FCC
Announces Revisions to Media Ownership Rules" and "Reaction to the FCC's Media
Ownership Announcement" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 672, June 3, 2003, and story titled "FCC Releases
Media Ownership Order and NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 692, July 7, 2003. See also, FCC
press release [10 pages in PDF] of June 2, 2003, and
Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [257 pages in PDF]
released on July 2, 2003.
S 1046, which is sponsored by Sen. Ted
Stevens (R-AK), Sen. Hollings, and others, would establish by statute a
national broadcast television multiple ownership cap of 35%. Specifically, the
bill provides that the FCC "shall not permit any license for a commercial
television broadcast station to be granted, transferred, or assigned to any
party (including all parties under common control) if the grant, transfer, or
assignment of such license would result in such party or any of its
stockholders, partners, or members, officers, or directors, directly or
indirectly, owning, operating or controlling, or having a cognizable interest in
television stations which have an aggregate national audience reach exceeding 35
percent." (Parentheses in original.)
|Monday, July 14
The House will meet at 10:30 AM for morning hour and at 12:00 NOON for
legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will
2673, the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and related agencies
appropriations bill. This bill includes funding for rural telecommunication
loans, and distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband
telecommunication loans and grants. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. It will begin consideration of
the defense appropriations bill, which the House passed on July 8. See, story
titled "House Passes Defense Appropriations Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert
No. 694, July 9, 2003.
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee will hold a hearing to examine
temporary entry provisions of the proposed free trade agreements with Chile
and Singapore. Press contact: Margarita Tapia at 202 224-5225. Location: Room 226,
|Tuesday, July 15
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for morning hour and at 10:00 AM for
legislative business. It will consider several non tech related items. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
10:00 AM. Federal Reserve Board
Greenspan will testify before the
House Financial Services
Committee. He will deliver his semiannual report on monetary policy. See,
notice. Press contact: Peggy Peterson or Scott Duncan at 202 226-0471.
Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Finance
Committee will hold a hearing titled "An Examination of U.S. Tax Policy
and Its Effect on the International Competitiveness of U.S.-Owned Foreign
Operations." The scheduled witnesses include
Sen. George Allen (R-VA),
Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV),
(Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury), Dan
Kostenbauder (Hewlett Packard), David
Rosenbloom, (Caplin & Drysdale), James Hines (University of Michigan Business
School), Charles Hahn (Dow Chemical), Mike Gaffney (Merrill Lynch), and
Stephen Shay (Ropes & Gray). Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.
Deadline to submit to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) outlines of topics to be discussed at the IRS's September
10, 2003, hearing on proposed regulations relating to the definition of toll
telephone service for purposes of the communications excise tax. See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 17, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 116, at Pages
35828 - 35829.
|Wednesday, July 16
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider
several non tech related items. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Federal Communications Commission's
Safety National Coordination Committee's
(PSNCC) subcommittees will hold meetings. The Interoperability Subcommittee
will meet from 9:00 - 11:30 AM. The Technology Subcommittee will meet from 12:30
- 3:00 PM. The Implementation Subcommittee will meet from 3:00 - 5:30 PM.
Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room).
9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce
Committee will hold a hearing on proposed legislation to make permanent
the moratorium on taxes on Internet access. See,
notice. Location: Press contact: Rebecca Hanks (McCain) 202 224-2670 or
Andy Davis (Hollings) at 202 224-6654. Room 253, Russell Building.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House
Science Committee will hold a hearing titled "Supercomputing: Is the
U.S. on the Right Path?" Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. Federal Reserve Board
Greenspan will testify before the
Senate Banking Committee.
Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.
10:30 AM. The
House International Relations Committee will hold a hearing titled "Intellectual
Property Crimes: Are Proceeds From Counterfeited Goods Funding Terrorism?"
Location: Room 2172, Rayburn Building.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Practice Committee
and the Computer & Telecommunications Law Section of the D.C. Bar Association
will host a brown bag lunch (with admission charges) titled "Is There
a Worldwide Consensus on Implementing New Wireless Services? - A Debriefing of
the 2003 World Radiocommunications Conference". The scheduled
speakers include John Giusti (FCC's International Bureau), Jennifer Manner
(Legal Advisor to FCC Commissioner Abernathy), Cecily Holiday (State
Department), Karl Nebbia (NTIA's Office of Spectrum Management), James
Voorhies (NTIA International Spectrum Plans Program Manager), Audrey Allison
(Boeing), Jennifer Warren (Lockheed Martin). The moderators will be Lisa Choi
(FCC's International Bureau), and Troy Tanner (Swidler Berlin). Location:
Wilmer Cutler &
Pickering, 2400 N St., NW, Concourse Level. For more information contact
|Thursday, July 17
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider
several non tech related items. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
9:30 AM. The
Senate Commerce Committee will
meet to consider pending calendar business. Press contact: Rebecca Hanks
(McCain) 202 224-2670 or Andy Davis (Hollings) at 202 224-6654. See,
notice. Location: Room 253, Russell
9:30 AM - 2:30 PM. The Federal
(FCC) Public Safety
National Coordination Committee (PSNCC) will hold a general membership meeting.
notice in the Federal Register, June 20, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 119, at Pages
6989 - 36990. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room).
|Friday, July 18
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee will hold a hearing on several pending judicial nominations:
Steven Colloton (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit), Henry Floyd
(District of South Carolina), Brent McKnight (Western District of North
Carolina), David Proctor (Northern District of Alabama). The hearing will also
include the nomination of Rene Acosta to be an Assistant Attorney General in
charge of the Civil Rights Division. Press contact: Margarita Tapia at 202
224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) regarding its proposed consent agreement with
Guess?, Inc. and Guess.com, Inc. (Guess) pertaining to the FTC's allegations
of false or misleading representations Guess made to consumers about the
security of personal information collected online through
www.guess.com, Guess' online store. See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 24, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 121, at Pages
37496 - 37498.
|People and Appointments
7/11. President Bush announced his intent to nominate former Representative
Connie Morella (R-MD) to be Ambassador to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). She was a member of the House for 16 years, before losing in
the 2002 election. She was also a member of the
House Science Committee. See,
7/10. David Svanda will step down as President of the
National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners (NARUC), effective August 4, 2003. NARUC First Vice President
Stan Wise will then assume the presidency. See, NARUC
7/8. Avie Tevanian was named Chief Software Technology Officer of
Apple. Bertrand Serlet was named SVP
of Software Engineering. Apple stated in a
"Tevanian will focus on setting company-wide software technology directions, and
Serlet will now report directly to Apple CEO Steve Jobs and lead the company's
OS Software Engineering group."
7/9. The Senate approved the nominations of Mary Ellen Williams,
Victor Wolski, Susan Braden, and Charles Lettow to be a
Judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
for a term of fifteen years.
7/11. Reuters filed a complaint in
U.S. District Court (SDNY) against
alleging patent infringement. See, Bloomberg
7/9. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a
report [14 pages
in PDF] titled "PATRIOT Propaganda: The Justice Department's Campaign to Mislead
The Public About the USA PATRIOT Act". The report pertains to Section 215 of the
Act, which is codified at
50 U.S.C. § 1862.
Section 215 addresses access to records of common carriers, public accommodation
facilities, and others, under the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA). The report
states that "Section 215 allows the government to
obtain -- without an ordinary criminal subpoena or search warrant and without
probable cause -- an order from a court giving them records on clients or
customers from libraries, bookstores, doctors, universities, Internet service
providers and other public entities and private sector businesses."
7/9. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) introduced
a bill to amend the Immigration
and Nationality Act to repeal authorities relating to H1-B visas, which are used
by high tech workers. It is a short and simple bill that provides that "The
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.)
is amended by striking section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) ..." It was referred to the
House Judiciary Committee.
|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