|USTR Releases 2nd Annual Report on WTO
Compliance by PR China
12/18. The Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) released a
report [73 pages in PDF] titled "2003 Report To Congress On China's WTO
The report is dated December 11, 2003. It is the USTR's second annual report
submitted to the Congress pursuant to Section 421 of the U.S.-China Relations Act of
2000, which is codified at
22 U.S.C. § 6951. The USTR released its first
report [55 pages in PDF] on December 12, 2002.
See also, story titled "USTR Reports to Congress on PR China's WTO Compliance" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 567, December 13, 2002.
In intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, the report finds that
China's compliance with the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has
been "largely satisfactory" to the extent that Chain has passed laws,
regulations and rules. However, the report finds that IPR enforcement in China "remains ineffective".
In telecommunications, the report finds that "China has not yet established an
independent regulator in the telecommunications sector" and that "the problems in the
telecommunications sector have increased".
Intellectual Property Rights. The just released second report addresses
intellectual property rights (IPR) at length. It first reviews China's obligations
under the TRIPS Agreement, including its obligations to bring its laws into compliance.
The report finds that "Overall, China's efforts to bring its framework of laws,
regulations and implementing rules into compliance with the TRIPS Agreement have been largely
satisfactory, although some improvements still need to be made."
It elaborates that "As reported in detail in 2002, U.S. experts carefully reviewed
China's new IPR laws, regulations and implementing rules and, together with other WTO members,
participated in a comprehensive review of them as part of the first transitional
review of China before the WTO's Council for Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS Council) in September 2002. A further review took place during the transitional review
before the TRIPS Council in November 2003. While this process identified various areas where
China could make improvements, and the United States and U.S. industry continue
to press China to do so, overall the legal changes made by China are major improvements that move
China generally in line with international norms in most key areas."
The report also identifies the new laws adopted by China in 2003. It states that
"In the patent area, the State Council issued the Amendments to the Patent
Law Implementing Measures. In the trademark area, the State Administration of
Industry and Commerce issued the Rules on the Determination and Protection of
Well-Known Trademarks, the Measures on the Implementation of the Madrid Agreement
on Trademark International Registration and the Measures on the Registration
and Administration of Collective Trademarks and Certification Marks. In the copyright
area, the National Copyright Administration of China issued the Measures on the
Implementation of Administrative Penalties in Copyright Cases. These regulations
and implementing rules have generally been well-received by U.S. companies as steps
toward full compliance with China’s TRIPS Agreement obligations. China is also reportedly
drafting revisions to its 2001 Internet-related implementing rules. This development is
welcomed by U.S. companies because loopholes in those rules have allowed copyright
infringement on the Internet to become a growing phenomenon in China."
However, the report identifies that "China still had not acceded to the 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet-related treaties, which entered
into force in 2002 and have been ratified by many developed and developing countries."
The report notes that "China is not obligated under WTO rules to accede to the
WIPO treaties", but adds that the U.S. "considers these treaties to reflect
international norms for providing copyright protection over the Internet. While China’s
existing regulations and implementing rules do address certain copyright issues related
to the Internet, and China is in the process of drafting further Internet-related
implementing rules, the United States has urged China to promptly accede to the WIPO
treaties and harmonize its regulations and implementing rules with them fully."
The report is more critical of China in the area of enforcement.
It finds that while the "TRIPS Agreement requires China to implement effective
enforcement procedures and to provide civil and criminal remedies that have a
deterrent effect" there is not "effective IPR enforcement at the local
level". It identifies "lack of coordination among Chinese government ministries and agencies, local
protectionism and corruption, high thresholds for criminal prosecution, lack of training and weak
The report finds that as a result, "In 2003, IPR infringement in China continued to affect products,
brands and technologies from a wide range of industries, including films, music, publishing,
software, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, information technology, consumer goods, electrical
equipment, automotive parts and industrial products, among many others."
The report then examines the weaknesses in China's
administrative enforcement, criminal enforcement, and civil actions for damages.
With respect to administrative enforcement, the report states
that "China continues to take a large number of administrative
enforcement actions against IPR violators. However, they are not having a deterrent effect."
The report identifies several reasons, including that fines are artificially low,
that "evidence showing that a person was caught warehousing infringing goods is not
sufficient to prove an intent to sell them", and that administrative
authorities rarely forward an administrative case for criminal investigation.
With respect to criminal enforcement, the report states that "At present, criminal enforcement has virtually no deterrent
effect on infringers. China's authorities have pursued criminal prosecutions in a small number
of cases, and a lack of transparency makes it sometimes difficult to find out if they
resulted in convictions and, if so, what penalties were imposed. If this situation is to change,
China needs to revise its laws and regulations and to prosecute a much higher percentage of IPR
infringers, particularly those engaged in commercial-scale counterfeiting or piracy and repeat
Finally, with respect to civil enforcement, the report finds that while IPR
holders are increasingly bringing civil actions, and China's IPR courts have shown
"increasing sophistication", nevertheless, "U.S. companies complain that
there is still a lack of consistent and fair enforcement of China’s IPR laws and
regulations in the courts. They have found
that most judges lack necessary technical training and that court rules regarding evidence,
expert witnesses, protection of confidential information are vague or ineffective. In addition,
in the patent area, where enforcement through civil litigation is of particular
importance, a single case still takes four to seven years to complete, rendering the
new damages provisions
adopted to comply with China's TRIPS Agreement obligations less meaningful."
Telecommunications. The USTR report also addresses telecommunications.
First, the report summarizes China's obligations. It states that
"In its accession agreement, China agreed to permit foreign
suppliers to provide a broad range of telecommunications services through joint ventures with Chinese
companies, including domestic and international wired services, mobile voice and data
services, value-added services, such as electronic mail, voice mail and on-line information and database
retrieval, and paging services. The foreign stake permitted in the joint ventures is to increase
over time, reaching a maximum of 49 percent for most types of services."
In addition, "China also accepted key principles from the WTO
Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services. As a result, China became obligated
to separate the regulatory and operating functions of MII (which has been both the
telecommunications regulatory agency in China and the operator of China Telecom) upon its accession.
China also became obligated to adopt pro-competitive regulatory principles ..."
(Parentheses in original.)
The report notes that in December 2001, China "issued regulations on the
administration of foreign-invested telecommunications enterprises." However,
these regulations "establish high capital requirements (in basic and value-added
telecommunications services) that pose a barrier to entry for many potential foreign
suppliers". (Parentheses in original.)
Moreover, the report states that "China has not yet established an independent
regulator in the telecommunications sector. The current regulator, MII, while
nominally separate from the current telecommunications operators, maintains extensive
influence and control over their operations and continues to use its regulatory authority to
disadvantage foreign firms."
The report continues that "Over the last year, the problems in the telecommunications
sector have increased." For example, in states that in April of 2003, "MII
reclassified several telecommunications services from the value-added category to the
basic category, contrary to widely accepted international practice and, in some instances,
in apparent contravention of the spirit, if not the letter, of China's scheduled commitments."
also placed restrictions on what new services could be classified under the value-added category.
These moves are likely to limit the ability of U.S. firms to access China’s telecommunications
market. Under China’s Services Schedule, basic services are on a slower liberalization
schedule, and MII subjects them to higher capitalization requirements. Indeed, MII requires
basic services to satisfy an excessive registered capital requirement of RMB 2 billion ($241.2
Also, "MII continues to process applications very slowly for
the few foreign-invested telecommunications enterprises that have attempted to satisfy
MII's licensing requirements."
|California Court Rules City Can Only Charge
Reasonable Costs for Fiber Optic Access to ROW
12/18. The California Court of Appeal (4/2) issued its
[MS Word] in Williams v. Riverside, a case regarding a California
city's attempt to exact monopoly rents from a company installing a fiber optic
network using the city's local rights of way. The company paid under protest,
built its network, and then sued the city. The Superior Court upheld the city's
scheme. The Court of Appeal, applying California's public utilities and government
installed conduit, fiber optic cable, and related equipment in streets in the
City of Riverside, in southern
California. Riverside required Williams to pay $750,000, calculated at the rate
of $1.50 per foot, to build these facilities. Williams paid under protest, and
built the facilities.
Williams then filed a complaint in Superior Court for Riverside County
arguing that the mandated payment was in excess of Riverside's reasonable costs,
and therefore illegal under California's Public Utilities Code section 7901 and
Government Code section 50030. Williams further argued that the payment was
coerced and that it had the right to recover the illegal payment under the
California Mitigation Fee Act, codified at Gov. Code, § 66000, et seq.
Riverside argued that it did not require the payment. Rather, it was
negotiated. However, it did not assert that $750,000 represented its costs.
The trial court ruled in favor of Riverside, and ordered Williams to pay
Riverside an additional $212,861, as attorneys fees.
Section 7901 provides that "Telegraph or telephone corporations may construct
lines of telegraph or telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway,
along or across any of the waters or lands within this State, and may erect
poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and
other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as
not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the
navigation of the waters."
Riverside argued that section 7901 is inapplicable because Williams failed to
show that it is a telephone corporation which will use the right of way on
Riverside to provide telephone services. The gist of its argument was that
Williams does not provide telephone services within the meaning of this section
because it is building a digital fiber optic network that that provides voice,
data, video, and internet transmission services.
The trial court adopted this argument. The Court of Appeal did not. It wrote
that "The fundamental issue, therefore, is whether the City may levy charges for
use of the City streets to a telephone company when the telephone company lines
may carry signals which are not telephone signals." It concluded that "Williams
established that it is a telephone company which provides telephone
services. The bulk of its income is derived from telephone transmission
services. The fact that other data is transmitted over the telephone lines does
not deprive Williams of the protection afforded by section 7901."
Section 50030 provides that "Any permit fee imposed by a city, including a
chartered city, a county, or a city and county, for the placement, installation,
repair, or upgrading of telecommunications facilities such as lines, poles, or
antennas by a telephone corporation that has obtained all required
authorizations to provide telecommunications services from the Public Utilities
Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, shall not exceed the
reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged and shall
not be levied for general revenue purposes."
The Court of Appeal held that the payment was in excess of "reasonable costs"
under section 50030, and hence, illegal.
The Court of Appeal construed sections 7901 and 50030. However, it also
referred to the legislative history of section 50030, which was enacted in 1996.
It addresses the policy of promoting emerging technologies, and hence, economic
growth and social benefits.
The Court of Appeal quoted from the state legislature's findings and
declarations: "(1) Connecting all California homes and businesses to the
information superhighway has the potential to position the state on the leading
edge of the telecommunications revolution. The emerging technologies will
encourage economic growth and provide social benefits to all Californians, as
well as allow California businesses and residents to compete in national and
international markets. [¶] (2) Congress and the Legislature of the State of
California have enacted telecommunications policies that include provisions to
encourage the development and deployment of new technologies, and the equitable
provision of services in a way that efficiently meets consumer need and
encourages the ubiquitous availability of a wide choice of state-of-the-art
services, and to promote economic growth, job creation, and the substantial
social benefits that will result from the rapid implementation of advanced
information and communications technologies. [¶] (3) New technologies require
investment and expansion of telecommunications networks in order to bring
greater choice to consumers by encouraging universally available
telecommunications service. [¶] (b) The Legislature further finds and
declares that this act does not constitute a change in existing law."
The Court of Appeal also rejected Riverside's argument that it did not
require the payment. It wrote that "The evidence established, however, that the
City would not grant the necessary permits without a license agreement, and
would not enter into a license agreement without payment of the fee".
The Court of Appeal also reversed the trial court's holding that the
California Mitigation Fee Act does not apply.
Finally, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorneys fees to
Riverside, because Williams is the prevailing party.
This case is Williams Communications LLC v. City of Riverside, Court
of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, No. E032661, an appeal from
the Superior Court for Riverside County, Super. Ct. No. RIC354749.
|FCC Issues First Citation Under FCC Do Not
12/18. Kurt Schroeder, Deputy Chief of the
Telecommunications Consumers Division of the
Enforcement Bureau of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) wrote a
letter [4 pages in PDF] to CPM Funding, Inc., d/b/a California Pacific
Mortgage, regarding its alleged failure to comply with the FCC's national do not
The letter states that "This is an official CITATION, issued
pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5),
for violations of the Federal Communications Commission's rules that
govern telephone solicitations and unsolicited advertisements." (Emphasis in
original. Hyperlink added.)
FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David Solomon stated in a
release [PDF] that "This is a landmark enforcement step -- the first FCC
action to enforce our new National Do Not Call rules. This citation demonstrates
our resolve to ensure that consumers are not bothered by unwanted, intrusive
calls to their homes. Do Not Call enforcement is the FCC’s top consumer
protection priority and we, along with our partners at the FTC, will continue to
be vigilant in this area on behalf of the American public."
|TLJ experienced technical difficulties yesterday and
today with e-mail delivery, resulting in delays. Some
subscribers also received multiple
identical copies yesterday. TLJ apologizes for this. In the
event that any subscribers did not receive yesterday's issue, it
is now in the TLJ web site. See,
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 802,
December 18, 2003.
The TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert will not be published on Wednesday, December 24,
Thursday, December 25, or Friday, December 26.
|GAO Reports that Federal Agencies'
Enterprise Architecture Management is Limited, and Not Improving
12/18. The General Accounting Office (GAO)
released a report [427
pages in PDF] titled "Information Technology: Leadership Remains Key to
Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise Architecture Efforts".
This report, which was prepared for the
House Government Reform Committee, finds
that federal agencies' progress toward
effective enterprise architecture management is limited. Of the agencies studied
by the GAO, only the Executive Office of the President reported performing all of the
management practices that are
indicative of effective enterprise architecture management. In contrast, the
Department of Commerce (DOC) and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) both performed
only one of five such practices.
The report begins with a discussion of information technology
(IT) and enterprise architecture (EA). It states that "attempting to
modernize and evolve IT environments without an enterprise architecture to guide
and constrain investments often results in operations and systems that are
duplicative, not well integrated, unnecessarily costly to maintain and
interface, and ineffective in supporting mission goals. A properly managed
enterprise architecture helps to clarify and optimize the interdependencies and
relationships among enterprise operations and their supporting IT assets, so
that agencies can base IT investment decisions on an explicit and common
understanding of both today’s and tomorrow’s environments. The development,
implementation, and maintenance of architectures are widely recognized as
hallmarks of successful public and private organizations, and their use is
required by the Clinger-Cohen Act and the implementing guidance, issued by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Further, the E-Government Act of 2002
assigns OMB responsibility for overseeing enterprise architectures." (Footnotes
The report finds that "Federal agencies progress toward effectively managing
enterprise architectures is limited, with much work remaining. Since our 2001
assessment of agencies' enterprise architecture management maturity, the
percentage of agencies that have established at least a foundation for
enterprise architecture management (i.e., they perform management practices that
provide the basis for effectively managing the development, maintenance, and use
of architectures) is virtually unchanged, decreasing from 53 to 48 percent.
Further, the percentage of agencies performing the full complement of management
practices that are necessary for effective enterprise architecture management is
the same (about 4 percent)." (Parentheses in original.)
In addition, the report states that "when agencies are assessed against the
recent update of our maturity framework (Version 1.1), the percentage that have
established at least a foundation for enterprise architecture management drops
to 21 percent; only one agency (1 percent), the Executive Office of
the President, reported performing all of the management practices that are
indicative of effective enterprise architecture management.
The report concludes that "This limited
progress can be attributed in part to long-standing enterprise architecture
challenges that have yet to be addressed. In particular, since 2001, more
agencies now report that agency executive understanding of enterprise
architecture and the scarcity of skilled architecture staff are significant
challenges. Until agencies have and use well-defined enterprise architectures,
their ability to effectively leverage IT in transforming mission operations will
|7th Circuit Rules in Cell Tower Case
12/18. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(7thCir) issued its
[PDF] in Primeco Personal Communications v. City
of Mequon, a cell tower construction case. The city denied a permit. The
District Court granted summary judgment to the service provider. The Appeals
The City of Mequon, in the state of Wisconsin, denied Primeco's (dba Verizon
Wireless) request to build a cell tower. Primeco then filed a complaint in
District Court (EDWisc) against Mequon alleging violation of
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7).
Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) requires that "Any decision by a State or local
government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or
modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by
substantial evidence contained in a written record."
The Appeals Court wrote that Mequon's decision was made "without opinion,
so that the only written record of the evidence and
reasoning supporting denial is the transcript of the planning commission’s
deliberations". Nevertheless, the Appeals Court gave a detailed review of the
statute and precedent, analyzed the planning commission's members' statements,
and concluded that Mequon had violated the statute.
The Court wrote, in the end, that "It is doubtful that the planning
commission's decision can be said to be supported by any evidence at all; certainly
it cannot be said to be supported by substantial evidence."
Judge Richard Posner wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Judges Kanne
and Rovner joined.
Posner gave this summary of the analysis to be applied under
Section 332. "A reasonable decision whether to approve the construction of an
antenna for cellphone communications requires balancing two considerations. The
first is the contribution that the antenna will make to the availability of
cellphone service. The second is the aesthetic or other harm that the antenna
will cause. The unsightliness of the antenna and the adverse effect on property
values that is caused by its unsightliness are the most common concerns, ... and
even safety effects: fear of adverse health effects from electromagnetic
radiation is excluded as a factor, ... but not, for example, concern that the
antenna might obstruct vision or topple over in a strong wind." (Citations
He elaborated that "The balancing test can be refined a bit. The
availability of cellphone service is a function of the number of existing
service providers and the coverage and quality of service that the applicant
could achieve by constructing his antenna in another location where its
unsightliness (or other harmful effects, but none is suggested here) would be
less of a problem or by sharing an already existing telecommunications tower.
The unsightliness of an antenna depends on its height, thickness, and general
appearance, the number of other antennas in the area, and the character of the
area’s land uses (for example, residential versus commercial), including the
height of other buildings in the area. Coverage is a function of the number of
providers, the coverage by each provider, and the increase in overall coverage
at the disputed site if the antenna is built there, compared to alternative
locations. Thus a new firm that has from a service standpoint two equally good
alternative sites can rightly be compelled to place the antenna in the less
conspicuous location, which might be an existing telecommunications tower."
(Parentheses in original.)
This case is Primeco Personal Communications, Limited Partnership, d/b/a
Verizon Wireless v. City of Mequon, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th
Circuit, Nos. 03-1514 and 03-1548, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, D.C. No. 01-C-1205, Judge Lynn Adelman presiding.
|People and Appointments
Donahue, P/CEO of Nextel Communications,
will be the chairman of the newly re-chartered
Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC VII). See, FCC
12/18. The Members of the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) elected Bradley Smith as Chairman and Ellen
Weintraub as Vice Chair for 2004. See, FEC
release. Smith is
best known for taking seriously First Amendment protections of political speech.
Before his appointment to the FEC in 2000, Smith was a law professor at Capital
University Law School in Columbus, Ohio.
12/18. Howard Griboff was named Assistant Chief of the
Policy Division of the International Bureau
(IB) of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). The FCC stated in a
release that Griboff will "manage projects and provide policy and legal
expertise, including regarding spectrum policy rulemaking items. He also will
oversee certain licensing activities, including mergers." Griboff has worked in
the IB since 1998. From 1996-1998, he worked in the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau. Before that, he worked for the law firm of Fisher Wayland Cooper Leader
12/18. Paul Locke was named Assistant Chief -- Engineering of the Policy
Division of the International Bureau (IB) of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC
stated in a
release that he will "provide engineering management expertise and
contribute to the technical aspects of spectrum policy rulemaking items". He has
worked for the FCC since 2000.
12/18. Real Networks filed a
complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal)
against Microsoft alleging violation of
federal and state antitrust laws. Real stated in a
release that Microsoft has "illegally used its monopoly
power to restrict competition, limit consumer choice and attempt to monopolize
the growing field of digital media". Microsoft responded in a
release that "this is a case where a leading firm is seeking to use the
antitrust laws to protect and increase its marketplace share and to limit the
competition it must face". Microsoft added that "These issues are a rehash of
the same issues that have already been the subject of extensive litigation and a
tough but fair resolution of the government antitrust lawsuit."
Microsoft filed six complaints on December 17, 2003 in King County
Superior Court in the state of Washington against numerous individuals,
corporations, and unknown parties, alleging violation of anti-spam laws of the
states of New York and Washington by sending deceptive spam messages that
contained forged sender names, false subject lines, fake server names,
inaccurate and misrepresented sender addresses, or obscured transmission paths.
list of cases. Much of the spam was routed through compromised internet
protocol (IP) addresses located in the state of New York.
Eliot Spitzer (Attorney
General of New York),
(SVP/GC of Microsoft), and Tim Cranton (Senior Corporate Attorney for Microsoft) held a press conference on
December 18 to announce the lawsuits. See,
12/18. The Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) announced that they will jointly hold a three day workshop
on February 17-19, 2004 on application of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines.
Also, February 10, 2004 is the deadline to submit comments to the DOJ and FTC
regarding this workshop. See,
notice. The DOJ and
FTC also released a report
titled "Merger Challenges Data, Fiscal Years 1999-2003". See also, DOJ
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Friday, December 19
The House is in adjournment.
The Senate is in adjournment. (It will convene on January 20, 2004.)
Supreme Court is in recess. (It will return on January
9:00 - 11:30 AM. The
Executive Office of the President's (EOP)
Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP)
National Science and
Technology Council's (NSTC) Committee on Technology and Physical
Infrastructure Working Group (formerly named the Subcommittee on Construction
and Building) will hold a meeting that is closed to the public. For more
information, contact Paul Domich at
firstname.lastname@example.org or 301 975-5624. Location: White House Conference Center,
Jackson Room, 726 Jackson Place, NW.
12:00 NOON. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Telecommunications
Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "The United Nations World Summit
on Information Society (WSIS): Geneva 2003 and the Road to Tunisia 2005".
The speaker will be David Gross, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International
Communications and Information Policy, Department of State. RSVP to
Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1750 K Street, NW.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding
Northland Networks' petition
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §
252(e)(5) requesting that the FCC preempt the jurisdiction of the
New York Public Service Commission to resolve
a dispute between Northland and Verizon regarding
reciprocal compensation and change of law provisions of their interconnection agreements.
This is WC Docket No. 03-242. See, FCC
|Saturday, December 20
|Monday, December 22
Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Copyright Office (CO) in response
to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding notice and recordkeeping for use of
sound recordings under statutory license. The CO published a
notice in the Federal Register stating that it "is requesting public
comment on the adoption of regulations for records of use of sound recordings
performed pursuant to the statutory license for public performances of sound
recordings by means of digital audio transmissions between October 28, 1998,
and the effective date of soon-to-be-announced interim regulations." See,
Federal Register: October 8, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 195, at Page 58054.
|Thursday, December 25
Christmas. Executive branch agencies will be closed.
|Friday, December 26
Executive branch agencies will be closed. See,
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) regarding digital low power television and television
translator stations. This is FCC 03-198, in MB Docket No. 03-185. See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 26, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 187, at
Pages 55566 - 55573.
|Monday, December 29
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) pertaining to promoting spectrum based services in rural areas. See,
notice in the Federal Register summarizing this NPRM, and story titled "FCC
Announces NPRM Regarding Regulations Affecting the Use of Spectrum in Rural
Areas" in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 739, September 15, 2003. This NPRM is FCC 03-222 in WT
Docket Nos. 02-381, 01-14, and 03-202. The FCC adopted this NPRM on September
10, 2003, and released it on October 6, 2003. See, Federal Register, November
12, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 218, at Pages 64050-64072.
|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