Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert
February 18, 2004, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 839.
Home Page | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues | Reference
10th Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of Do Not Call Registry

2/17. The U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir) issued its opinion [51 pages in PDF] in FTC v. Mainstream Marketing Services (and consolidated cases), the telemarketers' constitutional challenge to the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) do not call registry. The District Court held that the do not call registry violates the First Amendment free speech rights of telemarketers. The Appeals Court reversed.

(The Appeals Court also either reversed, or denied petitions for review, in three related cases that were consolidated with this case.)

The Appeals Court wrote that "The four cases consolidated in this appeal involve challenges to the national do-not-call registry, which allows individuals to register their phone numbers on a national ``do-not-call list´´ and prohibits most commercial telemarketers from calling the numbers on that list. The primary issue in this case is whether the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing an opt-in telemarketing regulation that provides a mechanism for consumers to restrict commercial sales calls but does not provide a similar mechanism to limit charitable or political calls."

The Appeals Court held that "the do-not-call registry is a valid commercial speech regulation because it directly advances the government’s important interests in safeguarding personal privacy and reducing the danger of telemarketing abuse without burdening an excessive amount of speech. In other words, there is a reasonable fit between the do-not-call regulations and the government’s reasons for enacting them."

The Appeals Court wrote that the District Court misapplied the opinion of the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

The Appeals Court held that "1) the do-not-call list is a valid commercial speech regulation under Central Hudson because it directly advances substantial governmental interests and is narrowly tailored; 2) the registry fees telemarketers must pay to access the list are a permissible measure designed to defray the cost of legitimate government regulation; 3) it was not arbitrary and capricious for the FCC to adopt the established business relationship exception; and 4) the FTC has statutory authority to establish and implement the national do-not-call registry."

Reaction. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Timothy Muris stated in a release that "The Tenth Circuit's ruling represents a major victory for American consumers. In upholding the constitutionality of the National Do Not Call Registry, the court has made it clear that the FTC and FCC can and will continue to protect consumers' privacy at home."

Muris added, citing a survey by Harris Interactive, that "the National Do Not Call Registry is enormously popular among consumers who have signed up by the millions. And, the program is successfully working to limit unwanted telemarketing calls. We are pleased that this popular program, like America’s dinner hour, will not be interrupted."

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell stated in a release [PDF] that "This decision is a triumph for American consumers. The National Do-Not-Call Registry is one of the most popular and successful consumer initiatives undertaken by the Federal government and, along with the vast majority of our citizens, I commend the court for removing the shadow of judicial uncertainty."

Earlier Proceedings in FTC v. Mainstream Marketing Services. On September 25, the U.S. District Court (DColo) issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order [34 pages PDF scan] holding that the FTC's do not call registry violates the First Amendment free speech rights of telemarketers. The District Court's decision was based upon its analysis that the FTC's do not call registry is content based regulation that covers commercial, but not non-profit, solicitations. See, story titled "Colorado District Court Holds That Do Not Call Registry Violates 1st Amendment" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 747, September 26, 2003.

The next day, the FTC filed its Notice of Appeal [3 pages in PDF] with the District Court. It also filed a Motion for an Emergency Stay Pending Appeal [3 pages in PDF] and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of It's Motion for an Emergency Stay Pending Appeal [9 pages in PDF]. See, story titled "FTC Appeals District Court Ruling That Do No Call Registry Violates 1st Amendment" also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 748, September 29, 2003. See also, stories titled "Do Not Call Registry Developments" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 749, September 30, 2003; and "Senate Commerce Committee Holds Hearing on Do Not Call Registry" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 750, October 1, 2003.

On October 7 the Court of Appeals issued an order staying the September 25 order of the District Court. This permitted the FTC and FCC to proceed to implement and enforce their rules pertaining to the do not call registry. See, story titled "10th Circuit Stays District Court Injunction of Implementation of Do Not Call Registry" also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 755, October 8, 2003.

On October 17, the FTC, FCC, and USA filed their consolidated opening brief [120 pages in PDF] with the Court of Appeals.

On November 10, 2003, the Court of Appeals heard oral argument

This case is Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc., TMG Marketing Inc., and American Teleservices Association v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, No. 03-1429, and consolidated cases; No. 03-1429 is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, D.C. No. 03-N-0184, Judge Edward Nottingham presiding.

Cingular Wireless Announces Deal to Acquire AT&T Wireless

2/17. Cingular Wireless announced an agreement to acquire AT&T Wireless. Cingular stated in a release that "Under the terms of the agreement approved by the boards of directors of Cingular and AT&T Wireless, shareholders of AT&T Wireless will receive $15 cash per common share or approximately $41 billion. The acquisition, which is subject to the approvals of AT&T Wireless shareholders and federal regulatory authorities, and to other customary closing conditions, is expected to be completed as soon as late 2004."

Cingular is a joint venture between BellSouth Corporation and SBC Communications.

SBC stated in a release that "The boards of Cingular and AT&T Wireless have approved the merger agreement. SBC Communications and BellSouth have committed funding to Cingular for the all cash deal." SBC added that "SBC's and BellSouth's proportionate equity stake in Cingular will remain unchanged following the transaction, with SBC holding 60 percent and BellSouth 40 percent of the equity. Management control will remain 50-50."

Vodafone is another wireless company that had sought to acquire AT&T Wireless. Vodafone stated in a release that "On 17 February 2004, Vodafone withdrew from the auction when it concluded that it was no longer in its shareholder's best interests to continue discussions." It added that "Vodafone remains committed to its existing position in the US market with its successful partnership in Verizon Wireless."

The proposed deal requires approval by both the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) issued a joint release in which they stated that "With today's announcement of Cingular Wireless's plans to acquire AT&T Wireless, it appears that the much anticipated consolidation in the wireless telephone industry is now underway. For several years, consumers have benefited from vibrant competition in this industry with a choice of several national providers. We will closely monitor this deal, and any subsequent transactions in this industry, to insure that millions of consumers who rely on cell phones continue to realize the benefits of a competitive marketplace."

The two Senators are the Chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee. The two usually work in a cooperative and bipartisan fashion on antitrust and competition issues.

Steve Largent, the P/CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA), stated in a release that "Greater consolidation has long been expected in the wireless industry, and should bring important benefits to consumers. Industry consolidation began in 1986, and we have consistently delivered competitive prices, better service and new innovations to wireless customers."

Both Cingular and AT&T Wireless use GSM technology. GSM is an acronym for both Groupe Speciale Mobile, and Global System for Mobile communications.

4th Circuit Rules USPTO Ad Campaign Was Not A Reviewable Final Agency Action

2/11. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in Invention Submission Corporation v. Rogan, regarding what constitutes a final agency action, so as to be reviewable by a court. The Appeals Court held that an agency advertising campaign that is facially neutral, and does not identify any party, is not a final agency action.

Invention Submission Corporation (ISC) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (EDVa) against James Rogan, the former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in his official capacity, alleging violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). ISC alleged that the USPTO's advertising campaign in 2002 to alert the public about invention promotion scams was aimed at ISC and harmed ISC. ISC alleged that this ad campaign was an illegal final agency action that was arbitrary and capricious, and that exceeded the statutory authority of the USPTO.

The District Court dismissed the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded with instructions that the District Court dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the grounds that the ad campaign was not a final agency action.

The Appeals Court wrote that "the issue presented is whether the PTO's advertising campaign, allegedly aimed at Invention Submission to penalize it, constituted final agency action under the APA so as to be reviewable in court."

The Court reviewed the relevant provisions of the APA, and applicable precedent.

5 U.S.C. § 704 provides that "final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court" is "subject to judicial review."

5 U.S.C. § 551 provides that ''``agency action´´ includes the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act".

The Court, quoting from Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997), wrote that "at bottom, a final agency action as used in § 704 must be the ``consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process . . . [and] must be [an action] by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.´´"

The Court then applied the facts of this case to the law. It first noted that "In this case, the advertising material published by the PTO under the Inventors' Rights Act did not name or single out Invention Submission or any other invention promoter. The advertisements were facially neutral, aimed at all invention promotion scams -- scams that the advertisements asserted were causing the public to lose $200 million each year."

The Court concluded that the APA "does not provide judicial review for everything done by an administrative agency", and that the USPTO's ad campaign "is not the type of conduct that constitutes agency action that is reviewable in court under the APA".

The Court added that "Other than the administrative decision to conduct an advertising campaign at all -- a decision that Invention Submission has not challenged -- the content of the campaign was not the consummation of any decision-making process that determined rights or obligations or from which legal consequences flowed."

Whether ISC engaged in invention promotion scams was not at issue in this appeal. However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued ISC in 1993 for misrepresenting the nature, quality, and success rate of the invention promotion services. ISC settled that case for $1.2 Million in consumer redress. See, FTC release.

This case is Invention Submission Corporation v. James Rogan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, No. 02-2461, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, D.C. No. CA-02-1038-A, Judge Leonie Brinkema.

USTR Zoellick Discusses US Outsourcing

2/17. U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Zoellick held a press conference in India at which he discussed outsourcing.

Robert ZoellickZoellick (at left), who began a trip last week to Japan, China, Singapore, India, and Europe, was asked, "what is the Administration's stand on outsourcing?"

"What a surprising question", said Zoellick. He then gave a long, but not responsive, answer to this and related questions. He emphasized that trade its two-way, that it benefits both countries, and suggested that if India wants to benefit from outsourcing from the US, it must also open its markets to US products. However, he did not articulate a clear statement of the Bush administration's position on outsourcing.

He said that "one of the things that has been striking about the progress of reforms in India is that I think it has created not only growth but an additional confidence and recognition of India's interests in the global and international trading system, and information technology and a series of service industries are definitely part of that."

But, he said trade is "two-way", and "that's what I think this is about for all our countries because trade involves change. And change can create jobs, but people also worry about its effect on jobs."

He said that US Congressional legislation regarding outsourcing reflects "an anxiety about job loss in the United States because of outsourcing."

He continued that "more broadly, what this involves is the whole question of services, telecommunications services, financial services, professional services, where again I think, and I hope this is changing, but India has been more reluctant to make those sort of commitments to openness."

He also stated that "Now, what that amounts to is the fact that it really brings us to the point of the visit, which is we want to keep our markets open, but to do so we need to be able to open markets abroad. We need to make, as the ``Business Standard´´ said, make it a two-way street, and that includes services, goods and agriculture."

"Now, our view is that trade should be ``win-win.´´" Zoellick added that "And that's exactly what we are about in the Doha Agenda, is that how we can create additional jobs in India, in the United States, increase incomes, and have both grow together."

Later, he responded that "if India wants to have the ability to have outsourcing and wants to have the ability to sell goods to the United States, well you can see India is also going to have to open up. And again, let's put this in a context. You know, the average bound tariff in agriculture for India -- that is the tariff that you could go up to, the current tariff is lower -- is 112 percent. That tariff is twice the level -- twice the level -- of the average in the world. It is 10 times the level of the United States."

Finally, he said that "India will be one of the prime beneficiaries of the international trading system. You can see, this country is vibrant, its growing, it has sensitivities you still need to deal with, but you've got talented people, you've got a very good university and technology system, the engineers -- you will be one of the major beneficiaries of what we are trying to make happen. My view is, my country will too, because I believe open markets keep prices lower and they also create productivity. But the key message is no one country can do it alone. And this is not just India, it is going to be China, its other major developing countries."

See, transcript of press conference.

NTIA Publishes Notice Regarding TOP Grants

2/17. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published a notice in the Federal Register regarding the availability of Technology Opportunity Program (TOP) grants under fiscal year 2004 appropriations. The NTIA has about $12.9 Million in grants is available.

The notice states that "All funded projects must be interactive and foster the exchange and sharing of information among individuals and/or groups, as opposed to one-way or broadcast systems. These projects are expected to serve as national models, even though the applicant may propose to pilot the project at the local level. Funded projects must evidence a strong probability of replication in other communities throughout the United States. Accordingly, priority will be given to projects that address problems of national significance, expand economic opportunities, enhance productivity, increase worker skills, and create jobs for American workers."

It adds that "Priority also will be given to projects demonstrating the use of new telecommunications and information technologies. NTIA is especially interested in applications of wireless technologies including, but not limited to, WI-FI, unlicensed spectrum devices, and projects demonstrating the potential application of 3rd generation or Advanced Wireless Services. All projects are expected to advance the body of knowledge and expand service availability and effectiveness in their respective content areas."

Grant applications must be either postmarked no later than April 27, 2004, or hand-delivered no later than 5:00 PM EST on April 27, 2004.

See, Federal Register, February 17, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 31, at Pages 7452 - 7454. See also, the NTIA's TOP web page.

ALJ Dismisses FTC Complaint Against Rambus

2/17. Stephen McGuire, Chief Administrative Law Judge, issued an Order [1 pages PDF scan] dismissing the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) administrative complaint against Rambus, Inc.

The FTC released only a one page order that states merely that "Accordingly, Complaint Counsel having failed to sustain its burden of establishing liability for the violations alleged, the Complaint is DISMISSED." The FTC has not yet released the opinion of the ALJ.

The FTC stated in a release that "The judge's initial decision contains in camera material which must be redacted before it is publicly released. Release of the public version of that decision is expected early next week."

The page number of the order is 334, which suggests that the opinion is about 333 pages long.

On June 19, 2003, FTC filed an administrative complaint against Rambus alleging anti competitive behavior in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) in connection with its participation in a standard setting body for dynamic random access memory products. See, story titled "FTC Files Administrative Complaint Against Rambus" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 455, June 20, 2002.

This proceeding is titled "In the Matter of Rambus Incorporated". This is FTC Docket No. 9302. The FTC has published a web page with hyperlinks to pleadings in this proceeding.

The FTC stated in a release that "The Judge's initial decision is subject to review by the full Commission, either on its own motion or at the request of either party. The initial decision will become the decision of the Commission 30 days after it is served on the parties or 30 days after the filing of a timely notice of appeal (whichever is later), unless: (1) a party filing a notice of appeal perfects an appeal by the timely filing of an appeal brief, or (2) the Commission takes certain other actions detailed in its Rules." (Parentheses in original.)

John Danforth, SVP and General Counsel for Rambus, stated in a release that "Today's ruling dismissing the FTC case is a fundamentally important step for Rambus as we seek to be fairly compensated for the use of our intellectual property". He added that "The ruling adds to the powerful reasoning favoring Rambus that the Federal Circuit issued in January 2003. It is now time, we believe, for these issues to be set aside, and for Rambus patent claims to be resolved on their merits."

On January 29, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its split opinion [MS Word] in Rambus v. Infineon, a patent infringement case involving dynamic random access memory (DRAM) products. The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgment of non-infringement, as a matter of claim construction. It also reversed the District Court's denial of a motion to set aside a jury verdict of fraud based on failure to disclose patent and patent application information to a standard setting body. See, story titled "Federal Circuit Rules in Rambus v. Infineon", also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 594, January 30, 2003.

The complaint pertains to Rambus's participation in the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association, which was formerly known as the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council. JEDEC develops and issues technical standards for a form of computer memory known as synchronous dynamic random access memory (SDRAM).

The complaint alleges that Rambus "has illegally monopolized, attempted to monopolize, or otherwise engaged in unfair methods of competition in certain markets relating to technological features necessary for the design and manufacture of a common form of digital computer memory, known as dynamic random access memory, or ``DRAM.´´"

The FTC alleged that Rambus engaged in anticompetitive behavior in violation of Section 5 of the FTCA, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 45, by "participating in the work of an industry standard setting organization, known as JEDEC, without making it known to JEDEC or to its members that Rambus was actively working to develop, and did in fact possess, a patent and several pending patent applications that involved specific technologies proposed for and ultimately adopted in the relevant standards. By concealing this information -- in violation of JEDEC's own operating rules and procedures -- and through other bad faith, deceptive conduct, Rambus purposefully sought to and did convey to JEDEC the materially false and misleading impression that it possessed no relevant intellectual property rights."

Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
Wednesday, February 18

The House and Senate will be in recess from February 16 through February 20 for the Presidents Day recess.

9:00 AM - 5:15 PM. Day two of a three day workshop to be hosted by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on merger enforcement. See, notice and agenda. Location: FTC, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW, Conference Center.

10:00 AM. Jane Mago, Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, will host an event titled "briefing for members of the media". She is likely to address voice of internet protocol (VOIP), wireless internet service providers (WISP) in rural areas, and the work of the Advisory Committee on Diversity in the Digital Age. Persons intending to attend are requested to contact Meribeth McCarrick at 202 418-0654 or Location: FCC, 8th floor South Conference Room (8-B516), 445 12th Street, SW.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a luncheon program titled "Bursting the Bubble on Internet Pop-Up Ads?". The speakers will be Terrance Ross (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, attorneys for the Washington Post in Washington Post v. Gator), Arnold Lutzker (attorney for defendants in U-Haul v., and Walter Effross (American University). Prices vary. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "DTV Reality -- It's Here". The speakers will include Rick Chessen, the Associate Bureau Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau, and head of the FCC's DTV Task Force. For more information, contact Peter Corea at 202 418-7931 or or Ryan Wallach at 202 303-1159 or Location: Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1875 K St., NW.

3:00 PM. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Under Secretary  Frank Libutti, DHS Assistant Secretary Bob Liscouski, and DHS Privacy Officer Nuala Kelly will host an event to announce a "Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program". Location: Nebraska Avenue Complex, Building 21, 3801 Nebraska Avenue, NW.

Day two of a three day workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division titled "Advanced Information Technology (IT) Security Auditing". See, notice. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

Thursday, February 19

9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. Day three of a three day workshop to be hosted by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on merger enforcement. See, notice and agenda. Location: FTC, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW, Conference Center.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Joe Whitley, General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prices vary. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: Morrison & Foerster, 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 5500.

4:00 PM. Michael Carroll (Villanova University School of Law) will present a paper titled "The Human Face of Deadweight Loss: Recognizing the Limits of Ignorance as a Justification for Uniform Intellectual Property Rights". For more information, contact Robert Brauneis at 202 994-6138 or Location: George Washington University Law School, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 716 20th Street, NW.

Day three of a three day workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division titled "Advanced Information Technology (IT) Security Auditing". See, notice. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

Friday, February 20

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Communications Vending Corp. v. FCC, No. 02-1364. Judges Sentelle, Randolph, and Tatel will preside. Location: Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) will host a tutorial titled "Capacity Enhancement Methods for Wireless Networks: Complementary Beamforming, Space-Time Coding and Space-Time Collaborative Communications". The speaker will be Vahid Tarokh, a professor of electrical engineering at Harvard. See, notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305), 445 12th Street, SW.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "Have Attorney's Fees Risen in Class Action Settlements?". See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding its review of the effectiveness of inter partes reexamination proceedings. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 30, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 249, at Pages 75217 - 75218.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding BellSouth's request for a declaratory ruling that the state commissions may not regulate broadband internet access services by requiring BellSouth to provide wholesale or retail broadband services to voice service customers of competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) using unbundled network elements (UNEs). BellSouth submitted its 334 page filing on December 9, 2003. See, "Emergency Request for Declaratory Ruling" (without attachments) [35 pages in PDF]. This is WC Docket No. 03-251. See, FCC notice [PDF].

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) regarding DRAFT Special Publication 800-60, titled "Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information Systems to Security Categories". See, Volume I [PDF] and Volume II [PDF]. Comments should be submitted to For more information, contact Elaine Frye at

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) its request that parties refresh the record regarding reconsideration of rules adopted in the 1999 access reform docket. This is CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157, and CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, adopted August 5, 1999, and released August 27, 1999. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 21, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 13, at Pages 2862 - 2863.

Monday, February 23

The Senate will return from its Presidents Day recess, at 12:00 NOON.

The Supreme Court will return from the recess that it began on January 26.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in AT&T  v. FCC, No. 03-1017. This petition for review pertains to pay telephones. See, FCC brief [46 pages in PDF]. Judges Randolph, Rogers and Tatel will preside. Location: Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host panel discussion titled "European and American Approaches to Antitrust Remedies and the Institutional Design of Regulation in Telecommunications". The speakers will be Damien Geradin (University of Liege and College of Europe), Gregory Sidak (AEI), Abbott Lipsky (Latham & Watkins), and David Sibley (U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division). See, notice. Location: AEI, Twelfth Floor, 1150 17th Street, NW.

10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. Meg Bellinger, Associate University Librarian at Yale University, will give a speech titled "Stewardship in the Digital Age: Roles and Issues for Libraries for Preserving Our Cultural Heritage". For more information, call 202 707-1183. Location: Dining Room A, 6th Floor, Madison Building, Library of Congress.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its proposed rules regarding universal service subsidies for rural health clinics. Comments are due by February 23, 2004. Reply comments are due by April 7, 2004. See, notice in the Federal Register, December 24, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 247, at Pages 74538 - 74541.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its proposed rules regarding use of satellite earth stations on board vessels in the 5925-6425 MHz, 3700-4200 MHz, 14.0-14.5 GHz and 11.7-12.2 GHz bands. The NPRM is FCC 03-286 in IB Docket No. 02-10. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 22, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 14, at Pages 3056 - 3064.

Tuesday, February 24

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on titled "Cyberterrorism". Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) will preside. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

Wednesday, February 25

10:00 AM. The House Budget Committee will hold a hearing titled "The Economic Outlook and Current Fiscal Issues". The witness will be Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. Location: Room 210, Cannon Building.

10:00 AM. The President's Export Council's Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA) will hold a partially closed meeting. The PECSEA provides advice on encouraging trade with countries with which the U.S. has diplomatic or trading relations and of controlling trade for national security and foreign policy reasons. The agenda includes a presentation by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). See, notice in the Federal Register, February 3, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 22, at Page 5125. Location: Department of Commerce, Room 4832, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Online Communications Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "VoIP Deployment Overview". The speakers will be Rick Whitt (MCI), Melissa Newman (Qwest), Elana Shapochinikov (Net2Phone). RSVP to Evelyn Opany at 202 689-7163. Location: Piper Rudnick, 1200 19th St., NW.

People and Appointments

2/17. Joseph Watson was named Associate Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Office of Policy Analysis and Development. He was previously legislative director to Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL). See, NTIA release.

2/17. Kay Wilkie was appointed chair of the U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC). This Committee provides advice on trade agreements from the perspective of state and local governments. She works for the New York State Department of Economic Development. See, USTR release [PDF].

More News

2/17. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its annual report [103 pages in PDF] titled "Telecommunications Provider Locator". The report was prepared by the Wireline Competition Bureau's (WCB) Industry Analysis and Technology Division. It lists 4,748 companies registered to provide interstate telecommunications as of October of 2003. There were 5,364 such companies as of November of 2002. See also, FCC release [PDF].

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 information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2004 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.