4/5. Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) introduced S 2281, the "VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004" in the Senate on April 5.. Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS) introduced HR 4129, also titled the "VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004", in the House on April 2. The two bills are very similar, but contain several differences in the section dealing with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to regulate connected VOIP applications.

Both bills provide that regulation of voice over internet protocol (VOIP) is an exclusively federal perogative. Both bills provide that the states cannot tax the offering or provision of a VOIP application. And, both bills provide that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regulatory authority only in enumerated areas: interprovider compensation, universal service contributions, and law enforcement surveillance. However, the bills differ regarding the nature and extent of the FCC's regulatory authority in these categories.

The bills do not give the FCC regulatory authority over E911, disabled access, security, or reliability. Rather, they call for the FCC to appoint an industry body to develop consensus guidelines. The bills completely remove privacy protection and price regulation from of the regulatory process.

For a detailed summary of the contents of each bill, see story titled "Summary of VOIP Regulatory Freedom Bills", below.

Sen. Sununu is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and its Communications Subcommittee. Rep. Pickering is a member of the House Commerce Committee, and its Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Neither bill has cosponsors.

Sen. Sununu generally takes a free market approach to telecommunications and internet issues. He also takes a libertarian approach on issues that involve the intersection of communications and law enforcement searches and surveillance.

For example, he is a cosponsor of S 1709, the "Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003", or SAFE Act, a bill to roll back a few of the more controversial provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. See, story titled "Senators Craig and Durbin Introduce Bill to Modify PATRIOT Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 753, October 6, 2003. He is also a cosponsor of S 1695, the "PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act". See, story titled "Sen. Leahy Introduces Bill to Expand List of Surveillance Provisions of PATRIOT Act to Be Sunsetted", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 757, October 14, 2003.

Hence, it is not unexpected that one of the major differences between Sen. Sununu's and Rep. Pickering's versions of this bill is on the subject of law enforcement surveillance of VOIP applications, and CALEA, or CALEA-like, regulation. Rep. Pickering's version is more FBI friendly.

Sen. Sununu (at right) spoke in the Senate regarding his bill. He said that VOIP is "a growing area of technology and innovation, but it is one where there is not a very clear path regarding regulatory and taxing jurisdiction, and there are not a lot of laws on the books that clearly address this new technology." (See, transcript of statement.)

He said that the purpose of his bill is "to make sure consumers continue to have the benefits of lower costs, new features, and better service that is the potential of this technology".

He then summarized the content of his bill. He said that it "declares this is a technology that uses national and global broadband data networks, the Internet, that we have all read and heard so much about by this point in time. It recognizes these are international networks, global networks, and therefore we should have Federal jurisdiction in this area."

Also, "it takes the step of preempting States from regulating in this area, the area related to voice-over-Internet-protocol applications, because what we do not need is a patchwork of 50 different sets of regulations that would stifle the innovation, the investment, and the productivity we all hope will come from this technology."

He elaborated that "Even worse, the regulations some States have already begun to try to apply are not regulations developed for the Internet, broadband, or a voice-over-Internet-protocol application. They are really designed for a copper wire circuit switch telephone network that was invented 100 years ago and for which most of these State regulations were developed in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. It is an outdated system and we should not be trying to force old regulatory structures on this new technology."

He continued that his bill will also "clarify the definition for information services, for VOIP applications, in a way that can be easily understood given new and emerging technologies." He added that "It states clearly what it is and what it is not from a regulatory perspective, and then treats it much like we would any other information service that uses Internet protocol, whether it is an e-mail, an instant message, or sending other data over the Internet."

He also said that "The bill makes sure that voice-over-Internet -protocol providers participate in existing Federal universal service programs. In other areas, such as E-911 emergency calling, and disability access, the bill calls for an industry group to work out the implementation of these important features for the new technology."

As for access charges, he said that his bill "will make sure we do not apply the old access charges to this new technology. We put forward a requirement for the FCC to work out a new system for intercarrier compensation and, of course, we recognize law enforcement will need access to these new voice-over-Internet-protocol applications and state it has to be the same or better access but no less than the access available for information services that currently exist today."

Finally, he said that his bill "protects consumers by ensuring that this new service won't be taxed at the State level."

Rep. Pickering (at left) issued a release regarding these bills. He stated that "VoIP is the next step in voice communications. As this efficient technology grows, consumers will benefit from advanced services and reduced costs ... But for the industry to develop and prosper, we must have a national standard that prevents patchwork regulation from stifling innovation."

His release adds that his bill ensures "a greater degree of market certainty and prevents a misguided approach to regulating VoIP, spurring private innovation which will create competition and costs savings for consumers. Pickering's legislation protects rural communication through provisions regarding the universal service fund and interprovider compensation. No change is made in the competitive transmission access provisions in the 1996 Telecommunications Act."

4/5. S 2281, sponsored by Sen. John Sununu (R-NH), and HR 4129, sponsored by Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS), are both titled the "VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004". The two bills are very similar in most sections, but contain several differences regarding interprovider compensation, universal service contributions, and law enforcement surveillance.

Both bills provide that regulation of voice over internet protocol (VOIP) is an exclusively federal matter, that states cannot tax the offering or provision of a VOIP application, and that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regulatory authority only over enumerated topics: interprovider compensation, universal service contributions, and law enforcement surveillance. However, the bills differ regarding FCC regulatory authority as to these topics.

The two bills provide the same definitions of VOIP application, and connected VOIP application. Neither builds upon legacy regulatory categories -- such as telecommunications services, cable services, or information services -- or the Titles of the Communications Act.

Definitions. Some of the definitions contained in the bills are fundamental to the operation of the bills, and thus must be addressed at the beginning of an article on these bills.

Both bills provide that "The terms `Voice-over-Internet-protocol application' and `VOIP application' mean the use of software, hardware, or network equipment for real-time 2-way or multidirectional voice communications over the public Internet or a private network utilizing Internet protocol, or any successor protocol, in whole or part, to connect users notwithstanding -- (i) the underlying transmission technology used to transmit the communications; (ii) whether the packetizing and depacketizing of the communications occurs at the customer premise or network level; or (iii) the software, hardware, or network equipment used to connect users."

And, notably, both bills provide that these terms do not include "an application that is used for voice communications that both originate and terminate on the public switched telephone network."

For example, AT&T filed a petition [37 pages PDF] on October 18, 2002 with the FCC seeking a ruling that access charges do not apply to its service in which calls originate and terminate on circuit switched public switched telephone network (PSTN) facilities, but are routed on internet backbone. This is WC Docket No. 02-361. This would fall outside of the bills' definition of "VOIP application".

For a summary of VOIP related petitions at the FCC, see stories titled "Level 3 Files VOIP Petition With FCC" and "Summary of Other VOIP Proceedings at the FCC" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 815, January 14, 2004.

Then, both bills provide that a "connected VOIP application" is "a VOIP application that is capable of receiving voice communications from or sending voice communications to the public switched telephone network, or both."

For example, Pulver.com's provides Free World Dialup (FWD). It enables online FWD consumers anywhere in the world to engage in peer to peer communications with other online FWD members. FWD members must have broadband internet access and specialized customer premises equipment or software on their PCs. It is closed. One cannot reach, or be reached by, someone on the PSTN. Thus, FWD would be a "VOIP application", but not a "connected VOIP application".

See, story titled "FCC Rules on Pulver's Free World Dialup VOIP Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 836, February 13, 2004.

VOIP As A Federal Issue. Both bills provide that the regulation of VOIP applications is exclusively a federal matter. Both bills provide that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, responsibility and authority to regulate the offering or provision of a voice-over-Internet-protocol application is reserved solely to the Federal Government."

Both bills provide that "No State or political subdivision thereof may enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force or effect of law that regulates, or has the effect of regulating, the offering or provision of a VoIP application." Moreover, both bills prevent the federal government from delegating authority to regulate VOIP to the states.

Both bills also provide that "No State or political subdivision shall impose any tax, fee, surcharge, or other charge for the purpose of generating revenues for governmental purposes on the offering or provision of a VoIP application".

Limited FCC Regulatory Authority. Next, the two bills limit the authority of the FCC to regulate VOIP applications to certain enumerated categories. They provide that "Except as specifically provided in this Act and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not impose any rule or regulation on, or otherwise regulate, the offering or provision of a VoIP application."

Both bills enumerate three powers: universal service, interprovider compensation, and law enforcement surveillance, although they differ in the specifics.

Neither bill gives the FCC authority to extend E911 rules to VOIP applications. And, neither bill gives the FCC authority to extend disability rules to VOIP applications. However, both bills provide that the FCC shall appoint a body of industry representatives for purposes of developing "consensus guidelines, protocols, or performance requirements" pertaining to E911, "improving use by the disabled community", "improving reliability", and "ensuring appropriate security".

Significantly, neither bill gives the FCC the authority to regulate prices. And, neither bill gives the FCC authority to extend telecommunications privacy rules to VOIP applications.

Finally, both bills maintain the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) authority to regulate unfair and deceptive trade practices, but give no new rule making authority to the FTC.

Universal Service Taxes and Subsidies. Both bills provide that the FCC's collection of contributions or taxes that apply in the context of telecommunications, also apply to "connected VOIP applications". However, there are differences between the two bills.

The Sununu bill provides that the FCC "shall ensure that all providers of a connected VOIP application contribute, directly or indirectly, to the preservation and advancement of Federal universal service programs based on a flat fee, which could include a collection methodology based on the assignment of telephone numbers to end users." Thus, things such as Free World Dialup would not contribute to the universal service fund.

The Pickering bill provides that the FCC must promptly conduct a rule making proceeding "to provide a contribution mechanism applicable to connected VoIP applications, which may include a collection methodology based on the assignment of telephone numbers to end users, other methodologies, or any combination thereof. In the proceeding, the Commission shall seek to ensure the preservation, enhancement, and long-term sustainability of universal service by maximizing participation in the support of universal service among the greatest number of providers of connected VoIP applications."

Both bills address contributions or taxes paid to the universal service fund, but not eligibility for discounts or subsidies from the fund.

Interprovider Compensation. The Sununu bill provides that "The offering or provision of a VOIP application shall not be subject to part 69 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. 69) or successor charges". However, it adds that the FCC may establish an alternative compensation mechanism "for providers of VOIP applications based on -- (A) the mutual recovery of costs through reciprocal obligations; or (B) arrangements that waive mutual recovery (such as bill-and-keep arrangements)." (Parentheses in original.)

In addition, the Sununu bill provides that the FCC "may not impose a compensation mechanism based on the mutual recovery of costs through reciprocal obligations" unless or until the FCC "has established a single unified regime for the sending and receiving of all data and voice communications."

The Pickering bill provides that the FCC must conduct a rulemaking proceeding "to establish a set of rules and standards to provide for appropriate arrangements to compensate providers of facilities and equipment used to transmit communications employing a connected VoIP application".

This bill provides that the FCC shall "provide for an appropriate transition period to allow providers of such facilities and equipment and providers of connected VoIP applications to comply with any rules and standards established" and "consider the unique nature and circumstances relating to the use of such facilities and equipment in varying geographic markets and rural areas".

Surveillance and CALEA. The two bills diverge on the subject of electronic surveillance by law enforcement entities, and extension of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to VOIP applications.

Sununu's bill provides simply that the FCC "shall require a provider of a connected VOIP application to provide access to necessary information to law enforcement agencies not less than that required of information service providers."

This should be read in the context of the language of the CALEA, which imposes requirements upon "telecommunications carriers". The CALEA provides that "telecommunications carriers" does not include "persons or entities insofar as they are engaged in providing information services".

The Sununu bill provides no expansion of the CALEA, as is being sought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In contrast, the Pickering bill contains a long and complex subsection creating statutory requirements for providers of "connected VOIP applications" to "ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services are capable of ... enabling the government to intercept communications transmitted using such application ... delivering such intercepted communications and call-identifying information to the government".

The Pickering bill does not expand the CALEA to include connected VOIP applications. Rather, it creates a new requirement, with a separate statutory basis. But, in the end, it makes the requirements imposed on providers of connected VOIP applications similar to the requirements imposed by the CALEA upon telecommunications carriers.

Indeed, the Pickering bill states that the requirements for connected VOIP applications must be "for the same purposes, to a similar extent, and subject to similar limitations and protections" as are required under the CALEA.

4/7. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer gave a speech in Washington DC at a discussion of cybersecurity hosted by the Center Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). See, transcript.

Ballmer (at right) stated that "Ensuring a more secure information technology infrastructure is absolutely essential to our societal and economic future, to public safety, and to our national security."

He discussed the nature of cyberthreats. He then spoke at length about Microsoft's recent efforts to makes its products more secure.

He also said that "Government also has a vital role to play. First, we look to government as a collaborator with industry and academia on basic cyber-security research. Second, governments need to implement the criminal-justice system that will deter hackers, and we look to government to help us drive cyber-security awareness amongst consumers and consumer education."

He added that "Last November, Microsoft established the Antivirus Rewards Program. In cooperation with the FBI, Secret Service and Interpol, we're offering significant cash rewards for information that leads law enforcement and results in the arrest and conviction of cyber-criminals. We're collaborating with governments to protect critical infrastructure here in the United States and in many, many other countries. We recently began work with National Security's National Cyber-Security Division on raising awareness of cyber-threats through the release of very prompt and well-formed security bulletins. Along with our industry partners, we're proud to be involved in the effort to connect much of the federal Homeland Security community into a national network for information sharing and intelligence analysis. We're also eager to work with government on policy matters, including more resources for law enforcement, ratification of the Council of Europe Cyber-Crime Treaty, investment in basic research, and broad consumer education campaigns, as I noted before."

The other speakers at the event were John Hamre (P/CEO of the CSIS) and Robert Holleyman (P/CEO of the Business Software Alliance).

The House will be in recess from April 5 through April 16 for the Spring recess. It will next meet on Monday, April 19.

The Senate will meet at 10:00 AM for morning business, and at 11:00 AM to begin consideration of the conference report to accompany HR 3108, the "Pension Stability Act".

The Supreme Court is in recess until April 19, 2004.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on several pending judicial nominations, including William Duane Benton (to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit), Robert Bryan Harwell (District of South Carolina), George Schiavelli (Central District of California), and Curtis Gomez (Virgin Islands). See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

11:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of several non technology related bills and several nominations, including that of Theodore Kassinger to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce. Press contact: Rebecca Hanks at 202 224-2670. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

1:30 - 3:00 PM. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) World RadioCommunication 2007 (WRC-07) Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group on Satellite Services and HAPS will meet. See, FCC notice [PDF]. Location: Leventhal Senter & Lerman, 2000 K Street, NW, 7th Floor Conference Room.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "FCC's Environmental and Historic Preservation Action Plan - One Year Later". Prices vary. To register, contact Wendy Parish at wendy@fcba.org. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1750 K Street, NW, 10th Floor.

Easter.

The Senate will not meet from April 12 through April 16.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled "The Development of European Regulatory Agencies: What the European Union Should (or Shouldn’t) Learn from the American Experience". The speakers will be Judge Stephen Williams (U.S. Court of Appeals) and Greg Sidak (AEI). Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Internet2, USENIX, and OASIS titled "Public Key Technology R&D Workshop". See, notice and conference website. The price to attend is $105. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking pertaining to the administration of the FCC's e-rate subsidy program for schools and libraries. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 10, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 27, at Pages 6229 - 6238. This item is FCC 03-323 in Docket No. 02-6. The FCC adopted this item at its December 17, 2003 meeting. See, FCC release [PDF] describing this item. The FCC released the text of this item on December 23, 2003.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) petition for a rulemaking proceeding [PDF] regarding surveillance of voice over internet protocol (VOIP), regulation of VOIP related technologies, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), and related issues. This is RM 10865. See, FCC notice [PDF] (DA 04-700).

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to its notice in the Federal Register requesting comments regarding various regulations and reports required by the CAN-SPAM Act. Several provisions in the "Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pormography and Marketing Act of 2003" (CAN-SPAM Act) instruct the FTC to write regulations implementing the Act. Other provisions require the FTC to prepare reports for the Congress. See, S 877, which is now Public Law No. 108-187. See also, story titled "FTC Announces CAN-SPAM Act Rulemaking" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 855, March 15, 2004. The notice is published in the Federal Register, March 11, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 48, at Pages 11775-11782. See also, FTC release summarizing the notice.

Deadline to submit comments to the Copyright Office regarding its rule making proceeding "to amend its regulations governing the content and service of certain notices on the copyright owner of a musical work. The notice is served or filed by a person who intends to use a musical work to make and distribute phonorecords, including by means of digital phonorecord deliveries, under a compulsory license." See, notice in the Federal Register, March 11, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 48, at Pages 11566-11577.

The Copyright Office's interim regulations, announced on March 11, specifying notice and recordkeeping requirements for use of sound recordings under two statutory licenses under the Copyright Act, take effect. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 11, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 48, at Page 11515-11531.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Internet2, USENIX, and OASIS titled "Public Key Technology R&D Workshop". See, notice and conference website. The price to attend is $105. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Cable Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Ken Ferree, Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau. RSVP to Quyen Truong at ttruong@dowlohnes.com. Location: Dow Lohnes & Albertson, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Eighth Floor.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Internet2, USENIX, and OASIS titled "Public Key Technology R&D Workshop". See, notice and conference website. The price to attend is $105. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

9:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The WRC-07 Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 4: Broadcasting and Amateur Issues will meet. See, FCC notice [PDF]. Location: Shaw Pittman, 2300 N Street, NW.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in AT&T v. FCC, No. 03-1035. Judges Edwards, Tatel and Sentele will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave.

12:00 NOON. The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a luncheon titled "Should Spectrum Be Public or Private?". The speakers will be Stuart Benjamin (Duke University Law School), Randolph May (PFF), Peter Pitsch (Intel), and Stuart Buck (Kellogg Huber). See, notice and registration page. Location: Room 192, Dirksen Building, Capitol Hill.

12:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Diversity Committee will hold a brown bag lunch. Natalie Ludaway will speak on "the benefits of launching a legal career at a small law firm and establishing and maintaining a diverse client base". For more information, contact Joy Ragsdale at 202 261-1427 or jragsdale@opc-dc.gov. RSVP by April 12, 2004 to Angela Bushnell at at 202 434-9121 or abushnell@leftwichlaw.com. Location: Leftwich & Ludaway, 1401 New York Ave., NW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The WRC-07 Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group 2: IMT-2000 and 2.5 GHz Sharing Issues will meet. See, notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, South Conference Room (6th Floor, Room 6-B516).

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The New America Foundation will host a conference titled "Pervasive Connectivity: How Unlicensed Spectrum Will Help The World Go Wireless". The event is free. RSVP to Matt Barranca at barranca@newamerica.net or 202 986-2700. See, notice. Location: National Guard Association of the United States, One Massachusetts Ave, NW.

4/7. A collection of groups and individuals wrote a letter to Google urging it "to suspend the Gmail service until the privacy issues are adequately addressed".

The letter argues that three aspects of the Gmail service raise privacy questions: "Google has proposed scanning the text of all incoming emails for ad placement"; "Google's overall data retention and correlation policies are problematic in their lack of clarity and broad scope"; and "the Gmail system sets potentially dangerous precedents and establishes reduced expectations of privacy in email communications".

The letter states that "First, Google must suspend its implementation of scanning the full text of emails for determining ad placement." And, "Second, Google must clarify its information retention and data correlation policy amongst its business units, partners, and affiliates. This means that Google must set clear data retention and deletion dates and establish detailed written policies about data sharing and correlation amongst its business units and partners."

The letter was signed by representatives of the World Privacy Forum, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Consumer Federation of America (CFA), and others.

See also, Google' release announcing the new service, Google's summary of the service, and Google's Gmail privacy policy.

4/7. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology will co-host a two day conference titled "Ideas Into Action: Implementing Reform of the Patent System" on Thursday, April 15, and Friday, April 16, at the Bancroft Hotel in Berkeley, California.

The speakers will include Mozell Thompson (FTC Commissioner), Susan DeSanti ( FTC), and Steve Kunin (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office).

DeSanti was the primary author the FTC report tiled "To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy". See, Executive Summary [18 pages in PDF] and Report [2.28 MB in PDF]. It was released on October 28, 2003. See also, story titled "FTC Releases Report on Competition and Patent Law" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 768, October 29, 2003.

See, agenda, conference web site, and FTC release. The event will not be webcast.

4/7. William Mercer was named Chair of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys, for a one year term beginning on May 1, 2004. He is the U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana. See, DOJ release.

4/7. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) International Bureau (IB) made staff announcements. Breck Blalock will be the Chief of Staff and Associate Bureau Chief of the IB. Steven Spaeth and David Strickland are Legal Advisors to the Bureau Chief, Donald Abelson. Alexandra Field was named Assistant Division Chief for the IB's Policy Division. Andrea Kelly was named Chief of the Policy Branch of the IB's Satellite Division. See, FCC release [PDF].

4/7. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) in Brand X v. FCC requesting that it stay its mandate pending the filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The FCC wrote in is motion that "The answers to the substantial legal questions in this case have profound implications for the development of the Internet, for the communications and information services industries in the United States, and for millions of cable modem subscribers receiving service today." It added that "Absent a stay, the FCC's nationwide policy of classifying cable modem service as an information service will cease to be in effect after April 7, 2004. At that point, difficult and possibly urgent questions would arise whether cable operators that provide cable modem services are subject to the myriad federal and state regulatory obligations that apply to providers of telecommunications services – obligations that do not now apply to providers of ``information services.´´"

4/7. The European Commission released its new block exemption regulations and guidelines on the application of Article 81 to technology transfer agreements. See, regulation [13 pages in PDF] titled "Commission Regulation ... on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements", and accompanying guidelines [67 pages in PDF] titled "Guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to technology transfer agreements". These regulations takes effect on May 1, 2004.