4/27. The Senate passed S 2315 by unanimous consent, without debate. See, Congressional Record, April 27, 2004, at Page S4443. This is a short and untitled bill to amend the Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications (ORBIT) Act to extend the deadline for INTELSAT's initial public offering (IPO) from June 30, 2004 to December 31, 2005.

Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) introduced this non-controversial bill on April 8, 2004. See, story titled "Sen. Burns Introduces Bill to Allow Delay in INTELSAT IPO" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 874, April 12, 2004.

The ORBIT Act mandates the privatization of INTELSAT, which has already occurred. The Act also sets a deadline of December 31, 2002 for an initial public offering of stock in INTELSAT. That deadline has already been extended. Sen. Burns now seeks a further extension.

Sen. Burns stated at the time that he introduced the bill that "the market is simply not conducive for a successful IPO".

4/21. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filed an amicus curiae brief [38 pages in PDF] with the U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir) in Vonage v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in which it requested that the Court defer its resolution of this appeal.

The FCC wrote that it is "is currently engaged in administrative proceedings that will address Vonage's regulatory status in particular and the regulatory status of Internet telephony services more generally. There is a significant public interest in ensuring that the FCC's regulatory authority is not impaired by premature judicial resolution of these issues", and that the Court should wait until these proceedings are completed.

The FCC's brief discusses at length the regulatory framework for telecommunications services and information services, and reviews the FCC's completed and pending proceedings. However, it does not take a position on whether Vonage offers an information service.

The FCC refers to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [97 pages in PDF] regarding regulation of internet protocol services, including voice over internet protocol (VOIP). This NPRM is FCC 04-28 in Docket No. WC 04-36. See, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Regulation of Internet Protocol Services" in ATLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 837, Monday, February 16. See also, notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 60, at Pages 16193 - 16202.

Vonage provides a service that permits voice communications over the internet. It sells a service called Vonage DigitalVoice that enables its customers to engage in voice communications, with broadband internet connections, using voice over internet protocol (VOIP). It has customers in the state of Minnesota.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) issued an order on September 13, 2003 requiring Vonage to comply with Minnesota laws that regulate telephone companies. Vonage then filed the present action.

On October 16, 2003, the U.S. District Court (DMinn) issued its Memorandum and Order [PDF] in holding that Vonage is an information service provider, and that the MPUC cannot apply state laws that regulate telecommunications carriers to Vonage. The Court wrote that "State regulation would effectively decimate Congress's mandate that the Internet remain unfettered by regulation." See, story titled "District Court Holds that Vonage's VOIP is an Information Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 760, October 17, 2003.

The conclusion that a service provider offers an information service, rather than telecommunications service, would prevent state and federal government entities from applying rules that apply to telecommunications, such as those pertaining to the filing of tariffs, cross subsidies, unbundling, wiretapping and other electronic surveillance by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and 911.

This case is Vonage Holding Corporation v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, App. Ct. No. 04-1434, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, D.C. No. 03-5287 (MJD/JGL), Judge Michael Davis presiding.

4/28. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published in its web site a complaint [14 page PDF scan] that it filed in U.S. District Court (SDNY) against Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and FBI Senior Counsel Marion Bowman.

The complaint is heavily redacted. Moreover, while material redacted from pleadings typically includes factual allegations, and the products of pretrial discovery, the ACLU has redacted text that constitutes a cause of action and relief sought. In addition, the name and description of the second plaintiff is redacted. The complaint even redacts part of the paragraph in which the ACLU describes itself. Hence, the action cannot be fully characterized on the basis of this redacted complaint.

The complaint does, however, contain an unredacted cause of action. The unredacted material states that the ACLU challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2709, a section that was amended by the USA PATRIOT Act in late 2001.

Section 2709, which was originally enacted as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), concerns the national security authority of the President (and his agents) to obtain records from a "wire or electronic communication service provider" in "an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities". These requests are also sometimes referred to as National Security Letters or NSLs.

This authority does not concern wiretapping, or seizure of communications, of the targets of investigations. Rather, it concerns obtaining records from the service provider, such as subscriber information, including names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and credit or debit card information.

Since these NSLs are based upon national security authority, there is no requirement that prior judicial approval be obtained. This serves as a basis for the ACLU's legal challenge.

Section 2709 also contains a restraint on speech regarding the exercise of Section 2709 authority. Subsection 2709(c) provides that "No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section."

The ACLU might assert in redacted material that it is somehow subject to this language. However, the second plaintiff, which is identified as "an internet access [redacted text] business", may be subject to this restraint.

The unredacted portions of the complaint state that the ACLU argues that the authority granted under Section 2709 to obtain records, and the restraint on disclosure that records have been requested, are unconstitutional under the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments.

The complaint alleges too that "Section 2709 does not restrict the FBI's use of the information obtained through the issuance of NSLs. The information may be stored electronically and used for large-scale data mining operations."

The complaint alleges that initially NSL authority "could be used only against people suspected of espionage", but "As a result of the Patriot Act, the FBI may now use NSLs to obtain sensitive information about innocent individuals who have no connection to espionage or terrorism."

The ACLU filed the complaint on April 6, 2004. Auther Eisenberg of the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation signed the complaint.

Pending Bills Affecting Section 2709. There is bipartisan concern about Section 2709 in the Congress -- particularly in the context of libraries being treated by the FBI as "electronic communication service provider[s]" within the meaning of Section 2709.

For example, on October 2, 2003, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), and others introduced S 1709, the "Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003" (SAFE Act), a bill to modify various provisions of the 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.

One such provision would amend Section 2709 to provide that libraries are not "electronic communication service providers". S 1709 would amend 18 U.S.C. § 2709, which currently requires that "A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records ..."

S 1709, at § 5, would insert an exception: "A library shall not be treated as a wire or electronic communication service provider for purposes of this section."

Attorney General Ashcroft (at right) opposes this change. On January 28, 2004, he wrote a letter [4 page PDF scan] to Senate leaders in which he opposed passage of S 1709. He also stated that, if passed by the Congress, the President might veto it. See, story titled "Ashcroft Opposes Senate Bill to Roll Back PATRIOT Act Provisions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 827, February 2, 2004.

He explained that "The SAFE Act would make it more difficult, in some circumstances, to obtain information about emails sent from public computer terminals at libraries than it would be to obtain the same information about emails sent from home computers. Ironically, it would extend a greater degree of privacy to activities that occur in a public place than to those taking place in a home."

Excerpts From the Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act and 18 U.S.C. § 2709. The USA PATRIOT Act is titled, in full, the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". It was passed by the 107th Congress as HR 3162. It became Public Law 107-56 on October 26, 2001.

Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act, is titled "MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORITIES". Subsection 505(a) is titled "TELEPHONE TOLL AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS". It provides as follows:

"Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
   (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting `at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `Assistant Director';
   (2) in paragraph (1)--(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and (B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and'; and
   (3) in paragraph (2)--(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and (B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'."

18 U.S.C. § 2709 pertains to "Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records".

Subsection 2709(a) provides that "A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section."

Subsection 2709(b), which was amended by the above quoted section of the PATRIOT Act, addresses the required certification. It now provides as follows:

"The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may --
   (1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
   (2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

4/22. The U.S. District Court (DC) issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order [12 pages in PDF] in Arista Records v. Sakfield Holding Company, a copyright infringement case brought in the U.S. against a Spanish company (Sakfield) that made copyrighted music available through a web site. Sakfield moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court, after finding that Sakfield had destroyed electronic evidence relevant to the jurisdictional dispute, rejected this motion. The case will proceed in the U.S. District Court. Sanctions will likely follow.

This opinion is significant for two reasons. First, it contains a detailed application of the law of personal jurisdiction to an out of forum business whose ties to the forum are internet related. More specifically, it applies the law of personal jurisdiction to an online provider of unauthorized electronic copies of copyrighted music. Second, this opinion reviews the procedure to be followed in disputes regarding personal jurisdiction, including the burden upon the plaintiff to provide facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction, the availability and scope of jurisdictional discovery, and the consequences of the defendant's destruction of evidence relevant to personal jurisdiction.

Sakfield Holding Company, a Spanish company located in Madrid, Spain, operated a web site located at www.puretunes.com and that allowed persons to download copyrighted musical works owned by plaintiffs without their authorization.

Arista Records, and other record companies, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court against Sakfield Holding Company alleging copyright infringement.

Sakfield filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These pertain to dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue, respectively. The District Court rejected this motion.

Sakfield asserted that it "does not have any information or records indicating that any person or entity in the District of Columbia downloaded anything from the puretunes.com website".

The Court wrote that "A plaintiff must establish a factual basis for the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant to withstand a motion to dismiss".

The Court found "as a matter of law that if sufficient District of Columbia residents did in fact access the Puretunes website and, after following the steps previously described, downloaded music files from the Puretunes website, that this constitutes continuous and systematic contacts with the District of Columbia in fulfillment of the requirements of constitutional due process and the District of Columbia long arm statute".

To make this determination, the Court ordered jurisdictional discovery, and particularly, ordered Sakfield to produce computer servers that hosted the website at issue. However, the Court wrote that Arista's expert witness "determined that a program designed to erase electronically stored information had been run over 50 times from a remote location in an effort to erase all electronic information on the servers." In response, Sakfield asserted that it erased "only to preclude further transmissions of copyrighted music."

The Court was not impressed. It wrote that Sakfield's "argument that it destroyed crucial evidence to prevent further transfer of music files is without doubt one of the most ludicrous arguments ever visited upon this Court in written form. Defendant could have disconnected its website from the Internet in any number of ways without destroying one single file."

The Court also noted that Arista's expert "recovered a small amount of information from the computer servers despite defendant’s attempts to destroy all the files. The information recovered showed partial lists of Puretunes users and a partial record of music file downloads. Using this information, plaintiff was able to extrapolate data showing that approximately 241 Puretunes users were located in the District of Columbia".

Sakfield contested this conclusion, but the Court wrote that "But for defendant's destruction of crucial evidence on the servers, plaintiffs would not have had to resort to such methods of analysis. Destruction of evidence raises the presumption that disclosure of the materials would be damaging."

So, the Court found that "Plaintiffs have met the requirements for specific jurisdiction. In order to download a music file a potential Puretunes user located in the District had to subscribe to the Puretunes service by filling out personal information, agree to a license agreement, download and install proprietary Puretunes software, and then download infringing music files through that software. In addition, any users desiring to obtain more than the initial 25 free songs available to new users would have conducted credit card transactions as part of their subscription to the Puretunes service."

This case is Arista Records, Inc., et al. v. Sakfield Holding Company, S.L., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 03-1474 (RCL), Judge Royce Lamberth presiding.

4/28. Comcast announced that "it has withdrawn its proposal to merge with Disney, effective immediately." See, Comcast release. Brian Roberts, P/CEO of Comcast, stated in this release that "We have always been disciplined in our approach to acquisitions. Being disciplined means knowing when it is time to walk away. That time is now. ... It has become clear that there is no interest on the part of Disney's management and Board in putting Comcast and Disney together ... As a result, we have withdrawn our offer."

4/28. 102 companies and 32 groups, many of which are involved in information technology, sent a letter [3 pages in PDF] to members of the Senate urging them to support HR 1561, the "United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2004".  The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the bill on Thursday, April 29, along with several other intellectual property related bills.

The bill contains increases in user fees that implement the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) 21st Century Strategic Plan. It also provides for U.S. outsourcing of patent searches, and an end to the diversion of user fees to subsidize other government programs.

The letter states that "Patents and trademarks are the currency that drives America’s high-tech economy. The PTO serves a critical role in the promotion and development of innovation and commercial activity in our country. Yet issues of patent quality affect the value of these assets and continue to result in substantial, expensive litigation and uncertainty over legal rights in new products. Moreover, the time it takes to receive a patent is skyrocketing -- according to the PTO, patent pendency will rise dramatically to 45 months by 2009. To address this crisis in quality and pendency, the PTO in its 21st Century Strategic Plan has proposed sweeping changes that we support, but the PTO lacks the funds to implement the plan."

The House passed this bill on March 3, 2004 by a vote of 379-28. See, Roll Call No. 38. See also, story titled "House Passes USPTO Fee Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 849, March 4, 2004.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM. The House will consider several non technology related items under suspension of the rules. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will continue its consideration of S 150, the "Internet Tax Non-discrimination Act of 2003".

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of S 2192, the "Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act" (CREATE Act), HR 1561, the "United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2004", S 1933, the "Enhancing Federal Obscemity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003", S 2237, the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004", and S 1932 the "Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2003". See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Spyware: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You". The witnesses will be Mozelle Thompson (Federal Trade Commission), Howard Beales (Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC), Ari Schwartz (Center for Democracy and Technology), Dave Baker (EarthLink), and Jeffrey Friedberg (Microsoft). The hearing will be webcast by the Committee. See, notice. Press contact: Larry Neal or Jon Tripp at 202 225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

POSTPONED. 10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Science Committee will hold a hearing on HR 4218, the "High Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004". The witnesses will be John Marburger (Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy), Bob Bishop (Ch/CEO of Silicon Graphics), Rick Stevens (Argonne National Laboratory), and Daniel Reed (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). The hearing will be webcast. Press contact: Joe Pouliot at Joe.Pouliot@mail.house.gov or 202 225-6371. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary will hold a hearing on intellectual property issues. Location: Room 192, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Reference Information Center (RIC) will close at 12:00 NOON, and remain closed for the remainder of the day. See, FCC notice [PDF].

TIME AND LOCATION CHANGE. 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM. The Forum on Technology and Innovation will host an event titled "The Impact of Expensing Stock Options on the Tech Industry". The speakers will be Dick Grannis (VP and Treasurer of Qualcomm), Karen Kerrigan (Chairman of the Small Business Survival Committee), and Roberto Mendoza (Chairman of IFL). See, registration page. Location: Room HC-5, Capitol.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Media Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) television license renewal process. The speakers will be Barbara Kreisman and staff of the FCC's Video Division. RSVP to John Logan at jlogan@dlalaw.com. Location: Dow Lohnes & Albertson, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW.

1:00 PM. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, and the U.S. Postal Service will hold a press conference regarding spam enforcement. The FTC's notice states that these entities will announce a "joint civil/criminal law enforcement initiative targeting spammers charged with engaging in mail fraud, violating the FTC Act, and violating the newly-enacted CAN-SPAM Act". The FTC's notice also states that "Reporters who want to cover the event but cannot attend can call: 800-377-4562; chairperson Bruce Jennings; confirmation number 23594018". Location: Room 432, FTC Headquarters, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:30 PM. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism will hold a hearing to examine Middle East broadcasting. Location: Room 419, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies will host a pair of panel discussions titled "Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotech". At 10:15 AM there will be a panel titled "Biotechnology and IPR". At 12:00 NOON there will be a luncheon panel discussion titled "Software and IPR". The speakers will be Scott Wallsten (AEI-Brookings), David Mowery (UC Berkeley), Dan Burk (University of Minnesota), and Starling Hunter (MIT). Location: AEI, 1150 17th St., NW, 12th Floor.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a panel discussion titled "Accelerating the Transition to Digital TV: Developments at the FCC and in Congress". The speakers will be Ken Ferree (Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau), John Kneuer (National Telecommunications and Information Administration), Thomas Lenard (PFF), and Steve Sharkey (Motorola). Lunch will be served. See, notice and registration page. Press contact: David Fish at 202-289-8928 or dfish@pff.org. Location: Room 253, Russell Building, Capitol Hill.

Deadline to submit applications to the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) for Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Program grants. Paper copies must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than April 30, 2004, to be eligible for FY 2004 grant funding. Electronic copies must be received by April 30, 2004, to be eligible for FY 2004 grant funding. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 1, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 40, at Pages 9576-9582.

Deadline to submit applications to the Privacy Office of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for membership on its new Data Integrity, Privacy, and Interoperability Advisory Committee. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 9, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 69, at Page 18923.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding unwanted mobile service commercial messages and the CAN-SPAM Act. This is CG Docket No. 04-53. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 31, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 62, at Pages 16873 - 16886.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding auction procedures for the September 15, 2004 Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Spectrum Auction. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 20, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 76, at Pages 21110 - 21114.

Deadline for the President to submit a report to the Congress on the operations of the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection of the Department of Homeland Security and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. This report is required by Section 359 of HR 2417, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004". See, story titled "Bush Signs Intelligence Authorization Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 799, December 15, 2003.

The Supreme Court will begin a recess. (It will return on May 17, 2004.)

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled "The Audiovisual Services Sector in the GATS Negotiations". The audiovisual services sector includes movies, television, radio. See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Typeright v. Microsoft, No. O3-1197. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding whether certain rules should be repealed or modified because they are no longer necessary in the public interest. The FCC released this NPRM on January 12, 2004. This item is FCC 03-337 in WC Docket No. 02-313. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 18, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 53, at Pages 12814-12826.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding broadband over powerline systems. The FCC adopted this NPRM on February 12, 2004. See, story titled "FCC Adopts Broadband Over Powerline NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 836, February 13, 2004. The FCC released the text of this NPRM on February 23, 2004. This NPRM is FCC 04-29 in ET Docket Nos. 03-104 and 04-37. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 17, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 52, at Pages 12612-12618.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order [53 pages in PDF] regarding cognitive radio technologies and software defined radios. This item is FCC 03-322 in ET Docket No. 03-108 and ET Docket No. 00-47. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 17, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 31, at Pages 7397 - 7411, and story titled "FCC Releases Cognitive Radio Technology NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 808, December 31, 2003.

9:30 AM. The Heritage Foundation will host an event titled "Protecting Civil Liberties and Fighting Terrorism: The USA Patriot Act". The speakers will be James Comey (Deputy Attorney General), Asa Hutchinson (Undersecretary for Border Security and Transportation, Department of Homeland Security), William Fox (Department of the Treasury), William Bennett (Empower America), and Edwin Meese (Heritage). See, notice. Location: Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.

9:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The Telecommunications Service Priority System Oversight Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 16, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 74, at Page 20636. Location: 701 South Courthouse Road, Arlington, VA.

9:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "Sarbanes-Oxley: A Review". At 12:15 PM, the luncheon speaker will be Dell CEO Kevin Rollins. See, notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOI & NPRM) [31 pages in PDF] regarding the interference temperature method of quantifying and managing interference among different services. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 21, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 13, at Pages 2863 - 2870. This NOI/NPRM is FCC 03-289 in ET Docket No. 03-237. See also, stories titled "FCC Announces NOI/NPRM on Interference Temperature Model" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 779, November 14, 2003, and "FCC Releases NOI/NPRM on Interference Temperature Approach" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 789, December 1, 2003.

9:30 AM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "The 'Dot Kids' Internet Domain: Protecting Children Online". The hearing will be webcast. Press contact: Larry Neal or Jon Tripp at 202 225-5735. See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Online Pormography: Closing the Doors on Pervasive Smut". The hearing will be webcast by the Committee. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) will preside. Press contact: Samantha Jordan (Barton) at 202 225-5735 or Paul Flusche (Stearns) at 202 225-5744. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the Computer Law Association titled "2004 World Computer and Internet Law Congress". Prices vary. See, event brochure [PDF]. Location: Park Hyatt, 1201 24th Street, NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the provision of international telecommunications
service. This NPRM is FCC 04-40 in IB Docket No. 04-47. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 22, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 55, at Pages 13276 - 13278.

4/28. Margaret Egler was named Regional Counsel for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Enforcement Bureau's (EB) western region field office. Diane Hsu was named Regional Counsel for the south central region. Sharon Webber was named Regional Counsel for the northeast region. These are newly created positions. Egler was previously Deputy Bureau Chief for Policy in the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. Hsu was previously Deputy Division Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau's (WCB) Telecommunications Access Policy Division (TAPD). Webber was Deputy Division Chief in the WCB's TAPD. See,. FCC release.

4/28. The European Commission released a draft regulation [16 pages in PDF] implementing the EC's January 20, 2004 merger regulation [22 pages in PDF]. The EC releases this for comment purposes. Comments are due by May 26, 2004. The merger regulation is titled "COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation)".

4/28. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced that it has filed complaints, on behalf of its member companies, in U.S. District Courts against an additional 477 persons, alleging copyright infringement in connection with the distribution of music files over peer to peer networks. The RIAA also announced that some of the individuals targeted by these actions are using university networks. See, RIAA release.

4/27. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) introduced HR 4218, the "High Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004". The bill was referred to the House Science Committee, which scheduled, and then postponed, a hearing on the bill. The hearing had been set for April 29. It has not yet been rescheduled. Rep. Biggert stated in the House on April 27 that this bill "will ensure that America remains a leader in the development and use of supercomputers". She elaborated that "The original legislation that my bill amends, the High Performance Computing Act of 1991, gave rise to an interagency planning process that was initially highly successful. Unfortunately, that planning process has lost the vitality it had in its early years. Congress must find a way to reinvigorate the interagency process. My bill does so by requiring the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House to develop and maintain a research, development and deployment roadmap for the provision of high-performance computing systems for use by the research community in the United States." See, Congressional Record, April 27, 2004, at Pages H2381-2.