4/29. The Senate passed an amended version of S 150, the "Internet Tax Non-discrimination Act of 2003". The Senate passed a compromise version offered by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). See, text of bill as enacted by the Senate.

The Senate bill extends the moratorium of the 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act until November 1, 2007. However, the bill also includes numerous exceptions and qualifications that provide state and local governments a wide range of opportunities to tax internet access. The House passed its version of the bill last September. It's moratorium is permanent, and lacks the exceptions and qualifications found in the Senate version.

The Congress passed the original Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) at the end of the 105th Congress in late 1998. The Senate version of the bill, S 442 ES (105th), was ultimately added to the huge Omnibus Appropriation Bill, which was passed by both houses, and signed by former President Clinton. It became Public Law No. 105-277.

It barred states, for three years, from imposing "(1) taxes on Internet access, unless such tax was generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998; and (2) multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce."

In 2001 the Congress extended this moratorium through November 1, 2003. The moratorium has expired.

S 150, as enacted by the Senate, extends, through November 1, 2007 the ban on "Taxes on Internet access" and "Multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce." It addresses grandfathering in a separate section.

The bill also replaces the 1998 ITFA's definition of "tax on Internet access". The bill provides that "The term `tax on Internet access´ means a tax on Internet access, regardless of whether such tax is imposed on a provider of Internet access or a buyer of Internet access and regardless of the terminology used to describe the tax."

Broadband DSL Service. The 1998 ITFA imposed a moratorium on taxes on internet access, but, the ITFA's definition of "internet access" excluded "telecommunications services". The present bill provides that "The term `Internet access service´ does not include telecommunications services, except to the extent such services are purchased, used, or sold by a provider of Internet access to provide Internet access."

This clarifies that the ban on internet access taxes extends to broadband DSL and wireless internet access services provided by phone companies or others.

Grandfathering. The present bill also changes the grandfathering language of the original ITFA.

It provides that for pre-1998 taxes the ban "does not apply to a tax on Internet access that was generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998, if, before that date, the tax was authorized by statute and either -- (A) a provider of Internet access services had a reasonable opportunity to know, by virtue of a rule or other public proclamation made by the appropriate administrative agency of the State or political subdivision thereof, that such agency has interpreted and applied such tax to Internet access services; or (B) a State or political subdivision thereof generally collected such tax on charges for Internet access." (Emphasis added.)

It then provides that for pre-2003 taxes the ban "does not apply to a tax on Internet access that was generally imposed and actually enforced as of November 1, 2003, if, as of that date, the tax was authorized by statute and -- (A) a provider of Internet access services had a reasonable opportunity to know by virtue of a public rule or other public proclamation made by the appropriate administrative agency of the State or political subdivision thereof, that such agency has interpreted and applied such tax to Internet access services; and (B) a State or political subdivision thereof generally collected such tax on charges for Internet access." (Emphasis added.)

The difference between the two provisions is the use of the words "or" and "and". For pre-1998 taxes, either (A) or (B) must be met, while for pre-2003 taxes, both (A) and (B) must be met.

It further provides that for pre-1998 taxes, the grandfathering clause expires on November 1, 2007, and that for pre-2003 taxes, the grandfathering clause expires on November 1, 2005.

Exceptions for Universal Service, E911, VOIP and More. The present bill also contains several exceptions to the moratorium, for internet access not billed separately from telecommunications service, for taxes or fees imposed for providing universal support subsidies, and for taxes or fees imposed for 911 or E-911 services, and for taxes on VOIP services.

First, it provides that "If charges for Internet access are aggregated with and not separately stated from charges for telecommunications services or other charges that are subject to taxation, then the charges for Internet access may be subject to taxation unless the Internet access provider can reasonably identify the charges for Internet access from its books and records kept in the regular course of business."

The universal service exception provides that "Nothing in this Act shall prevent the imposition or collection of any fees or charges used to preserve and advance Federal universal service or similar State programs -- (1) authorized by section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254); or (2) in effect on February 8, 1996."

The voice over internet protocol exception (VOIP) provides that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the imposition of tax on a charge for voice or similar service utilizing Internet Protocol or any successor protocol. This section shall not apply to any services that are incidental to Internet access, such as voice-capable e-mail or instant messaging."

Another exception is found in the definitions contained in the bill. It provides that "The term `tax on Internet access´ does not include a tax levied upon or measured by net income, capital stock, net worth, or property value." Thus, state and local governments can tax the internet access providers under this bill. They would then pass on this cost to their customers through higher prices. The net effect on consumers would be similar to a tax their internet access.

Reaction. Walter McCormick, P/CEO of U.S. Telecommunications Association (USTA), issued a statement. He wrote that the bill "will help to end unnecessary, burdensome taxes that limit consumer choice by forcing them to pay more for one high-speed Internet service than another." The USTA's membership includes phone companies the provide internet access by DSL technology.

Robert Sachs, P/CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), issued a statement praising Senate passage of the bill. He wrote that "President Bush, and Senators John McCain, George Allen and Ron Wyden deserve enormous credit for their efforts to preserve a 'tax-free environment' in which cable and other broadband providers can continue to invest billions of dollars in order to bring affordable high-speed Internet service to all Americans."

Robert Holleyman, P/CEO of the Business Software Alliance (BSA), wrote in a statement that "The full promise of the Internet and Web innovation cannot be achieved without ensuring access to the Internet is unencumbered by taxes that will undoubtedly increase costs to consumers." He added that "While the Senate bill temporarily extends the moratorium, we strongly encourage the House and Senate conferees to agree on a permanent ban."

Harris Miller, Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), stated in a release that "Additional, burdensome taxes on Internet access would only stifle growth in the technology sector, when our national goal should be to expand the educational and economic opportunities that come with access to the Internet. As the high tech sector begins to recover, we're seeing increased investment in IT products and services as well as the creation of new jobs. Additional taxes would hamper investment in broadband and only stifle the recovery that is already underway."

House Bill. The House passed its version this bill on September 17, 2003. The House bill is HR 49, and is also titled the "Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act".

The key language of HR 49 amends the ITFA to read as follows:

"(a) MORATORIUM- No State or political subdivision thereof may impose any of the following taxes:
(1) Taxes on Internet access.
(2) Multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce."

The parallels the Senate bill. However, there are numerous significant differences. First, the House bill eliminates grandfathering altogether. Second, the House bill makes the moratorium permanent.

The House bill does not include any of the long list of exceptions contained in the Senate bill. That is, it makes no exceptions for universal service taxes or fees, E911 taxes or fees, or VOIP taxes or fees.

The House bill, like the Senate bill, contains language that clarifies that DSL service is covered. However, it uses different language.

The next steps are appointment of members of a conference committee, which would work out the differences between the two bills, followed by House and Senate passage of that conference report, and finally, signature by the President.

More Background on Senate Bill. See, story titled "Senate Commerce Committee Approves Bill to Extend Internet Tax Moratorium" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 709, August 1, 2003; story titled "Sen. Alexander Introduces Bill Regarding Internet Tax Moratorium" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 838, February 17, 2004; and story titled "Senators Write in Opposition to State Taxation of Internet Access" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 845, February 27, 2004.

Background on House Bill. Rep. Cox introduced the bill on HR 49, the "Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act", on January 7, 2003. See, story titled "Rep. Cox and Sen. Wyden Introduce Bill to Make Permanent Net Tax Ban" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 580, January 10, 2003. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing on April 1, 2003. See, story titled "House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Bill to Make Internet Tax Moratorium Permanent" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 635, April 2, 2003. The Subcommittee approved the bill on May 22, 2003. The full Committee amended and approved the bill on July 16, 2003. See, story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves Internet Tax Bill", also published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 700, July 17, 2003. The full House passed the bill on September 17, 2003.

4/29. Google Inc. filed a Form S-1 registration statement [171 pages in PDF] with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for a proposed initial public offering (IPO) of its Class A common stock.

The statement provides that there will be a dual class voting structure, which will leave the founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, in control of the company. It addresses the competitive threats that Google faces from other companies that may develop advanced search capabilities, such as from Microsoft and Yahoo. It addresses technological threats, such and index spamming and click through fraud. Finally, it addresses a number of legal and regulatory issues that could affect Google, such as the EU's privacy directive and the FASB's March 31 Exposure Draft which proposes to require the expensing of employee stock options.

Voting Structure. The statement reveals that Google "will have two classes of authorized common stock, Class A common stock and Class B common stock. The rights of the holders of Class A common stock and Class B common stock are identical, except with respect to voting and conversion. Each share of Class A common stock is entitled to one vote per share. Each share of Class B common stock is entitled to ten votes per share and is convertible at any time into one share of Class A common stock."

The registration statement offers a detailed explanation for this arrangement. It argues that "the standard structure of public ownership may jeopardize the independence and focused objectivity that have been most important in Google's past success and that we consider most fundamental for its future. Therefore, we have designed a corporate structure that will protect Google’s ability to innovate and retain its most distinctive characteristics."

It adds that "outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long-term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations".

It continues that this structure "will make it harder for outside parties to take over or influence Google. This structure will also make it easier for our management team to follow the long term, innovative approach emphasized earlier."

Finally, it states that "While this structure is unusual for technology companies, it is common in the media business and has had a profound importance there. The New York Times Company, the Washington Post Company and Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, all have similar dual class ownership structures."

As for management, the statement says that Page, Brin, and CEO Eric Schmidt now "run Google as a triumvirate".

Competitive Threats. The registration statement discusses the competitive threats that Google faces, particularly from Microsoft and Yahoo.

It states that "We face formidable competition in every aspect of our business, and particularly from other companies that seek to connect people with information on the web and provide them with relevant advertising. Currently, we consider our primary competitors to be Microsoft and Yahoo. Microsoft has announced plans to develop a new web search technology that may make web search a more integrated part of the Windows operating system. We expect that Microsoft will increasingly use its financial and engineering resources to compete with us. Yahoo has become an increasingly significant competitor, having acquired Overture Services, which offers Internet advertising solutions that compete with our AdWords and AdSense programs, as well as the Inktomi, AltaVista and AllTheWeb search engines."

The statement also points out that both Microsoft and Yahoo have more employees, longer operating histories, and more established relationships with customers. It also points out that Microsoft has more money.

Technological Threats. The registration statement also reviews various technologies that pose a threat to Google that are of a malicious and/or fraudulent nature.

These include index spamming (which attempts to manipulate Google's linking based ranking of results), click-through fraud (which attempts to create that appearance that more users are clicking on ads in the Google web site), and "malicious applications that make changes to our users' computers and interfere with the Google experience".

The registration statement also identifies a potential practice that would interfere with Google's search technology. It states that "An increasing amount of information on the Internet is provided in proprietary document formats such as Microsoft Word. The providers of the software application used to create these documents could engineer the document format to prevent or interfere with our ability to access the document contents with our search technology. This would mean that the document contents would not be included in our search results even if the contents were directly relevant to a search. These types of activities could assist our competitors or diminish the value of our search results. The software providers may also seek to require us to pay them royalties in exchange for giving us the ability to search documents in their format. If the software provider also competes with us in the search business, they may give their search technology a preferential ability to search documents in their proprietary format."

The registration statement does not address whether or not any of these hypothetical practices would be actionable, whether or not circumvention of such technologies by Google would be actionable by companies such as Microsoft, or whether or not affirmative defenses to such actions would exist.

Stock Options Accounting. Google states that "There has been ongoing public debate whether stock options granted to employees should be treated as a compensation expense and, if so, how to properly value such charges. On March 31, 2004, the Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) issued an Exposure Draft, Share-Based Payment: an amendment of FASB statements No. 123 and 95, which would require a company to recognize, as an expense, the fair value of stock options and other stock-based compensation to employees beginning in 2005 and subsequent reporting periods."

See, FASB's Exposure Draft and story titled "FASB Proposes Expensing of Stock Options" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 867, April 1, 2004.

The registration statement cautions that "If we elect or are required to record an expense for our stockbased compensation plans using the fair value method as described in the Exposure Draft, we could have significant and ongoing accounting charges."

Privacy. The registration statement discusses privacy regulation, and in particular, the EU privacy directive. It states that "We also face risks associated with international data protection. The interpretation and application of data protection laws in Europe and elsewhere are still uncertain and in flux. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our data practices. If so, in addition to the possibility of fines, this could result in an order requiring that we change our data practices, which in turn could have a material effect on our business."

The registration statement also addresses privacy in the context of its recently announced Gmail service. Although, the statement discusses this, not as a legal or regulatory issue, but rather as something that could harm the Google brand.

It states that "We are adding other powerful services such as Gmail that provides an efficient one gigabyte Gmail account for free. By releasing services for free, we hope to help bridge the digital divide."

It adds that "People have in the past expressed, and may in the future express, objections to aspects of our products. For example, people have raised privacy concerns relating to the ability of our recently announced Gmail email service to match relevant ads to the content of email messages. Some people have also reacted negatively to the fact that our search technology can be used to help people find hateful or derogatory information on the web. Aspects of our future products may raise similar public concerns. Publicity regarding such concerns could harm our brand."

See also, stories titled "Privacy Groups Request That Google Suspend Its New Free Gmail Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 872, April 8, 2004, and "Google's New Free E-Mail Service Starts Privacy Debate" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 870, April 6, 2004.

Other Legal and Regulatory Issues. The registration statement also covers other legal and regulatory issues. For example, it states that "Foreign, federal, state or local government regulation that could impede our ability to post ads for various industries". It also states that "Our ability to protect our intellectual property rights" could "affect our operating results".

4/29. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) submitted requests for records to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, regarding Google's new e-mail service, which it has named "G-mail". See, for example, request sent to the FBI.

The EPIC seeks information about "use of Google search technology for law enforcement and intelligence purposes". It also compares Gmail to the FBI's Carnivore.

The FOIA requires only federal agencies to produce information. The EPIC cannot compel Google to produce records through the FOIA process.

The EPIC requests "all records, including but not limited to correspondence, memoranda, reports, presentations, and legal opinions, concerning or involving communications between agency officials and representatives of Google Inc. regarding use of Google search technology for law enforcement and intelligence purposes, and particularly the possible use of Google's Gmail service for law enforcement and intelligence investigations."

The requests states that "Because Gmail combines tremendous storage capacity with search technology, the service could also analyze vast amounts of personal information on every Internet user who subscribes to the Gmail service or corresponds with a subscriber the Gmail service." Furthermore, "Gmail performs automated searches of users' e-mail for keywords upon which inferences are made. These inferences are then used to draw specific inference about the activities and interests of particular Internet users. This function is similar to that which the FBI's Internet data interception tool DCS/1000, formerly known as Carnivore, performs."

The request states that "We are interested to know whether any federal agency has considered the use of the Gmail service to further law enforcement investigations or intelligence gathering activities by, for example, targeting advertising to Internet users that could lead to the collection of evidence or intelligence by a federal agency."

The request elaborates that "there is a particular urgency for the public to obtain information about communications that agency officials have had with Google representatives about actual or potential use of Google's search technology and Gmail to pursue law enforcement and intelligence investigations. The government activity at issue here -- cooperating with one of the world's leading private purveyors of search technology for law enforcement and intelligence investigatory purposes -- raises serious privacy issues that will affect a significant portion of the public."

These FOIA requests are directed to federal agencies, not to Google. However, they also disparage Google's Gmail service by implication. Moreover, on April 7, 2004 the EPIC joined with others in writing a letter to Google urging it "to suspend the Gmail service until the privacy issues are adequately addressed". See, story titled "Privacy Groups Request That Google Suspend Its New Free Gmail Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 872, April 8, 2004.

Also, Privacy International a group based in London, United Kingdom, submitted a complaint [13 pages in PDF] on April 19 to the European Commission, Canada, Australia, and regulatory agencies in 15 countries in Europe about Google's Gmail service.

On the other hand, Google has its defenders. On May 1 Clyde Wayne Crews of the Cato Institute wrote in an essay titled "Freedom to Choose Google's 'Gmail'" that "nothing is free: The Gmail tradeoff is that emails a user receives will be scanned by machine, and advertisements, based on trigger words, will appear within one's browser. The method is rather like the tailored ads that appear whenever one searches the Web, except that it responds to key words or phrases typed in the body of a message."

He also wrote that "The idea of government, which routinely and invades individual privacy, acting as a defender of email privacy, is preposterous. The Patriot Act gave the government enhanced ``trap and trace´´ capabilities of our private email. Granted, the inability to delete Gmail messages is worrisome, and Google may rethink this subpoena-friendly tilt toward Patriot Act-style invasiveness. But we need not ban Google's offering; we can simply use another email service-or ask Google to improve it."

Adam Thierer, also of the Cato Institute, was more blunt in a letter posted in Declan McCullagh's Politech in which he complained about the "lunacy from the privacy absolutists". He wrote, "What part of VOLUNTARY is it that these privacy fundamentalists do not understand? How many times and in how many ways must it be said: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SIGN UP FOR THIS FREE SERVICE!"

However, he added that "If you're concerned about how government might co-opt this service for its own nefarious ends, that is not a Google problem, that is a Big Government problem. Let's work together to properly limit the surveillance powers of government instead of shutting down any new private service or technology that we feel the feds might have to chance to abuse."

The House will not meet. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 1:00 PM for morning business, and at 2:00 PM to resume consideration of S 1637, the FSC/ETI bill.

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.

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. it will consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act of 1999. The witnesses will be Charlie Ergen (Ch/CEO of Echostar), Jim Yager (CEO of Barrington Broadcasting Company), Eddy Hartenstein (Ch/CEO of DirecTV), Araceli De Leon (Telemundo Communications), and Gigi Sohn (Public Knowledge). See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

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.

2:00 AM. The House Financial Services Committee's (HFSC) Subcommittee on Capital Markets will hold its second hearing on the Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) exposure draft on share-based payments, or stock options, and its effects on publicly traded companies. It held its first hearing on April 21. This hearing is titled "The FASB Stock Options Proposal: Its Effect on the U.S. Economy and Jobs". Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider HR 4227, the "Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004". It may also consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. See, Republican Whip Notice.

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.

11:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Electronics Industry Association (EIA) will host an event titled "Creating a National Technology Strategy: EIA to Present Six-Part Playbook Addressing the Future of the U.S. High-Tech Innovation Economy". See, notice. For more information, contact Neil Gaffney at 703 907-7792 or Ngaffney@eia.org. Location: Room HC 5, Capitol Building.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will host a brown bag lunch titled "South Korea's 2nd Net Election -- The Screen Shots" and "US Election 2004 Online -- A Virtual Civil War?". RSVP by 12:00 NOON on Tuesday, May 4 to ari@cdt.org or 202 637-9800. Location: CDT, 1634 I 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.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider HR 4227, the "Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004". It may also consider several non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. See, Republican Whip Notice.

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: Jon Tripp (Barton) at 202 225-5735 or Sean Bonyun (Upton) 202 225-3761. 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.

2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Jonathan Dudas to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Location: Room 226, Dirksen 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.

9:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Internet Policy Working Group (IPWG) will hold its second "Solutions Summit". This summit will focus on disability access issues associated with internet protocol technologies. See, agenda [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW.

10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Medal of Technology Nomination Evaluation Committee will hold a closed meeting to discuss the relative merits of persons and companies nominated for the medal. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 19, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 75, Page 20863. Location: Room 4813, DOC, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The topic will be "The Role of In House Counsel". The speakers will be Susan Fox (Disney), Phil Passanante (RCN), Doug Brandon (AT&T Wireless), and Lon Levin (XM Satellite Radio). For more information, contact Chris Fedeli at cfedeli@covad.net or Tony Lin at tony.lin@shawpittman.com. Location: Shaw Pittman, 2300 N Street, NW, Conference Room.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Committee will host a luncheon titled "Hot Topics for NTIA". The speaker will be Michael Gallagher (acting head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration), and NTIA staff. The price to attend is $15.00. FCBA registration form [PDF] required. Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, NW, 6th floor.

Day two 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 requests to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to participate as a panelist in its June 21, 2004 workshop on the uses, efficiencies, and implications for consumers associated with radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. See, FTC web page for this workshop, and notice in the Federal Register, April 15, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 73, at Pages 20523 - 20525.

1:30 - 3:30 PM. Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) World RadioCommunication 2007 (WRC-07) Advisory Committee's Informal Working Group on Broadcasting and Amateur Issues will meet. See, FCC notice [PDF]. For more information, contact Ben Fisher at 202 663-8154. Location: Shaw Pittman, 2300 N Street, NW.

2:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age will meet. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and possible steps to accelerate such deployment. The FCC is required by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to provide an annual report to the Congress on this subject. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 8, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 68, at Pages 18508 - 18515. This is GN Docket No. 04-54.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the Emergency Alert System (EAS). See, notice in the Federal Register, April 9, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 69, at Pages 18857 - 18859.

Deadline to reply submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) requesting data and information on the status of competition in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) industry for the FCC's Ninth Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Commercial Mobile Services. This NOI is FCC 04-38 in WT Docket No. 04-111. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 23, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 79, at Pages 22032 - 22042.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) regarding two plans that propose establishing optional alternative regulation mechanisms for rate-of-return carriers. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 24, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 57, at Pages 13794 - 13803.

4/30. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts released its 2003 annual report [10 pages in PDF] on interception of phone, oral and electronic communications.

The full title is "Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts on Applications for Orders Authorizing or Approving the Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications". It covers the time period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. This report is required by 18 U.S.C. § 2519.

It contains little data. For example, in breaking down court orders for intercepts by category of offense, the only two categories are drug related offenses, and everything else.

Also, this report only addresses authorizations for interception of wire, oral and electronic communications under Chapter 119 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, which is also sometimes referred to as "Title III" (of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968).

This report does not include data on authorizations for use of pen registers and trap and trace devices (which are intended only to obtain phone numbers and internet addressing and routing information, and not the content of communications). This authority is addressed at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121-3127. Section 3126 provides for a separate report on these orders.

Nor does this report include data on orders issued pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Nor does it address national security letters which enable the FBI, without a court order, to obtain records from a "wire or electronic communication service provider" in "an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities". See, 18 U.S.C. § 2709.

What the report does reveal is that the vast majority of intercept orders pertain to cell phones, that the vast majority of investigations are drug related, and the majority are issued by state, not federal, courts.

It states that "1,442 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2003".

Of these, 578 were federal, and 864 were state. And, among the states, New York authorized the most -- 328.

Of these 1,442 intercepts, 1,104 were authorized in connection with drug related investigations. A minority, 338, were for all other categories of investigations combined.

The report also provides historical data back to 1993. It shows that while the number of intercepts for drug related investigations grew substantially, from 679 to 1,104, the number of intercepts for other categories of investigations remained relatively constant, 297 in 1993 and 338 in 2003.

The report also provides data on intercepts by method of surveillance. It provides data on three types of surveillance: telephone, microphones, and electronic. First, it states that 1,271 authorizations were for telephones. Moreover, "1,154 wiretaps involved cellular/mobile telephones, either as the only type of device under surveillance (1,085 cases) or in combination with other types of telephones (69 cases)."

Second, the report states that 49 authorizations pertained to "Electronic wiretaps". It adds that "32 of these involved electronic pagers, 12 involved computers, and 5 involved other electronic devices such as fax machines".

Finally, the report states that 24 authorizations involved microphones.

These numbers, of course, do not add up to the total number of authorizations. (1,271 + 49 + 24 = 1,344) This is 98 less than 1,442. The report does not explain the other 98 intercept authorizations. Actually, the number of unidentified authorizations is likely greater because some authorizations pertain to multiple methods of interception.

The report addresses encryption. It states that "In 2003, no instances were reported of encryption being encountered on federal wiretaps. One state jurisdiction reported that encryption was encountered in a wiretap terminated in 2003; however, the encryption was reported to have not prevented law enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted."

4/28. Terri Fish joined the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) as Director of Corporate and Government Affairs. She previously worked as a legislative affairs specialist on technology and telecommunications issues for Commerce Secretary Don Evans. She has also previously worked for the House Science Committee, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). See, release.

4/29. Hector Ruiz, the P/CEO of AMD, was named Chairman of the Board of AMD. He replaces W.J. Sanders, who is retiring from the Board. In addition, Paulett Eberhart was elected to the Board of Directors, replacing Friedrich Baur. See, AMD release.

4/29. The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) announced two new members of its Board of Directors: Todd Dickinson, the chief IP counsel at General Electric Co., and a former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and Noreen Krall, chief IP counsel at Sun Microsystems, Inc.

4/30. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion [19 pages in PDF] in Communications Vending Corp. v. FCC. The Court denied petitions for review of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) ruling that local telephone companies unreasonably imposed certain end-user charges on independent payphone providers from 1986 to 1997. This case is Communications Vending Corporation of Arizona, Inc., et al.  v. FCC and USA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, App. Ct. Nos. 02-1364, 03–1010, and 03–1012.

4/29. Phillip Bond, the Under Secretary for Technology at the Department of Commerce, gave a speech titled "We Need a Velvet Revolution in Learning" at the Symposium on Enhancing Education Through Technology in Pasadena, California.

4/28. The U.S. District Court (NDCal) issued its First Supplemental Case Management Order [3 pages in PDF] in U.S. v. Oracle.

4/30. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced that it has "extended its public comment period for all of the new sTLD applications until 23.59 UTC 14 May". See, ICANN release.

4/30. The Library of Congress published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the vacatur of its order rejecting the initial and revised reports of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) in the Phase II proceeding to determine the distribution of 1997 cable royalty funds in the syndicated programming category. The Librarian's Order as well as the initial and revised CARP reports are being vacated as moot because the parties have resolved their dispute. See, Federal Register, April 30, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 84, at Pages 23821 - 23822.