|TLJ experienced technical difficulties. Hence, the Tuesday
issue (No. 946) and the Wednesday issue (No. 947) are being sent late.
|Summary of VOIP Related Bills
7/22. There are three major bills pending in the Congress that address the
subject of regulation and taxation of voice over internet protocol (VOIP)
First, there is
S 2281, the
"VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004", introduced by
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) on April 5, 2004.
Moreover, there are now two vastly different versions of this bill -- the bill as
introduced, and the bill as approved on July 22, 2004 by the
Senate Commerce Committee (SCC).
Second, there is
HR 4129, also titled the "VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004",
introduced by Rep. Chip Pickering
(R-MS) on April 2, 2004. HR 4129 and S 2281, as introduced, were similar,
but contained several differences in the section dealing with FCC authority to regulate
connected VOIP applications.
Third, there is
the "Advanced Internet Communications Services Act of 2004" introduced by
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) on July 6,
Definitions. S 2281 (Sununu) and HR 4129 (Pickering) provide key
definitions of VOIP application and connected VOIP application. These are
important, in part, because some of the authorities to tax and/or regulate apply
only to connected VOIP applications, while others apply to any VOIP application.
S 2281, as approved by the SCC, defines "Voice-over-Internet-protocol
application" as "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." It also provides that VOIP applications "do
not include an application that is used solely for voice communications that
both originate and terminate on the public switched telephone network". These
provisions are the same in S 2281 as introduced and HR 4129.
S 2281, as approved, then defines a connected VOIP application as "a VOIP
application that is capable of receiving voice communications from, or sending
voice communications to, the public switched telephone network." This is
slightly varied from S 2281 as introduced and the same as HR 4129.
S 2281, as introduced, and HR 4129 also contain definitions of other terms,
such as "regulate", "customer", and "universal service".
These are not in S 2281 as approved.
HR 4757 (Stearns/Boucher) contains two key definitions First, it creates the
class of "advanced Internet communications service", or AICS. It defines this
as "an IP network and the associated capabilities and functionalities, services, and
applications provided over an Internet protocol platform or for which an
Internet protocol capability is an integral component, and services and
applications that enable an end user to send or receive a communication in
Internet protocol format, regardless of whether the communication is voice,
data, video, or any other form."
Second, it creates the subclass of "advanced Internet communications voice
service", or AICVS. It defines this as "an advanced Internet communications
service that is offered to the public for a fee, and that provides real-time
voice communications, and in which that voice component is the primary function
of the service."
Limitation of State Authority. S 2281 as introduced, HR 4129
(Pickering), and HR 4757 (Stearns/Boucher) largely remove the states from
regulating and taxing VOIP applications (including connected VOIP applications)
and AICS (including AICVS). S 2281 as approved maintains the basic limitation on
state authority, but then proceeds to create numerous exceptions that swallow
S 2281 as introduced and HR 4129 contain three key provisions. First, they
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." (See, Section 2(a).)
Second, they 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." (See, Section 2(b).)
Third, they provide that "Any responsibility or authority to regulate the
offering or provision of a VOIP application that, pursuant to subsection (a), is
reserved by the Federal Government may not be delegated, by any Federal agency
or officer, to any State or political subdivision thereof." This clause is
important because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a history of
delegating authority to the states in the absence of a Congressional mandate, or
authority, to do so. For example, earlier this year the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir)
overturned key provisions of the FCC's triennial review order's provisions on
the unbundling requirements of incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) on the
grounds that they constituted impermissible delegation of rulemaking authority
to state public utilities commissions. (See, Section 2(c).)
HR 4757 provides that an AICS (including an AICVS) "shall be considered
an interstate service". This would have the effect of prevented states from
regulating these services. HR 4757 also provides that an AICS "shall be
considered neither a telecommunications service nor an information service for purposes
of the Communications Act of 1934". Telecommunications services and information
services are existing regulatory categories that are addressed in the
Communications Act, FCC orders, and court opinions. The effect of this bill
would be to remove an AICS from these regulatory categories.
HR 2281 and HR 4129 also contain a ban on state taxation of VOIP
applications. (See, Section 7.)
Exceptions to Limitations on State Authority. S 2281 as approved
maintains two of the basic limitations on state authority -- that VOIP
application regulation is reserved to the federal government, and that states
are prohibited from regulating VOIP applications. It deletes the ban of
delegation of federal authority to the states by federal agencies.
S 2281, as approved by the SCC, added six major exceptions to the general
provisions limiting state authority. First, it allows states to regulate and tax
connected VOIP applications with respect to 911 and E-911 services.
It provides that "nothing in this Act limits (1) State jurisdiction of 9-1-1
or enhanced 9-1-1 services, including State jurisdiction over connected VOIP
applications with respect to 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 services; or (2) the
ability of State and local governments to require providers of all connected
VOIP applications to collect fees to support the provision of 9-1-1 or enhanced
9-1-1 services." This language was added on July 22 in an amendment offered by
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT). Sen. Burns has
led the effort in the Senate on E-911 implementation. (See, Section 2(d).)
Second, S 2281 as approved allows states to tax and regulate VOIP application
providers with respect to intercarrier compensation. It provides that "Nothing
in this Act shall be construed to exempt providers of a VOIP application from
requirements imposed by a State commission on all providers of
telecommunications services ... to pay appropriate compensation for the
transmission of a VOIP application over the facilities and equipment of another
provider". (See, Section 2(e)(1).)
Third, S 2281 as approved allows states to tax and regulate VOIP application
providers with respect to subsidization of other service providers, which is
also referred to as universal service. It provides that "Nothing in this Act
shall be construed to exempt providers of a VOIP application from requirements
imposed by a State commission on all providers of telecommunications services
... to contribute on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis to the
preservation and advancement of universal service." (See, Section 2(e)(2).)
These second and third exceptions were included
in an amendment offered by
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) (at right).
It is important to note the Sen. Burns' amendment regarding 911 and E-911
applies only to connected VOIP applications, while Sen. Dorgan's amendment
regarding intercarrier compensation and universal service apply to any VOIP
service. Any VOIP service includes free software applications that enable
consumers, among other thing, to use their computers to engage in voice
communications. That is, the Dorgan amendment allows states to tax service
providers who are providing free services. It would also force providers to
collect and maintain information about users. This would have the consequence,
among other things, of either forcing the service providers to charge (to enable
them to pay the taxes), cease providing the service, or go or remain offshore.
Finally, S 2281 as approved states to regulate any VOIP application if the
statute or regulation is a criminal prohibition, a consumer protection measure,
or an unfair or deceptive trade practices. It provides that "Nothing in this Act
shall be construed to affect the authority of a State to enact or enforce
criminal laws or regulations of general applicability regarding doing business
in that State, consumer protection, or unfair or deceptive trade practices."
(See, Section 2(c).)
These are broad categories. The ability of states to engage in a wide range
of regulatory activities would be limited only by the creativity of state
legislative draftsmen in characterizing their bills.
Limitations on FCC Authority. S 2281, as introduced, and HR 4129,
having reserved VOIP application regulation to the federal government, then
provide that the FCC cannot promulgate any rules, except in three cases
involving connected VOIP applications.
These bills, as introduced, 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
significantly 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".
S 2281, as approved, removes that ban on FCC rulemaking, as well as the
section containing the three exceptions for universal service, interprovider
compensation, and law enforcement surveillance. It replaces these sections with
a single section requiring the FCC to conduct an E-911 rulemaking proceeding. It
provides that "Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Commission shall conclude a proceeding establishing a transition period at
the end of which all providers of connected VOIP applications are required to
provide, to the extent technically feasible and not economically unreasonable,
9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 services comparable to those provided by other
Finally, both S 2281, as introduced, and HR 4129 maintain the
Commission's (FTC) authority to regulate unfair and deceptive trade
practices, but give no new rule making authority to the FTC. S 2281 as approved
deletes this provision.
HR 4757 (Stearns/Boucher) provides that, except as provided in the bill,
neither the FCC nor any state "may regulate the rates, charges, terms, or
conditions for, or entry into, or exit from, the provision of, any advanced
Internet communications service." It then limits the regulation of an AICS to
four areas -- E–911
services, disabilities access, universal service taxation, and providing "just
and reasonable compensation for use of the public switched telephone network",
that is, intercarrier compensation.
CALEA. There is currently much debate regarding the modification of
communications technologies to facilitate surveillance by law enforcement
entities, as required by the
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA). The FCC currently has an open proceeding (RM 10865). The VOIP related
bills take vastly different approaches.
HR 2218 as introduced provides 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
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".
HR 4129 (Pickering) is more supportive of the Department of Justice and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. It 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".
HR 4129 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.
HR 4129 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.
HR 2218, as approved, deletes the provision giving the FCC authority with
respect to the CALEA. It delays consideration of the issue while the General
Accounting Office (GAO) conducts a study.
This is a significant provision. The bill spells out in detail the topics
that must be covered by the GAO report. Also, it is important that the bill
assigns responsibility to the GAO rather than the DOJ or FCC. This may reflect
an understanding on the part of some members of Congress that the FCC, which has
rulemaking authority under the original CALEA, has implemented the Act in a
manner that expands the obligations and costs imposed upon communications
carriers beyond those required by the Act.
Moreover, a GAO report would include considerable detail about, among other
things, the "technical capability to intercept and analyze communications over
the public Internet or using the Internet protocol" and "problems, if any, law
enforcement has encountered in intercepting or analyzing communications over the
public Internet or using the Internet protocol".
The DOJ is required to prepare annual reports on Title 18 wiretaps and Title
50 FISA surveillance. These reports are almost devoid of detail. The DOJ and FBI
have submitted letters, comments, and petitions to the FCC regarding CALEA and
VOIP. However, these could not be described as open, candid or objective. In
contrast, a GAO report could provide the most detailed and objective document
that is available to the public that addresses government surveillance of new
internet based communications technologies.
HR 4757, in its enumerated list of powers, omits reference CALEA. Rep.
Boucher has long be a critic of the FCC's and the Department of Justice's
implementation of the CALEA, particularly in the context of new internet based
|Verizon and Skype Announce New VOIP Services
7/23. On July 22, the same day the Senate Commerce
Committee (SCC) amended and approved
S 2281, the
"VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004",
Verizon announced the availability of a
residential VOIP service that it calls VoiceWing. Verizon stated in a release
that this service will provide unlimited calls within the United States (but not to
outside of the U.S.) for a fixed monthly rate. Verizon stated that it will
charge $34.95 a month for its own DSL subscribers, and $39.95 per month
subscribers to other DSL services and cable modem service subscribers.
On July 23, Skype Technologies announced
"agreements with COLT, iBasis, Level
3, and Teleglobe to provide call termination services worldwide. The agreements
are in place in preparation for SkypeOut, a soon-to-be-launched pre-pay service
that allows people to call any telephone number in the world from anywhere in
the world using the Skype software."
To date, Skype has provided a free service that enables people to use their
computers and broadband connections to communicate via internet protocol with
other Skype users. Skype developed the peer to peer VOIP application, which it
allows users to download for free. There is no charge for any amount of calls,
anywhere in the world. Its reach, however, is limited to other Skype users.
The new SkypeOut service will enable Skype users to communicate with people
not on the Skype network. However, Skype did not disclose the pricing of its
SkypeOut service. See also, Level 3
|People and Appointments
7/26. Kyle Dixon will join the Progress
and Freedom Foundation (PFF) in August. He will direct the PFF's
Federal Institute for Regulatory Law and
Economics. He is currently Deputy Chief of the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau and Special Counsel for Broadband
Policy to FCC Chairman Michael Powell. See, FCC
release [PDF] of July 16, 2002. He joined the FCC as an attorney-advisor in
the Policy Division of the Common Carrier Bureau. He later became a legal
advisor to Commissioner Powell. Before that he worked in the Washington DC
office of the law firm of Hogan & Hartson.
See, PFF release.
7/26. George Dillon was named Assistant Bureau Chief of the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Enforcement Bureau (EB). He is currently
the EB's Engineering Advisor. He also is a member of, and will continue on, the
FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force (SPTF).
He has worked for the FCC since 1977. Before that, he worked for the NASA as a
control system engineer on the Apollo and Apollo-Soyuz launch vehicles. Finally,
while the FCC is dominated by lawyers, Dillon has a degree in electronics
engineering. See, FCC
7/26. President Bush announced his intent to name Kenneth Rapuano to
be Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. See, White House
7/16. Kevin Rollins was named P/CEO of
Dell, replacing Michael
Dell, who founded the company, and remains Chairman of the Board of Directors.
The company stated in a
release that "As they have for more than seven years, Messrs. Rollins and
Dell continue to run the company with a distinctive shared-leadership
7/15. Pamela Patsley was elected to the Board of Directors of
Texas Instruments. She is a Senior Executive Vice
President of First Data Corporation, and the
President of its subsidiary, First Data International. See, TI
7/15. Julie St. John joined the Board of Directors of
3Com Corporation. She will also serve on the audit and
finance committee. See, 3Com
7/26. The Department of Commerce's (DOC)
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has
published in its web site a
section titled "Federal
Rights-Of-Way For Telecommunications Projects".
7/23. The Council on Competitiveness
released a report
[27 pages in PDF] titled "Innovate America: Thriving in a World of Challenge and
Change". This report states that "hundreds of leaders and scholars from
universities, corporations, professional societies, industry associations and
government agencies have joined to form the National Innovation Initiative (NII)."
The present report is merely an interim report. It adds that "In December, the
National Innovation Agenda will lay out this strategy with clear recommendations
and identify how the different stakeholders – private sector, academia, labor
and government -- can participate." This interim report argues that "we must
embrace a new strategy to sustain and strengthen our national innovation
ecosystem", but does not define the term "national innovation ecosystem".
Nevertheless, the report describes innovation as something that
is organized "at a societal level", and involves collaboration between large
corporations, research universities, and certain government agencies.
7/22. The European Commission (EC) released a
report [12 pages in PDF] titled "First Annual Report on Radio Spectrum
Policy in the European Union; State of Implementation and Outlook". See also, EC
|Senate Commerce Committee Passes VOIP
7/22. The Senate Commerce
Committee (SCC) amended and approved
S 2281, the
"VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004". See,
approved. This bill
began as an attempt to restrict regulation of voice over internet protocol
(VOIP) applications. It would have removed states from the regulatory process,
and limited the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) authority to impose
regulations. The bill as amended
by the SCC now includes numerous opportunities for states to tax and regulate VOIP applications.
The bill's title now misrepresents its content.
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) introduced
S 2281 in the Senate on April 5, 2004. Also, Rep.
Chip Pickering (R-MS) introduced
HR 4129, also
titled the "VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of 2004", in the House on April 2, 2004.
The two bills, as introduced, were very similar, but contained several differences in the
section dealing with FCC's authority to regulate connected VOIP applications. The version
just approved by the SCC contains additional differences.
story titled "Sununu and Pickering Introduce VOIP Regulatory Freedom Bills"
and story titled "Summary of VOIP Regulatory Freedom Bills", both published in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 872, April 8, 2004.
Also, on July 6, 2004, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL)
and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) introduced
the "Advanced Internet Communications Services Act of 2004". See, story titled
"Rep. Stearns and Rep. Boucher Introduce VOIP and Internet Regulation Bill" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 935, July 12, 2004.
Bill Summary. S 2281, as introduced, provides that regulation of VOIP
is an exclusively federal matter, that states cannot regulate or tax the offering or
provision of a VOIP application, and that the FCC has regulatory authority only over
enumerated topics: interprovider compensation, universal service contributions, and law
The SCC approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Sen.
Sununu, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), as amended
by an amendment offered by Sen. Conrad Burns
(R-MT), and an amendment offered by Sen.
Byron Dorgan (D-ND).
The bill provides two key definitions. A VOIP application is "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", while 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".
The bill as approved by the SCC maintains the general provisions that the
regulation of a VOIP application is reserved to the federal government, and that
state regulation of VOIP applications is prohibited.
The original bill also included a non-delegation provision, which the bill as
The bill as approved added six major exceptions to the general limitations on
state regulation. First, it allows states to regulate and tax connected VOIP
applications with respect to 911 and E-911 services. This exception was in the
Second, it allows states to tax and regulate VOIP application providers with
respect to intercarrier compensation. Third, it allows states to tax and
regulate VOIP application providers with respect to subsidization of service
providers, which is also referred to as universal service. These second and
third exceptions were in the Dorgan amendment.
Fourth, it allows states to regulate any VOIP application if the statute is
labeled as a criminal prohibition. Fifth, it allows states to regulate any VOIP
application if the statute is drafted as a consumer protection measure. Six, it
allows states to regulate any VOIP application if the statute is drafted as a
unfair or deceptive trade practices.
The original bill also contained a separate ban on state taxation of VOIP
applications, which the bill as approved deleted.
The original bill also contained a section barring the FCC from writing rules
that regulate any VOIP applications. However, the original bill also contained a
section that allowed FCC regulation and taxation of connected VOIP applications
in three areas -- intercarrier compensation, universal service taxes and
subsidies, and extension of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
Act (CALEA). Although, the CALEA authority was limited.
The bill as approved deletes the general ban on FCC rulemaking. It also
deletes the provision regarding FCC authority with respect to intercarrier
compensation and universal service taxation. It gives the states authority with
respect to intercarrier compensation and universal service taxation, but does
not preclude FCC rulemaking in these areas.
The bill as approved also deletes the provision regarding FCC authority with
respect to CALEA, and instead delays Congressional consideration of this issue
while the Congress' General Accounting Office
(GAO) conducts a major study.
The bill as approved maintains a section requiring the FCC to write rules
regarding 911 and E-911 obligations of connected VOIP application providers.
Thus, the bill as approved does nothing to limit FCC rulemaking authority
with respect to VOIP applications or connected VOIP applications. Moreover, it
creates a broad array of state and local powers, most of which apply to any VOIP
application, not just connected VOIP applications.
The bill as approved maintains the title "VOIP Regulatory Freedom Act of
2004". The bill does nothing to provide freedom from federal regulation. The
bill does maintain the general provision that VOIP regulation is a federal
issue. And, it provides no express exceptions for price regulation, disability
regulation, reliability regulation, or security regulation. Although, state
authority with respect to crimes, consumer protection and trade practices would
enable some regulation in these areas.
See also, following story titled "Summary of VOIP Related Bills".
Further Consideration. Sen. Sununu
(at right) stated in a
release on July 22 that "I will continue to work with my colleague
Congressman Chip Pickering (R-MS) to complete similar VOIP legislation in the
House and pursue final passage of a bill this year."
Neither the House Commerce
Committee, nor its Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet,
has approved either S 2281 (Sununu), HR 4129 (Pickering), or HR 4757
(Stearns/Boucher). HR 4129 has also been referred to the
House Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Sununu also stated that "This is an important step forward, and a small
victory in the effort to establish a clear and limited regulatory framework for
IP services like VOIP. Despite the addition of two amendments, the basic message
is clear: Congress does not want states implementing new regulations that will
inhibit this emerging technology."
Nevertheless, the Congress has recessed for political conventions and its
usual August and Labor Day vacations. Since this is an election year, little
substantive legislation other than critical bills will be passed before the
Thus, there is little chance that S 2281 or any other VOIP related bill will
become law this year. Rather, the SCC markup of S 2281 is likely just one step
in a legislative process that will play out over multiple years.
Reaction. Russell Frisby, the CEO of
CompTel/ASCENT, stated in a
that "we are disappointed in the success of efforts to impose inappropriate
obligations on this nascent technology. While CompTel/ASCENT fully believes that
thorny issues such as universal service and the historic access charge regime
need to undergo a complete overhaul to better address current marketplace
realities, we fear that premature assessment of fees and taxes will undermine
the potential of new technologies that will revolutionize the way Americans
Walter McCormick, P/CEO of the U.S. Telecom
Association (USTA) stated in a
release that "this bill creates more questions than answers. With dramatic
changes in technology, Congress must address all of the critical issues facing
the industry in a comprehensive way. By fast-tracking the needs of just one
application in a diverse and rapidly innovating marketplace, we deepen existing
regulatory disparities rather than lead to the true free marketplace in
telecommunications that consumers deserve today. USTA will continue to work
with Congress toward comprehensive reform that is pro-innovation rather than
Peter Davidson, SVP for Federal Government Relations at
Verizon, stated that "While there are still
issues to be addressed in this area, we support Sen. Sununu's effort, endorsed by the
Senate Commerce Committee, to set a national
policy that will allow VoIP to flourish in an environment of robust competition.
This legislation would ensure that the development of VoIP is not encumbered by
a patchwork of potentially inconsistent state rules."
Davidson added that "Specifically, this bill calls for a three-year
moratorium on state regulation of this broadband service until Congress can
address the disconnect between advances in technology and obsolete telecom laws
and regulations. For
the sake of consumers, students, health care patients and the national economy,
let's hope Congress doesn't take the whole three years."
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Tuesday, July 27
The House and Senate will not meet from July 26 through September 6.
The Democratic National Convention will be held in Boston, Massachusetts
on July 26 through July 30.
10:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The
Department of Commerce's (DOC) Technology
Administration and the U.S. Department of Education will host an event titled
"Assistive Technology Exhibit and Policy Forum". Former Sen. Bob
Dole (R-KS) will speak. See,
DOC, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, Main Lobby and
|Wednesday, July 28
9:00 AM - 1:30 PM. The
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) will hold a public meeting on Internet Protocol version 6
(IPv6). Location: Room 4830, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW. See,
notice July 20, 2004, and
notice in the Federal Register, July 15, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 135, at Page
10:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Technological Advisory Council will meet. See, FCC
notice [PDF] and
notice in the Federal Register, July 6, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 128, at Pages
40638. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-C305.
2:00 - 4:00 PM. There will be a meeting of the
WRC-07 Advisory Committee, Informal Working Group 3: IMT-2000 and 2.5 GHz
Sharing Issues. See, FCC
notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 7-B516 (South
Conference Room 7th Floor), Washington DC.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Auction No. 56 is scheduled to begin. This pertains to licenses in the
24 GHz Service in the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz bands. See,
notice in the Federal Register, April 20, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 76, at Pages
21099 - 21110.
Deadline to submit nominations to the Department of Commerce for
consideration for the 2005 Medal of Technology awards. See,
Deadline to submit comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response
to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding unlicensed use of the
3650-3700 MHz band. The FCC adopted this NPRM on April 15, 2004. This item is
FCC 04-100 in ET Docket Nos. 04-151, 02-380 and 98-237. See,
in the Federal Register, May 14, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 94, at Pages 26790 -
26803. See also, story titled "FCC Announces NPRM Regarding Unlicensed Use in
the 3650-3700 MHz Band" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 878, April 16, 2004.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding changes to the
FCC Form 477 local competition and broadband data gathering program. This NPRM
is FCC 04-81 in WC Docket No. 04-141. See,
notice in the Federal Register, May 27, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 103, at Pages
30252 - 30277.
2:00 - 4:00 PM. The
American Bankers Association (ABA) will host
an event titled "Phishing: Keeping Your Customers From Getting Caught". The
speakers will include Wayne Abernathy (Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions
at the Treasury Department), William
Henley (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation),
Dan Larkin ( Chief of the FBI's
Internet Crime Complaint Center's Cyber Division), and Mark Mendelsohn
(Department of Justice,
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section). The event will be
webcast and telecast. See,
and registration page. Location: 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW.
|Thursday, July 29
9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Media Bureau will sponsor a symposium titled
"A La Carte MVPD Pricing". Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C305
(Commission Meeting Room).
9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The
National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST) Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will
hold a partially closed meeting. See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 28, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 123, at Pages
36063 - 36064. Location: 222, Red Training Room, Gaithersburg, MD.
Extended deadline to submit comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
regarding its proceeding titled "In the
Matter of Review of the Commission's Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment
Opportunity Rules and Policies". This is MM Docket No. 98-204. See,
notice of extension [PDF].
|Friday, July 30
9:30 AM - 1:00 PM. The Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC)
Internet Policy Working Group (IPWG) will host an event that it describes
as "a roundtable discussion to address international issues associated with
the migration of communications services and applications to IP-based
technologies". See, FCC
notice [PDF]. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Commission Meeting Room.
Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its Public Notice (DA 04-1454) regarding a la carte and themed
programming and pricing options for programming distribution on cable TV
and direct broadcast satellite systems. This is MB Docket No. 04-207. See,
notice of extension [PDF].
|Monday, August 2
Deadline to submit applications to the
Department of Commerce's (DOC) Technology
Administration (TA) to join the TA's business development mission to
Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This delegation will include
U.S. based senior executives representing the information and communications
technology sector. See,
notice in the Federal Register, May 26, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 102, at Pages
29928 - 29930.
|Notice of Change of E-Mail
The e-mail address for Tech Law Journal has changed. The new address is
All previous e-mail addresses no longer operate. This new address is
published as a graphic to avoid e-mail address harvesting, and the associated
spam messages and malicious code messages. If your e-mail system does not
display graphics, see notice in TLJ website.
|About Tech Law Journal
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2004 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All