|FCC Reschedules Auction 58 and Denies
Requests to Alter or Waive Entrepreneurial Eligibility Rules
10/15. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
announced that its Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction, Auction No. 58, that
had been scheduled for January 12, 2005, will begin on January 26, 2005. See,
notice [3 pages in PDF].
Also on October 15, the FCC adopted and released a
Memorandum Opinion and Order [17 page in PDF] in its proceeding titled "In
the Matter of Eligibility Restrictions on C
Block Licenses in the Broadband Personal Communication Services". The FCC
dismissed or denied three petitions or requests to alter or waive the FCC's
entrepreneur eligibility rules in connection with it upcoming broadband PCS
auction, Auction No. 58. This is RM-11019.
Verizon Wireless had filed a petition seeking reconsideration of a public notice of
the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WCB).
Second, Dobson Communications Corporation had filed a request for a waiver seeking
an extension of the expired entrepreneur eligibility provisions of
Section 24.709(a)(5)(i) to allow it and other entities to participate in closed
bidding in Auction No. 58.
And third, the
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
Association (CTIA) had filed a request for a waiver seeking elimination of the
entrepreneur eligibility requirements completely or in the context of Auction
No. 58. It argued in its petition that "open bidding is the best means of
quickly placing spectrum in the hands of those who are willing and able to put
the spectrum to its highest valued use. It also will strengthen competition by
allowing robust competitors to acquire needed spectrum to enter the market or
fill out their footprints."
After the FCC released its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the CTIA responded
in a release
that "The wireless industry is disappointed that the FCC has decided to maintain
its approach of ‘setting aside’ a significant number of licenses in its upcoming Auction
of PCS spectrum for designated entities. The alternative approach of utilizing
bidding credits -- which is used in all other spectrum auction contexts -- has a
proven track record of success in ensuring that small and minority-owned
entities can win and operate spectrum licenses. The track record of set
asides, by contrast, has consistently slowed the availability of service to
|FCC Issues NOI on Foreign Mobile Termination
10/14. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) adopted, but did not release, a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding foreign
mobile termination rates.
The FCC issued a
[PDF] that states that this NOI "solicits comment on foreign mobile termination
payment arrangements and on payment flows between carriers that terminate mobile calls
in certain foreign countries. It also requests data and information on foreign mobile
termination rates, on the actions taken by foreign regulators with respect to these rates,
and on competitive concerns raised in the FCC’s ISP Reform proceeding. Finally,
the Notice seeks comment and information on the appropriate framework for evaluating
whether foreign mobile termination rates are unreasonably high."
Michael Copps (at right) wrote in a
statement [PDF] that "Increasingly U.S. consumers are facing very high and
often unexpected charges when they place international calls to people using
mobile phones. In some cases these rates appear to be well above cost. So the
FCC has the responsibility to investigate these charges and to determine if we
should take action."
Carol Ann Bischoff, of CompTel/ASCENT,
stated in a
release that "the issue of foreign mobile termination rates must be
investigated further to ensure that American consumers are not subsidizing mobile
operators in other countries. There is no doubt that the FCC will find significant
evidence that the problem of excessive foreign mobile termination rates is growing more
pronounced, as more countries now allow for the assessment of mobile termination
surcharges or have unjustifiably increased their existing rates.
She sited "Australia, Peru, Switzerland and Germany, where fixed-to-mobile
termination rates are 258 percent above cost-based estimates."
The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
Association (CTIA) commented in a
that this NOI "is properly focusing on gathering data in order to
examine whether there is a problem with foreign mobile termination rates that
could have an adverse effect on U.S. consumers, or on competition in the U.S.
telecommunications market. CTIA appreciates the Commissioners' recognition that
this is an issue that requires close coordination with foreign regulators, who
have been closely examining this issue in the context of their calling party
This NOI is FCC 04-248 in IB Docket No. 04-398.
|Trade Officials Comment on FSC/ETI Repeal
10/14. U.S. and French trade officials commented on Congressional legislation that
repeals the FSC/ETI tax regime.
On October 11, 2004, the Senate approved the conference report on
the "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004", by a vote of 69-17 on
October 11, 2004. See,
Roll Call No. 211. The House approved this conference report on October 7 by a vote of
280-141. See, Roll Call No. 509. See,
full text of conference report [650 pages in PDF], and story titled "House
and Senate Approve Tax Bill That Repeals FSC/ETI" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
995, October 13, 2004.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled
that the foreign sales corporation (FSC) tax regime, and its replacement, the
extraterritorial income (ETI) tax regime, constitute illegal export subsidies,
and authorized the EU to impose up to $4 Billion in retaliatory tariffs. This
bill repeals the FSC/ETI tax regime.
On October 12, EU Trade Commissioner
stated in a
release that "I am pleased that Congress has finally taken this step towards
US compliance with the WTO ruling. It vindicates the EU’s patient but firm
approach. Our objective throughout has been to obtain the withdrawal of these
illegal subsidies by introducing progressively rising countermeasures."
(at right) added that "We will now carefully study the details in the final
compromise between both chambers, in particular regarding transition periods,
grandfathering clauses, as well as all other relevant fiscal provisions."
On October 14, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
Robert Zoellick stated in a
release that "We recognize the difficulty and complexity of making tax code
changes, and by bringing the United States into compliance with our
international obligations, we believe the concerns that prompted the EU to bring
this action in 1997 have been addressed satisfactorily. We urge Europe to
quickly move to end their tariffs on U.S. exports, so that trade can resume to
the mutual benefit of both sides of the Atlantic."
|Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
Conducts DMCA Rulemaking
10/5. The Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) published a
notice in the Federal Register that describes and sets the comment deadline
for its rulemaking proceeding regarding implementation of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act's (DMCA) ban on importation of devices that violate the
anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
The CBP also proposes to amend its rules to provide for the
recordation, and seizure and forfeiture, of certain movies, sound recordings,
and similar works, before completion of the registration process at the
U.S. Copyright Office. The CBP also
proposes to allow for the recordation of non-U.S. works without requiring
registration with the Copyright Office.
The proposed rule provides for the seizure by the CBP, and
forfeiture, of certain devices that it reasonably believes constitute violations
of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. These provisions are codified
at 17 U.S.C. § 1201.
§ 1201(a)(1)(A), which was added to the Copyright Act in 1998 by the DMCA,
provides that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Then, § 1201(a)(2)(A) provides that "No person shall manufacture, import,
offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product,
service, device, component, or part thereof, that --- (A) is primarily designed
or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"
Furthermore, § 1201(b)(1)(A) provides that "No person shall manufacture,
import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology,
product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that --- (A) is primarily
designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a
technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner
under this title in a work or a portion thereof;"
The proposed regulations would implement the DMCA's ban on
importation of devices that violate the anti-circumvention provisions.
The proposed rule provides that "Imported articles appearing to
constitute violations of 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1) may
be detained for a period not to exceed 30 days if CBP reasonably believes that
such articles are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively
protects a right of a copyright owner; have only limited commercially
significant purpose or use other than to circumvent such protection; or are
marketed by the importer or trafficker, or another acting in concert with the
importer or trafficker, for use in circumventing such protection. Upon
determination by the IPR Branch, CBP Office of Regulations & Rulings, that such
detained articles constitute violations of 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1) CBP will seize
them and institute forfeiture proceedings in accordance with part 162 of this
chapter. Articles that are not determined by the IPR Branch to constitute
violations of 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1) will be released."
The proposed rule further provides that "Imported articles
determined by the IPR Branch, CBP Office of Regulations & Rulings to constitute
violations of 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1) are subject to seizure regardless of the
recordation of any right with CBP. After seizure, such goods are subject to
forfeiture proceedings in accordance with part 162 of this chapter. CBP will
notify the importer of the seizure in accordance with part 162 of this chapter."
Finally, it provides that "When
merchandise is seized under this section, CBP will disclose to the owner of the
protected copyrighted work (in the case of copyright piracy) or the producer, or
duly authorized agent thereof, of circumvented copyright protection systems (in
seizures effected for DMCA violations), the following information, if available,
within 30 days, excluding weekends and holidays, of the date of the notice of
(1) The date of importation;
(2) The port of entry;
(3) A description of the merchandise;
(4) The quantity involved;
(5) The name and address of the manufacturer;
(6) The country of origin of the merchandise, if known;
(7) The name and address of the exporter;
(8) The name and address of the importer; and
(9) Information from available shipping documents (such as
manifests, air waybills, and bills of lading), including mode or method of
shipping (such as airline carrier and flight number) and the intended final
destination of the merchandise."
The proposed rule does not address
how the CBP will reach its determination that it "reasonably believes
that such articles are primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively
protects a right of a copyright owner". The proposed rules establish no process
whereby copyright owners, their trade groups, or the makers of copyright
protection systems, identify devices that
they assert constitute violations of the DMCA.
Comments are due by November 4, 2004. See,
notice in the Federal Register, October 5, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 192, at Pages
59562 - 59569.
|9th Circuits Affirms Judgment
Against Corporate Hacker
10/15. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(9thCir) issued its
opinion [14 pages in PDF] in Creative Computing v. Getloaded.com,
a Section 1030 case in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court
judgment against a corporate hacker. In addition, the Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction
against visiting the plaintiff's web site.
Creative Computing, the plaintiff below and appellee before the
Court of Appeals, developed a website titled "The Internet Truckstop".
It matched trucks with loads. It enabled truckers to avoid delivering a load, and
then returning with no revenue producing load.
Getloaded, in the Court's words "decided to compete, but not
honestly". For example, the Court wrote that "Getloaded’s
officers also hacked into the code Creative used to operate its website.
Microsoft had distributed a patch to prevent a hack it had discovered, but
Creative Computing had not yet installed the patch on truckstop.com. Getloaded’s
president and vice-president hacked into Creative Computing’s website through
the back door that this patch would have locked. Once in, they examined the
source code for the tremendously valuable radius-search feature."
In addition, Getloaded "hired away a Creative
Computing employee who ... while still working for Creative, accessed
confidential information regarding several thousand of Creative’s customers. He
downloaded, and sent to his home email account, the confidential address to
truckstop.com’s server so that he could access the server from home and retrieve
Getloaded also accessed information on Creative
Computing's web site by using customer passwords and user IDs. That is, some
customers used the same IDs and passwords for both websites.
Creative Computing filed a complaint, which it subsequently
amended, in U.S. District Court (DId)
against Getloaded alleging copyright infringement, Lanham Act violations,
misappropriation of trade secrets under the Idaho Trade Secrets Act, and
violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is codified at
18 U.S.C. §
1030. Creative Computing sought damages and injunctive relief.
The District Court issued a temporary restraining
order (TRO), which Getloaded violated.
The District Court also found that Getloaded's "senior management --
and others under its supervision and with its knowledge -- lied under oath" and
"destroyed evidence that showed it had copied source code in violation of the
The trial jury returned its verdict for Getloaded on the copyright and Lanham
Act claims, but for Creative Computing on the trade secrets and Section 1030 claims.
It awarded damages of $60,000 for each of three violations of the state trade secrets
law, and $150,000 for each of three violations of Section 1030, for a total of $510,000.
The District Court then awarded an additional $120,000 in exemplary damages because of
Getloaded's willful and malicious conduct, pursuant to state statute, and $300,000 in
fees and $42,787.35 in costs "as sanctions to compensate Creative Computing for the
expense of figuring out and proving Getloaded's violations of the preliminary injunction
and false statements in depositions." The District Court also issued an
Getloaded, having violated the District Court's TRO, and lied to the
District Court under oath, had the audacity to appeal.
Kleinfeld wrote the unanimous
opinion for the Court of Appeals, affirming the District Court judgment in full.
Getloaded argued on appeal that the injury to Creative Computing was not
"caused" by its computer intrusions because Creative Computing had not installed
a software patch made available by Microsoft that would have prevented the
hacking technique used by Getloaded. The Appeals Court rejected this argument.
It wrote that "A causal chain from the thief to the
victim is not broken by a vulnerability that the victim negligently leaves open
to the thief."
Getloaded argued on appeal that Section 1030 establishes a
$5,000 floor for damages from each unauthorized
access, and Creative Computing did not present evidence of this. The Appeals
Court held, as a matter of statutory construction, that there is no $5,000 floor
for each unauthorized access.
The Court of Appeals added a policy rationale. It
wrote that "A court construing a statute attributes a rational purpose to
Congress. Getloaded's construction would attribute obvious futility to Congress
rather than rationality, because a hacker could evade the statute by setting up
thousands of $4,999 (or millions of $4.99) intrusions." (Footnote omitted.
Parentheses in original.)
The Court concluded that "The damage floor in
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act contains no ``single act´´ requirement."
Getloaded argued on appeal that damages were
excessive, that sanctions should not have been imposed, and that it should not
have to pay costs. The Court rejected all of these appeal arguments.
This left one appeal issue -- the injunction. It enjoined Getloaded from
copying or storing Creative Computing's source code, using
information related to or based on its source code, and using its trade secrets
such as by selling its customer lists or contacting its customers. The Court of
Appeals upheld this, in part because of Getloaded's false testimony, and
violation of the District Court's TRO.
The Court also affirmed the portion of the
injunction that enjoined Getloaded's personnel from accessing Creative Computing's
web site. This is notable to the extent that the Appeals Court upheld an injunction in a
civil case that bars one class of people from accessing certain content on the
internet. This runs against the open nature of the internet, and the
First Amendment. This sets a precedent that overzealous prosecutors and
aggressive litigators, who lack an appreciation of the importance of the free
flow of information, may invoke in future cases that do not involve the sort of
egregious conduct demonstrated by Getloaded.
This portion of the opinion may turn out to be
unfortunate. But then, the Court was faced with dishonest individuals, who lied
under oath. These people deserved commitment to a suitable federal
penitentiary. Yet, this was a civil case, so the most the Court could do was
affirm the District Court judgment.
The Appeals Court did attempt to limit the scope of its holding. It tied its
holding to Getloaded's past conduct, and wrote that "Getloaded is in a position
analogous to one who has repeatedly shoplifted from a particular store, so the judge
prohibits him from entering it again, saving the store's security guards from the burden
of having to follow him around whenever he is there."
This case is Creative Computing, dba Internet Truckstop.com v.
Getloaded.com, Inc., App. Ct. No. 02-35856, an appeal from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho, D.C. No. CV-00-00476-BLW, Judge Lynn Winmill presiding. Judge
Andrew Kleinfeld wrote the opinion for the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Dorothy
Nelson and Raymond Fisher joined.
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Monday, October 18
The House is in recess until November 16, 2004. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate is in recess until November 16, 2004.
Deadline to submit comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding "Internet
Protocol (IP) Relay and Video Relay Service (VRS), including the appropriate
cost recovery methodology for VRS, possible mechanisms to determine which IP
Relay and VRS calls are intrastate and which are interstate for purposes of
reimbursement, whether IP Rely and VRS should become mandatory TRS services,
whether IP Relay and VRS should be required to be offered 7 days a week, 24
hours a day, and whether, when, and how we should apply the speed of answer
rule to the provision of VRS." See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 1, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 169, at
Pages 53382 - 53385. The FCC adopted this NPRM on June 10, 2004, and released
it on June 30, 2004. It is FCC 04-134 in CG Docket No. 03-123. Comments are
due by October 18, 2004.
|Tuesday, October 19
10:00 AM. The U.S. District Court
(DC) will hold a status conference in U.S. v. Microsoft, the
government antitrust case against Microsoft.. On October 8, 2004, Microsoft, the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and various state
plaintiffs filed a Joint
Status Report on Microsoft's Compliance with the Final Judgments. This case is
D.C. No. 98-1232 (CKK), Judge Colleen Kotelly presiding. Location: Courtroom
11, Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
12:00 NOON. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Executive Committee will meet. Location:
Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K Street, NW.
4:00 - 5:00 PM. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an
event titled "Intellectual Property Roundtable featuring Attorney General John
Ashcroft". AG John
Ashcroft will discuss the Department of Justice's
(DOJ) report [96 pages
in PDF] titled "Report of the Department of Justice's Task Force on Intellectual
Property". See, story titled "DOJ IP Task Force Issues Recommendations"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 995, October 13, 2004. See,
notice. Prices vary. The event will be webcast by the U.S. Chamber. Location:
U.S. Chamber, 1615 H St., NW.
4:00 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Legislative Committee will host an event
titled "Afternoon Chat with Howard Waltzman". Waltzman is the Chief Counsel
to the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
RSVP to firstname.lastname@example.org. Location:
Wiley Rein & Fielding,1776 K St., NW.
|Wednesday, October 20
8:00 AM. The Federal Communications Bar
Association (FCBA) will host a breakfast. The speaker will be Dan Glickman,
the new head of the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA). Location: Capitol Hilton, 16th & K Streets, NW.
9:30 - 11:00 AM. The
Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) will host
a panel discussion titled "Privacy vs. Security: A False Choice?".
The speakers will be Paul Rosenzweig (Heritage
Foundation), David Sobel
(Electronic Privacy Information Center), and
Robert Atkinson (Director of the PPI's Technology and New Economy Project).
notice. Location: PPI, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 400.
10:00 AM. Jeffrey Carlisle, Chief of the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Wireline Communications Bureau
(WCB), will hold an event titled "briefing for members of the media". RSVP
to Mark Wigfield at 202 418-0253. Location: FCC, 445 12th St., SW, Room TW A-402/A-442.
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM. The Cato Institute
will host a panel discussion titled "The Next Big Thing in Copyright? The
Induce Act and Contributory Liability". Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts
12:15 PM. The New America Foundation
(NAF) will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Leo Hindery (Chairman of
HL Capital and Former CEO of TCI and AT&T Broadband). RSVP to Jennifer Buntman at
202 986-4901 or email@example.com.
Location: NAF, 1630 Connecticut Ave., NW, 7th Floor.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association's
Computer and Telecommunications Law Section will host a continuing legal education
(CLE) program titled "Ethics and the Internet". The speaker will
be J.T. Westermeier
(Piper Rudnick). See,
Prices vary from $80 to $115. For more information, call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C.
Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.
|Thursday, October 21
9:30 AM. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in In Re AT&T,
No. 03-1397. Judges Ginsburg, Sentelle and Randolph will preside. Location: Prettyman
Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
12:00 NOON. The
Heritage Foundation will host a panel
discussion titled "Secure Flight: Screening for Terrorists on Passenger
Planes". The speakers will be Justin Oberman (Transportation Security Administration), Lisa Dean (TSA), and Paul
Rosenzweig (Heritage). See,
notice. Location: 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Cable Practice Committee will host a
brown bag lunch. Jeffrey Carlisle, Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau will speak on
"VOIP and Cable". RSVP to Frank Lloyd 202 434-7309 or
firstname.lastname@example.org. Location: 9th Floor,
Mintz Levin, 701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
4:00 PM. Michael Carrier (Rutgers University Law School) will present a
paper titled "Cabining Intellectual Property Through a Property
Paradigm" at an event hosted by the Dean Dinwoodey Center for Intellectual
Property Studies at the George Washington University
Law School (GWULS). For more information, contact Robert Brauneis at 202 994-6138
or email@example.com. The event is free and
open to the public. See,
Location: GWULS, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 716
20th Street, NW.
5:30 - 7:30 PM. The DC
Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section will host an event titled
"Intellectual Property Law Section Fall Reception". See,
Prices vary from $25 - $50. For more information, call 202 626-3463. Location: The
Club at Franklin Square, 1300 Eye Street, NW, Lobby Level.
6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications
Bar Association (FCBA) will host the first part of a two part continuing
legal education (CLE) seminar on Homeland Security. Prices vary. See,
Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.
|Friday, October 22
12:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host
a brown bag lunch. Harry Martin (President of the FCBA) and Michele Farquhar
(President-Elect of the FCBA) will speak on involvement in the FCBA and
building a career in communications law. For more information, contact Jason
Friedrich at firstname.lastname@example.org
or Pam Slipakoff at Pam.Slipakoff@fcc.gov.
Location: Drinker Biddle & Reath, 1500 K Street NW, Suite 1100.
|PFF Reports on State Barriers to VOIP
10/14. The Progress and Freedom
Foundation (PFF) released a
paper [13 pages in PDF] titled "State Barriers to VoIP Deployment".
It argues that "state impediments to VoIP deployment are harmful and unwelcome",
and reviews the VOIP related actions by states.
It states that "any regulatory barrier to the proliferation of this new
technology would be unfortunate, as there are clear consumer benefits to be had
from VoIP’s proliferation. Furthermore, since this is a new technology, we see
little rationale for regulating it under the traditional common carriage regime
that has historically been used for telecommunications".
This paper, which was written by
Raymond Gifford and
Kent Lassman, argues that "the
competitive pressures of new technologies and services have
eroded the basis for the current regulatory classifications and most economic
interventions. Likewise, we believe the ``Internet´´ in VoIP services is
inherently an interstate, and therefore federal, concern. However, until
fundamental changes to the nation’s telecommunications laws are adopted, VoIP
regulation will remain chaotic and the states will have their prerogatives. For
now, the best we can do is counsel state forbearance from VoIP regulation, where
"At the state level, some two-dozen states have taken formal
action related to VoIP." The paper finds that "Approximately half of the states
have not taken any action with regard to VoIP. The actions of other states can be grouped
into four categories. In order of regulatory interest: First, certain state commissions
have sought information on VoIP through workshops or formal investigations; second, some
states have asserted authority over VoIP providers and, in turn, sought
applications for certificates of convenience and necessity; third, in a category
by itself, California has an active rulemaking docket that would subject VoIP
services to the full-blown supervision of the California Commission; fourth and
finally, Iowa has used its numbering allocation authority to impede VoIP
deployment in the state."
The report then provides a state by state review of investigations and
|More FCC News
10/15. The Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
issued a Public
Notice [2 pages in PDF] regarding Geophysical
Survey Systems, Inc.'s (GSSI) October 13
for a waiver [7 pages in PDF] of Part 15 of the FCC's rules to permit the higher power
operation of ultra-wideband (UWB) non-contact ground penetrating radars (GPRs). The
Public Notice describes
the request, states that it will be treated, for ex parte purposes, as a permit
but disclose proceeding, and sets comment deadlines. Comments are due by November 5, 2004,
and reply comments are due by November 22, 2004. This is ET Docket No. 04-374, which is
also the docket number for the proceeding on the similar
[20 pages in PDF] filed Wavebounce on July 6, 2004.
See also, Geophysical's June 17, 2004
[pages in PDF] for partial reconsideration.
10/14. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) released a
document [72 pages in PDF] titled "Eligible Services List: Schools and
Libraries Support Mechanism For Fund Year 2005". The FCC adopted this item
on October 5, 2004. This item is FCC 04-244 in CC Docket No. 02-6.
10/14. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) deleted from the agenda of its October 14, 2004 meeting two items that it
had previous announced would be considered at the meeting. It deleted consideration
of an Order on Reconsideration regarding its payphone
compensation rules. This proceeding is CC Docket No. 96-128. It also deleted consideration
of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
concerning § 251(h)(2). This pertains to Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative,
Inc.'s petition that it be declared the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC)
in a town in the state of Montana. This proceeding is WC Docket No. 02-78.
|People and Appointments
10/15. Julie Erhardt was named Deputy Chief Accountant at the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). She
will report to Donald Nicolaisen, the SEC's Chief Accountant. See, SEC
10/15. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
announced that it will host a two day workshop on December 15 and 16, 2004
titled "Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Technology: Consumer
Protection and Competition Issues". The topics to be covered include
the uses of P2P file sharing technology, the role of P2P
file sharing technology in the economy, identification and disclosure of P2P
file sharing software risks, technological solutions to protect consumers from
risks associated with P2P file sharing software, P2P file sharing and music
distribution, and P2P file sharing and its impact on copyright holders.
November 15 is the deadline to submit comments or requests to participate. The
FTC vote on this item was 4-0-1. Commissioner Jon Leibowitz did not participate.
Until recently, he worked for the Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA). See, FTC
notice [13 pages in
PDF] to be published in the Federal Register.
10/15. The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) prepared an annual audit
[8 pages in PDF] for the Chairmen and ranking Democrats on the House Financial
Services Committee, and the Senate Banking Committee, titled "Local
Television Act: Status of Spending for Fiscal Year 2003". This audit is
required by the Launching Our Communities’ Access to Local Television Act of
2000, Public Law No. 106-553.
10/14. The Progressive Policy Institute
(PPI), a new Democrat think tank, released a
report [7 pages in PDF] titled "Unsatisfactory Progress: The Bush
Administration's Performance on E-Government Initiatives". It concludes that
"As other nations have raced ahead in e-government, the Bush administration has made,
at best, halting progress", because "the administration itself has failed to
make a serious commitment to transforming the federal government through information
technology". This report was written by Robert Atkinson, Director of the PPI's
Technology and New Economy Project. See, also PPI
10/7. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) introduced
the "Plant Breeders Equity Act of 2004", a bill to amend
35 U.S.C. § 162. The bill
was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Issa and others introduced an earlier version of this bill,
HR 242, on
January 8, 2003. See, story titled "Rep. Issa Introduces Amendment to Plant Patent
Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 581, January 13, 2003.
10/7. The Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA) announced and commented upon lawsuits brought by record
industry entities in European nations against online music infringers. See, RIAA
|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