|FCC Adopts Order on Vonage's VOIP
11/9. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) adopted, but did not release, a Memorandum
Opinion and Order that addressed Vonage
Holdings Corporation's Petition for Declaratory Ruling regarding its DigitalVoice
service in the state of Minnesota. The FCC found that Vonage's voice over
internet protocol (VOIP) service, which is named DigitalVoice, is an interstate service,
and that Minnesota cannot regulate as it had proposed in a September 2003 order.
However, the FCC's order leaves many VOIP related issued to be decided by other
proceedings, and perhaps, court opinions and/or legislation.
FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order. The FCC issued only a short
[2 pages in PDF] that provides a cursory description of this item. Also, four
Commissioners issued separate statements, and Wireline
Competition Bureau (WCB) Bureau Chief Jeffrey Carlisle answered questions from
reporters after the FCC meeting. This item is FCC 04-267 in WC Docket No. 03-211.
The FCC release states that "the FCC found that the company's DigitalVoice
service cannot practically be separated into intrastate and
interstate components, precluding dual state and federal regulatory regimes.
DigitalVoice customers can use their phones from a broadband connection anywhere
in the world, making it difficult to determine whether a call is local,
interstate or international in nature."
The FCC release also states that the FCC "found that regulations
that would have been imposed by the Minnesota Commission were inconsistent with
the FCC’s deregulatory policies, and that preemption was consistent with federal
law and policies intended to promote the continued development of the Internet,
broadband and interactive services." The release also offers this rationale:
"Divergent state rules, regulations and licensing requirements could impede the
rollout of such services that benefit consumers by providing them with more
choice, competition and innovation."
However, the FCC release devotes more words to listing what the
FCC order does not decide. First, it states that this order "does not signal
that Vonage may cease its efforts to develop workable solutions. The Commission
looks forward to addressing public safety issues comprehensively, with the
participation of our state and local colleagues, in the broader IP Enabled
This refers to the FCC's
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [97 pages in PDF] regarding regulation
of internet protocol services, including voice over internet protocol (VOIP).
This NPRM is FCC 04-28 in Docket No. WC 04-36. See, story titled "FCC Adopts
NPRM Regarding Regulation of Internet Protocol Services" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 837, Monday, February 16, 2004. See also,
notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 60, at Pages
16193 - 16202.
The FCC release further states that the order "does not express
an opinion about the applicability to Vonage of general laws in Minnesota
governing taxation, fraud, commercial dealings, marketing, advertising and other
business practices. But the Commission expects states to continue playing a
vital role in protecting consumers from fraud, responding to complaints, and
enforcing fair business practices."
Finally, the FCC release states that "the question of whether
DigitalVoice should be classified as an unregulated ``information service´´ under
the Communications Act or a telecommunications service will be addressed in the
Commission’s IP-Enabled Services Proceeding. The Commission will also address
whether VoIP providers must provide access to the disabled, pay intercarrier
compensation and contribute to the universal service fund, in the Commission's IPEnabled Services Proceeding, which commenced in February of this year."
Chairman Powell summed up the order. "This decision today decides who has to
decide." And, he said, this "one of the many landmark days of a phone
Minnesota Proceeding. On July 15, 2003, the
Minnesota Department of Commerce (MDOC) filed an administrative complaint
against Vonage with the Minnesota
Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) alleging that
Vonage offers telephone services in Minnesota, including local exchange service
and long distance service, without a certificate under Minn. Stat. §§ 237.16 and
237.74, for those services. The complaint also alleges that Vonage violates
Minnesota law by failing to provide 911 service.
On September 13, 2003, the MPUC issued its
Jurisdiction and Requiring Compliance [9 pages in PDF] finding that the MPUC
has jurisdiction, and that Vonage must comply with Minnesota laws that regulate
telephone companies, including obtaining certification from the state, complying
with 911 rules, and paying 911 fees.
Vonage's FCC Petition. Vonage filed its petition with the FCC on
September 22, 2003. See,
part 5, and
part 6 [slow downloading PDF scans].
It wrote that "The State of Minnesota is now seeking to impose
common carrier regulation on the “intrastate’’ use of Vonage’s Internet
application, on the theory that this service is “functionally the same as” a
telephone service. If the State is permitted to enforce its order, Vonage -- and
presumably other providers of two-way Internet communications applications
available to residents of Minnesota -- would be required to obtain state
certification before allowing Internet users physically located in Minnesota
(assuming it could identify them) to use such services to communicate with other
Minnesotans. Because Internet applications like Vonage’s service were designed
to be provided ubiquitously over the Internet, neither Vonage nor other
developers of similar Internet communications technologies can reasonably be
expected to ever obtain a telecommunications carrier certification. Internet
communications applications were never designed to comply with the legal and
technical requirements applicable to fixed, switched telecommunications
networks, let alone be saddled with obligations such as State tariff rules, rate
regulation, and other forms of regulation typically imposed on common carriers."
Vonage wrote that "Minnesota’s regulation conflicts with this
Commission's long-standing policy of deregulating information services", and
that the FCC should "preempt Minnesota’s imposition of entry and rate regulation
on Vonage’s service".
Vonage also wrote that "Minnesota has ordered Vonage to comply
with the same rules as local exchange camers with respect to 911 services.
Although Vonage does offer a 911 dialing service to its users and is committed
to improving this service to enhance customer safety, the nature of Vonage’s
service makes full compliance with Minnesota’s expectations impossible." Vonage
also asked the FCC to "preempt these rules, both because they are inconsistent
with Vonage’s offering of an information service as described above, and because
they have a particular impact on customers who use Vonage service during
Finally, Vonage argued that "preemption is necessary because of the impossibility
of separating the Internet, or any service offered over it, into intrastate and
Vonage v. Minnesota. In addition to this regulatory proceeding, there
is a court proceeding. Vonage filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in
Minnesota against the MPUC and its Commissioners, in their official capacities.
It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. It argues that its VOIP service is
an information service, not a telecommunications service.
On October 16, 2003, the U.S.
District Court (DMinn) issued its
and Order [PDF] in Vonage v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission,
holding that Vonage is an
information service provider, and that the MPUC cannot apply state laws that
regulate telecommunications carriers to Vonage.
The Court wrote that "State regulation would effectively decimate
Congress's mandate that the Internet remain unfettered by regulation." See,
"District Court Holds that Vonage's VOIP is an Information Service" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 760, October 17, 2003.
The District Court concluded "that the VoIP service provided by Vonage
constitutes an information service because it offers the ``capability for
generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,
or making available information via telecommunications.´´
47 U.S.C. § 153(20).
The process of transmitting customer calls over the Internet requires Vonage to
``act on´´ the format and protocol of the information. 47 C.F.R. § 64.702(a)."
The District Court continued that "For calls originating with one of Vonage's
customers, calls in the VoIP format must be transformed into the format of the
PSTN before a POTS user can receive the call. For calls originating from a POTS
user, the process of acting on the format and protocol is reversed. The Court
concludes that Vonage's activities fit within the definition of information
services. Vonage's services are closely tied to the provision of
telecommunications services as defined by Congress, the courts and the FCC, but
this Court finds that Vonage uses telecommunications services, rather than
The District Court also held that the Communications Act preempts the state
laws being applied by the MPUC. It wrote that "Because Congress has expressed an
intent that services like Vonage's must remain unregulated by the Communications
Act, and because the MPUC has exercised state authority to regulate Vonage’s
service, the Court concludes that that state and federal laws conflict, and
pre-emption is necessary."
The MPUC appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals (8thCir). Oral argument is scheduled for November 17, 2004.
On April 21, 2004, the FCC filed an
amicus curiae brief
[38 pages in PDF] with the Court of Appeals in which it requested that the Court
defer its resolution of this appeal. The FCC wrote that it is "is currently
engaged in administrative proceedings that will address Vonage's regulatory
status in particular and the regulatory status of Internet telephony services
more generally. There is a significant public interest in ensuring that the
FCC's regulatory authority is not impaired by premature judicial resolution of
these issues", and that the Court should wait until these proceedings are
completed. See, story titled "FCC Files Amicus Brief in Vonage v. Minnesota PUC"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 887, April 29, 2004.
Carlisle spoke after the meeting about the upcoming 8th Circuit oral argument.
He said that "We have been in this position before, with regard to a number of cases,
including reciprocal compensation, and also Brand X. And so, we would
rather not repeat that here. We want to get as much clarity out as to what the
FCC thinks about the jurisdictional nature of these services as possible. So, at
least the judicial process knows what we think."
FCC Commissioners' Statements. FCC Chairman
Michael Powell wrote in a
statement [PDF] that "VOIP is barely a few years old as a retail offering and
providers have already cut prices several times to compete for consumers. VoIP
providers have begun offering local and long-distance calling plans for as low
as $14.99 and $19.99 per month. Most recently, Vonage and AT&T slashed the
monthly prices of their unlimited local and long-distance calling plans by $5
per month. If we let competition and innovation rage, unencumbered by the high
cost of regulation, Consumers can expect more of the same -- lower prices, more
choice, and more innovative offerings."
Powell (at right) continued
that "Today's decision lays a jurisdictional foundation for what consumers already
know -- that the Internet is global in scope. The genius of the Internet is that it knows
no boundaries. In cyberspace, distance is dead. Communication and information can race
around the planet and back with ease. The Order recognizes that several technical factors
demonstrate that VoIP services are unquestionably interstate in nature. VoIP services are
nomadic and presence-oriented, making identification of the end points of any given
communications session completely impractical and, frankly, unwise. In this
sense, Internet applications such as VoIP are more border-busting than either
long distance or mobile telephony -- each inherently, and properly classified,
"To subject a global network to disparate local regulatory
treatment by 51 different jurisdictions would be to destroy the very qualities
that embody the technological marvel that is the Internet", wrote Powell. "VOIP
properly stands in this category and the Commission is merely affirming the
obvious in reaching today’s jurisdictional decision."
Kathleen Abernathy wrote in a
statement [PDF] that "There is no doubt that VoIP services of the type provided
by Vonage are inherently interstate in nature."
She added that "Allowing the Minnesota utility regulations -- or
comparable state regulations -- to stand would authorize a single state to
establish default national rules for all VoIP providers, given the impossibility
of isolating any intrastate-only component. Equally troubling is the prospect of
subjecting providers of these innovative new services -- which are being rolled
out on a regional, national, and even global scale -- to a patchwork of
inconsistent state regulations. In short, failure to preempt state utility
regulations would likely sound the death knell for many IP-enabled services and
would deprive consumers of the cost savings and exciting features they can
FCC Commissioner Michael
Copps wrote in a
concurring statement [PDF] that "Today's decision
finds that VoIP services like Vonage's DigitalVoice have an undeniably
interstate character. That’s fine as far as it goes—but it doesn’t go very far.
Proclaiming the service “interstate” does not mean that everything magically
falls into place, the curtains are raised, the technology is liberated, and all
questions are answered. There are, in fact, difficult and urgent questions
flowing from our jurisdictional conclusion and they are no closer to an answer
after we act today than they were before we walked in here.
He complained that the FCC "moves bit-by-bit through individual
company petitions, in effect checking off business plans as they walk through
the door. This is not the way we should be proceeding. We need a framework for
all carriers and all services".
Jonathan Adelstein wrote in a
concurring statement [PDF] that he is "not
comfortable with all of the analysis" in the order. He wrote that "Where this
Order falls short is its failure to account in a meaningful way for essential
policy issues, including universal service, public safety, law enforcement,
consumer privacy, disabilities access, and intercarrier compensation, and the
effect of our preemption here." He added that "I also have reservations about
our preemption of a State’s efforts to ensure the public safety of its citizens,
based here on the linkage of the 911 requirement with a State certification."
Chairman Powell, in his statement at the meeting, responded to "the process
concern, that wouldn't we rather answer all of the questions comprehensively, do
everything now. Well, what I find interesting about that is that revolutionaries
are a little less patient than that, and they are a little less messy than that.
I think this is this is a classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of
the good. At some point it is a formula for paralysis. Because, there will
always be more questions on the horizon. There will always be new challenges
presented by new innovation". He said that the FCC can't "answer every possible
question before you let a service come to the benefit of consumers". These
comments were not a part of his written statement.
Carlisle explanation. Jeffrey Carlisle answered questions from
reporters after the meeting about what is in the FCC's forthcoming order. He
said that "This order does not address or explicitly preclude any possible
approach on universal service for VOIP providers" at either the state or federal
He also answered that the order does not preclude state or local taxation of
VOIP services, but that it does preclude state regulation of the terms of
services and prices of VOIP services.
"The actual preemption analysis applies to certification requirements and 911
requirements that are made a condition to certification. It is possible that you
could have different conclusions regarding preemption based on different state
requirements. Those question, USF questions were not before the Commission."
Carlisle added that other questions are being addressed in other FCC
proceedings, including the USF proceeding, the intercarrier compensation
proceeding, and the IP enabled services proceeding.
"This item is very clear that the 911 requirement is being preempted because
it was a condition of certification. Certification was preempted. Therefore the
911 requirement had to fall."
Carlisle also asserted that the order, which the FCC has not released, "is
|9th Circuit Construes Meaning of Identity Theft for
11/9. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(9thCir) issued its split
opinion [20 pages in PDF] in
USA v. Melendrez, a criminal sentencing case. Melendrez stole social
security numbers, and used a computer to create fraudulent identification documents.
The police caught him, and he plead guilty to unlawfully producing more than five
identification documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii),
At issue in this appeal is whether it was appropriate for the District Court to enhance his sentence,
on the grounds that he committed identity theft, pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, at U.S.S.G.
Melendrez asserted that there was no identity theft because he did not use the
victims' names on the fake identification documents. The Court of Appeals rejected this
argument, two to one. This case is U.S.A. v. Melendrez, App. Ct. No. 03-30221,
an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, D.C. No.
CR-02-60133-1-ALA, Judge Ann Aiken presiding. Judge Raymond Fisher wrote the opinion
of the Court of Appeals, in which Judge Procter Hug joined. Judge Margaret McKeown
wrote a dissent.
|GAO Reports That Governments Make
Social Security Numbers Available for Indentity Thieves
11/9. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a
report [65 pages in PDF]
titled "Social Security Numbers: Governments Could Do More to Reduce Display in
Public Records and on Identity Cards".
It states that "We found that SSNs are widely exposed to view in a variety of
public records, particularly those held by state and local governments,
and appear in some public record nearly everywhere in the nation.
Specifically, agencies in 41 states and the District of Columbia reported that
SSNs are accessible in at least some of the public records they hold and
a few reported this to be the case for as many as 10 or more different
The GAO also estimates that "more than three-quarters of U.S.
counties hold at least one type of record that displays SSNs, which has
implications for the 94 percent of the U.S. population that we estimate live
in those counties. While we found SSNs displayed in a great
variety of state and county records, they were most often displayed in court and
property records. On the other hand, SSNs in records held by federal executive
branch agencies are protected under the Privacy Act of 1974 and are, therefore,
not generally available to the public. However, we found that SSNs are sometimes
available in federal court records."
The report also found that some state and local government
agencies that collect social security numbers "reported having no use for the
number", but collect them anyway.
The report also addresses how documents containing SSN's are
stored and accessed. "Public documents with SSNs are stored in a multiplicity of ways,
and we found that public access methods are highly variable. State
government offices tend to store such records electronically, while most
such local government records are stored on microfiche or microfilm.
However, for both levels of government, inspection of paper copies is the
most commonly available method for public access. Few state agencies
make records containing SSNs available on the Internet. However, we
estimate that local government offices in as many as 15 to 28 percent of
counties do make SSNs available through the Internet. Still, few state or
local offices reported plans to put additional records on the Internet.
Additionally, some state and local offices have begun restricting access to
SSNs in public records overall. Moreover, at the federal level, the
federal court system has recently taken action to restrict access to SSNs in
their public records."
The report also discussed the display of SSNs on federal
identification cards. "The display of nine-digit SSNs on such cards, which may need to
be carried and must often be disclosed, puts cardholders at risk for identity
theft due to the increased potential for accidental loss, theft, or visual
exposure. Currently, this practice involves an estimated 42 million Medicare
cards, 8 million Department of Defense identification cards, as well as some
insurance cards, and 7 million Department of Veterans Affairs identification
11/9. The White House press office announced in a
that "President Bush will attend the 12th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
Leaders' Meeting in Santiago, Chile from November 20-21."
|Attorney General Ashcroft
11/9. Attorney General John
Ashcroft resigned, effective upon the confirmation of a successor. President Bush
has not yet named a replacement. Confirmations for Attorneys General are often contentious,
Ashcroft wrote in a message to Department of Justice (DOJ) employees on November 9 that
"On November 2nd, I submitted to the President my intention to resign from the
office of Attorney General of the United States, effective upon confirmation of
He also reviewed the DOJ's accomplishments. "For three years since the worst
attack in our nation's history, and in defiance of all expectations, America has
not endured another major terrorist attack. Violent crime is at its lowest rate
in three decades. We have engineered double-digit reductions in the rates of
sexual assault, robbery and assault. Gun crime prosecutions are at a record high
and violent crimes committed with guns are at a record low. Drug use among the
nation's youth is declining. Corporate criminals are facing justice, and
integrity has been restored to the nation's marketplace. America's values, as
set forth in our Constitution, reflected in our laws, and cherished in our
hearts, have been honored and defended."
Bush praised Ashcroft (at right) in a
statement. He wrote that "During his four years at the Department of
Justice, John has transformed the Department to make combating terrorism the top
priority, including making sure our law enforcement officials have the tools
they need to disrupt and prevent attacks." Bush also stated that "I appreciate
his work to fight Internet pornography."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the outgoing Chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, stated in a
release that Ashcroft "has served our country faithfully during one of our most
challenging chapters in history. I enjoyed working closely with him. His courage
and leadership are second to none."
AG Ashcroft also wrote in a summary of DOJ accomplishments that there has
been "a nearly 100% increase in electronic surveillance (FISA) orders since
2001". Ashcroft added in his statement to DOJ employees that "it would be the
height of arrogance to assume we achieved this alone. The Psalms remind us:
``Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stands guard in vain.´´"
Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the
ACLU, issued an angry
in reaction to Ashcroft's resignation. He asserted that Ashcroft has "an open
hostility to protecting civil liberties and an outright disdain for those who
dare to question his policies". He added that "The Administration has long known
that John Ashcroft's unpopularity would make it harder to pursue its agenda --
but it is not enough to simply change the public face of the Department of
Justice. Putting a fresh face on the Administration's old policy of violating
civil liberties and human rights in the name of national security is not
|More People and Appointments
11/9. Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) Chairman Michael
Powell stated to reporters on his way out of the
FCC's meeting on November 9, 2004 that he intends to stay on at the FCC. His
term as a Commissioner expires in 2007. He serves in the capacity of Chairman at
the will of the President.
11/9. Secretary of Commerce
Donald Evans (at
left) resigned. President Bush wrote in a
statement praising Evans that "He has been a valuable member of my economic
team. Don has worked to advance economic security and prosperity for all
Americans. He has worked steadfastly to make sure America continues to be the
best place in the world to do business. To encourage job creation here at home,
Don has worked closely with me to reduce taxes, open markets for American goods
and services, and promote a level playing field abroad."
Ross was named VP for Communications and External Affairs at the
Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF).
Ross previously worked for Warren
Communications News, as manager of Washington Internet Daily, and as a
writer for Communications Daily. Before that, he was the Washington Bureau Chief
for CNET News. Before that, he worked at
Warren. He also previously worked on the staff of
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who, following the
election defeat of Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD),
will likely become the Senate Minority Leader in the 109th Congress. The PFF stated in
a release that
Ross "will also focus on intellectual property issues for the Foundation's Center
for the Study of Digital Property." His new e-mail address is
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Wednesday, November 10
The House is in recess until November 16, 2004. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate is in recess until November 16, 2004.
8:30 AM - 5:30 PM. Day two of a two day event hosted by the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
titled "Email Authentication Summit". The purpose of this summit is to
encourage the development, testing, evaluation and implementation of domain level
authentication systems. See, FTC
notice in the Federal Register, September 15, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 178, at Pages 55632
- 55636. Location: FTC Satellite Building, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee for the 2007 World
Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-07 Advisory Committee) will meet. See, original
notice in the Federal Register, July 6, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 128, at Pages
40637 - 40638, and rescheduling
notice in the Federal Register, August 10, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 153, at
Pages 48493. See also, FCC
notice of rescheduling to November 10. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street,
SW., Room TW-C305.
12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a
discussion of the book titled
Shakedown: How Corporations, Government, and Trial Lawyers Abuse the Judicial
Process [Amazon]. The speakers will be Robert Levy (author), Walter Olson
(Manhattan Institute), and Edward Crane (Cato). See,
notice and registration
page. Lunch will follow the program. Location: 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar
Association's (FCBA) Foundation Board of Trustees will meet. Location:
& Fielding, 1776 K St., NW.
12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar
Association (FCBA) Access to Records and Mass Media Practice Committees will host
a brown bag lunch. Renee Licht (FCC's Office of Managing Director), Mark Reger (FCC
Chief Financial Officer), and other FCC personnel will discuss the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 and the FCC's red light rule. RSVP to Rebecca Cunningham
at firstname.lastname@example.org. Location:
NAB, 1771 N St. NW.
3:00 - 6:30 PM. The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a
program titled "Federalism under the Influence: Dope, Booze, and the Commerce
Clause". There will be three panel discussions. The first, titled
"Uncorking the Commerce Clause", will address Swedenburg v.
Kelly and consolidated cases, which involve Commerce Clause challenges to state
barriers to internet sales, and other direct sales, of alcoholic beverages. The speakers
on this panel include Brannon Denning
(Cumberland School of Law),
(George Mason University Law School), and
Hewitt Pate (Department of Justice).
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Swedenburg v. Kelly on December
7, 2004. See, 2002
paper [47 pages in PDF] by Denning titled "Smokey and the Bandit in
Cyberspace: The Dormant Commerce Clause, the Twenty-First Amendment, and the
State Regulation of Internet Alcohol Sales". See,
notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor,
1150 17th St., NW.
|Friday, November 12
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(DCCir) will hear oral argument in AT&T Corp v. FCC, No. 03-1431.
This is a petition for review of a final order of the FCC regarding AT&T's tarriffs
and resellers 800 service plans. See, FCC
brief [37 pages in PDF].
Judges Ginsburg, Tatel and Roberts will preside. Location: Prettyman Courthouse, 333
Constitution Ave., NW.
9:30 - 11:30 PM. The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a
program titled "Success Taxes, Entrepreneurial Entry, and Innovation".
The speakers will be William Gentry
(Williams College), William Randolph (Department of the
Kevin Hassett (AEI), and
Eric Engen (AEI).
Gentry and Glenn
Hubbard (Columbia University) are the authors of a
paper [30 pages in PDF] with the same title as the program. They find that
"while the level of the marginal tax rate has a
negative effect in entrepreneurial entry, the progressivity of the tax also
discourages entrepreneurship". See,
notice. Location: AEI, 12th floor,
1150 17th St., NW.
Public Knowledge (PK) will host
an event that its describes as a "a press conference ... to discuss copyright
legislation in the upcoming lame duck session". The participants will be Gigi
Sohn (PK), Gary Shapiro (Consumer Electronics
Association), Ed Black (Computer and Communications Industry Association),
James Burger (TiVo), and Sarah Deutsch (Verizon).
Location: PK, Suite 650, 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, at Connecticut and T
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to examine the proper
number of end user common line charges that carriers may assess upon customers
that obtain derived channel T-1 service where the customer provides the
terminating channelization equipment and upon customers that obtain Primary Rate
Interface (PRI) Integrated Service Digital Network (ISDN) service. This
NPRM is FCC 04-174 in WC Docket No. 04-259 and RM-10603. See,
in the Federal Register, August 13, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 156, at Pages 50141 -
Deadline for licensees of all site specific licenses operating under part
22, Paging and Radiotelephone Service with "CD" radio service code and all
site specific licenses operating in the 929-930 MHz band on exclusive
private carrier paging channels with "GS" radio service to respond to the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's (WTB) audit letter. See, Public
Notice DA 04-3050, and
notice in the Federal Register, October 12, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 196, at
Deadline to submit comments to the Department of Commerce's
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS/BXA)
in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding amendments
to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The BIS proposes to amend its
EAR to revise the definition of knowledge to incorporate a reasonable person
standard, and to replace the phrase "high probability" with "more likely than
not". The BIS also proposes to revise the red flags guidance, and provide a
safe harbor from liability arising from knowledge under that definition. See,
notice in the Federal Register, October 13, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 197, at
Pages 60829 - 60836.
|Monday, November 15
Court will begin a recess. It will return on Monday, November 29, 2004. See,
List [14 pages in PDF] at page 14.
6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association
will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled "How to Litigate
an Intellectual Property Case Series, Part 2: How to Litigate a Trademark Case".
The speakers will be Shauna Wertheim (Roberts Abokhair & Mardula) and Steven Hollman
(Hogan & Hartson). See,
Prices vary from $70 to $115. For more information, call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C.
Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H Street, NW.
12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Professional Responsibility Committee will
host a brown bag lunch. This is an organizational meeting. Location: Paul Hastings,
1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 10th Floor.
Extended deadline to reply submit comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) [15 pages in PDF] regarding "issues relating to the
presentation of violent programming on television and its impact on children." This
NOI is FCC 04-175 in MB Docket No. 04-261. See, story titled "FCC Issues NOI on
Violent TV Programming" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 950, August 2, 2004. See also,
Order [PDF] extending the deadlines.
Deadline to submit reply 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.
Deadline to submit comments for, or requests to participate in, the
Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) workshop titled
"Peer to Peer File-Sharing Technology: Consumer Protection and Competition
Issues". See, FTC
notice [13 pages
in PDF] to be published in the Federal Register.
|Tuesday, November 16
The House will meet at 2:00 PM. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
The Senate will meet at 12:00 NOON.
9:30 AM. The
Senate Judiciary Committee will
hold a hearing titled "Judicial Nominations". Location: Room 226, Dirksen
9:30 AM - 1:00 PM. The DC Bar
Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled
"Essential Checklist for Electronic Discovery". The speakers will be
Kenneth Withers (Federal Judicial Center), Robert Eisenberg (CoreFacts), Magistrate John
Facciola (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), Virginia Llewellyn
(LexisNexis Applied Discovery), Jonathan Redgrave (Jones Day). See,
Prices vary from $70 to $115. For more information, call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C.
Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.
10:00 - 11:30 AM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) Media Security and Reliability Council will meet. The
event will be webcast by the FCC. The public may submit written comments. See,
notice in the Federal Register, July 15, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 135, at Page
42439. Location: FCC, 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room).
11:00 AM. The Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) International
Bureau will hold an event titled "Media briefing on the 10th Anniversary
of the FCC’s International Bureau". Bureau Chief Don Abelson will speak. RSVP
to Jacki Ponti at
Jacki.Ponti@fcc.gov or Meribeth
McCarrick at Meribeth.Mccarrick@fcc.gov.
Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW A-402/A-442.
12:00 NOON. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Executive Committee will meet.
Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K St., NW.
|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