3/30. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing on HR __ [PDF], a committee print of a bill that may be titled the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006", or COPE Act.

Formally, there is not yet a bill, or sponsors of a bill. However, members of the Subcommittee stated at the hearing that the sponsors are Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the Chairman of the HCC, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS), and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL).

Rep. Upton, who presided through most of the hearing, stated that he expects there to be a Subcommittee markup during the week of April 3. Both he and Rep. Barton added that he wants there to be a full Committee mark up in 4 to 5 weeks.

The statements and questions of the members of the Subcommittee demonstrated that this is not a consensus bill, and that there is more support among Republicans than Democrats. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee, criticized the bill. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the full Committee, said that "I do not support the legislation being considered today."

National Cable Franchise. Rep. Upton (at right) stated that "with approximately 33,000 local franchise authorities nationwide, the current locality by locality franchise negotiation process is standing in the way of progress."

He said that the bill "establishes a national franchise option to streamline entry into the marketplace". It also "preserves the option for cable operators and localities to strike their own local franchise deals in lieu of a national franchise". It also "preserves -- in the national franchise -- critically important elements of the legacy local franchise framework, namely (1) local control over rights-of-way; (2) a franchise fee of up to 5% of gross revenues; (3) required carriage of public, educational, and government (PEG) programming; and (4) an additional 1% of gross revenues -- on top of the 5% franchise fee -- for PEG and institutional network support."

Rep. Dingell (at left) responded that "this proposed legislation would allow the creation of the broadband equivalent of gated communities in our cities, towns, and countryside, as well as on the Internet. Public rights-of-way could be hijacked for the profits of large private companies, which are, under this draft, freed of important obligations to serve the public."

Rep. Markey stated that the bill should contain a build out requirement. He argued, the incumbent could skimp on service upgrades, or withdraw services altogether. He asserted that the bill would result in withdrawal of service in some areas, and higher prices.

Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) said that the bill should be more broadly written to encompass "video services", rather than merely "cable services". He argued that video satellite should be included.

Network Neutrality. Some members of the Subcommittee criticized the bill for its lack of a stronger network neutrality provision. Rep. Dingell said that the lack of an effective network neutrality provisions would allow "private taxation of the internet".

Rep. Markey condemned the network neutrality title as deficient. He argued that the principles do not go far enough, and that the FCC also needs rulemaking authority. He said that the bill "effectively condones online discrimination and then ties the hands of the agency from promulgating any guidelines to address it."

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) criticized the bill for its lack of a "genuine network neutrality provision". He argued that the bill as drafted would allow a "drastic change in the architecture of the internet". He asserted that broadband providers will create a fast lane and then charge content providers for access to this.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA), whose district is home to many Microsoft employees, argued that the bill should have a broader network neutrality requirement.

VOIP/E-911. Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY) said that the bill is an "enormous step forward". He singled out for praise the E911 mandates for VOIP service providers. He added that cell phone taxes should go to PSAP upgrades, and that disability access mandates should be imposed upon VOIP services providers.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) stated that "the draft is good". He praised the imposition of E911 mandates on VOIP service providers. He added that he continues to struggle with the network neutrality provisions.

Municipal Services. Rep. Upton stated that the bill "prohibits states from preventing  local governments from providing telecommunications, information, or cable services".

Rep. Buyer argued that there should be a right of first refusal for incumbent service providers.

Comments of Witnesses. The Subcommittee heard from a large number of witnesses, all of whom also submitted prepared testimony. See:

• Prepared testimony [PDF] of Kyle McSlarrow (head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association), who criticized both national cable franchising, and any network neutrality mandate.
• Prepared testimony of Walter McCormick (head of the U.S. Telecom Association), who praised the bill's creation of a national cable franchise, and opposed any network neutrality mandate.
• Prepared testimony of Paul Misener (Amazon.com), who advocated a broader network neutrality mandate.
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of Jeannine Kenney (Consumers Union) who opposed much of the bill, except the municipal services title.
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of Randolph May (Progress & Freedom Foundation)
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of Timothy Regan (Corning, which produces fiber optic cable), who supported the bill.
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of Ken Fellman (on behalf of various municipal government groups), who argued for a continuation of the current regime of local franchising and regulation.
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of David Keefe (Atlantic Broadband, on behalf of the American Cable Association).
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of Jerry Fritz (Allbritton Communications, on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters).
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of Jeffrey Citron (Vonage).
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of Julia Johnson (Video Access Alliance).
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of Anthony Riddle (Alliance for Community Media, which represents Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) Access centers), who praised the interconnection provisions, argued that IPTV type services should be part of the national franchising model, and asserted that without network neutrality PEG channels will be grainy or undependable.
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of Lillian López (Hispanic Federation).
• Prepared testimony [PDF] of James Makawa (The Africa Channel).

The NCTA's McSlarrow (at right), who represents cable operators that already provide cable service pursuant to local franchises, and now face increasing competition from other video providers, criticized the national franchise provisions of the bill.

He wrote that "having made little effort to enter the video business, the phone companies are back claiming that they need special rules that would allow them to enter the video marketplace in a manner that would give them a regulatory advantage over their competitors."

He offered blunt criticism of the ILECs in his written testimony. "Rather than spending the last ten years offering video competition, as they promised, they have invested their time and tremendous financial resources in the courts and at the FCC attempting to frustrate Congressional efforts to promote voice competition. They have successfully crushed most of their local voice competitors and swallowed their long distance competition."

He argued that the franchising process is not a barrier to entry for the ILECs and that the Congress should not establish an national franchise. If anything, he said, the Congress should only streamline the existing local franchising process.

He argued that the phone companies, by avoiding local franchising, would be able to offer services without the obligations imposed by local franchising authorities, including to serve all areas within a service area. He asserted that phone companies may serve only high value customers. He warned of "cherry-picking" and "redlining".

He also praised the language in the bill regarding VOIP and interconnection. He wrote that "Limiting interconnection and related rights to providers of voice services using traditional technology would ensure the Bells retain their market dominance by hampering the introduction of digital voice services -- the best hope for competition in the voice market."

He also argued that the bill goes to far on network neutrality. He said that it would "impose regulation on the Internet."

And, he argued that "municipal broadband should be limited to areas where the private sector does not or is not likely to serve."  He asserted that municipal governments will subsidize or favor their own services.

Finally, McSlarrow complained that the fee provisions will result in higher fees paid by cable operators.

Walter McCormick, who represents phone companies that seek to provide video services without having to obtain thousands of local franchises, offered his enthusiastic support for the national franchise provisions of the bill.

He expressed opposition to the network neutrality title of the bill. He argued that there should be no legislative mandate. He reiterated the statement that he has made many times recently, that "our industry has stated that it will not block, impair or degrade consumer access to the internet". He added that since the "FCC has made clear that it has the authority to enforce its broadband principles ... legislation in this area is premature. Any grants of new regulatory authority or statutory ambiguities could chill innovation and investment."

He also advocated imposing further regulatory burdens on VOIP service providers. He also opposed giving VOIP service providers interconnection rights.

He also argued that the municipal services title should not be in this bill. He also urged the Congress, in separate legislation, to "stabilize universal service" and "to address inter-carrier compensation".

Paul Misener of Amazon testified as the representative of large corporate providers of internet content who seek a broad network neutrality mandate in any legislation. Similarly situated companies include eBay, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft.

He said that legislation should "keep the telco and cable operators from taking their market power over broadband Internet access and extending it to market power over broadband Internet content."

While many members of the Subcommittee, witnesses, and other commentators, used the term "network neutrality", few offered any meaningful definition or explanation of the term, or any proposed network neutrality legislative language. However, Misener did articulate both an explanation and a proposed solution.

First, he addressed existing competition. He said that "nearly all Americans will have two or fewer providers available: the phone company, the cable company, or both. And, unfortunately, even the lucky consumers for whom multiple service providers are available will continue to face discouragingly high costs of switching among them. Equipment swaps, inside wiring changes, technician visits, long term contracts, and the bundling of multiple services all contribute to these costs."

Misener, who previously worked at the FCC as a legal advisor to former Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, also argued that the FCC's data on broadband availability is misleading. It relies on too minimal a definition of broadband (200 mbps in one direction), and measures the number of providers in each zip code, even though an individual located in one part of that zip code may not have access to all of the broadband service providers who serve other parts of that zip code.

Hence, he concluded that consumers face "at best an oligopoly and, for the vast majority of Americans, a duopoly of the local phone and cable companies". He argued that "In such oligopolistic conditions, firms easily can and do leave consumers with fewer services, higher prices, or both."

"Content providers currently pay network operators for the amount of connection capacity they use, and network operators can charge consumers different prices depending upon how much bandwidth they use", wrote Misener. Moreover, "Phone and cable companies plan to restrict American consumers’ access to such content based in large part on lucrative deals they intend to cut with third parties."

He said that the phone and cable companies use one of three technologies, "hybrid fiber-coax by the cable operators and either fiber-to-the-home or fiber-to-the-node plus DSL twisted pair by the telco operators". He continued that "all three technologies have been designed to operate the same way in practice, with two downstream components: a very high capacity ("fast lane") cable-like private network component, and a much lower capacity ("slow lane") downstream broadband Internet access component. The fast lane will be operated as a closed network, while the slow lane will be more (but, as it turns out, perhaps not entirely) open." (Parentheses and internal quotations in original.)

He said that phone and cable companies plan to control connection capacity in three ways, "a closed fast lane and an open slow lane", a "paid `police escort´ within the slow lane", and "preferential ``local on-ramps´´ into the slow lane". (Internal quotations and emphasis in original.)

First, he asserted that "each network operator has or is constructing a fast lane for their affiliated broadband content provided by a sister company and a slow lane for broadband Internet content provided by others".

Second, he asserted that "the network operators intend to offer paid prioritization", which he called "police escort" in the slow lane, for broadband internet content providers. He wrote in his prepared testimony, and emphasized in his oral testimony, that "such police escort should not be made available for a fee; otherwise those unable to pay the fee will always be stuck in traffic."

Most of the rhetoric of the network neutrality proponents was expressed with reference to consumer choice and consumer access. Misener also employed this consumer choice wording. However, his argument is that it is the providers of internet based content that will not enjoy equal access to consumers. He asserts that the lack of competition in providing content providers with access to their customers will enable the phone and cable companies to exert market power in their activities and operations related to the content providers. They will be able, and in fact will, sell different levels of access to different content providers. He equates providing faster access to some content providers, with providing degraded access to others.

McCormick argued that phone companies will "not block, impair or degrade consumer access to the internet". The key word here may be "consumer". McCormick did not state, for example, that phone companies will "not block, impair or degrade content provider access to the internet". Misener argues that they will.

Misener further argues that the phone and cable companies will be successful in this strategy because, due to the lack of competition among broadband service providers, many content providers will not be in a position to refuse to pay for faster services. Moreover, consumers who become aware of and dissatisfied with these arrangements will not be able to switch to another broadband access provider who does not engage in such activities. That is, Misener describes a form of rent seeking behavior by broadband access providers, based upon market power, in which rents are extracted from content companies. He seeks statutory prohibition of the practices that constitute such rent seeking behavior.

And perhaps, one implication of this rent seeking interpretation is that, as a result of the pursuit of rents rather than profits, consumers are harmed. However, he did not articulate any of the usual scenarios under which rent seeking may harm consumers, such as reduced production, inefficient allocation of resources, or resources wasted pursuing monopoly rents (although the number of lobbyists and publicists employed on this subject suggests so).

He did argue that the consumer harm results from consumers not having access to the content of their choice.

Under his interpretation, phone and cable companies capture rents from the content companies. Another pro network neutrality witness, Jeannine Kenney of the Consumers Union, went a step further, and argued that "The fees charged to content and service providers will inevitably be passed onto consumers who have already paid for high-speed access." If Misener's and Kenney's interpretations were combined, then phone and cable companies would be extracting rents from indirectly from consumers.

Many argued that the absence of network neutrality will harm innovation. Misener and others argued, for example, that many hypothetical new small companies will not be able to pay the phone and cable companies' higher rates for better access, and hence, the new and innovative content and services that they would offer, and the new technologies that they would develop, will not come about.

But then, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are not start up companies who cannot afford to pay higher rates. They are the one who would be paying the higher rates, part of which might constitute rents.

Said Misener, "we oppose the collection of monopoly rents".

Misener argues that the bill's provisions regarding network neutrality "are wholly inadequate". He suggests that the FCC should also have "general rulemaking and enforcement authority".

Also, unlike most others, Misener offered specific network neutrality statutory language. He recommended, first, that the Congress provide that "Content transiting an operator’s broadband Internet access network may be prioritized only on the basis of the type of content and the level of bandwidth purchased by the consumer, not ownership, source, or affiliation of the content. (That is, for traffic within the broadband network’s Internet access lane, ``police escort´´ may be provided only based on the kind of traffic and whether the consumer has a paid more for a somewhat higher speed limit.)" (Parentheses and internal quotations in original.)

Second, he recommended that legislation provide that "The terms for local content injection must be reasonable and non-discriminatory; network operators must not be allowed to give preferential deals to affiliated or certain other content providers. (That is, ``local on-ramps´´ into the Internet access lane need not be free, but the road owner must not charge unreasonable or discriminatory rates to favor their own or only some others' traffic.)" (Parentheses and internal quotations in original.)

Jeannine Kenney of the Consumers Union criticized the bill's national franchising provisions for not containing build out requirements, and for depriving local authorities of consumer protection powers.

She also argued that the bill lacks adequate consumer protection requirements. She wrote that "Services, content and applications delivered via broadband offer consumers new opportunities for competitive telecommunications and video services. But the telephone and cable companies that dominate the broadband market have strong incentives to shut out those competitors through access tiering, by impairing transmission, or by prohibiting use of devices or applications on their networks." She urged the Congress to "pass clear legislation and require the FCC to issue strict and enforceable regulations prohibiting discriminatory practices. The enforcement process must be timely and require the network operator to bear the burden of proof. We must ensure that no entrepreneur is posthumously vindicated by the FCC after a complaint process drags on for months."

Randy May of the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), reviewed some of the recommendations that have been developed by the Digital Age Communications Age (DACA) project, which is sponsored by the PFF.

He said, as has the DACA project, that the Congress should "jettison most of the current statue" which is based on "techno-functional constructs" and "stovepipe" regulation, including regulation based upon the statutory categories of telecommunications, information service, cable service, and others. He also argued that instead of a FCC rules based regulatory regime, the Congress should put in place a new regulatory paradigm based on competition law principles, in which the FCC would adjudicate complaints of violation of competition principles.

He criticized the bills' network neutrality title, which gives the FCC adjudicatory authority to enforce its August 2005 policy statement.

He commended the bill's language giving the FCC case by case adjudicatory authority, rather than rulemaking authority. Also, the fourth principle in the policy statement which provides that "consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers". May noted that this "appears to extend the FCC purview to application and content providers, such as Google, EBay, and Yahoo, perhaps providing a basis for complaints to the FCC that the market segments in which they participate are not "competitive"."

However, he urged the Congress "not to enact into law any specific net neutrality provision mandating access rights and non-discrimination obligations".

He articulated a view of the state of competition in the market for broadband services that is much different from that expressed by Amazon's Misener, and other net neutrality proponents. He wrote that there is increasing competitiveness. And as a result, he said that it is "very unlikely that broadband operators will take any actions of the type intended to be prohibited by the net neutrality prohibitions". He argued that if the broadband providers "are going to invest billions of dollars building out new broadband networks, it is safe to assume that the operators will not find it in their interest to block or impede subscribers from accessing services and content that the customers find valuable."

He added that the Congress should not impose statutory neutrality mandates because "the ability to bundle distribution with content, and to enter into efficient business arrangements with unaffiliated content and applications providers, may be crucial to providing the incentive to invest. In this regard, the ability of an operator to differentiate its service from that of another operator, or even in some circumstances to discriminate among unaffiliated providers, may be critical to the decision to invest in new networks and service applications."

He concluded his discussion on the network neutrality issue by recommending that "if Congress insists on dealing with this issue in this bill, it should incorporate into the provision the unfair competition standard that is at the heart of PFF's DACA regulatory framework. And it should specifically tie the FCC’s authority to enforce the broadband principles to violations of the unfair competition standard." See, DACA report [PDF] titled "Proposal of the Regulatory Framework Working Group".

In contrast, May praised the national franchising title of the bill. He also argued that national franchises should be more broadly available, and that perhaps PEG and institutional network mandates should be eliminated.

Jeffrey Citron of Vonage made three points regarding the VOIP/E911 title of the bill. "First, nomadic VoIP providers like Vonage need access to all the 911 elements necessary to provide a comprehensive solution; the Committee print addresses this concern. Second, many 911 centers refuse to complete VoIP emergency calls without the same liability protections that exist for wireline and wireless carriers; this provision would need to be added to the bill. Third, Congress should carefully contemplate a forward path towards building out a flexible, more technologically advanced 911 network while preserving innovation and competition."

3/29. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced S 2468, an untitled bill intended to provide quick Supreme Court review of the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA) extra-judicial interception of electronic communications where one party is within the U.S. and another party is outside of the U.S.

The bill would provide standing to bring suit to any U.S. citizen who refrains from "wire communications because of a reasonable fear that such communications will be the subject of electronic surveillance" under this NSA program. Then, it provides any complaint must be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, that it be heard by a three judge panel, and that the only further review lies with the Supreme Court, which "appeal shall be taken".

Sen. Schumer (at right) stated that "one of the issues that has been hovering over this Chamber -- and this country, of course -- is the NSA program, the President's program to do wiretaps on American citizens if part of the call originated in a foreign country." See, Congressional Record, March 29, 2006, at Page S2535.

"Now there is a great debate. The President and his supporters say he was allowed to do these wiretaps without changing the law, without congressional approval. Some on the other side say he never should have been allowed to do it." He added that "The most logical place for this to be settled is in the U.S. Supreme Court."

He concluded that this bill "gives those people standing, gives them a right to go to district court quickly and then with expedited review to the Supreme Court, so we could actually get a decision, very possibly, on whether the President's wiretapping was under the ambit of the law very quickly."

The bill provides that "A United States citizen who has refrained or will refrain from wire communications because of a reasonable fear that such communications will be the subject of electronic surveillance conducted without an order issued in accordance with title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) under a claim of Presidential authority under either the Constitution of the United States or the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 115 Stat. 224; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall have a cause of action and shall be entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to such electronic surveillance."

Then, the bill provides that any such complaint "shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-judge court", and that "A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional statement within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision."

3/29. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S 2480, the "Contact Lens Consumer Protection Act". This bill pertains to commerce in contact lenses, including by internet retailers.

The bill would amend the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act, which the Congress enacted in 2003. It is now codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7601 - 7610. The 2003 act required contact lens prescribers to give a copy of their prescription to their patients, to verify these prescription to third parties, and to otherwise enable their patients to obtain contact lenses from third party suppliers, such as internet based retailers.

The just introduced bill addresses manufacturers of contact lenses. It provides, subject to several exceptions, that "A manufacturer shall make any contact lens the manufacturer produces, markets, distributes, or sells available in a commercially reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner to -- (1) prescribers; (2) entities associated with prescribers; and (3) alternative channels of distribution."

Alternative channels of distribution is defined to include "any mail order company, Internet retailer ..."

The bill was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee.

3/31. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Public Notice (DA 06-701) regarding its Auction 65, which is scheduled to begin on May 10, 2005. The notice is titled "Auction of 800 MHz Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service Licenses: Status of FCC Form 175 Applications to Participate in Auction No. 65"

3/29. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register that describes, and sets comment deadlines for, its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding licensing and use of frequencies in the 904-909.75 and 919.75-928 MHz portions of the 902-928 MHz band that are used for the provision of multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (M-LMS band). This NPRM is FCC 06-24 in WT Docket No. 06-49. See, text [24 pages in PDF] of NPRM. Initial comments are due by May 30, 2006. Reply comments are due by June 30, 2006. See, Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Pages 15658-15666. See also, story titled "FCC Releases NPRM on M-LMS Systems" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,325, March 8, 2006.

3/29. The Department of State (DOS) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces the dates, times, places, and topics of numerous upcoming meetings of the DOS's International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC). See, Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Page 15798.

3/20. The Department of State (DOS) renewed the Charter of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC). See, notice in the Federal Register, March 20, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 53, at Page 14049.

3/31. The Secretary of Commerce announced that Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 200, titled "Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems", is approved and effective as of March 31, 2006. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 62, at Pages 16288-16289.

3/31. The Secretary of Commerce announced that Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 201-1, titled "Standard for Personal Identity Verification of Federal Employees and Contractors", is approved and effective as of March 31, 2006. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 31, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 62, at Pages 16289-16290.

3/29. The Department of Labor's (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced that its Business Research Advisory Council (BRAC) will meet on April 19 and 20, 2006. The BLS's vaguely worded agenda in its notice in the Federal Register states that the BRAC's Committee on Productivity and Foreign Labor Statistics will meet at 10:00 AM on April 19 to address "new service industries", "international labor comparisons", and "compensation comparisons", including for China and India. See, Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Pages 15768-15769.

3/15. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a notice in the Federal Register that states that it has completed its review of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule, and that the FTC "concludes that the Rule continues to be valuable to children, their parents, and Web site operators, and has determined to retain the Rule in its current form." See, Federal Register, March 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 50, at Pages 13247-13258.

3/30. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing on HR __ [PDF], a committee print of a bill that may be titled the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006".

It would create a national cable franchising regime. It would give the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to enforce iits August 2005 policy statement [3 pages in PDF] regarding network neutrality through case by case adjudicatory proceedings. It would impose E911 requirements on voice over internet protocol (VOIP) service providers. Finally, it would prevent states from preventing state and local governments from providing telecommunications, cable, or information services. The following is a summary.

National Video Franchising. Title I of the bill, which consists of 24 pages, provides for "national cable franchising". This applies only to eligible "cable operators" that provide "cable service". That is, it does not extend to all providers of video programming. For example, it excludes satellite and terrestrial wireless video service. The bill also contains further eligibility requirements.

The key provision of this part of the bill provides as follows: "A cable operator that is eligible under subsection (d) may elect to obtain a national franchise under this section for a franchise area in lieu of a franchise for a franchise area under section 621. A cable operator may not provide cable service in a franchise area without a franchise under either this section or section 621. A franchising authority may not require any cable operator that has a national franchise under this section in effect with respect to the franchise area of that franchising authority to obtain a franchise under section 621 or any other law."

Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934 is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 541. It was added by the 1984 cable act, amended by the 1992 cable act, and again by the 1996 telecom act. It regulates the award of franchises by local franchising authorities.

The bill limits who is eligible for a national franchise, in a long and complex collection of eligibility clauses. It provides that those that commence the provision of cable service in a franchise area on or after the date of enactment of this bill can obtain a nation franchise for that franchise area. These providers are identified as "new cable operators". The bill further provides that those that already provide cable service in a franchise area at the time of enactment of this bill can obtain a national franchise, if a "new cable operator" obtains a national franchise. The bill further provides that an ILEC that already provides cable service pursuant to a Section 621 franchise can get a national franchise when its 621 franchise is no longer in effect if there is a competing cable operator.

The bill provides for rapid approval of national cable franchises. It states that "A national franchise under this section shall be effective with respect to any franchise area ... 30 days after the date of the filing of a completed certification" with the FCC. The bill then states that national cable franchises last for 10 years.

There is also a subsection that provides for loss of a national franchise if there is no other cable operator in the franchise area. It provides that "On petition to the Commission by the appropriate franchising authority, a franchise granted to an eligible person or group under subsection (d)(2) for a franchise area shall cease to be effective one year after the filing of the petition if no other cable operator provides cable service in such franchise area during that one year. A cable operator whose national franchise for such franchise area is terminated under this subparagraph may obtain a new franchise under section 621 or this section, if otherwise eligible."

This fall back provision could affect phone companies, if there is no competition from a cable competitor. Competition from a non-cable video services provider could not preserve the national franchise.

47 U.S.C. § 522 contains relevant definitions, which remain unchanged by the bill.

Section 522(5) provides that "cable operator" means "any person or group of persons
  (A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or
  (B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a cable system;"

Section 522(6) provides that "cable service" means
  "(A) the one-way transmission to subscribers of
    (i) video programming, or
    (ii) other programming service, and
  (B) subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service;"

Title I of the bill imposes numerous requirements on the national cable franchises. First, it requires the payment of franchise fees by national cable franchisees to local franchising authorities.

Second, it requires the national franchisees to comply with the rights-of-way requirements of the local franchising authority. Third, it requires the national franchisees to comply with the consumer protection and customer service standards established by the FCC under section 632(b) of the Communications Act, but not local consumer protection requirements. It also requires the national franchisees to "ensure that all subscribers receive any public, educational, or governmental programming carried by the cable operator within the subscriber’s franchise area."

There is also an anti-discrimination requirement for national franchisees. However, there is no build out requirement. The bill states that "cable operator with a national franchise under this section shall not deny access to its cable service to any group of potential residential cable service subscribers because of the income of that group. If the Commission determines that such a cable operator has denied access to its cable service to a group of potential residential cable service subscribers because of the income of that group, the Commission shall ensure that the cable operator extends access to that group."

Network Neutrality. Title II of the bill gives the FCC authority to enforce the network neutrality policy statement that it adopted last August.

The bill would give the FCC adjudicatory authority to enforce its policy statement [3 pages in PDF] of August 5, 2005. See, story titled "FCC Releases Policy Statement Regarding Internet Regulation" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,221, September 26, 2005, and story titled "FCC Adopts a Policy Statement Regarding Network Neutrality" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,190, August 8, 2005.

This policy statement relates to guaranteeing for consumers the freedom to use their internet connections to access some of the content, use some of the applications, and attach some of the devices, that they choose.

It enumerates four (or five) provisions. The first four provisions are:

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice."

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network."

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."

Then, the statement adds another principle in a footnote: "The principles we adopt are subject to reasonable network management."

The bill provides that the FCC "shall have the authority to enforce" this statement, and that this is limited to adjudicatory authority. The bill elaborates that the FCC "shall have exclusive authority to adjudicate any complaint alleging a violation of the broadband policy statement or the principles incorporated therein."

Notably, this title of the bill does not give the FCC authority to write rules implementing, expanding, or limiting any of the provisions in this policy statement.

VOIP/E911. Title III of the bill pertains to voice over internet protocol (VOIP) service and E-911.

It provides that "Each VOIP provider has a duty to ensure that -- (A) unless the provider is a receive-only provider, 911 services are provided to subscribers of VOIP services; and (B) if the provider is a send-and-receive provider, 911 and E–911 services are provided to subscribers of VOIP services."

It further provides that "Each entity with ownership or control of the necessary E–911 infrastructure shall provide any requesting VOIP service provider with nondiscriminatory access to such infrastructure. Such entity shall provide access to the infrastructure at just and reasonable, nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions as determined by the Commission."

This section also provides that "Nothing in this Act or any Commission regulation or order shall prevent the imposition on or collection from a VOIP service provider, of any fee or charge specifically designated or presented as dedicated by a State, political subdivision thereof, or Indian tribe on an equitable, and non-discriminatory basis for the support of 911 and E–911 services if no portion of the revenue derived from such fee or charge is obligated or expended for any purpose other than support of 911 and E–911 services or enhancements of such services."

The bill also addresses interconnection. It provides that "A VOIP service provider shall have the same rights, duties, and obligations as a requesting telecommunications carrier under sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251, 252) with respect to interconnection, including associated rights, duties, and obligations necessary to effectuate such interconnection, if the provider elects to assert such rights."

The bill does not extend liability protections to VOIP service providers.

Municipal Services. Title IV of the bill provides, in one sweeping clause, that state and local entities may provide any telecommunications, information or cable service.

It provides that "Neither the Communications Act of 1934 nor any State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider of telecommunications service, information service, or cable service (as such terms are defined in sections 3 and 602 of such Act) from providing such services to any person or entity."

This would have the effect of preempting existing bans on state and municipal services in many states.

However, the bill also provides that state and local entities cannot favor their own services. The bill provides that "Any State or political subdivision thereof, or any agency, authority, or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, that is, owns, controls, or is otherwise affiliated with a public provider of telecommunications service, information service, or cable service shall not grant any preference or advantage to any such provider. Such entity shall apply its ordinances, rules, and policies, including those relating to the use of public rights-of-way, permitting, performance bonding, and reporting without discrimination in favor of any such provider as compared to other providers of such services."

The House will meet at 2:00 PM in pro forma session only. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM. It will resume consideration of S 2454, the "Securing America's Borders Act".

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Xerox v. 3Com, No. 2004-1470. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

9:30 AM - 12:30 PM. The Copyright Office will hold one in a series of hearings on possible exemptions to the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. This hearing will address DVD circumvention by universities. See, CO schedule. See also, notice in the Federal Register, February 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 36, at Pages 9302-9303. See also, stories titled "Copyright Office Announces Proceeding on DMCA Anti-Circumvention Exemptions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,229, October 7, 2005; "Copyright Office Announces Hearings on Exemptions to Anti-Circumvention Provisions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,318, February 27, 2006; and "Copyright Office to Hold Hearings on Exemptions to Anti-Circumvention Provisions" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,338, March 29, 2006. Location: Mumford Room, LM-649, James Madison Building, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE.

11:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a program titled "The Future of U.S. Trade Policy". There will be a panel discussion at 11:00 AM. The speakers will be Claude Barfield (AEI), Lael Brainard (Brookings Institution), Jeffrey Schott (Institute for International Economics), and James Glassman (AEI). Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA), the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, will give the luncheon address, titled "The Doha Merry-Go Round: When the Music Stops Will the U.S. Be Up or Down?". See, notice. Press contact: Veronique Rodman at 202-862-4870 or VRodman at aei dot org. For more information, contact Daniel Geary at 202-862-5940 or DGeary at aei dot org. Location: 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

5:15 PM. Deadline to submit to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) pre-hearing statements and briefs regarding the probable economic effects of the proposed U.S.-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement. (The hearing is scheduled for April 20.) See, notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 39, at Pages 10066-10067.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by pulvermedia and Isen.com titled "Internet Freedom Conference". See, conference web site. Press Contact: Bage Anderson at 254-772-5909 or bage at weinkrantz dot com. The scheduled speakers include Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt. Location: AFI Silver Theater, Silver Spring, MD.

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

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold a hearing titled "China's World Trade Organization Compliance: Industrial Subsidies and the Impact on U.S. and World Markets". See, notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Pages 15799-15800. Location: Room 2323, Rayburn Building.

CANCELLED. 9:30 AM. The Copyright Office will hold one in a series of hearings on possible exemptions to the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 36, at Pages 9302-9303. Location: Mumford Room, LM-649, James Madison Building, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., SE.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on the Constitution and Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a joint oversight hearing titled "Personal Information Acquired by the Government from Information Resellers: Is There Need for Improvement?". The witnesses will include Maureen Cooney (acting Chief Privacy Officer at DHS). The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. See, notice. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing titled "Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child Predators". See, notice. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202 225-5735. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in America Online v. U.S., No. 2005-5138. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Honeywell International v. U.S., No. 2005-5145. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in LG Electronics v. Bizcom Electronics, No. 2005-1261. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

11:45 AM - 1:30 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its Teleconsensus Coalition will host a forum titled "The Telecommunications Economy: Using the Internet as a Model for Telecom Legislation". The speaker will be Bill Woodcock (Packet Clearing House). Press contact: press at uschamber dot com or 202-463-5682. RSVP to teleconsensus at uschamber dot com. Lunch will be served. Location: State Services Organization, Room 333, 444 North Capitol Street, NW.

RESCHEDULED FROM MARCH 29. 12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Engineering and Technical Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The FCBA notice states that "Staff of the Office of Engineering and Technology to discuss how counsel can more effectively and efficiently represent their clients to the Commission, and how the FCC’s staff can better serve the practitioners' needs. This discussion will include management and staff from the OET front office and from the Laboratory Division." Location: FCC, Room 5-B516, 445 12 St., SW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) will host a lunch titled "How States Have Succeeded With Video Franchise Reform". The speakers will be Robert Cresanti (Department of Commerce), Brandt Hershman (Indiana State Senate), Rick Cimerman (National Cable and Telecommunications Association), Barry Aarons (IPI), and Bartlett Cleland (IPI). Press contact: Sonia Blumstein at soniab at ipi dot org or 703-912-5742. For more information, contact Betty Medlock at bmedlock at ipi dot org or 972-874-5139. See, notice. Location: Charlie Palmer Steak Restaurant on the Hill, 101 Constitution Ave., NW.

POSTPONED. 2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science and Space will hold a hearing titled "National Science Foundation and Science Priorities". Sen. Kay Hutchison (R-TX) will preside. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by pulvermedia and Isen.com titled "Internet Freedom Conference". See, conference web site. Press Contact: Bage Anderson at 254 772-5909 or bage at weinkrantz dot com. The scheduled speakers include Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt. Location: AFI Silver Theater, Silver Spring, MD.

TIME? The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will hold a hearing regarding its (1) notice of proposed rulemaking, and (2) proposed revenue procedure, pertaining to tax return preparers' use and disclosure of tax return information in an electronic environment. See, IRS notice in the Federal Register that describes and recites proposed changes to its rules implementing 26 U.S.C. § 7216, Federal Register, December 8, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 235, at Pages 72954 - 72964. See also, IRS web site notice [16 pages in PDF] that describes and contains the proposed revenue procedure. And see, story titled "IRS Releases Proposed Rules Regarding Electronic Tax Preparation" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,268, December 8, 2005. Location: __.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "5th Annual PKI R&D Workshop: Making PKI Easy to Use". See, notice. Location: NIST, Green Auditorium, Bldg. 101, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It may consider HRes 541, which honors Roy Glauber, John Hall, and Theodor Hansch for being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2005. The Nobel Foundation stated that they won this prize for "their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique". HRes 541 states that their work "has led to improvements in the accuracy of precision instruments such as GPS locators". See, Republican Whip Notice.

8:30 AM - 4:30 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Privacy Office will host a public workshop titled "Transparency and Accountability: The Use of Personal Information within the Government". See, notice in the Federal Register, March 24, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 57, at Page 14934. Location: Horizon Ballroom, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a hearing on the nomination of Ralph Basham to be Commissioner of Customs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Science Committee will continue its March 29 mark up HRes 717, a resolution that states that "the Secretary of Commerce is directed to transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, a copy of the final draft report, produced by the professional staff of the Technology Administration, entitled: `Six-Month Assessment of Workforce Globalization In Certain Knowledge-Based Industries´." On March 29, a motion to report the resolution favorably failed on a vote of 19-14. A motion to report unfavorably produced a 17-17 tie. See, story titled "House Science Committee Debates Commerce Department's Outsourcing Study" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,339, March 30, 2006. The meeting will be webcast by the HSC. For more information, contact Sara Gray (Republican staff) at 202-225-6371, or Dan Pearson (Democratic staff) at 202-225-6375. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Silicon Image v. Genesis Microchip, No. 2005-1538. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Phillips Electronics v. Contec, No. 2005-1351. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:30 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing titled "Implementation of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement". See, notice. Press contact: 202-225-1721. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

2:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime will hold a hearing on HR 4777, the "Internet Gambling Prohibition Act". See, notice. This hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for the CITEL PCC.I (Telecommunication) meetings on May 23-26, 2006 in San Domingo, Dominican Republic, and on September 12-15, 2006, in Washington DC. See, notice in the Federal Register, March 29, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 60, at Page 15798. Location: __.

3:00 PM. The House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Human Resources will hold a hearing titled "Use of Technology to Improve Public Benefit Programs". See, notice. For more information, contact 202-225-1025. Location: Room B-318, Rayburn Building.

TIME CHANGE. 4:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing titled "Patent Quality Enhancement in the Information-Based Economy". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "5th Annual PKI R&D Workshop: Making PKI Easy to Use". See, notice. Location: NIST, Green Auditorium, Bldg. 101, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will hold an oversight hearing on the Department of Justice (DOJ). See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

9:00 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment will hold a hearing titled "Protection of Privacy in the DHS Intelligence Enterprise". The witnesses will include Maureen Cooney (acting Chief Privacy Officer at DHS). Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.

9:00 - 11:00 AM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion titled "Data Pricing and Dissemination in a Competitive Securities Market". The speakers will be Peter Wallison (AEI), Jeff Brown (Charles Schwab & Co.), Adena Friedman (NASDAQ), Kevin O'Hara (NYSE), and Jamie Selway (White Cap Trading). See, notice. For more information, contact Daniel Geary at DGeary at aei dot org or Veronique Rodman (reporters) at vrodman at aei dot org. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

9:30 AM. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will hold a news conference titled "Outlawing Global Child Pornography". For more information, contact Tina Schwartz at 703-837-6251. Location: First Amendment Lounge, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing titled "Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child Predators". The witnesses will include John Clark (Deputy Assistant Secretary of the DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)) and James Plitt (Supervisory Special Agent for ICE's Cyber Crimes Center). See, notice. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202 225-5735. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Education and Workforce Committee will hold a hearing titled "Building America’s Competitiveness: Examining What is Needed to Compete in a Global Economy". The witnesses will be Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor) and Margaret Spelling (Secretary of Education). See, notice. Location: Room 2175, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. House Armed Services Committee's (HASC) Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces will hold a hearing on the FY 2007 National Defense Authorization budget request for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. Location: Room 2212, Rayburn Building.

1:00 PM. The House Armed Services Committee's (HASC) Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities will hold a hearing on information technology issues and defense transformation. The witnesses will be John Grimes (Assistant Secretary of Defense, Networks and Information Integration), Lt. Gen. Charlie Croom (USAF, Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency), Lt. Gen. Steven Boutelle (CIO of the Department of the Army), Dave Wennergren (CIO of the Department of the Navy), Brig. Gen. George Allen (CIO of the Marine Corps), Lt. Gen. Michael Peterson (CEO of the Air Force), Paul Brinkley (Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Business Transformation), and Thomas Modly (Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Financial Management). Location: Room 2212, Rayburn Building.

2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Intellectual Property will hold a hearing titled "Orphan Works: Proposals for a Legislative Solution". Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

2:00 PM. The House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Health will hold a hearing titled "Health Care Information Technology". See, notice. For more information, contact 202-225-3943. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

5:00 - 6:30 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Chamber Foundation, and the Department of Commerce will host an event titled "Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy 2006". The speakers will include Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez. See, notice and registration page. Location: Room 385, Russell Building, Capitol Hill.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "5th Annual PKI R&D Workshop: Making PKI Easy to Use". See, notice. Location: NIST, Green Auditorium, Bldg. 101, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer Advisory Committee will meet. See, FCC notice [PDF] and notice in the Federal Register, March 23, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 56, at Page 14693. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW-C305.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in M-Star Semiconductor v. ITC, No. 2005-1129. Location: Courtroom 203, 717 Madison Place, NW.

Deadline to submit applications to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for participation in the FCC's 2006 Attorney Honors Program. The is an employment recruitment program directed at "graduating law school students and recent law school graduates". See, FCC release [PDF].

The House will not meet on Monday, April 10, through Friday, April 21. See, Majority Whip's calendar.

The Senate will not meet on Monday, April 10, through Friday, April 21. See, 2006 Senate calendar.

5:30 - 7:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion on the book titled Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World [Amazon] by Jack Goldsmith (Harvard Law School) and Timothy Wu (Columbia Law School). The speakers will be Goldsmith, Wu, Alan Davidson (Google), David Gross (Department of State), and Sebastian Mallaby (Washington Post). See, notice. Press contact: Veronique Rodman at 202-862-4870 or VRodman at aei dot org. Location: AEI, 12th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

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 information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.