6/14. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) held a hearing titled "Reconsidering Our Communications Laws: Ensuring Competition and Innovation".

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (HJC), testified. He took the unusual step of going to the other body to testify against a bill just approved by his body. Although, the procedure followed by the House Republican leadership in enacting HR 5252 provides an explanation for his action.

Background. On June 8, 2006, the House approved HR 5252, the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006" (COPE Act). This is a bill drafted by the House Commerce Committee (HCC), with careful attention to leaving out any provisions that would give the HJC a claim to jurisdiction. The HJC has jurisdiction over, among other things, antitrust law. Antitrust law has long played a major role in regulating the conduct of communications companies.

Rep. Sensenbrenner (at right) is the sponsor of HR 5417, the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006". The HJC approved this bill on May 25, 2006. See, story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves Net Neutrality Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,379, May 26, 2006. See also, story titled "Sensenbrenner and Conyers Introduce Net Neutrality Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,375, May 22, 2006.

This bill would amend the Clayton Act to prohibit anticompetitive conduct in which network providers fail to provide service and interconnection on nondiscriminatory terms, block or impair lawful content, or prohibit users from attaching devices to the network.

The House leadership has not allowed this bill to be considered by the full House. Moreover, the House Rules Committee refused to make in order an amendment to HR 5252 containing language substantially similar to HR 5417. House members were not given the opportunity to approve or reject Rep. Sensenbrenner's proposal.

Rep. Sensenbrenner is displeased both with the diminishment of antitrust law in the communications sector by HR 5252, and the diminishment of the role of the HJC in ensuring competition in communications.

The House did approve an amendment to HR 5252, offered by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), that provides that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify, impair, or supercede the applicability of the antitrust laws or the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States to hear claims arising under the antitrust laws." It also provides that "The term 'antitrust laws' has the meaning given to it in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), except that such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition."

There is a also a bill pending in the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) -- S 2686, sponsored by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). It is currently scheduled for Committee markup next week.

Rep. Sensenbrenner's Testimony. Rep. Sensenbrenner wrote in his prepared testimony that antitrust law, and the Judiciary Committees, have long played an important role in ensuring competition in communications markets.

He noted that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 included, at Section 601(c)(1), a clause that provides that "Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede the applicability of any of the antitrust laws."

But, he continued, "Despite the inclusion of this antitrust savings clause, a record of considerable judicial confusion has developed in our Nation's courts. In 2000, the Seventh Circuit issued the Goldwasser decision, ignoring the plain language of the antitrust savings clause and holding that the Telecom Act ``must take precedence over the general antitrust laws.´´ In 2004, the Supreme Court embraced the reasoning of the Goldwasser court in Verizon v. Trinko. The decision stated: ``One factor of particular importance is the existence of a regulatory structure designed to deter and remedy anticompetitive harm. Where such a structure exists ... it will be less plausible that the antitrust laws contemplate such additional scrutiny. . . .´´ The Court concluded: ``against the slight benefits of antitrust intervention here, we must weigh a realistic assessment of its costs.´´ This is precisely the judicial analysis that Congress precluded in the 1996 Act, and this holding has done violence to remedial antitrust enforcement and competitive gains in the telecommunications marketplace."

On January 13, 2004, the Supreme Court issued its opinion [22 pages in PDF] in Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398, holding that a claim alleging a breach of an ILEC's duty under the 1996 Telecom Act to share its network with competitors does not state a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. See, story titled "Supreme Court Holds That There is No Sherman Act Claim in Verizon v. Trinko" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 815, January 14, 2004. See also, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) in Goldwasser v. Ameritech, 222 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2000).

Rep. Sensenbrenner argued that "This assault on the antitrust laws should be of concern to Members of both bodies of Congress, but particularly to those who serve on the Committees charged with overseeing their implementation."

He continued there is currently a duopoly in the provision of broadband services, and that HR 5252 "invites the risk of competitive abuse by depriving those injured by this misconduct from an effective antitrust remedy. Specifically, H.R. 5252 provides the FCC with ``exclusive´´ authority to define and adjudicate discriminatory broadband practices. This authority displaces the antitrust laws and the vital pro-competitive and pro-consumer purposes they advance."

He also argued that Rep. Smith's amendment provides "little consolation". He said that it is a "nearly-verbatim recitation of the antitrust savings clause contained in the 1996 Act effectively circumvented by the Trinko court. In fact, the amendment passed by the House is weaker than the savings provision contained in the 1996 Act for two important reasons. First, it is a ``rule of construction´´ by its own terms, while the savings provision in the 1996 Act contained no such limitation. Second, the amendment is narrower because it applies only to one section of H.R. 5252, while the savings provision in the 1996 Act applied to the entire 1996 Act and subsequent amendments to it.

More Statements and Testimony. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote in his opening statement that "a number of issues raised in Chairman Stevens' bill are squarely within the jurisdiction of this Committee. Chairman Sensenbrenner ran into a similar situation in the other body. I look forward to working with the members of this Committee to put forward a strong bill along the lines of Chairman Sensenbrenner's effort to protect consumers, competition, and the Internet".

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) wrote in his opening statement that "We must ensure that consumers have unfettered access to all internet content free from discrimination. And we must prevent broadband providers from being able to determine winners and losers on the information superhighway. At the same time, broadband providers need to be able to manage their networks so that the profusion of video content does not degrade the internet experience for everyone."

He also argued for "ensuring that our antitrust enforcement agencies are at full strength to protect competition in the telecom industry. Under current law, the Federal Trade Commission is prevented from exercising any jurisdiction over telecom ``common carriers.´´ This common carrier exemption should be repealed so that the FTC can protect consumers from unfair methods of competition in this industry as in any other."

FTC Commissioner William Kovacic urged the Congress "to ensure that the FTC’s capacity to address pressing consumer protection and competition issues is not diminished as it considers legislation regarding the provision of broadband services" in his prepared testimony.

He testified that telecommunications common carrier exemption is "outdated and a harmful obstacle to good policymaking". He elaborated that "As the telecommunications and Internet industries continue to converge, the common carrier exemption is likely to frustrate the FTC’s ability to stop deceptive and unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition with respect to interconnected communications, information, and entertainment services."

He also wrote that "as Congress considers legislation to amend the Communications Act, the Commission believes that any new legislation should clearly preserve the FTC’s existing authority over activities currently within its jurisdiction. In this regard, some recent legislative proposals would assign to the FCC specific competition and consumer protection authority. We are concerned that any new grant of authority to the FCC not be misread to oust the FTC from its established jurisdiction. The Commission does not believe that Congress intends to remove the FTC from the business of protecting consumers and maintaining competition in the broadband services industry."

See also, prepared testimony of Vinton Cerf (Google), prepared testimony of David Cohen (Comcast), prepared testimony of Walter McCormick (USTelecom), prepared testimony of Christopher Putala (Earthlink), prepared testimony of Blair Levin (Stifel Nicolaus & Company), prepared testimony of Paul Morris (Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency), and prepared testimony of Jeff Kuhns (Pennsylvania State University).

6/13. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) released a paper [21 pages in PDF] titled "Security Implications of Applying the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act to Voice over IP".

The authors include Vint Cerf (Google), Whitfield Diffie (Chief Security Officer of Sun Microsystems), Susan Landau (Sun Microsystems), Steven Bellovin (Columbia University), Matt Blaze (University of Pennsylvania), Ernest Brickell (Intel), Clinton Brooks, Jon Peterson (NeuStar), and John Treichler (Applied Signal Technology).

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) provides that telecommunications carriers, but not information services, must design their equipment and networks to facilitate lawfully conducted wiretaps and other intercepts. On August 5, 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an order [59 pages in PDF] that provides that facilities based broadband service providers and interconnected voice over internet protocol (VOIP) providers are subject to requirements under the CALEA. See also, story titled "FCC Amends CALEA Statute" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,191, August 9, 2005

On June 9, 2006. the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its divided opinion [29 pages in PDF] upholding all of the FCC's August 5, 2005, order. See, story titled "Court of Appeals Upholds All of FCC's CALEA Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,388, June 9, 2006.

The FCC adopted a further order on May 3, 2006. See, story titled "FCC Further Amends CALEA Statute" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,365, May 8, 2006.

Neither the FCC's orders, nor the majority opinion in ACE v. FCC, can be reconciled with the plain meanings of the relevant sections of the CALEA and the Communications Act. However, this just released paper is not about law. Rather, it is a basic technological explanation for laymen of the PSTN, VOIP communications, and government intercepts. It explains how the FCC's orders will either harm internet security, or damage flexibility and innovation on the internet.

The paper states that "The network architectures of the Internet and the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) are substantially different. Lack of understanding of the implications of the differences has led to some difficult -- and potentially dangerous -- policy decisions. One of these is the recent FBI request to apply the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to VoIP."

"Some cases -- intercept against a VoIP call made from a fixed location with a fixed Internet address2 connecting directly to a big Internet provider's access router -- are the equivalent to a normal phone call, and such interceptions are relatively easy to do. But if any of these conditions is not met, then the problem of assuring interception is enormously harder."

It concludes that "In order to extend authorized interception much beyond the easy scenario outlined above, it is necessary either to eliminate the flexibility that Internet communications allow -- thus making VoIP essentially a copy of the PSTN -- or else introduce serious security risks to domestic VoIP implementations. The former would have significant negative effects on U.S. ability to innovate, while the latter is simply dangerous. The current FBI and FCC direction on CALEA applied to VoIP carries great risks."

6/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [24 pages in PDF] in USA v. Wasz, affirming the judgment of the District Court. This is a criminal case in which the only legal issues on appeal pertain to the sentences imposed on the defendants. However, the Appeals Court's opinion also contains a detailed description of the activities of the defendants that resulted in their prosecutions. They fenced stolen goods through the eBay auction site.

They purchased merchandise stolen from Home Depot and other home improvement stores from thieves who operated across several states. They sometimes directed the thieves as to what products to steal, and paid them advances. They paid the thieves about 33% to 40% of the retail prices, and then resold the stolen items at eBay at an average of 62% of retail prices, using multiple user names. They auctioned 13,000 items with retail sales prices totaling more than $2.3 Million.

The two defendants were sentenced to serve 70 and 83 months in prison. These sentences were based upon both the total retail sales prices of the stolen items, and the conclusion that the two were organizers or leaders of the offense. The Wasz's argued that their sentences should be based upon their net gains (eBay auction revenues less amounts paid to the thieves). Alternatively, they argued that their sentences should be based upon the retailers lost profits.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. It wrote that "the Waszes each may be held to account for the total value of the merchandise stolen by their thieving co-defendants and sold by either Bruce or Laura Wasz on eBay", and that the appropriate measure of loss is the total retail value.

This case is USA v. Laura Wasz and Bruce Wasz, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-1463 and 05-1464, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

6/15. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) released a paper [14 pages in PDF] titled "A Skeptic's Primer on Net Neutrality Regulation". It argues that "Net neutrality is a premature bit of industrial policy that favors companies in one tier of the Internet over companies in another tier."

6/14. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and representatives of various pro network neutrality groups held a news conference on Capitol Hill to promote S 2917, the "Internet Freedom and Preservation Act". See also, story titled "Snowe and Dorgan Introduce Net Neutrality Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,375, May 22, 2006. Meanwhile, the SavetheInternet.com web site boasts over one million signatures on its online network neutrality petition.

6/14. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing titled "Violent and Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents and Protecting Children". Lydia Parnes, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wrote in the FTC's prepared testimony [PDF] that "Because of First Amendment and other issues, the Commission continues to support private sector initiatives by industry and individual companies ..."

6/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its per curiam opinion [1 page in PDF] affirming the judgment of the District Court in Amado v. Microsoft, App. Ct. Nos. 05-1531 and 05-1581.

6/14. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Public Notice [3 pages in PDF] titled "DTV Channel Election Issues".

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 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.

6/14. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an agenda [PDF] for its event on June 21, 2006, titled "Open Meeting". This agenda includes consideration of yet another item on the multicast must carry obligations of cable operators, another NPRM on the FCC's broadcast ownership rules, and an item that will likely add interconnected VOIP providers to the tax base for the FCC's USF subsidy program.

Multicast Must Carry. The FCC will consider a Second Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2ndFNPRM) regarding mandatory carriage of digital broadcast television signals by cable operators. This is CS Docket No. 98-120.

The FCC has previously addressed this topic. See, story titled "FCC Adopts Digital Multicasting Must Carry Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,075, February 11, 2005. See also, story titled "Digital Multicasting Must Carry Developments" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,073, February 9, 2005.

Cable companies oppose imposing multicast must carry obligations on cable companies. See for example, the National Cable Telecommunications Association's (NCTA) comment [8 pages PDF] of June 8, 2006. Broadcasters urge the FCC to impose such obligations. See for example, June 14 filing [13 pages in PDF] and June 8 comment [PDF] of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).

Broadcast Ownership Rules. The FCC will consider a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding its broadcast ownership rules. This is MB Docket No. 02-277, MM Docket No. 01-235, MM Docket No. 01-317, and MM Docket No. 00-244.

On June 2, 2003, the FCC announced its Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [257 pages in PDF] amending its media ownership rules. See, story titled "FCC Announces Revisions to Media Ownership Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 672, June 3, 2003.

These 2003 rule changes were, in part, a response to the directions of the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir). For example, on April 2, 2002, the DC Circuit issued its opinion in Sinclair Broadcast Group v. FCC, remanding the FCC's local television ownership rule for further consideration. See, story titled "DC Circuit Remands Local TV Ownership Rule to FCC" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 402, April 3, 2002.

Similarly, on February 19, 2002, the DC Circuit issued its opinion in Fox v. FCC. The Court held that the FCC's national TV station ownership rule (NTSO) and its cable broadcast cross ownership rule (CBCO) both violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as arbitrary and capricious, and Section 202(h) of the Telecom Act. See, stories titled "DC Circuit Vacates Cable Broadcast Cross Ownership Rule", TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 372, February 20, 2002, and "FCC Files Petition for Review of Appeals Court Opinion in Fox v. FCC" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 415, April 22, 2002.

However, after the FCC wrote new rules in 2003, the legal challenge was heard by a different circuit. Then, on June 24, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals (3rdCir) issued its opinion [213 pages in PDF] in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC overturning some of the FCC's media ownership rules. See, story titled "3rd Circuit Rules in Media Ownership Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 930, July 1, 2004. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. See, story titled "Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Media Ownership Rules Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,153, June 14, 2005.

Universal Service. The FCC will consider a Report and Order and NPRM regarding, among other things, expanding the scope of entities taxed to support the FCC's universal service subsidy program. This item may address interconnected voice over internet protocol (VOIP) providers.

The FCC's agenda only identifies the universal service contribution aspect of this item. However, the agenda also states that this item is related to numerous open proceeding, including WC Docket No. 04-36 (the FCC's omnibus IP enabled services proceeding), CC Docket No. 96-45 (the perpetual universal service proceeding), CC Docket No. 98-171 (another universal service proceeding), CC Docket No. 90-571 (ADA), CC Docket No. 92-237 (NANP), CC Docket No. 99-200 (number resource optimization), CC Docket No. 95-116 (number portability), and CC Docket No. 98-170 (truth in billing).

See, June 14, 2006, comment [9 pages in PDF] submitted by the Voice on the Net (VON) Coalition, and June 8 and May 23 comments [10 pages in PDF] submitted by Verizon.

Finally, the FCC will consider a NPRM regarding processing and service rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS).

This event is scheduled for 9:30 AM on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 in the FCC's Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street, SW. The event will be webcast by the FCC. The FCC does not always consider all of the items on its published agenda. The FCC sometimes adds items to the agenda without providing the "one week" notice required 5 U.S.C. § 552b. The FCC does not always start its monthly meetings at the scheduled time. The FCC usually does not release at its meetings copies of the items that it adopts at its meetings.

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

The Senate will meet at 10:00 AM. It will resume consideration of HR 4939, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting to the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 22, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 98, at Page 29356. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA.

8:30 AM - 4:00 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Privacy Office will host a public workshop titled "Operationalizing Privacy: Compliance Frameworks & Privacy Impact Assessments", to explore policy, legal, and operational frameworks for Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) and Privacy Threshold Analyses (PTAs). See, notice in the Federal Register: May 24, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 100, at Page 29968. Location: GSA Regional Headquarters, Auditorium, 7th & D Streets, SW.

9:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold a hearing titled "Patent Trolls: Fact or Fiction". The witnesses will be Ed Reines (Weil Gotshal & Manges), Dean Kamen (DEKA Research & Development Corporation), Paul Misener (Amazon.com), and Chuck Fish (Time Warner). See, notice. Press contact: Jeff Lungren (HJC) or Terry Shawn (HJC) at 202-225-2492, or Beth Frigola (Rep. Smith) at 202-225-4236. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones meetings without notice. Press contact: Courtney Boone at 202-224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

POSTPONED TO JUNE 21. 9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

11:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee (HCC) will meet to mark up several bills, including HR 4157, the "Better Health Information Technology Promotion Act of 2005". See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

3:30 PM. The House Ways and Means Committee will meet to mark up HR 4157, the "Better Health Information Technology Promotion Act of 2005". Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

6:30 PM. The America's Future Foundation (AFF) will host a reception (6:30 PM) and panel discussion (7:00 PM) titled "Network Neutrality: Should Government Regulate the Internet?". The speakers will be James Gattuso (Heritage Foundation), Patrick Ross (Progress & Freedom Foundation), Alex Curtis (Public Knowledge), Frannie Wellings (Free Press), and Jerry Brito (Mercatus Center). See, notice. Location: Room B-338, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.

The Defense Science Board 2006 Summer Study on Information Management for Net-Centric Operations will hold a one day close meeting See, notice in the Federal Register, April 11, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 69, Page 18292. Location: 3601 Wilson Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Arlington, VA.

Deadline for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) entity titled "Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks" to submit its report to the FCC.

8:00 AM - 2:00 PM. Day two of a two day meeting to the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 22, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 98, at Page 29356. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA.

9:30 AM - 5:30 PM. The Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 1, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 105, at Pages 31152-31153. Location: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-80 [49 pages in PDF], titled "Guide for Developing Performance Metrics for Information Security".

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee's (SCC) Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness will hold a hearing titled "High-Performance Computing". Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) will preside. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

12:15 - 1:45 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Copyright Overview and Hot Topics for Communications Lawyers". For more information, contact Tarah Grant at tsgrant at hhlaw dot com or 703-610-6155 or Brendan Carr at bcarr at wrf dot com or 202-719-7305. RSVP to Brendan Carr. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K Street, NW.

6:00 PM. The filing window closes for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Auction 66. This is the auction of Advance Wireless Services (AWS) licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz (AWS-1) bands. See also, notice in the Federal Register, June 2, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 106, at Pages 32089-32091.

POSTPONED TO JUNE 22. 10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will meet to mark up S 2686, the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". See, notice. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The meeting will be webcast by the SCC. Location: __.

12:30 - 2:00 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "Intellectual Property Forum Featuring Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez". See, notice and registration page. Location: Chamber, 1615 H Street, NW.

2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "Privacy in the Commercial World II". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Paul Flusche (Stearns) at 202-225-5744. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold the first of three hearings on single firm conduct. The speakers will be Deborah Majoras (FTC Chairman), Thomas Barnett (Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division), Dennis Carlton (University of Chicago Graduate School of Business), and Herbert Hovenkamp (University of Iowa College of Law). See, notice. Location: FTC, Room 432, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Judicial Practice Committee will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "The Judicial Year in Review". See, registration form [PDF]. Prices vary. The deadline to register is 5:00 PM on June 16. Location: Wiley Rein & Fielding, 1776 K Stree, NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the transfer of licenses associated with the AT&T, BellSouth, and Cingular transaction. This is nominally a license transfer proceeding, but is also in the nature of an antitrust merger review. This proceeding will be governed by "permit but disclose" ex parte communications procedures under Section 1.1206 of the FCC's rules. See, FCC notice [10 pages in PDF] and FCC web page for its AT&T/SBC/Cingular merger review. This proceeding is WC Docket No. 06-74.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the first of two hearings titled "Internet Data Brokers and Pretexting: Who has Access to Your Private Records?". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

11:00 AM. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "U.S. Trade Policy in the Wake of Doha: Why Unilateral Liberalization Makes Sense". The speakers will include Jagdish Bhagwati, (Columbia University) and Daniel Ikenson (Cato). Cato will also webcast the event. Lunch will follow the program. See, notice and registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Universal Service: What Are We Subsidizing and Why? Part 1: The High-Cost Fund". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735, Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Sean Bonyun (Upton) at 202-225-3761. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness will hold a hearing titled "Accelerating the Adoption of Health Information Technology". See, notice. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building.

9:30 - 11:30 AM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold the second of three hearings on single firm conduct. This hearing will address selling. The speakers will be Patrick Bolton (Columbia University Business School), Kenneth Elzinga (University of Virginia), Douglas Melamed (Wilmer Hale), and Janusz Ordover (New York University). See, notice. Location: FTC, Room 432, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will meet to mark up S 2686, the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". See, notice. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The meeting will be webcast by the SCC. Location: __.

RESCHEDULED FROM MAY 23. 10:30 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures will hold a hearing titled "Hearing on the Impact of International Tax Reform on U.S. Competitiveness". See, notice. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold the third of three hearings on single firm conduct. This hearing will address buying. The speakers will be Tim Brennan (University of Maryland), John Kirkwood (Seattle University School of Law), Janet McDavid (Hogan & Hartson), Steven Salop (Georgetown University Law Center), and Frederick Warren-Boulton (Microeconomic Consulting & Research Associates, Inc.). See, notice. Location: FTC, Room 432, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

2:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold the second of two hearings titled "Internet Data Brokers and Pretexting: Who has Access to Your Private Records?". See, notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202-225-5735 or Terry Lane (Barton) at 202-225-5735. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.

5:00 PM. Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-85B [149 pages in PDF] titled "PIV Data Model Test Guidelines". PIV is an acronym for Personal Identity Verification.