6/28. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) met in open mark up session on Thursday, June 22, Tuesday, June 27, and Wednesday, June 28, to mark up S 2686, the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006".

On June 22, the SCC substituted its June 16 discussion draft [159 pages in PDF] of the bill. This renumbered the bill HR 5252, which is the number of the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006", or COPE Act. The House approved its vastly different version of this bill on June 8, 2006.

The SCC also changed the title of its bill on June 28 to "Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act". The acronyms for the titles of these two bills reflect the names of two longtime staff members of the House Commerce Committee (HCC) and SCC, respectively.

See also, story titled "House Approves COPE Act, Without Network Neutrality Amendment" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,388, June 9, 2006. The final House vote was 321-101. See, Roll Call No. 241.

The SCC conducted its business in three open public mark up sessions. The second and third sessions each lasted a full day. In addition, members and staff negotiated, drafted, and revisions numerous amendments outside of the public mark up sessions.

The SCC approved during its public sessions several blocs of amendments, referred to as "managers' packages", that had been prepared outside of the public session. The SCC has not yet published the complete text of all amendments offered, or even all amendments approved. Nor has it yet published a copy of the final bill as amended and approved.

The SCC proceeded in a usually informal and collegial manner in its public mark up sessions. The debates were substantive and cordial. Most of the amendments that were adopted were approved without objection. The SCC did conduct 16 roll call votes over three days. However, it considered over 200 amendments.

The SCC approved many amendments without releasing copies of the amendments. The SCC approved many amendments, subject to further drafting or revisions. The SCC left the staff with authority to make technical and conforming amendments. Given the size of the bill, the number of amendments, and the haste of the mark up, there will likely be many such amendments. Thus, until the final version of the SCC's bill is published, the exact language of the bill unknown.

Sen. Stevens stated during the mark up, and in response to questions from reporters, that this is a bipartisan bill. At the conclusion of the markup Democratic Senators praised Sen. Stevens and the mark up process.

Most of the roll call votes were characterized by partisan division. Notably, the key votes on network neutrality, a build out requirement for video services, and Sen. Inouye's substitute bill, all failed on straight or nearly straight party line votes. The vote on final approval was 15-7. All 12 Republicans voted yes, while the Democrats split 3-7.

Yet, the Committee considered over 200 amendments during the three days of mark up. Most were not offered, withdrawn, included in managers' packages, or approved individually without objection. Thus, while some of the most important questions were decided by partisan votes, the SCC acted by consensus on an overwhelming percentage of the issues taken up.

Sen. Stevens, who wore a fashionable blue tie at the June 28 mark up, was asked afterwards by reporters if the Incredible Hulk tie is coming out for the floor debate. He said "no". However, he concluded that "deep down inside I'm still the meanest old son of a bitch you ever met."

This issue contains additional stories on the mark up of each title of the bill. See, stories titled:

• Mark Up of Title I -- Interoperable Emergency Communications
• Mark Up of Title II -- Universal Service, Interconnection, VOIP, and VOIP Preemption
• Mark Up of Title III -- Video Franchising
• Mark Up of Title IV -- Video Content and Broadcast Flag
• Mark Up of Title V -- Municipal Broadband
• Mark Up of Title VI -- Use of Broadcast White Space
• Mark Up of Title VII -- Digital Television
• Mark Up of Title VIII -- Mandating Web Site Warning Labels and Censoring Web Page Source Code
• Mark Up of Title IX -- Network Neutrality
• Mark Up of Titles X and XI -- Miscellaneous Provisions
• Reaction to the Senate Commerce Committee' Mark Up of HR 5252

See also, table titled "Roll Call Votes on HR 5252, Senate Commerce Committee, June 22, 27 & 28, 2006".

6/28. Title I of HR 5252, as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) on June 28, 2006, is titled "War on Terrorism".  The SCC completed its consideration of most amendments to Title I on June 22.

Subtitle A of Title I deals with service members calling home. Section 101 of Title I is titled "Telephone rates for members of armed forces deployed abroad". This was a not controversial, and was not amended at the mark up. This section provides that the FCC "shall take such action as may be necessary to reduce the cost of calling home for Armed Forces personnel who are stationed outside the United States ... including the reduction of such costs through the waiver of government fees, assessments, or other charges for such calls." However, this section also provides that the FCC "may not regulate rates in order to carry out this section".

Section 102 repeals Section 213 of the Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992, which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 201 note. It required the FCC to "make efforts to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces personnel in" in certain countries. Section 213 does not list such countries as Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. Nor does it authorize the FCC to waive fees.

Subtitle B of Title I has just one section (151), It deals with interoperable emergency communications. It was the subject of some discussion and debate on June 22. The SCC considered several amendments to expand the types of entities eligible to receive interoperability grants. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) opposed such proposals, arguing that all of the funds should go to first responders.

For example, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) offered, but later withdrew, an amendment that would have made governmental authorities involved in preparing for the 2010 winter Olympics eligible for interoperability funds. These games will be in Vancouver, Canada, which is just across the border from Sen. Cantwell's state of Washington. Sen. Stevens argued that the full billion dollars should go to first responders, and should not be delayed until 2010.

However, the SCC approved one amendment offered by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). It adds to the end of Section 151 the following: "The Assistant Secretary shall take into consideration the role of the Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and E-911 systems, and shall reserve a portion of the funds made available to carry out this section to provide interoperable communications system grants for projects to PSAPs that enable interoperability and that advance E-911 deployment."

The SCC also approved a managers' package of amendments, without objection that includes two relevant amendments. One, offered by Sen. Inouye, imposes a public interest requirement on the seamless mobility streamlined process directive. A second, offered by Sen. McCain and Sen. Boxer, moves the administration of the public safety grant program from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

6/28. Title II of HR 5252, as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) on June 28, 2006, is titled "Universal Service Reform; Interconnection". The SCC began its consideration of this title on June 22, and finished on June 27.

This title taxes VOIP services as part of the FCC's universal service subsidy program. This title amends 47 U.S.C. § 254(d) to provide that "Each communications service provider shall contribute" to the universal service program. It also provides that a "communications service" includes "broadband service, or IP-enabled voice service (whether part of a bundle of services or offered separately)". (Parentheses in original.)

Furthermore, it provides that the FCC "may assess the interstate, intrastate, and international portions of communications service for the purpose of universal service contributions.

The managers' package, approved at the beginning of the June 22 markup, includes 11 amendments to Title II.

The SCC distributed a summary of these amendments, which contains the following descriptions:
 • "To make clear that the State preemption provisions do not affect tax laws" (Stevens)
 • "To improve Universal Service support of high-cost communications transport services in insular areas" (Inouye)
 • "To clarify treatment of rural carriers" (Burns)
 • "To clarify treatment of certain rural carriers" (Stevens)
 • "To ensure IP-enabled voice service providers are subject to the rules regarding provision of payphone service" (Rockefeller)
 • "To establish a new performance goal for the Schools and Libraries Program" (Snowe and Rockefeller)
 • "To amend the low-income adjustment in the Universal Service contribution mechanism. With modifications" (Nelson FL and Allen)
 • "To help protect disabled access to new communications technologies" (Nelson FL and McCain)
 • "To provide for a Universal Service Fund contribution exemption for certain nonprofit organizations" (Cantwell)
 • "Vendors with one criminal conviction of e-rate fraud, shall be permanently barred from participating in the E-rate program" (DeMint)

On June 22, Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) offered an amendment, on behalf of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), which would have placed a cap on both universal service collections and distributions of $6,520,066,000, to be adjusted annually for inflation. Sen. Stevens supported the concept of a cap. Sen. Dorgan opposed the amendment. Sen. Sununu withdrew the amendment.

On June 22, Sen. Sununu (at right) offered a first decree amendment, and two second degree amendments to his first degree amendment, regarding interconnected VOIP service providers, including interconnection and compensation rights and obligations, and preemption of certain types of state laws. The three amendments were considered together, and approved by one roll call vote of 14-8. See, Roll Call No. 1.

In short, the third discussion draft includes, in Title II, a section 715 titled "Rights and Obligations of IP-Enabled Voice Service Providers". Sen. Sununu's amendments revise Section 715, and add a new Section 1007 to Title X of the bill, the miscellaneous provisions title.

See, §§ 715 and 1007, as amended.

Also, on June 27, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) offered an amendment that would have removed Sen. Sununu's amendments. It failed on a roll call vote of 7-15. See, Roll Call No. 2. This was essentially a second vote on the same issue.

Rockefeller offered an amendment that would have created a new universal service subsidy program for first responders. Committee staff stated that it would create a new entitlement. Sen. Stevens opposed the amendment, arguing that universal service is a "communications right", rather than a first responders right. Sen. Stevens said also that he supports subsidies for such a program, but with the funding to come out of revenues from development of an oil field located on the ANWR in Alaska. Sen. Rockefeller opposes this.

Sen. Rockefeller's amendment would have provided subsidies for "public service agencies for purposes of increasing interoperability among the communications systems of such agencies". It would have been funded by taxes on telecommunications carriers, broadband services, and VOIP services.

This amendment failed on a roll call vote of 10-12. This was a straight party line vote, with all of the Democrats voting yes, and all of the Republicans voting no. See, Roll Call No. 3.

Sen. Dorgan offered an amendment, that was approved without objection, that amends 47 U.S.C. § 254(d) to provide an opportunity for Congressional review of any universal service contribution rules. It provides that "Any rule issued under subsection (d) shall -- (1) be submitted to Congress, along with any data and information relied upon to establish such rule; and (2) not take effect until the date that is 90 days after the date of such submission".

Sen. Ensign had prepared, but did not offer at the SCC mark up sessions, three amendments related to universal service. The SCC prepared a ten page document titled "Executive Session Amendment List" (ESAL), and dated June 22, 2006, that described these and other amendments.

One amendment was "To prohibit unauthorized and inappropriate uses of e-Rate funds". A second was "To minimize fraud, waste, and abuse in the e-Rate program." A third was "To ensure consumers are aware of the source of items in their phone bills." Sen. Ensign said that he may offer these amendments on the Senate floor.

Sen. Boxer withdrew an amendment "To exempt certain communications services from making Universal Service contributions." Sen. Sununu withdrew an amendment "To create a State pilot project."

Sen. Pryor withdrew an amendment "To delete the 2-way capability component from the definition of IP-enabled voice service in the Universal Service provisions." He added the he would would with others on revising his amendment for later inclusion in the bill.

Sen. George Allen (R-VA) offered an amendment. The SCC's ESAL states that this is "To modify the definition of facilities-based, with respect to IP-enabled voice service providers."

That is, the discussion draft provides that a "facilities based ... IP-enabled voice service" has certain rights and obligations. The discussion draft further provides that the FCC will define what "facilities based" means. Sen. Allen's amendment provides instead that "The term 'facilities-based' includes an IP-enabled voice service provider with control and operation within a local access transport area of -- (A) communications switching and routing equipment; (B) long-haul trunks; or (C) local transmission facilities."

Sen. Stevens accepted the amendment, and stated that after further revisions, will be included in the bill via a subsequent managers' amendment.

Sen. Bill Nelson (FL) withdrew an amendment regarding allocation of revenues between various services when services are bundled.

6/28. Title III of HR 5252, as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) on June 28, 2006, is titled "Streamlining the Franchising Process". The SCC rejected efforts to impose a build out requirement.

This is the title of the bill that Sen. Stevens refers to as the "guts of the bill". It also was the subject of lengthy debates, and numerous amendments.

On June 27 the SCC approved a managers' package of amendments that includes six amendments to this title. On June 28 the SCC approved a managers' package of amendments that includes five more amendments. The SCC also considered numerous amendments individually.

On June 27, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) offered an amendment, that was approved without objection, regarding video satellite services. The discussion draft provides that "No State or local government may regulate direct broadcast satellite services (as that term is used in section 335 of this Act)." (Parentheses in original.)

Sen. Inouye's amendment changes this to "Nothing in this Act permits a State or local government to regulate direct broadcast satellite services (as that term is used in section 335 of this Act)." Committee staff explained that this amendment would leave in place the status quo, narrow the scope of the savings clause, and allow taxation. Sen. Stevens stated that this language does not allow franchise fees.

On June 27, the SCC rejected amendment offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that would have grandfathered any state video franchising regime enacted by the end of 2006. It would have substantially undermined the purpose of Title III of the bill. It failed on a vote of 8-14. See, Roll Call No. 6.

On June 27, the SCC rejected an amendment offered by Sen. Lauthenberg regarding consumer protection authority of state and local governments. It failed on a vote of 10-12. See, Roll Call No. 5.

On June 28, the SCC rejected by a vote of 10-12 an amendment offered by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) that would have amended Title III to impose a build out requirement. It was a nearly straight party line vote. All Republicans, except Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), voted against the amendment, while all Democrats, except Sen. Ben Nelson (NE), voted for the amendment. See, Roll Call No. 8.

On June 28, the SCC rejected an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would have imposed a quasi build out requirement. It failed on a vote of 10-12. See, Roll Call No. 14.

On June 28, the SCC rejected an amendment offered by Sen. McCain that would have imposed an a la carte programming mandate. It failed by a vote of 2-20. See, Roll Call No. 11. Only Sen. McCain and Sen. Snowe voted for this amendment.

Sen. Inouye argued against this amendment on the basis that if adopted, it would sacrifice diversity. He argued that it would put in jeopardy channels such as Discovery Channel, History Channel, and Learning Channel.

6/28. Title IV of HR 5252, as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) on June 28, 2006, is titled "Video Content". It includes a broadcast flag mandate for video.

6/28. Title V of HR 5252, as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) on June 28, 2006, is titled "Municipal Broadband". Section 501 provides the title "Community Broadband Act".

The managers' package of amendments approved on June 22 includes one amendment to this title. The SCC's summary of this managers' package states that this amendment consists of "Bipartisan technical corrections to the community broadband network". No other amendments to this title were offered during the mark up sessions. There was little discussion or debate.

This title provides that local governments can offer their own broadband services, if they do not compete unfairly with services offered by private sector entities.

It is based upon S 1294, the "Community Broadband Act", which was introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) (at left) and others on June 23, 2005, and S 1504, the "Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act", which was introduced on July 27, 2005, by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and others.

The key clause, found at § 502 provides that "No State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider from providing, to any person or any public or pri1vate entity, advanced telecommunications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such public provider."

It then provides that state and local governments cannot discriminate in favor of their own services. For example, it provides that "the public provider shall apply its ordinances, rules, policies, and fees, including those relating to the public rights-of-way, permitting, performance bonding, and reporting, without discrimination in favor of itself or any other advanced telecommunications capability provider that such public provider owns or is affiliated with, as compared to other providers of such capability or services."

It also provides that "If a public provider decides not to initiate a project to provide advanced telecommunications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such public provider to the public through a public-private partnership, then, before the public provider may provide such advanced telecommunications capability or any such service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such public provider to the public, the public provider shall ... publish notice of its intention ... and ... provide an opportunity for commercial enterprises to bid to provide such capability or service during the 30-day period following publication of the notice."

6/28. Title VI of HR 5252, as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) on June 28, 2006, is titled "Wireless Innovation Networks". It pertains to the use of broadcast white space for wireless broadband services. There was little discussion of this title. Although, several Senators praised this section. There were no amendments.

There are two sections in this title. § 601 merely provides that this title is the "Wireless Innovation Act of 2006" or "WIN Act of 2006". § 602 requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to complete its broadcast white space rulemaking proceeding, to permit unlicensed, non-exclusive use of unassigned, non-licensed television broadcast channels.

It states that "Within 270 days after the date of enactment of that Act, the Commission shall adopt technical and device rules in ET Docket No. 04–186 to facilitate the efficient use of eligible broadcast television frequencies by certified unlicensed devices, which shall include rules and procedures -- (1) to protect licensees from harmful interference from certified unlicensed devices; (2) to require certification of unlicensed devices designed to be operated in the eligible broadcast television frequencies ... (3) to require manufacturers of such devices to include a means of disabling or modifying the device remotely if the Commission determines that certain certified unlicensed devices may cause harmful interference to licensees; ..."

This is based upon a bill sponsored by Sen. George Allen (R-VA) (at right) and others. On February 17, 2006, Sen. Allen introduced S 2327, the "Wireless Innovation Act of 2006". See, story titled "Sen. Allen Introduces Bill to Allow Unlicensed Wireless Use of Broadcast White Space" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,314, February 21, 2006.

S 2327 merely requires the FCC to complete its rulemaking proceeding. The version approved by the SCC now also includes instructions to the FCC regarding the contents of those rules.

Back on May 13, 2004, the FCC adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding use by unlicensed devices of broadcast television spectrum where the spectrum is not in use by broadcasters. The FCC released the text [38 pages in PDF] of this item on May 25, 2004. This NPRM is FCC 04-113 in ET Docket Nos. 04-186 and 02-380. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Unlicensed Use of Broadcast TV Spectrum" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 898, May 14, 2004.

The FCC has not taken action in this proceeding.

6/28. Title VII of HR 5252, as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) on June 28, 2006,  is titled "Digital Television". It contains provisions related to manufacturers providing information to consumers related to the transition to digital television, as well as public service announcements, and public outreach by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also requires the FCC create a DTV Working Group.

The discussion draft [159 pages in PDF] also states that "After March 1, 2007, it is unlawful to import into the United States or ship in interstate commerce for sale or resale to the public, a television broadcast receiver ... that is not equipped with a tuner capable of receiving and decoding digital signals."

The discussion draft also provides, among other things, that the FCC "may not revise the digital television reception capability implementation schedule".

The discussion draft also contains a digital stream requirement for the blind. It also addresses international coordination and border stations.

The managers' package of amendments approved on June 22 includes four amendments to this title. The SCC's summary of this package offers the following descriptions:

 • "To limit that prohibition on importation  and interstate shipment of analog-only receivers to manufacturers and importers." (McCain)
 • "To revise the membership requirements of the DTV Working Group." (Rockefeller)
 • "Primary video." (DeMint)
 • "To require the DTV working group to recommend to the Commission procedures for contacting persons with disabilities." (Nelson and McCain)

On June 27, the SCC approved an amendment offered by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) to enhance consumer awareness regarding the DTV transition.

On June 27, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) withdrew her amendment to strike the provision relating to energy standards for converter boxes.

On June 27, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) withdrew his amendment to ensure that the no-material-degradation standard applies to both audio and video quality, including digital signals processed through a converter box. He also withdrew his amendment relating to disqualification of certain stations for mandatory carriage of multiple digital signals.

6/28. Title VIII of HR 5252, as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) on June 28, 2006, is titled "Protecting Children". The discussion draft [159 pages in PDF] included only one brief Section 801, which requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promulgate regulations that require video services to prevent the offering of child pornography.

On June 27 the SCC approved an amendment the combines two very similar amendments offered by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

The Burns Kerry composite amendment does two things. First, it prohibits publication of web sites with sexually explicit material without the warning labels to be proscribed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This is a compelled speech mandate.

Second, it prohibits embedding words in the source code of web pages to deceive anyone into viewing obscene material, or to deceive any minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors.

Sen. Burns' (at left) amendment states that "It is unlawful for the operator of a website that is primarily operated for commercial purposes knowingly, and with knowledge of the character of the material, to place sexually explicit material on the website unless -- (i) the first page of the website viewable on the Internet does not include any sexually explicit material; and (ii) each page or screen of the website that does contain sexually explicit material also displays the matter prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission ..."

It provides an exemption for password protected web sites. It also exempts telecommunications carriers, internet access services, and anyone "engaged in the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation of a communication made by another person, without selection or alteration of the content ..."

Sen. Burns' amendment also states that "It is unlawful for any person knowing to embed words, symbols, or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive another person into viewing material that is obscene." The word "knowing" will probably be changed to "knowingly" by SCC staff.

The Burns and Kerry amendments contain provisions that are very similar to provisions in numerous stand alone bills.

See, for example, S 3499, the "Internet Safety (Stop Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Youth) Act of 2006", introduced by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on June 13, 2006, and Section 3 of S 3432, the "Project Safe Childhood Act", introduced by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) on June 6, 2006.

These bills follow proposals made by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in April. The DOJ sent a letter and proposed bill [10 pages in PDF] to House Speaker Denny Hastert on April 20, 2006. See also, story titled "Gonzales Proposes Data Retention Mandate, Web Site Labeling, and Ban on Deceptive Source Code" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,357, April 25, 2006.

The managers' package of amendments approved on June 27 also includes one amendment to Title VIII offered by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). The SCC's summary states that this "Prohibits interactivity with commercial matter during children's programming".

The managers' package of amendments approved on June 28 also lists two amendments to Title VIII. The SCC's summary states that these were offered by Sen. Burns and Sen. Kerry, and were merged. These are likely the same as the above described amendments.

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.

6/28. Title IX of HR 5252, as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) on June 28, 2006,  is titled "Internet Consumer Bill of Rights Act". This was the most controversial title of the bill, and provoked the most heated debate. The bill contains no hard network neutrality mandate. Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) and the SCC Democrats backed a network neutrality amendment that failed on a roll call vote of 11-11. See, Roll Call No. 13.

In addition, there was a network neutrality provision in Sen. Daniel Inouye's substitute bill, which substitute failed on a roll call vote of 10-12. See, Roll Call No. 15.

The SCC's Executive Session Amendment List (ESAL) listed numerous other network neutrality amendments. The SCC briefly addressed some of these on June 28. Sen. Stevens stated, without clarity, that some of these would be addressed in a subsequent managers' package of amendments.

The content of discussion draft's [159 pages in PDF] Title IX is summarized below. However, there was little discussion of the content of the bill during the long debate. Rather, the members debated the merits of Sen. Snowe's (at right) amendment, which is summarized further below.

Consumer Bill of Rights. The new Title IX contains an "Internet Consumer Bill of Rights Act of 2006". It requires, at § 903, that,

"each Internet service provider shall allow each subscriber to---
  (1) access and post any lawful content of that subscriber’s choosing;
  (2) access any web page of that subscriber's choosing;
  (3) access and run any voice application, software, or service of that subscriber's choosing;
  (4) access and run any video application, software, or service of that subscriber's choosing;
  (5) access and run any email application, software, or service of that subscriber's choosing;
  (6) access and run any search engine of that subscriber's choosing;
  (7) access and run any other application, software, or service of that subscriber’s choosing;
  (8) connect any legal device of that subscriber's choosing to the Internet access equipment of that subscriber, if such device does not harm the network of the Internet service provider; and
  (9) receive clear and conspicuous information, in plain language, about the estimated speeds, capabilities, limitations, and pricing of any Internet service offered to the public."

It defines the term "internet service" as "any service that provides access to the public Internet directly to the public", and the term "subscriber" as "a retail end user that purchases Internet service".

This section protects only "subscribers" from certain potential business practices of their "internet service providers". It does not regulate the relationship between service providers and internet content companies.

Free Speech Rights. § 904 contains two clauses under the heading of "Application of the First Amendment".

First, it provides that "no Federal, State, or local government may limit, restrict, ban, prohibit, or otherwise regulate content on the Internet because of the religious views, political views, or any other views expressed in such content unless specifically authorized by law". While the SCC held a long debate on June 28, this provision was not explained or debated. The First Amendment's free speech clause, and its incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment, already limits governments attempts to regulate expression. Moreover, no government can authorize the violation of First Amendment rights.

Second, it provides that "no Internet service provider engaged in interstate commerce may limit, restrict, ban, prohibit, or otherwise regulate content on the Internet because of the religious views, political views, or any other views expressed in such content unless specifically authorized by law." The First Amendment only regulates state action. This appears to be an attempt to extend a limited First Amendment like restriction to internet service providers.

Stand Alone Internet Access Service. § 905 of the bill requires that "An Internet service provider shall offer to any potential subscriber any Internet service such provider offers without requiring that subscriber to purchase or use any telecommunications service, information service, IP-enabled voice service, video service, or other service offered by such Internet service provider."

The House bill also has a stand alone offering requirement. It provides that "A broadband service provider shall not require a subscriber, as a condition on the purchase of any broadband service the provider offers, to purchase any cable service, telecommunications service, or VOIP service offered by the provider."

The House bill only affects broadband offerings, while the Senate draft affects all internet access offerings.

Exceptions. § 906 of Title IX allows internet service providers to "protect the security, privacy, or integrity of the network", "facilitate diagnostics, technical support, maintenance, network management, or repair of the network or service of such provider", "prevent or detect unauthorized, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful uses of the network or service of such provider", "block access to content, applications, or services that Federal or State law expressly authorizes to be blocked, including child pornography", provide parental controls, and allow subscribers to block content.

§ 910 contains two further exceptions. First, it provides that "Nothing in this title shall ... preclude an Internet service provider from displaying advertisements in connection with a broadband service". Second, it provides that "Nothing in this title shall ... apply to a service in which Internet service is not the primary service, such as a video service offered under Title VI of the Communications Act ..."

Adjudicative Enforcement by FCC. Title IX then provides that the FCC must write procedural rules that establish an adjudicatory enforcement of the Consumer Bill of Rights set out in Section 903, but that it must not write substantive rules on the same subject.

§ 907(a) provides that the FCC "shall, by rule, establish an adjudicatory enforcement procedure under which -- (1) any subscriber aggrieved by a violation of the requirements of section 903 may initiate an enforcement action by filing a complaint, in such form and in such manner as the Commission may prescribe; and (2) the Commission shall make a determination, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, with respect to any bona fide complaint not later than 120 days after the date on which such complaint is received."

But then, § 908 provides that "Except as provided in section 907(a), the Commission shall not --- (1) promulgate any regulations implementing this title; nor (2) enlarge or modify the obligations imposed on Internet service providers through the adjudicatory process under section 907."

This FCC adjudicatory process would only address alleged violations of the § 903 Consumer Bill of Rights. It would not encompass alleged violations of § 904 (free speech) or § 905 (stand alone service).

Snowe Dorgan Amendment. Sen. Snowe, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) offered a network neutrality amendment.

This is related to a stand alone bill, S 2917, the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act", introduced by Sen. Snowe and others on May 19, 2006. See also, story titled "Snowe and Dorgan Introduce Net Neutrality Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,375, May 22, 2006. However, the amendment is significantly different from the S 2917.

The amendment provides that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) August 2005 broadband  policy statement [3 pages in PDF] "is hereby incorporated into this Act and the Commission shall enforce such statement and the principles stated therein." It further provided that "In addition to the principles contained in the broadband policy statement, end users shall be entitled to service from each broadband Internet access provider that does not discriminate in the carriage and treatment of Internet traffic based on the source, destination, or ownership of such traffic."

The amendment also gives the FCC authority to enforce these principles in adjudicatory proceedings. It further provides that the FCC "shall adjudicate any complaint alleging violation of this section" within 90 days of receipt of a complaint. The FCC could impose fines of up to $500,000 per violation, and adopt appropriate orders.

However, this amendment also provided that the FCC shall not promulgate regulations.

Debate. During the debate Sen. Stevens (at right) was the primary opponent of Sen. Snowe's amendment. Although Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and others also argued against it. Sen. Snowe and Sen. Dorgan were the primary advocates of the amendment.

Sen. Snowe argued that if her amendment were not approved, the underlying bill would permit the telephone and cable companies "to come in through the back door with a hidden tax". She said that neither the government nor network providers should tax the net.

She cautioned that without her amendment "we are going to have a two tiered internet".

Sen. Dorgan read from statement made by Cablevision's Tom Rutledge about Vonage. Sen. Dorgan said this: "So anyone who buys Vonage on our network using our data service really doesn't know what they are doing. Out service is better. It is quality of service. We actually prioritize the bits so that the voice product is a better product. Cablevision says, you can get Vonage, or you can get us. We actually prioritize the bits, so that our product is the better product." Sen. Dorgan said this is precisely what the amendment is about.

Sen. Stevens and Sen. DeMint both argued that Google prioritizes search results. Sen. DeMint defended prioritization. He said that "the ability to differentiate is the key to adding value to any product". He predicted that adoption of the amendment would "restrict investment" and "buildout".

Sen. Stevens argued that the amendment would be "heavy handed regulation". He added that no one yet has defined what network neutrality is, and that there has not yet been discrimination, so the Congress should not yet mandate it.

Sen. Cantwell argued that if the amendment is not adopted TCP will come to mean "telecom control protocol".

Antitrust and Network Neutrality. Sen. Stevens also commented on addressing network neutrality with a competition law approach.

He said during the mark up on June 28 that "We already have unfair competition. I have already said if you want to make a special provision with regard to antitrust laws, that's going to come out of the Judiciary Committee. We made an agreement, I don't know if you know this, with the Judiciary Committee. We will not deal with antitrust concepts in this Committee. They are going to look at the internet from the point of view of antitrust, and they are going to report something concerning antitrust to the floor. And we will decide whether we have to do this bill, or have do it separately."

Sen. Stevens also spoke with reporters after the June 28 mark up. He said that "the bill will have to be slimmed down on the Senate floor. He explained "several bills were added ... the question is whether they invade other jurisdictions. We are going to have to face other committees in saying wait a minute, that is part of our jurisdiction ..." He declined to provide details in response to a question regarding which parts of the bill may face jurisdictional objections.

He added that "Sen. Specter and I talked. In the beginning, we had amendments that would have been offered that dealt with antitrust concepts of net neutrality. In my judgment, people who are talking about net neutrality are really talking about antitrust activity. And, he agreed. And, I think he may disagree on net neutrality, on the vote we had here. But, he also has an interest in the antitrust concept as it applies to communications. And, I think you may see them take that up. He may, he didn't say that he would, he would consider bringing an amendment to the floor, as I indicated, from the Committee, if they can get an agreement, that may concern the antitrust activity as it applies to the communications industry."

On May 25, 2006, the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) amended and approved HR 5417, the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006", a network neutrality bill sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). See, story titled "House Judiciary Committee Approves Net Neutrality Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,379, May 26, 2006. For a summary of the base bill, see story titled "Sensenbrenner and Conyers Introduce Net Neutrality Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,375, May 22, 2006.

When the House considered its version of HR 5252, the COPE Act, the House Rules Committee did not make in order an amendment that contained the language of HR 5417. Hence, the full House did not vote on it.

Prospects in the Senate. Sen. Boxer predicted that "if this amendment goes down, you can expect a massive fight on your hands." Sen. Stevens responded that "If this amendment is adopted this bill is never going to come out of the Congress." That is, the House rejected Rep. Ed Markey's (D-MA) network neutrality amendment on June 8, 2006, by a vote of 152-269. See, Roll Call No. 239.

If proponents of network neutrality carry through on threats to filibuster any bill without a network neutrality mandate, then under Senate rules, Sen. Stevens would need to muster 60 votes to overcome the filibuster.

Sen. Stevens spoke with reporters after the mark up on June 28. He said that while the SCC split evenly on the network neutrality amendment, there is more opposition to the amendment in the full Senate.

He said that "I believe that the vote on the floor will not be that close. I think the vote on the House floor will reflect the Senate today, unless it is whipped to the point of becoming a political issue here. It was not whipped over there on a political basis."

He also pointed out that some of the Senators on the SCC who voted for network neutrality may reconsider before the bill reaches the Senate floor. He said that there are many other provisions of the bill that they want to see enacted into law.

6/28. Title X of HR 5252, as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) on June 28, 2006, is titled "Miscellaneous". Title XI was added during the June 27 mark up session. The SCC's summary of the June 27 managers' package of amendments identifies this title as "New Items Not Currently in the Bill".

These two titles, as amended, include provisions regarding jurisdiction of the federal courts in the District of Columbia over challenges to FCC actions, allowing secret FCC proceedings, FCC restructuring, limits on lobbying for former FCC employees, media ownership rules, commercial broadcasting on school buses, caller ID spoofing, the FCC's Form 477 broadband reporting, the FCC's definition of broadband as 200 kpbs, the content of phone bills, and low power FM. These two titles now also include a permanent extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and a new moratorium on certain new and discriminatory wireless taxes.

The discussion draft [159 pages in PDF] includes a provision that gives the federal courts in the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to rulings and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also includes provisions enhancing the FCC's ability to conduct its activities and operations in secret. See, story titled "Stevens Bill Includes Changes to FCC and Judicial Procedure" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,396, June 21, 2006.

The June 27 managers' package includes seven amendment to Title X. The SCC's summary describes these as follows:

 • "The underlying bill preempts some state and local franchising laws. This amendment, requested by the cities, makes clear that the State preemption provisions do not affect any state or local tax law." (Stevens)
 • "To improve public safety by requiring a status report on the establishment of the E-911 Implementation and Coordination Office under the ENHANCE 911 Act." (Nelson FL and Burns)
 • "To require the Federal Communications Commission to study telemedicine and report to Congress on the availability and needs of broadband facilities capable of providing telemedicine services." (Nelson FL and Allen)
 • "To amend the Children's Television Privacy Act of 1990 to apply the time limitations on advertising in children's programming  to video service providers. Under current law, such requirements only apply to broadcasters." (Nelson FL and Pryor)
 • "To ensure that the provisions of title V (forfeitures and penalties for obscenity or other violations of the Communications Act of 1934) that apply to cable television operators also apply to video service providers." (Lautenberg)
 • "To ensure that the provisions of the title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (miscellaneous provisions) that apply to cable television operators also apply to video service providers." (Nelson FL and Pryor)
 • "To hold independent network affiliates harmless from section 503(b) penalties for network programming they have not had an opportunity to preview or with respect to which they have received no notice from the network as to objectionable content." (Nelson NE)

The June 28 managers' package includes another amendment to Title X, which the SCC's summary describes as follows: "To encourage diversity in media ownership", offered by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Bill Nelson (FL).

The June 27 managers' package includes two amendments to be placed in the new Title XI. The SCC's summary describes these as follows:
 • "Relating to directing the FCC to revisit broadband speeds. The FCC's current speed for broadband is 200 kilobits per second which is quite slow. The Inouye amendment would require that speeds be periodically updated." (Inouye)
 • "To establish an Office of Indian Affairs in the Federal Communications Commission. There are already staff performing this role at the FCC, but this would require the office as a matter of law." (Inouye, Cantwell and Dorgan)

The SCC approved on June 28 an amendment to Title XI offered by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) that requires the FCC to conduct a study of "commercial proposals to broadcast radio or television programs for reception onboard specially equipped school buses operated by, or under contract with, local public educational agencies."

Sen. Dorgan joked that such broadcasting is a form of "child abuse". Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) joked that the SCC could save the FCC's money. "We could always ride the bus. Save a lot of money." Sen. Sununu suggested that schools would be smart enough to reject these broadcasts on their own. The amendment was approved without objection.

The SCC approved on June 28 an amendment to Title XI offered by Sen. Bill Nelson (FL) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) titled "Truth in Caller ID". It is directed at caller identification spoofing. It is very similar to HR 5126, the "Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006", which the House approved on June 6, 2006.

The SCC approved on June 28 an amendment to Title X offered by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) which the SCC's ESAL describes as "To provide for competition in special access markets."

The SCC amended and approved on June 28 an amendment to Title X offered by Sen. Dorgan, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) regarding the FCC's just announced media ownership rulemaking proceeding. Sen. Dorgan stated that this amendment requires the FCC to submit its proposed rules to the Congress and public before adopting them. Sen. Stevens said that it also reinstates the FCC's rules in effect prior to the FCC's June 2, 2003 order. Sen. Ensign expressed opposition, but added that he would not request a roll call vote.

The SCC approved on June 28 an amendment to Title X offered by Sen. Nelson (FL) and Sen. Burns. Sen. Burns stated that this requires that the money collected for 911 and E911 be used for call centers and 911 and E911 technologies. He said that currently "the states were using the money for other than what it was collected for".

The SCC approved on June 28 an amendment to Title X offered by Sen. Nelson (FL) regarding the one year restriction on lobbying by certain former employees of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The SCC approved, subject to revision, on June 28 an amendment to Title X offered by Sen. Nelson (FL) and Sen. Snowe that creates an Office of Consumer Advocate at the FCC. Sen. Ensign said that the FCC needs restructuring, but that the SCC should first hold hearings, and then legislate on a range of topics related to organization of the FCC. Sen. Snowe said that the FCC is "underfunded and overburdened".

The SCC approved on June 28 an amendment to Title X offered by Sen. Nelson (FL) that requires the FCC to revise its Form 477, which pertains to broadband reporting. The amendment requires service providers to submit more information in these reports.

The SCC approved on June 28 an amendment to Title X offered by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) that requires the FCC to adopt rules "establishing customer service and consumer protection requirements for providers of commercial mobile service or private mobile service".

The SCC approved on June 28 an amendment to Title X offered by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) that bears the title "Truth in Telephone Charges Act of 2006". However, whether this amendment promotes, or inhibits, truth in billing is a matter of debate. It requires that nothing be included on a subscribers bill. It prevents inclusion of some items about which subscribers might wish to be informed.

This amendment would require the FCC to "initiate and conclude a proceeding under part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 ... to prevent a telecommunications carrier from listing any charge or fee on the billing statement of a subscriber as a separately stated charge or fee other than a charge or fee (1) for telecommunications service or other services provided to a subscriber; (2) for nonpayment, early termination of service, or other lawful penalty; (3) for Federal, State, or local sales or excise taxes; or (4) expressly authorized by a Federal, State or local statute, regulation, or rule to appear on a subscriber's billing statement as a separately stated charge or fee."

The SCC approved on June 28 an amendment offered by Sen. George Allen (R-VA) that permanently extends the Internet Tax Freedom Act. It was approved by a vote of 19-3. See, Roll Call No. 12. Sen. Rockefeller, Sen. Dorgan, and Sen. Lautenberg voted no.

This short amendment provides in substantive part that "Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking ``taxes during the period beginning November 1, 2003, and ending November 1, 2007:´´ and inserting ``taxes:´´."

The SCC approved an amendment to Title XI offered by Sen. McCain and Sen. Cantwell titled the "Local Community Radio Act of 2006". It pertains to low power FM. It was approved by a vote of 14-7. See, Roll Call No. 9.

The SCC approved an amendment to Title XI offered by Sen. McCain and others titled the "Cell Phone Tax Moratorium Act of 2006". It was approved by a vote of 21-1. See, Roll Call No. 10. Sen. Rockefeller cast the sole vote against.

It provides that "No State or political subdivision thereof shall impose a new discriminatory tax on or with respect to mobile services, mobile services providers, or mobile services property, during the 3-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act."

6/28. Representatives of many groups and companies released comments on the Senate Commerce Committee's (SCC) mark up of HR 5252.

The CTIA's Steve Largent stated in a release that the SCC "took a significant step in the right direction for American consumers by recognizing the value and benefits provided by a national framework for the wireless industry. It's a simple equation: A consistent and light regulatory touch creates a stable environment and when that's provided for the hypercompetitive wireless industry, great things happen for consumers. We're also pleased with the tax moratorium placed on the excessive and arbitrary fees imposed on wireless consumers and companies at the state and local levels, and will continue working to establish a more reasonable and equitable tax structure. We remain committed to working with Chairman Stevens and Senator Rockefeller on the truth-in-billing amendment. If the goal of this legislation is to let consumers know just who is charging them what, this measure might not achieve its intended purpose."

BellSouth's Herschel Abbott stated in a release that "BellSouth congratulates Chairman Stevens on his skillful management of the complex process of getting this bill ready for the floor. This legislation is vital for American consumers who are looking for more competition in the video area and new services from broadband connections.  As occurred in the House of Representatives, the so-called net neutrality issue was laid to rest after exhaustive debate.  We look forward to seeing this bill scheduled for action on the Senate floor shortly after the Independence Day recess  to provide the House and Senate time to resolve the considerable differences that exist between the House and Senate communications bills."

The USTA's Walter McCormick stated in a release that the SCC "took a bold step toward real video choice for consumers and ensuring the future for universal service. The bill reported from committee will update our communications laws to reflect today's highly competitive marketplace and unleash a new wave of innovation and economic growth. The Committee should also be commended for its sound judgment in rejecting calls for the government to regulate the Internet."

The National Cable and Telecommunications Association's (NCTA) Kyle McSlarrow commented on the SCC's rejection of an a la carte mandate. He stated in a release that "We are very pleased with the defeat of the amendment and will continue to oppose unnecessary government regulation of the pricing and packaging of video services, which most studies show will diminish diversity in programming and result in higher prices for fewer channels."

McSlarrow in a June 27 release that "we are very pleased that an amendment was defeated that would have undermined the bill's national framework by permitting states to adopt their own franchising schemes. We are also pleased the committee defeated an amendment that would have re-imposed economic regulation on the sale and transfer of cable systems. Finally, we applaud the committee for approving an amendment that reaffirms the interstate nature of VoIP service, which we believe strikes an appropriate balance between federal and state oversight of this emerging service."

McSlarrow stated in a release after final approval that "This legislation establishes a deregulatory framework that will encourage significant competition in the telecommunications marketplace, especially for local telephone service. Cable operators are deploying Internet telephone service in markets across the United States and the provisions included in this bill, and similar language in the House version, will result in more competition for telephone service and billions of dollars of savings for American consumers. We also applaud the committee’s rejection of unnecessary regulation of the Internet and the unwarranted re-imposition of antiquated rate and basic tier regulation of video services."

The National Association of Manufacturer's (NAM) Dorothy Coleman sated in a release that "It is critical that we create an environment to encourage needed investment. Video is an important driver for broadband and standardizing the franchise process will encourage its deployment. In a time of increased global economic competition, bold steps are necessary ... The committee’s bill is an attractive pro-investment vehicle. We appreciate, too, that the Committee rejected efforts to impose new restrictions on the Internet in the guise of `net neutrality.´"

Ben Scott, of the Free Press, stated in a release that "The tie vote in the Commerce Committee shows the gathering momentum for Network Neutrality across political lines. In the past several weeks, this fundamental principle has moved from obscurity to the center stage in the debate over our nation's telecommunications policy. The issue of Net Neutrality will continue to gain speed as the full Senate takes up a bill that will determine the fate of Internet freedom. The voices of millions of average citizens are just starting to break through the misinformation and lies being peddled by the big phone and cable companies who want to erect tollbooths on the Internet. Across the country, people are catching on to these companies' plans, and they won't forget which leaders stood up for the public interest."

Jeannine Kenney, of the Consumers Union, stated in a release that "The network neutrality nondiscrimination principle, which protects competition, maximizes consumer choice, and guarantees fair market practices, is one step closer to being abandoned with the Senate Commerce Committee's vote. This endangers the most important engine for economic growth and democratic communication in modern society. Nondiscrimination made possible the grand successes of the Internet. Its removal can take them away. The biggest winners today are big money and special interest industry groups -- and no one else. But this fight is far from over. The public can win back Internet freedom by ringing up their Senators and telling them that consumers need more broadband choices than monopoly cable and phone providers that discriminate."

Gigi Sohn, of the Public Knowledge, stated in a release that "Over the course of two days, the Senate Commerce Committee handed control of Internet content to the telephone and cable companies, and control over the design of consumer electronics to the movie and recording industries. In each case, big companies win, and consumers lose."

Sohn added that "In failing to approve strong Net Neutrality language, the Committee gave the telephone and cable companies something they have not had in the history of the Internet -- a way to control what goes over the Net. They would be free to discriminate in favor of content in which they have a financial interest or in favor of those companies which can afford special new fees the companies charge. Under this regime, the telephone and cable companies would have no incentive to make any improvements to today's Internet, on which consumers, innovators and small businesses depend. We are grateful for the strong support we did receive from the Committee members who voted for Net Neutrality."

The House will not meet on Monday, July 3, through Friday, July 7. It will next meet on Monday, July 10, at 2:00 PM. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will not meet on Monday, July 3, through Friday, July 7. It will next meet on Monday, July 10, at 2:00 PM, when it will begin consideration of HR  5441, the homeland security appropriations bill. See, 2006 Senate calendar.

4:00 - 6:00 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion on trade disputes between the US and EU arising out of competition between, and government support for, Boeing and Airbus. See, notice. Location: AEI, 2th floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding creation of broadband channels in the 700 MHz public safety band. The FCC adopted this NPRM on March 17, 2006. See, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Re Public Safety Communications in the 700 MHz Band" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,332, March 20, 2006. The FCC released the text [30 pages in PDF] of this NPRM on March 21, 2006. This NPRM is FCC 06-34 in WT Docket No. 96-86. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 7, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 67, at Pages 17786-17790.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding management of the internet domain name and addressing system. See, notice in the Federal Register, Federal Register, May 26, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 102, at Pages 30388-30389.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its Draft Special Publication 800-97 [huge PDF] titled "Guide to IEEE 802.11i: Robust Security Networks".

The House will return from its Independence Day recess at 2:00 PM. See, Majority Whip's calendar and Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will return from its Independence Day recess at 2:00 PM. It will begin consideration of HR 5441, the homeland security appropriations bill.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will host a day long conference titled "Demystifying §337 Investigations at the ITC". For more information, contact Clara Stanfield at cstanfield at ipo dot org or 202- 466-2396. See, notice and brochure [PDF]. Location: Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Action Gaming, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., a patent infringement case involving computer gambling technology. This is App. Ct. No. 2005-1287, an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DNev). See, December 8, 2004 release. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in response to its notice of inquiry (NOI) regarding "implementation of the Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed (Test-Bed) where Federal and non-Federal users can study the feasibility of increasing the efficient use of the spectrum". See, notice in the Federal Register, June 8, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 110, at Pages 33282-33284.

Deadline to submit comments to the Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) regarding any topic related to the AMC's study. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 115, at Pages 34590-34591.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding the proposed consent agreement with Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and Rockstar Games, Inc. This pertains to the alleged deceptive representations in advertising and on product packaging concerning the content in the video game named "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas". See, notice in the Federal Register, June 15, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 115, at Pages 34620-34621.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "The Supreme Court: The View from the Press Gallery". The speakers will include Joan Biskupic (USA Today), Charles Lane (Washington Post), Tony Mauro (Legal Times and American Lawyer Media), David Savage (Los Angeles Times), and Stuart Taylor (National Journal and Newsweek). The price to attend ranges from $15-$35. For more information, call 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: Arnold & Porter, 555 12th Street, NW.

2:30 PM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security will hold a hearing titled "Cyber Security: Recovery and Reconstitution of Critical Networks". See, notice. Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Copyright Office regarding its proposal to amend its rules governing the submission of royalty fees to the Copyright Office to require such payments to be made by electronic funds transfer. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 27, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 81, at Pages 24829-24831.

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

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Mass Media Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. Andrew Cotlar (Associate General Counsel of the Association of Public TV Stations) will speak on public broadcasting in the US. For more information, contact Robert Rini at rrini at rinicoran dot com or 202-463-4301. Dial-In Information: 1-866-443-4185, participant code #31665. Location: Sheppard Mullin, 1300 I Street, NW, 11th Floor.

12:30 PM. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) will give a speech. Location: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

The calendar for the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) states that it will consider, on the briefs, Eolas Technologies v. Microsoft. This is App. Ct. No. 2006-1238.