|FCC Releases Report on Cable
12/27. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
document [39 pages in PDF] titled "Report on Cable Industry Prices". The FCC
adopted this item at a December 20 event.
This proceeding is titled "In the Matter of Implementation of Section 3 of the
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Statistical Report
on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and Equipment". This
report is FCC 06-179 in MM Docket No. 92-266. The FCC also issued a short
[PDF] that describes the report.
The report begins with a summary of its major findings. It states that "cable
prices increased more than 5 percent last year and by 93 percent since the period
immediately prior to Congress’s enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Expanded
basic prices rose more than 6 percent or twice the rate of inflation last year. Prices are
17 percent lower where wireline cable competition is present. DBS competition, however,
does not appear to constrain cable prices -- average prices are the same as or
slightly higher in communities where DBS was the basis for a finding of
effective competition than in noncompetitive communities. Finally, increases in
programming expenses were equivalent to more than half of the overall increase
in prices for the basic and expanded basic tiers."
This report includes a statistical analysis of prices.
The unit of analysis is markets. There are 659 observations.
The report contains a single multivariate regression model for which the dependent variable
is the log of the price in each market. The independent variables are
the log of cable's share of the MVPD market
in system area, log of median family income, log of number of parent company
subscribers of cable operator, log of cable plant's capacity in MHz, log of
population density in the community served, dichotomous variable for the
presence or absence of vertical affiliation with one or more programming
networks, dichotomous variable for whether a petition requesting a finding of
effective competition in the community has been granted, and a dichotomous
variable for availability or non-availability of local programming in DBS
operators’ program offerings in the community served.
This model's estimates for the
coefficients for all of the independent variables, except for median family
income and local programming, are statistically significant at the 1% level.
However, the R squared value is small (.28), indicating that little of the
variation in cable prices from market to market is explained by this model.
The estimated coefficient for the market share
variable is positive. The report states that "The positive relationship between cable
prices and market share may suggest a structure-conduct nexus in which cable operators with
high market shares wield unilateral market power to charge higher prices or it may reflect
higher costs in markets in which cable operators have large market shares."
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wrote
in a separate
[PDF] that "the price for every service the Commission regulates
has decreased -- except for cable. For instance, the average rate for wireless
service has plummeted 80% and average interstate telephony rates have decreased almost
40%. This is, in part, because those other services have been subjected to competition
from providers who have competed on price, as well as on service options and quality. In
contrast, cable prices alone have increased, and they have risen more than 90%."
Martin added that "Cable does face some competition from DBS, but our report
reveals that DBS and cable do not seem to compete on price."
He said that because of this, it is critical for the FCC to "remove regulatory
barriers to the ability of a second cable operator to enter the market".
FCC Commissioner Robert
McDowell wrote in a
[PDF] that "What the Cable Price Survey does not provide is an analysis of all of
the potential factors that could cause overall rate increases. For instance, are higher
rates reflective of many factors including: consumers buying more bundled service
offerings; greater value being offered today compared with several years ago (such as the
benefits of digital cable over analog, or more channel offerings); cost recovery due to
regulatory burdens; or other causes?" (Parentheses in original.)
Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA), made a similar point. He stated in a NCTA
release that "The FCC's pricing survey fails to account for the benefits of bundled
pricing, its favorable impact on cable prices, and the greatly increased value of cable
services in a digital world. Ignoring these factors makes the pricing survey obsolete on
arrival and an unsound basis for policy decisions."
Jonathan Adelstein wrote in a concurring
[PDF] that "once again this regular report provides insufficient data and analysis
to explain how cable companies’ prices are growing at such tremendous rates, leaving both
us and Congress without the information we need to know how best to combat rising
prices." FCC Commissioner Michael
Copps also wrote a concurring
|FCC Adopts Order Affecting Local
12/20. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
adopted, but did not release, a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in its proceeding titled "Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection
and Competition Act of 1992".
The FCC issued a short
press release, and all five Commissioners released statements.
The three Republican Commissioners supported this item, and the two Democrats opposed
it. FCC Commissioner Jonathan
Adelstein wrote a long dissent which attacks the factual basis for the order, disputes
the order on policy grounds, asserts that the FCC lacks legal authority to issue the order,
and criticizes the process by which the order was written. See also, story in this issue
titled "Adelstein Opposes Franchising Order".
Kevin Martin (at right) wrote in his
[PDF] in support of this item that "Telephone companies are investing billions of
dollars to upgrade their networks to provide video. As new providers began actively seeking
entry into video markets, we began to hear that some local authorities were making the
process of getting franchises unreasonably difficult, despite clear statutory language.
The record collected by the Commission in this proceeding cited instances where LFAs
sat on applications for more than a year or required extraordinary in kind contributions
such as the building of public swimming pools and recreation centers."
He said that "This item appropriately removes such regulatory barriers by giving
meaning to the words Congress wrote in section 621 of the Cable Act."
Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, is codified at
47 U.S.C. § 541. Subsection (a)(1) provides that "A franchising authority may
award, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within
its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise
and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant
whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the
franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section
555 of this title for failure to comply with this subsection."
Martin explained that "The ability to deploy broadband networks rapidly however,
is intrinsically linked to the ability to offer video to consumers." That is,
broadband network providers need to be able to earn revenues from the sale of video
services to incent them to build their broadband networks. He said that "By enhancing
the ability of new entrants to provide video services then we are advancing our goal of
universal affordable broadband access for Americans, as well as our goal of increased video
The FCC has not yet released this item. It has only offered a brief description of some
of its contents. The FCC's release states that the order portion of this item
"concludes that the current operation of the franchising process constitutes an
unreasonable barrier to entry that impedes the achievement of the interrelated federal
goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment."
The release states that the FCC "Found that franchising negotiations that
extend beyond certain time frames amount to an unreasonable refusal to award a
competitive franchise within the meaning of Section 621(a)(1)".
Commissioner Adelstein wrote in his dissenting
[8 pages in PDF] that the order imposes a "90-day shot clock for new entrants with
existing rights of way", and requires "the grant of a new entrant’s franchise
He added that this "90-day shot clock seems to function more like a waiting period,
during which time the new entrant has little incentive to engage in meaningful
Adelstein's and others' use of the term
"shot clock" is a
metaphor based upon the US sport of basketball. Under National Basketball
Association rules a team must take a shot at the goal within 24 seconds, or
loose possession of the ball.
Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), wrote in a letter to the
FCC on December 19, 2006, that "the proposed ``shot clock´´ has it
backwards: it allows the franchise applicant to run out the clock in order to
get a desirable outcome-video service without local oversight. If the Commission
is seriously interested in upholding the law by preserving local input in the
franchising process, then it should not create a disincentive for new providers
to negotiate in good faith with local governments."
The FCC's release states that the FCC "Found that requiring an applicant to
agree to unreasonable build-out requirements constitutes an unreasonable refusal
to award a competitive franchise".
The FCC's release states that the FCC "Found that, unless certain specified
costs, fees, and other compensation required by local franchising authorities
are counted toward the statutory five percent cap on franchise fees, demanding
them could result in an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise".
The FCC's release states that the FCC "Found that it would be an unreasonable
refusal to award a competitive franchise if the local franchising authority
denied an application based on a new entrant’s refusal to undertake certain
unreasonable obligations relating to public, educational, and governmental
(``PEG´´) and institutional networks (``I-Nets´´)".
The FCC's release states that the FCC "Preempted local laws, regulations, and
requirements, including local level-playing-field provisions, to the extent they impose
greater restrictions on market entry than the rules adopted herein."
Finally, the FCC's release states that the FCC "concluded that although the record
allows it to determine generally what constitutes an ``unreasonable refusal to award an
additional competitive franchise´´ at the local level, the Commission does not have
sufficient information to make such determinations with respect to franchising
decisions made at the state level or in compliance with state statutory
directives, such as statewide franchising decisions. As a result, the Order addresses
only decisions made by county- or municipal-level franchising authorities."
This item is FCC 06-180 in MB Docket 05-311. The FCC adopted a
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [26 pages in PDF] on November 3, 2005. The FCC released
the text of this NPRM on November 18, 2005. It is FCC 05-189. This proceeding is MB Docket
05-311. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Local Franchising of Video
Services" in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 1,247, November 4, 2005.
|Adelstein Opposes Franchising
12/20. FCC Commissioner
Jonathan Adelstein dissented from the FCC's Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding local franchising authorities. The FCC
adopted, but did not release, this item at a December 20 event. See also, See
also, story in this issue titled "FCC Adopts Order Affecting Local Franchising
Adelstein (at right) wrote
in his dissenting
[PDF] that this
order "goes out on a limb in asserting federal authority to preempt local governments,
and then saws the limb off with a highly dubious legal and policy scheme that substitutes
our judgment as to what is reasonable for that of local officials -- all in violation of
the franchising framework established in the Communications Act."
He predicted that "The result will be ... a likely rejection by the courts."
He added that "the FCC is a regulatory agency, not a legislative
body" and that "this is legislation disguised as regulation".
FCC orders are frequently overturned by the courts. The FCC
often exceeds its statutory authority. And, the FCC often functions in a legislative capacity.
See for example, article titled "Commentary: Administrative Process and
the FCC" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No.
1,365, May 8, 2006.
Moreover, Commissioner Adelstein often participates in such
legislative activities. Although, he, like other Commissioners, has not
acknowledged the nature of the process. What is unusual about the present
proceeding is that Commissioner Adelstein has so publicly accused the FCC of
assuming legislative authority.
He also wrote that "the majority attempts to accomplish today what the elected
representatives of the American people have tried to do through the legislative
process. In doing so, the Commission not only disregards current law and exceeds
its authority, but it also usurps congressional prerogatives, ignores cannons of
statutory construction and the plain meaning of Title VI."
"Yet today, the Commission is federalizing the franchising
process, taking it upon ourselves to determine in every local dispute what is
``unreasonable,´´" asserted Adelstein.
He continued that "For the past two years, both chambers of Congress have held
nearly two dozen hearings, and sought to enact legislation amending the Cable
Act to reform the current franchising process and ``strike the right balance
between national standards and local oversight.´´ Yet, the
Commission has finalized in the dark of last night what Congress was unable to
resolve in two years of intensive deliberations. In contrast to the Senate where
I used to work, one might call the FCC the world’s least deliberative body. And
the final product shows it."
He elaborated that "The House bill proposed a national cable franchising regime,
while the Senate bill proposed an expedited competitive franchise process and
would have required local franchising authorities to issue franchises pursuant
to a standard franchise application form that would be drafted by the
Commission. Today’s Order turns federalism on its head by putting the Commission
in the role of sole arbiter of what is a reasonable or unreasonable LFA practice
and simply eliminating the franchise process in certain circumstances if an
arbitrary shot clock has expired."
FCC Commissioner Michael
Copps also opposed this item. He wrote in his
[PDF] that he wanted to preserve LFA's "right to seek specific
and far-reaching build-out requirements", and their "ability to negotiate for
PEG and I-NET facilities".
He also questioned the FCC's legal authority. "Many people
questioned, and continue to question, the Commission’s legal authority to do
what it is doing today." He added that this item "only invites more delay, more
confusion, and more possibility of legal challenge."
|Reaction to FCC Franchising
12/20. Various entities reacted to the FCC's Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking regarding local franchising authorities. The FCC adopted, but did not
release, this item at a December 20 event. See also, story in this issue titled "FCC
Adopts Order Affecting Local Franchising Authorities".
Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA), stated in a
release that "it appears that the FCC pared back some of the more troubling
proposals that had been floated in recent days. The Commission made crystal clear
that its order isn't a license for AT&T to ignore the franchising process and operate
under different rules from its competitors. In addition, the Commission stepped
back from pre-empting all state franchising laws, many of which have
acknowledged the value to consumers of a level playing field for all
competitors. We appreciate the FCC's commitment to complete action within six
months on a further notice to address regulatory parity."
He added, "But the simple fact is that today's order doesn't provide a level playing
field, a concept that has been universally supported up until now at federal, state, and
local levels. We don't believe the Commission has the legal authority to establish separate
regimes for incumbents and new entrants in today's highly competitive marketplace."
The National Association of Broadcasters'
(NAB) Dennis Wharton stated in a
release that the "NAB salutes the FCC for taking decisive action to increase
much needed competition to cable monopolies. With today's action, the Commission has
delivered a holiday treat for cable customers who will now have a choice and the ability
to avoid rate hikes that run two to four times the annual rate of inflation."
Walter McCormick, head of the USTelecom, stated
release that "We applaud the FCC for its vision and leadership to help bring
consumers more choice in the video market. The steps outlined today will help
fix the franchising process and end the unnecessary delays caused by outdated
regulations. With the Commission's own data showing cable prices nearly doubling
over ten years, streamlining the franchising process will help bring real
competition and lower prices to the video market. It will also help speed the
deployment of high-speed Internet services across the nation. The telecom
industry will continue to work toward ending all unnecessary regulatory obstacles to
help speed the delivery of new and innovative services to consumers."
Verizon's Susanne Guyer stated in a
release that "Today's action will fast-forward the delivery of new choices,
lower prices and better services to consumers. The FCC is standing up for
consumers who are tired of skyrocketing cable bills and want greater choice in
service providers and programming. Verizon has an aggressive schedule to deploy
FiOS TV. This order will enable us to reach agreements with local franchise
authorities more quickly so we can deliver the benefits of competition to
consumers faster. The FCC has taken strong steps to increase consumer choice
and spur investment in broadband and video deployment."
Joe Savage, head of the Fiber to the Home (FTTH)
Council, stated in a release that "The FCC is to be applauded for today's action
streamlining the outmoded and detrimental video franchising process. This action caps a
year in which state legislators and governors in eight states joined Texas in enacting new
laws facilitating new video entry over fiber-to-the-home and other advanced
broadband networks. As a result, American consumers will have more choice, lower
rates, and access to much higher-speed broadband networks."
|Jule Sigall Joins
12/15. Jule Sigall will begin work at the
Microsoft Corporation in January of 2007. Until
December 15, 2006, he was the Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs at
the Copyright Office (CO). David Carson,
who has been General Counsel, is now the Associate Register for Policy and International
Affairs. The position of Associate General Counsel, which has been held by Tanya
Sandros, will be renamed Deputy General Counsel. Sandros is now the Acting General
Counsel. Maria Pallente is the new Deputy General Counsel.
Rob Kasunic, Principal
Legal Advisor in the Office of the General Counsel, is on leave for the 2006-2007 academic
year. He is teaching intellectual property courses at American University's law school.
remains the Register of Copyrights. See also, CO
Sigall recently worked on matters related to the
World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) proposed
"Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations". He was also the principal
drafter of the CO's January 2006
report [PDF] titled "Report on Orphan Works". The 110th Congress is likely to
enact legislation implementing some of the recommendations contained in this report.
Sigall joined the CO on February 10, 2003. See, CO
release. Before that,
he worked in the intellectual property and technology practice group of the law
firm of Arnold & Porter.
While at Arnold & Porter, he represented recording companies in UMG Recordings
Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. This was a successful action against a music storage service
that allowed subscribers to copy and store online the content of purchased CDs, and then
play them back via the internet. See, District Court's
[10 pages in PDF], which is also reported at 92 F. Supp. 2d 349. This case was
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, D.C. No. 00-CV-0472 (JSR).
He also represented a photographer in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. This was a case
involving the fair use exception to copyright infringement in the context of online digital
images and search engines. The Court of Appeals held that Arriba Soft's use of small
thumbnail copies of Kelly's copyrighted photographs in its search engine results
constituted fair use. See, Court of Appeals'
revised opinion [16 pages in PDF], which is also reported at 336 F.3d 811.
This case is Leslie Kelly, dba Les Kelly Publications, dba Les Kelly
Enterprises, dba Show Me The Gold v. Arriba Soft Corporation, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 00-55521, an appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, D.C. No. CV-99-00560-GLT.
The opinions in UMG Recording v. MP3.com and Kelly v. Arriba Soft
are the leading precedents pertinent to the pending cases involving whether the
Google Print for Libraries (GPL) program violates the copyrights of authors and
publishers. For a summary of these cases, see
titled "Google, Publishers and Authors Debate Google's Print for Libraries
Program" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,239, October 25, 2005.
Also, Sigall was one of the attorneys in Bonneville International Corp. v.
Peters, a case regarding the application of the sound recording digital performance
right to internet streaming of radio signals. See, Court of Appeals'
See also, Sigall's George Washington University Law School
|More People and
12/21. Kristine Chadwick was named the Chief Financial Officer and
Associate Executive Director (Finance) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). See, SEC
replaces Margaret Carpenter, who is retiring in January 2007. See, SEC
12/27. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
notice in the Federal Register announcing that it will will continue its
previously announced policy of forbearing from enforcing the prohibition of
prerecorded calls in the Telemarketing Sales Rule's (TSR) call
abandonment provisions, until the conclusion of the prerecorded call amendment
proceeding. See, Federal Register, December 27, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 248, at Pages
12/27. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
notice in the Federal Register that announces, describes, recites, and sets
the effective date (December 27, 2006) for rules changes regarding taxation
of income derived from the transmission of communications or data between the
U.S. and a foreign country, and taxation of income from certain space or
ocean activities, pursuant to
26 U.S.C. § 863(d) & (e). See, Federal Register, December 27, 2006, Vol. 71,
No. 248, at Pages 77594-77612.
12/21. The Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) published a
notice in the Federal Register that announces and explains its extension for certain
public companies of the deadlines for compliance with the internal reporting requirements
of Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. The notice states that the SEC
is "extending further for smaller public companies the
notice dates that were published on September 29, 2005, in Release No.
33-8618 [70 FR 56825], for their compliance with the internal control reporting
requirements mandated by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Under the extension, a non-accelerated filer is not required to provide
management's report on internal control over financial reporting until it files
an annual report for its first fiscal year ending on or after December 15,
2007." The just published notice also states that the SEC is "adopting
amendments that provide for a transition period for a newly public company before it
becomes subject to the internal control over financial reporting requirements." See,
Federal Register, December 21, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 245, at Pages 76580-76599.
12/21. The Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Antitrust Division announced yet another plea agreement in its ongoing
investigation of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) price fixing. In
this latest action, Young Hwan Park, who is currently President of Samsung
Semiconductor Inc., plead to criminal violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
and agreed to serve 10 months in prison and pay a criminal fine of $250,000. See, DOJ
12/21. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced
in a release that it will
hold a workshop that will address online marketing of negative options on Thursday,
January 25, 2007. The FTC wrote in a
notice in the Federal Register that "Many offers for
products or services marketed to consumers today include not just an offer for one product
or an initial provision of services, but the opportunity to consent in advance to continue
to receive products or services in the future. This type of sales offer or agreement is
commonly known as a ``negative option offer.´´ The central characteristic of a negative
option offer is that the customer’s silence or failure to take an affirmative action to
reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the seller as
acceptance of the offer." The workshop will be held in the FTC satellite building
conference center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW. The deadline to submit written comments is
February 26, 2007. See, Federal Register, December 27, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 248, at Pages
|More FCC News
12/22. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) released a
copy [63 pages in PDF] of its Memorandum Opinion and Order in its proceeding titled
"In the Matter of Applications for the Assignment of License from Denali PCS, L.L.C.
to Alaska DigiTel, L.L.C. and the Transfer of Control of Interests in Alaska DigiTel,
L.L.C. to General Communication, Inc." This order approves the transfer of a cellular
license from Denali to Alaska DigiTel, and transfer of a controlling interest in Alaska
DigiTel to GCI, subject to conditions. This item contains a long and detailed discussion
of the effects upon competition of horizontal mergers in wireless markets. The vote
was 5-0. However, Commissioner Jonathan
Adelstein wrote a concurring
[PDF], and Commissioner Michael Copps
wrote a concurring
[PDF], in which each expressed his unease with the transaction. This order is FCC 06-185
in WT Docket No. 06-114. The FCC sometimes drops noteworthy orders, in matters arising in the
state of Alaska, during the year end holidays, when many observers of
the FCC are away.
12/20. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
adopted, and released, a
of Proposed Rulemaking [26 pages in PDF] regarding public safety communications in
the 700 MHz band. This proceeding is titled "In the Matter of Implementing a
Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band / Development
of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local
Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010". This item is FCC
06-181 in WT Docket No. 96-86 and PS Docket No. 06-229. Initial comments will be due 45
days after publication of a notice in the Federal Register. This publication has not yet
occurred. Reply comments will be due 60 days after such publication.
12/20. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
adopted, but did not release, a Declaratory Ruling finding that internet protocol (IP)
captioned telephone service (CTS) is a form of telecommunications relay service (TRS)
compensable from the Interstate TRS Fund. The FCC issued a
release that explains that "An IP captioned
telephone call can be set up similar to a two-line captioned telephone call,
except that the line from the user to the provider would be via the Internet,
not a second PSTN line. The consumer would make a voice to voice call to the
other party on a standard telephone and the PSTN; at the same time, the voice of
the called party is directed from the consumer’s telephone to a personal
computer (or similar device) that routes it to the provider via the Internet.
The provider, in turn, sends back to the consumer the text of what was spoken.
As a result, the consumer can both hear (to the extent possible) what the called
party is saying over the standard voice telephone headset, and read the text of
what the called party said on the computer or similar device." See also,
statement [PDF] of Kevin Martin,
statement [PDF] of Deborah Tate,
statement [PDF] of Robert
statement [PDF] of Michael
statement [PDF] of
Jonathan Adelstein. This item is FCC 06-182 in CG Docket No. 03-123.
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Wednesday, December 27
The House and Senate will next meet at 12:00 NOON on Thursday,
January 4, 2007. See,
|Friday, December 29
Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its
Inquiry [37 pages in PDF] regarding preparation of its annual report to the Congress
regarding the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video programming.
This NOI is FCC 06-154 in MB Docket No. 06-189. The FCC adopted this NOI at an
October 12, 2006, meeting, and released it on October 20, 2006. See, stories
titled "FCC Adopts NOI Regarding Video Competition" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert
No. 1,467, October 12, 2006, and "FCC Releases NOI on Video Competition and
Other Issues" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,473, October 23, 2006. See also,
notice in the Federal Register, November 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 222, at
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regarding competitive bidding procedures for
Auction No. 72, the Phase II 220 MHz spectrum licenses auction scheduled
to commence on June 20, 2007. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 20, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 244, at
5:00 PM. Deadline to submit requests to participate in the
Copyright Office's and the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) January 3
roundtable on the activities of the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) regarding the proposed Treaty on the Protection of the
Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 12, 2006, Vol., No. 238, at Pages
|Wednesday, January 3
12:30 PM. Rep.
Barney Frank (D-MA), the incoming Chairman of the
House Financial Services Committee, will
give a speech. Prices vary. Location: Holeman Lounge,
National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
1:00 - 3:00 PM. The Copyright Office
and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
will host a roundtable the activities of the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) regarding the proposed
Treaty on the Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 12, 2006, Vol., No. 238, at Pages
74565-74566. Location: Atrium Conference Room, USPTO, 600 Dulany Street,
Madison West, 10th floor, Alexandria, VA.
|Thursday, January 4
The House and Senate will meet at 12:00 NOON on Thursday,
January 4, 2007. See,
|Friday, January 5
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to assist the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) in drafting a report on the ability of persons
with hearing disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications. See, FCC
Notice [4 pages in PDF] (DA 06-2285). This proceeding is WT Docket No. 06-203.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its collection of data regarding
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) systems in the 800 MHz band. See,
notice in the Federal Register, December 6, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 234, at
|About Tech Law Journal
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2006 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All