5/15. The Senate approved, by voice vote, SJRes 28, which provides as follows: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to broadcast media ownership (Report and Order FCC 07-216), received by Congress on February 22, 2008, and such rule shall have no force or effect."

See, story titled "FCC Releases Text of Media Ownership Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,714, February 8, 2008, story titled "Copps and Adelstein Complain About FCC Media Ownership Agenda Item" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,688, December 13, 2007, and story titled "Martin Releases Media Ownership Proposal" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,675, November 13, 2007.

This item is FCC 07-216 in MB Docket No. 06-121, MB Docket No. 02-277, MM Docket No. 01-235, MM Docket No. 01-317, MM Docket No. 00-244, MB Docket No. 04-228, and MM Docket No. 99-360.

See also, story titled "Senate Commerce Committee Approves Resolution Condemning FCC Media Ownership Order" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,753, April 24, 2008.

This was a voice vote. However, three Senators asked that they be recorded as "no" votes: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA).

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) stated in the Senate that "I think there is too much concentration in the media. The FCC rule moves in exactly the wrong direction, adding more concentration." See, Congressional Record, May 15, 2008, at Page S4267.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) stated that "the existing waivers contemplated under the FCC cross-ownership rule should be protected. This means that those waivers would not be a part of this resolution."

He continued that "I would like to confirm that this resolution, while it would nullify the revised version of the FCC's newspaper cross-ownership ban, would not undo or in any manner change the FCC's decision to grant permanent waivers to five existing newspaper-broadcast combinations, and thus grandfather them, as set forth in paragraphs 77 and 158 of the FCC's December 18, 2007 Report and Order."

Sen. Dorgan (at right) responded that "Under the Congressional Review Act, the resolution of disapproval is intended to overturn a specific rule, not other parts of an agency's order. The waivers are not rules. The resolution is written in a specific way referring to an order, but it is the rule that is nullified. These waivers could have been granted alone or under the previous cross-ownership ban. It is not the intention of this resolution to affect the waivers in the order."

Randy May, head of the Free State Foundation (FSF), stated in a release that "The reality is there is no lack of diversity of opinion in today’s media marketplace characterized by a multiplicity of voices. The relaxation of the rule is a small step towards getting rid of antiquated ownership rules adopted in a much different media era."

5/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued an order [2 pages in PDF] in Sprint Telephony v. City of San Diego, a case regarding municipal regulation of wireless service providers.

This order states that "Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit." (Footnote listing recused Judges omitted.)

The Court of Appeals previously affirmed the judgment of the District Court that San Diego's municipal wireless zoning ordinance in question is preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 253, but that this violation creates no private right of action for damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1983.

To begin with, this is not an action brought under 47 U.S.C. § 332, which specifically addresses local regulation of wireless services.

47 U.S.C. § 253 provides, in part, that "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." However, it also contains several limitations upon the scope of this prohibition.

18 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ..."

The Court of Appeals issued its original opinion on March 13, 2007. See, story titled "9th Circuit Holds That Wireless Zoning Ordinance Violates § 253(a), But This Creates No Private Right Of Action Under § 1983" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,551, March 13, 2007. The Court of Appeals issued an amended order and opinion [34 pages in PDF] on June 13, 2007.

This case is Sprint Telephony PCS and Pacific Bell Wireless v. County of San Diego, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-56076 and 05-56435, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, D.C. No. CV-03-1398-BTM, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz presiding. Judge Myron Bright wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Wallace Tashima and Carlos Bea joined.

5/15. The U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, a copyright infringement case involving architectural designs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's summary judgment for the defendants. This opinion provides a discussion of the difference between ideas and expressions.

Paul Oravec designed a high rise building. He registered copyrights with the Copyright Office (CO), and then marketed his design to developers. The defendants build a pair of building that Oravec alleges infringed his copyrights. He filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDFl) against Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures and others alleging copyright infringement.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Oravec brought this appeal.

First, as to designs for which the CO issued certificates of registration for architectural designs, the Court of Appeals held that there was not a substantial similarity between the copyrighted designs and the buildings.

Oravec could point to numerous concepts from his copyrighted designs that were incorporated into the defendants' buildings. However, following a lengthy discussion of the dichotomy of expressions (which can be protected by copyright) and ideas (which can not), the Court of Appeals concluded that the defendants had not copied his expressions.

Second, as for other asserted copyrights, Oravec was tripped up by the CO's byzantine and arbitrary registration process.

This case is Paul Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 06-14495, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. No. 04-22780-CV-PAS.

5/15. The U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir) issued its opinion [8 pages in PDF] in Stroman Realty v. Florida and California, another case regarding personal jurisdiction over distant state regulators of internet and direct mail based businesses. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court located in the state of Texas lacks personal jurisdiction over state regulators in the states of California and Florida.

This case follows, and is closely related to, Stroman Realty v. Wercinski, an almost identical action against the state of Arizona, in which the Court of Appeals held that there is no personal jurisdiction.

TLJ wrote a 38 paragraph story regarding that opinion [19 pages in PDF]. See, story titled "5th Circuit Rules No Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Regulator of Online Commerce" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,700, January 15, 2008.

The present case differs from Stroman Realty v. Wercinski only in that California and Florida had even greater contacts with Texas than did Arizona. In particular, California and Florida both have offices in Texas, and used the services of Texas regulators. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals still held there is no personal jurisdiction.

These opinions are judicial gifts to state and local tax and regulatory authorities that seek to tax and regulate distant internet based businesses, and also evade judicial review when their actions contravene the federal Constitution or federal law.

These opinions will force internet based businesses (or at least those located in the 5th Circuit) that are subjected to the unconstitutional or unlawful tax or regulatory regimes of distant state and local authorities to travel to the locales of each of those governmental entities to seek federal judicial review.

The present opinion also suggests that the traditional analysis of personal jurisdiction that apply in actions against businesses do not apply in the same manner in actions against governmental entities.

Stroman Realty is a Texas based business involved in the resale of timeshares. Stroman advertises through an internet website, and matches buyers and sellers via an internet access electronic database. Stroman's prospective buyers and sellers are located everywhere, including in Arizona, California and Florida.

Stroman filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDTex) against the head of the Department of Business and Professional Regulations for the State of Florida alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Strohman later added the Department of Real Estate for the State of California to this action.

The District Court held that it has personal jurisdiction over both defendants, and granted injunctive relief to Stroman. Florida and California brought the present appeal.

The Court of Appeals reversed. As for specific jurisdiction, it simply cited and followed the opinion in Stroman Realty v. Wercinski.

However, in this case, Stroman also argued general jurisdiction, based in part of the facts that both California and Florida maintain offices in Texas. The Court of Appeals reasoned that since these offices exist for the purpose of collecting taxes, rather than enforcing real estate regulatory regimes, they do not give rise to general jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals noted that in the present case against California and Florida, unlike in the case against Arizona, "California attacked Stroman in letters to the Texas Real Estate Commission, and Florida used the Texas Attorney General’s office to get information". But, the Court of Appeals reasoned, these actions do not constitute "purposeful availment" within the meaning of earlier opinions that articulate the concept of purposeful availment.

This case is Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Jim Antt, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 05-20803, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Judge Jerry Smith wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Garwood and DeMoss joined. This is an entirely different panel from that which presided in Stroman Realty v. Wercinski -- Edith Jones, Weiner and Barksdale.

5/15. The Max Planck Institute for Software Studies released a report titled "Glasnost: Results from tests for BitTorrent traffic blocking". Glasnost is its software tool for testing whether or not BitTorrent traffic is being manipulated.

The report states that "We found widespread blocking of BitTorrent transfers only in the U.S. and Singapore."

It continues that "Both in the U.S. and in Singapore, all hosts that suffered BitTorrent blocking are located in cable ISPs. We did not see any blocking of BitTorrent transfers from DSL hosts in these countries."

It further states that "Most (573 of 599) U.S. hosts that observed blocking are located in Comcast and Cox networks." (Parentheses in original.)

The report adds that "ISPs may throttle (rate-limit) BitTorrent traffic without blocking it. The results we present here are limited to hosts whose BitTorrent transfers to our servers are blocked, i.e., interrupted by RST packets generated by some ISP along the path. We are still actively investigating techniques to accurately detect throttling." (Parentheses in original.)

On March 27, 2008, Comcast and BitTorrent announced that "they will undertake a collaborative effort with one another and with the broader Internet and ISP community to more effectively address issues associated with  rich media content and network capacity management." See, story title "Comcast and BitTorrent Reach Accord on Network Management Practices" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,738, March 27, 2008.

Gigi Sohn, head of the Public Knowledge (PK), stated in a release on May 15, 2008, that "This study is further proof that the largest cable companies are hiding behind `network management´ excuses when caught throttling the legitimate traffic of their customers. This study clearly shows there is no blocking at peak usage times, or on certain busy days. The study found the `percentage of blocked connections remains high at all times of the day. Our data suggests that the BitTorrent blocking is independent of the time of the day.´"

Sohn wrote that "These results lead us to three conclusions. First, the largest cable companies were doing more blocking than they have admitted to Congress or to the FCC. Second, other cable companies, and all telephone companies, can manage their networks without the need for blocking the traffic of customers. Finally, the fact that the blocking goes on all the time should tell the Commission that it needs to act soon to prevent the practice."

On November 1, 2007, the Free Press and PK filed a complaint [48 pages in PDF] with the FCC that alleges that Comcast is "degrading peer-to-peer protocols" by inserting forged reset packets into communications between peers in peer to peer (P2P) communications that terminate those communications. This, the complaint alleges, interferes with Comcast's subscribers use of applications like BitTorrent, and violates the FCC's 2005 Policy Statement. See, story titled "Free Press Files Complaint with FCC Alleging that Comcast Is Violating 2005 Policy Statement" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,669, November 1, 2007.

The FCC adopted this Policy Statement [3 pages in PDF] on August 5, 2005. See, story titled "FCC Adopts a Policy Statement Regarding Network Neutrality" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,190, August 8, 2005. The FCC released the text of the Policy Statement on September 23, 2005. See, story titled "FCC Releases Policy Statement Regarding Internet Regulation" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,221, September 26, 2005.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and other Commissioners have spoken and written publicly about this complaint, Comcast, BitTorrent, and network management practices. However, the FCC has not yet acted on the complaint. See for example, story titled "Martin Discusses Complaints Against Comcast and Verizon Wireless" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,728, March 10, 2008.

5/15. Carl Icahn sent a letter to the Board of Directors of Yahoo condemning its handling of Microsoft's offer to acquire Yahoo, announcing that he has purchased 59  million shares of Yahoo in the past 10 days, and announcing that he will lead a proxy fight to replace the current board of directors with one that would negotiate with Microsoft.

See, Icahn's filing of a Form DFAN14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to which this letter is attached.

Icahn wrote that "It is clear to me that the board of directors of Yahoo has acted irrationally and lost the faith of shareholders and Microsoft. It is quite obvious that Microsoft's bid of $33 per share is a superior alternative to Yahoo's prospects on a standalone basis. I am perplexed by the board's actions. It is irresponsible to hide behind management's more than overly optimistic financial forecasts. It is unconscionable that you have not allowed your shareholders to choose to accept an offer that represented a 72% premium over Yahoo's closing price of $19.18 on the day before the initial Microsoft offer. I and many of your shareholders strongly believe that a combination between Yahoo and Microsoft would form a dynamic company and more importantly would be a force strong enough to compete with Google on the Internet."

Icahn continued that "During the past week, a number of shareholders have asked me to lead a proxy fight to attempt to remove the current board and to establish a new board which would attempt to negotiate a successful merger with Microsoft, something that in my opinion the current board has completely botched. I believe that a combination between Microsoft and Yahoo is by far the most sensible path for both companies. I have therefore taken the following actions: (1) during the last 10 days, I have purchased approximately 59 million shares and share-equivalents of Yahoo; (2) I have formed a 10-person slate which will stand for election against the current board; and (3) I have sought antitrust clearance from the Federal Trade Commission to acquire up to approximately $2.5 billion worth of Yahoo stock. The biographies of the members of our slate are attached to this letter. A more formal notification is being delivered today to Yahoo under separate cover."

Icahn also wrote that "While it is my understanding that you do not intend to enter into any transaction that would impede a Microsoft-Yahoo merger, I am concerned that in several recent press releases you stated that you intend to pursue certain "strategic alternatives". I therefore hope and trust that if there is any question that these "strategic alternatives" might in any way impede a future Microsoft merger you will at the very least allow shareholders to opine on them before embarking on such a transaction.

He concluded that "I sincerely hope you heed the wishes of your shareholders and move expeditiously to negotiate a merger with Microsoft, thereby making a proxy fight unnecessary."

Roy Bostock, Chairman of the Board of Yahoo, responded in a letter to Icahn on May 15 that "your letter reflects a significant misunderstanding of the facts" and that "it is in the best interests of Yahoo! stockholders to allow you and your hand-picked nominees to take control of Yahoo". This letter is included in a Yahoo release, and as an attachment to a Form 8-K filed with the SEC.

Bostock again asserted that Microsoft's offer, which reached $33 per share, "significantly undervalued" Yahoo.

The House will not meet.

The Senate will not meet.

8:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. Day two of a two day meeting of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 11, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 71, at Page 19904. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host panel presentation titled "Arbitration of Antitrust Claims in the U.S. and Europe". The speakers will be Daniel Margolis, Mark Joelson, Donald Baker (Baker & Miller), and Gordon Blanke (SJ Berwin). The price to attend ranges from $5 to $30. For more information, contact 202-626-3463. See, notice. Location: Arnold & Porter, 10th floor, 555 12th St., NW.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGAB) regarding the National Exchange Carriers Association's (NECA) proposed compensation rates for interstate traditional TRS, interstate speech-to-speech (STS), interstate captioned telephone service (CTS) and interstate and intrastate internet protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS), interstate and intrastate IP relay; and interstate and intrastate video relay service (VRS). See, notice in the Federal Register, May 12, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 92, at Page 26992-26993. This proceeding is CG Docket No. 03-123.

The House will meet at 10:30 AM.

The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM.

9:00 AM - 12:45 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau will host an event titled "Promoting an Effective Emergency Alert System on the Road to a Next Generation EAS". The FCC will webcast the event. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to it Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the Recommended Decision of the Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service, released on November 20, 2007, regarding comprehensive reform of high cost universal service taxes and subsidies. The FCC adopted this NPRM on January 15, 2008, and released the text on January 29, 2008. It is FCC 08-02 in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45. See, original notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 43, at Pages 11587-11591. See also, notice [PDF] of extension (DA 08-674).

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to it Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the use of reverse auctions to determine the amount of high cost universal service subsidies provided to eligible telecommunications carriers serving rural, insular, and high cost areas. The FCC adopted this NPRM on January 9, 2008, and released the text on January 29, 2008. It is FCC 08-05 in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45. See, original notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 43, at Pages 11591-11602. See also, notice [PDF] of extension (DA 08-674).

Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the FCC's rules governing the amount of high cost universal service subsidies provided to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). This NPRM also tentatively concludes that the FCC should eliminate the existing identical support rule, which is also known as the equal support rule. The FCC adopted this NPRM on January 9, 2008, and released the text on January 29, 2008. It is FCC 08-04 in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45. See, original notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 43, at Pages 11580-11587. See also, notice [PDF] of extension (DA 08-674).

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law will hold a hearing titled "Global Internet Freedom: Corporate Responsibility and the Rule of Law". The witnesses will Nicole Wong (Deputy General Counsel of Google), Michael Samway (Deputy General Counsel of Yahoo), Mark Chandler (General Counsel of Cisco Systems), Arvind Ganesan (Human Rights Watch), and Shiyu Zhou (Global Internet Freedom Consortium). Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) will preside. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM - 4:15 PM. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold a hearing titled "China's Proliferation Practices and the Development of its Cyber and Space Warfare Capabilities". See, notice in the Federal Register, April 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 82, at Pages 23005-23006. Location: Room 562, Dirksen Building, Capitol Hill.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireline and International Practice Committees will host a brown bag lunch titled "Functional Separation proposals under the European Commission review of the European Union’s Framework Directive". The speakers may include Sheba Chacko (BT), Wolfgang Jakubek (Deutsche Telecom), Scott Harris (Harris Wiltshire & Grannis), and Don Stockdale (FCC). For more information, contact Nick Alexander at Nicholas dot Alexander at fcc dot gov. Location: Akin Gump, 1333 New Hampshire Ave, NW.

10:00 AM. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will meet. The agenda states that the SEC "will consider whether to propose amendments to provide for mutual fund risk/return summary information to be filed with the Commission in interactive data format". Location: SEC, Room L-002, 100 F St., NE.

12:30 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will hold a brown bag lunch to elect officers and plan. E-mail nominations to Chris Fedeli at chrisfedeli at dwt dot com and Tarah Grant at tsgrant at hhlaw dot com by Friday, May 9, 2008. See, notice online registration page. Location: Hogan & Hartson, 1st floor litigation center, 555 13th St., NW.

Day one of a two day closed meeting of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Science Board regarding undisclosed topics. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 23, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 79, at Pages 21919-21920. Location: Pentagon, Arlington, VA.

9:00 - 10:30 AM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host an event titled "Google Unwired: Expanding Broadband Access and Allocating Spectrum More Efficiently". The speakers will be Larry Page (Google) and Michael Calabrese (NAF). See, notice and registration page. Breakfast will be provided. Location: Ronald Reagan Building, Atrium Ballroom, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

10:00 AM - 12:00 PM. The House Science Committee's (HSC) Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight will hold a hearing titled "American Decline or Renewal? -- Globalizing Jobs and Technology". The witnesses will be Ralph Gomory (NYU Stern School of Business), Margaret Blair (Vanderbilt University Law School), Bruce Scott (Harvard Business School), James Copland (Copland Fabrics), Joseph Fehsenfeld (Midwest Printed Circuit Service), and Wes Jurey (Arlington Chamber of Commerce, Arlington, Texas). Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

12:15 - 1:30 PM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an event titled "FCC Wireless Legal Advisors Discuss Recent and Upcoming Matters". The speakers may include Aaron Goldberger (FCC Chairman Kevin Martin assistant), Bruce Gottlieb (FCC Commissioner Michael Copps assistant), Renée Crittendon (FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein assistant), Wayne Leighton (FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate assistant), and Angela Giancarlo (FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell assistant). Lunch will be served. The price to attend is $15. See, notice and registration page. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) web site states that this is an event of the FCBA's Wireless Practice Committee. Location: Sidley Austin, 6th floor, 1501 K St., NW.

Day two of a two day closed meeting of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Science Board regarding undisclosed topics. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 23, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 79, at Pages 21919-21920. Location: Pentagon, Arlington, VA.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau in response to its Public Notice regarding the request for clarification filed by Hawk Relay that internet protocol speech to speech (IPSTS) is a form of Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). This item is DA 08-292 in CG Docket No. 08-15. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 7, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 67, at Page 18796.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to the Media Bureau's public notice (DA 08-752) regarding changes to its annual reporting forms that request certain employee data from multichannel video programming distributors (FCC Form 395-A) and broadcasters (FCC Form 395-B). See, notice in the Federal Register, April 21, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 77, at Pages 21346-21347.

Extended deadline for voting equipment manufacturers to submit requests and executed letters of understanding to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). See, notice in the Federal Register, April 22, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 78, at Pages 21590-21591.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGAB) regarding the National Exchange Carriers Association's (NECA) proposed compensation rates for interstate traditional TRS, interstate speech-to-speech (STS), interstate captioned telephone service (CTS) and interstate and intrastate internet protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS), interstate and intrastate IP relay; and interstate and intrastate video relay service (VRS). See, notice in the Federal Register, May 12, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 92, at Page 26992-26993. This proceeding is CG Docket No. 03-123.

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 1998-2008 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.