4/8. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted and released a Notice of Inquiry [59 pages in PDF] requesting comments regarding the FCC's drafting of a "national broadband plan". See also, FCC release.

The Congress mandated the drafting of this plan. See, Section 6001(k) of HR 1 [LOC | WW], the huge spending bill passed by the Congress in February. It is now Public Law No. 111-5. The full text of this section is at right.

This act conferred no new rulemaking, adjudicatory, or other authority on the FCC. Rather, it requires the FCC to conduct certain enumerated analyses, and write a "plan" for advancing certain enumerated goals.

The NOI begins, "We seek comment in this Notice from all interested parties on the elements that should go into a national broadband plan. Our plan must reflect an understanding of the problem, clear goals for the future, a route to those goals, and benchmarks along the way. Our plan must also allow for modification as we learn from our experience. And our plan must reflect the input of all stakeholders -- industry, American consumers; large and small businesses; federal, state, local, and tribal governments; nonprofits; and disabilities communities. With this Notice, we begin to make our plan."

The statute uses broad language. Nevertheless, it identifies certain topics for analysis and planning.

It identifies "ensuring broadband access" by "all people of the United States". However, it stops short of referencing either "universal service" or 47 U.S.C. § 254.

It also requires a "strategy" for achieving "affordability" and "maximum utilization".

It also requires "an evaluation of the status of deployment".

Finally, the statute requires a plan that addresses numerous goals: "advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes."

This statutory enumeration does not include several policy goals frequently cited by others in debates over broadband policy. For example, this section does not require a study of, or set as goals the advancement or diminution of, network neutrality, privacy, cyber security, copyright protection, or patent protection. Nevertheless, the NOI asks for comments on some of these issues.

The NOI is broad, and reaches most of the major policy areas in which the FCC is involved.

The Congressional mandate, and this NOI, are premised on the argument that government planning will advance, rather than interfere with, such things as increasing the availability of broadband services, improving broadband technologies and transmission speeds, promoting competition, and reducing prices.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, wrote in his statement [PDF] that the U.S. broadband industry has already "made great strides in developing and deploying broadband infrastructure".

He elaborated that "The FCC's own data shows that since 2000, the number of high speed lines has increased more than 1600 percent". Also, "FCC data shows the number of lines with transmission speeds greater than or equal to 2.5 megabits per second grew from December 2005 to December 2007 by 70 percent, from approximately 27 million lines to over 45 million lines." He also praised the large scale of infrastructure investment in the broadband sector.

He argued that "it is critical that our plan be competitively and technologically neutral" and "essential that our plan give current and prospective broadband network and service providers the proper incentives to deploy new technologies".

He also argued that "we must not engage in rulemakings that produce whimsical regulatory arbitrage. Rather, we must allow market players to succeed or fail on their own merits and not due to the government picking winners and losers."

FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein wrote in his statement that he seeks a "public-private partnership". See also, statement of FCC Chairman Michael Copps.

Gigi Sohn, head of the Public Knowledge, stated in a release that "this is the first time a government agency will take a comprehensive look at the situation and recommend a course of action to remedy our rapidly declining broadband ranking."

She added that "We hope the Commission will use every means it has to produce a plan to bring more competition, more features, faster speeds and lower prices to consumers while making certain that no one is left behind."

Derek Turner, of the Free Press, stated in a release that "This plan, if done right, could serve as the foundation for telecommunications policymaking in the 21st century."

He continued that "Any new strategy must take into account how past policies failed to deliver the open, competitive broadband marketplace Congress intended. The blind deregulatory regime that we have today is a blueprint for what to avoid in the future. Under the last administration's wait-and-see approach, competition disappeared, speeds stagnated, prices went through the roof, and the open Internet was placed in jeopardy."

He added that he want a plan "that puts the public interest ahead of Wall Street's whims."

Walter McCormick, head of US Telecom, praised the broadband sector's investment in new facilities. He argued that the FCC should focus on "updating FCC programs and regulations" and consumer education.

He wrote in a release that "Today, many Americans still don't see the value in accessing high speed Internet services. Therefore, we hope the FCC will focus on launching tech literacy efforts, increasing access to Internet-enabled devices, and promoting policies that stimulate demand and ongoing private-sector investment."

Initial comments are due by June 8, 2009. Reply comments are due by July 7, 2009. The FCC opened a new proceeding, titled "In the Matter of A National Broadband Plan for Our Future", and numbered GN 09-51. This NOI is FCC 09-31.

This NOI asks numerous questions related to broadband technology, deployment, affordability, demand, and related issues, as required by Section 6001 of HR 1 [LOC | WW].

This NOI also asks numerous questions about topics not mentioned in Section 6001. The following is a summary of some of these additional questions posed by this NOI.

Open Networks. Section 6001 does not address network neutrality mandates, open networks, the FCC's 2005 policy statement [3 pages in PDF], or the FCC's 2008 Comcast order [67 pages in PDF].

However, the NOI does seek comments on "the value of open networks as an effective and efficient mechanism for ensuring broadband access for all Americans, and specifically on how the term ``open´´ should be defined. For example, should it incorporate access, interconnection, nondiscrimination, or infrastructure sharing principles?"

(See, paragraphs 47-48. It should be noted that the paragraph numbers in the NOI's table of contents do not match the paragraph numbers in the body of the NOI. This article references the numbers used in the body.)

FCC Chairman Michael Copps referenced "Ensuring broadband openness" in his written statement.

In contrast, Commission Robert McDowell wrote in his statement that "In order to attract investors to fund the buildout of new networks, we must not engage in rulemakings that produce whimsical regulatory arbitrage. Rather, we must allow market players to succeed or fail on their own merits and not due to the government picking winners and losers. In short, our rules must allow network operators to have a reasonable opportunity to pay back their investors. That's the only way to improve existing networks and build new ones."

McDowell (at left) added that "It is equally as important that consumers continue to have the freedom to pull -- or push -- the legal content of their choice anytime, anywhere, and on the device of their choosing within the physical limitations of the networks they use. The market is rushing to satisfy the latest consumer demand in this regard. Let's make sure the government does not get in the way of these developments."

The NOI asks numerous question regarding open networks, interconnection, and nondiscrimination, including for wireless networks. Should these "factor into development of a national broadband plan"? How do these affect "investment, innovation and entrepreneurship, content, competition and affordability of broadband"?

The NOI asks "has the private sector sufficiently produced open platforms, and if so, to what extent? Would further regulation encourage or discourage more open platform innovation?"

Should the FCC add a fifth item -- nondiscrimination -- to its policy statement? If so, what would it mean? What effect would it have?

Also, "With regard to applying open network policies to wireless networks, what are the costs and benefits, technical considerations, bandwidth constraints, or constraints associated with the capacity of mobile wireless devices or networks that should be given consideration?"

Privacy. The statute does not address privacy. Nevertheless, the NOI seeks comments, primarily on commercial activities that might affect consumer privacy, including "behavioral advertising" and "deep packet inspection". (See, paragraphs 57-60.)

And, Chairman Copps mentioned "avoiding invasions of people's privacy" in his statement.

However, the NOI does not raise, and seeks no comments on, governmental activities that affect privacy, including surveillance, wiretaps, seizure of e-mail, seizure of stored data, and CALEA and CALEA like technology mandates.

The NOI does not explain why it seeks comments as to some, but not all, privacy related issues.

The NOI also asks for comments on privacy in its section on "consumer welfare", which is one of the items enumerated in Section 6001. The NOI states, "We request comment specifically on the role that privacy protections can play in enhancing consumer welfare. If consumers feel secure that they can calibrate the privacy level of their broadband communications, are they more likely to experience the benefits associated with broadband use? What is the role of applications providers in guarding privacy so as to encourage greater use of broadband-enabled services such as photo sharing, online tax filing and bill payment, remote data storage, social networking, and others? Do data retention policies and fears that digital records are ``permanent´´ inhibit use of broadband technologies?" (See, paragraph 60.)

In the past, the FCC has exhibited some interest in protecting consumer privacy in the context carriers' use of data, pursuant to its statutory obligations under 47 U.S.C. § 222.

On the other hand, it has a history of sacrificing individual privacy to facilitate the goals of government, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies.

Cyber Security. The statute does not address cyber security. Nevertheless, the NOI seeks comments on this topic. (See, paragraph 73.)

Chairman Copps mentioned "ensuring cybersecurity" in his statement.

The NOI treats cyber security as a public safety issue, and not as a consumer privacy and security issue. It seeks comments "with respect to those broadband networks critical to the nation's critical infrastructure, financial institutions, public safety and homeland security".

Intellectual Property Rights. The statute does not address intellectual property rights issues related to broadband services.

It does not address protection of proprietary rights, such as copyrights in music, movies and other works, that are distributed and infringed over broadband networks.

However, the NOI briefly raises the issue. It asks, "How do content protections, like copyright, affect how broadband networks are deployed and used? How do such protections affect what individuals can do with broadband services and how should the Commission consider these questions in the formulation of a national broadband plan?" (See, paragraph 55.)

Notably, the NOI treats copyright as a broadband utilization issue, and not as a "job creation and economic growth" issue, which the statute establishes as an objective.

Neither the statute nor the NOI address patents that disclose inventions in information or communications technologies.

Universal Service Taxes and Subsidies. The statute merely references "ensuring broadband access" by "all people of the United States".

The NOI asks questions about existing FCC universal service programs and broadband.

It also asks whether the FCC should expand universal service. For example, should the FCC "make broadband a ``supported service´´ eligible to receive support directly from the High-Cost and Low-Income programs? Should we create new programs specifically to provide broadband support? Should such programs be designed around the delivery of broadband?" (See, paragraphs 39-41.)

Antitrust. Section 6001 does not address competition, antitrust, or antitrust enforcement.

However, the NOI does. It seeks comments on "competition between various broadband network providers, application and service providers, and content providers". (See, paragraph 49.)

This phrase is taken, almost verbatim, from the FCC's August 5, 2005, policy statement [3 pages in PDF], which states as one of its principles that "consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers".

In 2005 the FCC asserted that the policy statement was not enforceable. Tom Navin, then Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), stated at the public meeting on August 5, 2005, that the policy statement is "principles", and that "they are not enforceable".

See, stories titled "FCC Adopts a Policy Statement Regarding Network Neutrality" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,190, August 8, 2005, and "FCC Releases Policy Statement Regarding Internet Regulation" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,221, September 26, 2005.

The FCC reversed course in its 2008 Comcast order [67 pages in PDF]. In that order it asserted adjudicatory authority to enforce its policy statement to regulate the network management practices of broadband service provides. See, story titled "FCC Asserts Authority to Regulate Network Management Practices" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,805, August 4, 2008.

Whether the policy statement does create enforcement authority is currently under review by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the NOI asks "What would be the result ... if its Internet Policy Statement principles were found to be unenforceable?" (See, paragraph 48.)

All this raises the question: if the FCC has adjudicatory authority to enforce one clause of its 2005 policy statement, does it also have adjudicatory authority to enforce the other clauses, including the competition clause?

The just released NOI asks for comments regarding the competition language in the 2005 policy statement.

The NOI also asks about competition in its "consumer welfare" section: "We seek comment on the interplay between consumer welfare and the market generally. Where does market competition for broadband customers fall short of providing sufficient consumer safeguards and where must the government step in to ensure that consumers are being properly protected?" (See, paragraph 69.)

However, the NOI stops short of expressly asking whether the FCC has adjudicatory competition enforcement authority, similar to that statutorily granted to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in Title 15 of the U.S. Code, but arising under the 2005 policy statement.

The FCC has exercised antitrust merger review for over ten years exercised, in the absence of any statutory grant of authority.

Expanding the 2005 Policy Statement. The NOI also asks whether the FCC "should consider applying these principles more broadly in light of the evolving ways providers store, distribute, and otherwise provide service via broadband access facilities, particularly in ways that are not carried over the Internet." (See, paragraph 24.)

It also asks if the FCC should "turn the principles into rules through a rulemaking".

Other. The NOI also contains questions that open the proceeding to comments on anything. For example, it asks, "Are there other policies or programs that the Commission should review as a part of its analysis of effective and efficient mechanisms to achieve the goals of" HR 1? (See, paragraph 50.)

4/9. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Inquiry [22 pages in PDF] regarding bringing the FCC back into conformity with its statutory obligation to prepare annual video competition reports.

The 1992 Cable Act, Public Law No. 102-385, imposed the requirement upon the FCC to prepare an annual report on the state of video competition. In recent years, the FCC did not release these reports in a timely manner. They would have disclosed data that was inconsistent with regulatory objectives being pursued by former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

One of the FCC's final actions under Martin's Chairmanship in January was the release of the video competition report for 2006 [PDF], and the notice of inquiry [PDF] for its 2007 report, with data for the year ending June 30, 2007. See, story titled "FCC Resumes Its Statutory Obligation to Study Video Competition" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,886, January 21, 2009.

The just released NOI states that the next report will be expanded to cover three years. Hence, the FCC also seeks data as of June 30, 2008, and as of June 30, 2009.

The FCC further extended the comment deadlines for the 2007 portion of the report. The new deadlines are May 20, 2009, for initial comments, and June 20, 2009, for reply comments.

The comment deadlines for the 2008 portion of the report are May 20, 2009, for initial comments, and June 20, 2009, for reply comments. The deadlines for the 2009 portion of the report are July 29, 2009, and August 28, 2009.

This NOI also addresses the types of data and comments sought by the FCC.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell wrote in his statement [PDF] that the FCC "is nearly three years behind in its statutory duty", and this supplemental NOI accelerates "our efforts to make amends".

McDowell add, "thankfully, the Supplemental Notice does not purport to take on any of the legal implications of the so-called ``70/70 text´´ under Section 612(g) of the Communications Act." See, story titled "FCC Commissioners Withhold Support for Martin's 70/70 Conclusion" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,680, November 30, 2007.

FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein wrote in his statement [PDF] that the FCC is "reintroducing some much needed integrity into our regulatory process concerning video providers".

The just released Supplemental NOI is FCC 09-32 in MB Docket No. 07-269.

(k)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, a report containing a national broadband plan.

(2) The national broadband plan required by this section shall seek to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability and shall establish benchmarks for meeting that goal. The plan shall also include--
   (A) an analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States;
   (B) a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service by the public;
   (C) an evaluation of the status of deployment of broadband service, including progress of projects supported by the grants made pursuant to this section; and
   (D) a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.

(3) In developing the plan, the Commission shall have access to data provided to other Government agencies under the Broadband Data Improvement Act (47 U.S.C. 1301 note).

Easter

The House will not meet the week of April 6-10 or 13-17. It will next meet at 2:00 PM on April 21, 2009. See, HConRes 93.

The Senate will not meet the week of April 6-10 or 13-17. It will next meet on April 20, 2009, at 2:00 PM, at which time it may begin consideration of S 386 [LOC | WW], the "Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act".

9:00 AM - 12:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host an event titled "Promoting Peace and Prosperity in Asia: The Taiwan Relations Act at Thirty". The speakers will be C.J. Chen (former foreign minister of the Republic of China), Arthur Brooks (AEI), John Bolton (AEI), Paul Wolfowitz (AEI), Danielle Pletka (AEI), Louisa Greve (National Endowment for Democracy), Christopher Griffin (office of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Rupert Hammond-Chambers (U.S.-Taiwan Business Council), and Dan Blumenthal (AEI). See, notice. Location: AEI, 12t floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) regarding the broadband grant programs created by HR 1 [LOC | WW], the huge spending bill enacted in February, which programs are also known as the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). See, notice in the Federal Register, March 12, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 47, at Pages 10716-10721, and notice in the Federal Register, March 18, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 51, at Page 11531.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice [4 pages in PDF] regarding the FCC's consultative role in implementing the broadband grants and loans provisions of HR 1, the huge spending bill enacted in February. This PN is DA 09-668 in GN Docket No. 09-40.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a closed event titled "Posters, Pictures and Portraits: Hot Issues Involving Copyrights in Images". The speakers will include James Astrachan (Astrachan Gunst & Thomas) and Victor Perlman (American Society of Media Photographers). The price to attend ranges from $25 to $50. See, notice. For more information, call 202-626-3463. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division will host a seminar conducted by Catherine de Fontenay (University of Melbourne) on her paper, co-authored with Joshua Gans, titled "Bilateral Bargaining with Externalities". This is a game theoretical paper about bargaining between agents in a network, including patent holders' negotiations with several potential licensors. To request permission to attend, contact Patrick Greenlee at 202-307-3745 or atr dot eag at usdoj dot gov. Location: Bicentennial Building, 600 E St., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Disruptive Women in Health Care (DWINC) will host a panel discussion titled "Health eGaming, Healthy Patients". The topic is the use of video games to inform patients about health topics, such as diabetes, nutrition, and weight loss. The speakers will include former Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT). Lunch will be served. RSVP to 202-263-2926. Location: Room B339, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.

No events listed.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in NCTA v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 08-1016 and 08-1017. Judges Tatel, Garland and Silberman will preside. This is the challenge by the NCTA and apartment owners to the FCC's MDU order, that asserts regulatory authority over the content of contracts negotiated by owners of multiple dwelling units (MDUs), such as apartment buildings, and cable companies. The FCC asserted authority under Subsection 628(b) of the Communications Act, which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 548(b). The order, adopted on October 31, 2007, is FCC 07-189 in MB Docket No. 07-51. See, stories titled "FCC Adopts R&O Abrogating Contracts Between MDU Owners and Cable Companies" and "Commentary on FCC's R&O Regarding MDU Owners and Cable Companies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,669, November 5, 2007. See, FCC's brief [68 pages in PDF]. Location: Courtroom 11, 333 Constitution Ave.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Verizon Washington DC v. Communications Workers of America, App. Ct. No. 08-7092. Judges Ginsburg, Rogers and Kavanaugh will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Alvin Lou Media, Inc. v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 08-1067. Judges Ginsburg, Rogers and Kavanaugh will preside. See, FCC's brief [80 pages in PDF]. Location: 333 Constitution Ave.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice [4 pages in PDF] regarding its implementation of Subsections 103(b) and 103(c)(1) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA). President Bush signed S 1492 [LOC | WW], the BDIA, into law on October 10, 2008. It is now Public Law No. 110-385.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking [25 pages in PDF] regarding extending until June 30, 2010, the freeze of Part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional cost allocation factors used in jurisdictional separations. This freeze is set to expire on June 30, 2009. This NPRM is FCC 09-24 in CC Docket No. 80-286. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 3, 2009, Vol. 74, No. 63, at Pages 15236-15239.

4/9. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [44 pages in PDF] in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules". See also, FCC release summarizing this item.

The FCC adopted this item on April 7, 2009, and released the text on April 9, 2009. It is FCC 09-29 in WP Docket No. 07-100.

FCC Chairman Michael Copps wrote in his statement that "The 4.9 GHz band holds great promise for enabling the use of new broadband applications in support of public safety, such as high-speed digital technologies and wireless local area networks for incident scene management."

He said that the Report and Order (R&O) portion of this item "provides more operational flexibility in the 4.9 GHz service rules in order to facilitate deployment of additional broadband network facilities in the service of public safety needs in communities throughout the country."

The R&O portion of this item states that it amends "Section 90.1207 of the Commission's rules, which governs licensing of the 4.9 GHz band, to grant primary status to stand-alone permanent fixed links that are used to deliver broadband service and permanent fixed links that connect 4.9 GHz base and mobile stations that are used to deliver broadband services, as well as other public safety networks using spectrum designated for broadband use; and (2) amend Section 90.1215 of the Commission's rules to require the same output power measurement procedures for 4.9 GHz technology as those required for devices using digital modulation techniques." (Footnotes omitted.)

It also makes several changes to the FCC's rules regarding private land mobile radio (PLMR), "(1) to continue to permit paging operations on Very High Frequency (VHF) public safety frequencies; (2) to modify the existing language in Section 90.243(b)(1) to clarify that cross-band repeaters are permitted for all public safety systems; and (3) to decline to amend Section 90.20 to authorize privately-run metropolitan transit systems to use frequencies in the Public Safety Pool." (Footnotes omitted.)

The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) portion of this item seeks comments on proposals to "(1) reinstate into Section 90.175 an exemption for 4.9 GHz band applications from coordination via a certified frequency coordinator; (2) impose a more formal licensee-to-licensee coordination requirement on primary fixed links in the 4.9 GHz band; (3) correct and clarify the 4.9 GHz band plan; and (4) make three “clean-up” amendments to Section 90.20 of the Commission’s rules relating to the Public Safety Pool Frequency Table and associated limitations." (Footnote omitted.)

Initial comments in response to the FNPRM will be due within 60 days of publication of a notice in the Federal Register. Reply comments will be due within 90 days of such publication. As of the April 10, 2009, issue of the Federal Register, this notice had not yet been published.

4/8. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted, but did not release, a Order and a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNRPM) regarding data collection pertaining to minority and female broadcast ownership. The FCC issued a short news release [PDF] describing this item. It is FCC 09-33 in MB Docket Nos. 07-294, 06-121, 02-277, 01-235, 01-317, 00-244, and 04-288.

4/8. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Inquiry [17 pages in PDF] in its proceeding titled " In the Matter of High-Cost Universal Service Support Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service ". The FCC requests comments to refresh its record regarding the issues raised in the 2005 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir) in Qwest v. FCC, 398 F.3d 1222, which is also known as Qwest II. In that opinion the Court of Appeals invalidated the FCC's high cost universal service support mechanism for non-rural carriers. The FCC adopted this NOI on April 7, 2009, and released the text on April 8, 2009. It is FCC 09-28 in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45. The deadline to submit initial comments is May 8, 2009. The deadline to submit reply comments is June 8, 2009. See also, story titled "10th Circuit Rules in Qwest II" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,090, March 8, 2005.

4/3. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filed an amicus curiae brief [PDF] with the U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) in Michigan Bell v. Covad, a case regarding unbundled network elements and 47 U.S.C. § 251(c). The FCC wrote in its brief that the question presented is whether "Whether an FCC rule relieving incumbent local exchange carriers (``LECs´´) of their duty under section 251(c)(3) of the Communications Act to make entrance facilities available to competitive carriers as unbundled network elements bars the Michigan Public Service Commission (``MPSC´´) from construing a different provision of the Act, section 251(c)(2), to require AT&T Michigan, an incumbent LEC, to provide its competitors with similar facilities at cost-based rates when they are used solely for interconnection." This case is Michigan Bell Telephone Company v. Covad Communications Company, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 07-2469 and 07-2473, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

4/10. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein announced that Mark Stone "will be detailed to his office as Legal Advisor for wireline issues", and that Renée Crittendon (at right) "will be assuming the position and responsibilities of Senior Legal Advisor and Chief of Staff". Stone has worked at the FCC since 1994. Crittendon has been a legal advisor to Adelstein since June of 2007. See, FCC release [PDF].

4/10. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced in a release [PDF] that it wants nominations and expressions of interest for membership on its Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC). The deadline for submissions is May 11, 2009.

4/8. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced in a release that it wants nominations for membership on its Technological Advisory Council (TAC). The deadline for submissions is May 8, 2009.

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for a single recipient. 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 two months after writing.

For information about subscriptions, see subscription information page.

Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ credit card payments page.

TLJ is published by David Carney
Contact: 202-364-8882.
carney at techlawjournal dot com
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2009 David Carney. All rights reserved.