9/24. Lawrence Strickling, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), gave a speech at Columbia University in New York City in which he roundly criticized the European Telecom Network Operators' (ETNO) proposed changes to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) to regulate internet protocol (IP) interconnection and compensation with, among other things, a "sending party network pays" (SPNP) rule.

The ETNO argues that "Internet traffic is increasingly asymmetric, driven by 'Over-the-Top' services such as video streaming applications and a sending party pays model is capable of dealing efficiently with asymmetric traffic. Perpetuating an 'unpaid peering' approach for IP Interconnection that developed when traffic patterns were largely symmetric can hamper the incentive to invest in transport capacity and network quality."

The ETNO asserts that it is "not trying to bring back the circuit switched architecture of the PSTN". It also asserts that it is "not asking for increased regulatory intervention". And, it asserts that it is not opposed to private negotiation of IP interconnection, or peering agreements. Rather, it asserts that "revenue flows need to be realigned" with a "sending party network pays"  rule that provides an "adequate return on investment". Moreover, this must be mandated by international treaty requirements.

The ETNO made this proposal for consideration at the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), which will take place in Dubai in December. See, ETNO's document [10 pages in PDF] titled "ITRs Proposal to Address New Internet Ecosystem". See also, the ETNO's letter of September 21.

Strickling (at right) reiterated that "the Obama Administration strongly believes that the best way to resolve Internet policy issues, including those associated with investment in broadband networks, is through multistakeholder processes -- not intergovernmental treaties like the ITRs."

He criticized the ETNO's proposal to "assign governments the role of ensuring that service providers provide satisfactory quality of service commitments to each other and require providers to negotiate a sustainable system of compensation between providers applying the principle of ``sending network pays.´´"

"Let me be clear", said Strickling. The US government is "unequivocally opposed to this proposal for two reasons. First, a treaty conference where only member states have a vote is the wrong place to debate a change of this magnitude. Second, the proposal is a bad idea. It is a solution in search of a problem".

He elaborated that "less than two percent of the international voice traffic of US operators is terminated under the traditional settlements arrangements of the 1988 ITRs. So we have a situation where 98% of this traffic is exchanged without reference to the ITRs, yet a group of incumbent carriers now wants to extend this regime to Internet traffic?"

"The Internet does not operate under the anachronistic model of monopoly telephone providers that control all aspects of their networks within their countries. Rather, it is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties." He continued that "the magic is that the system works without requiring all of these parties to have a commercial relationship with each other or even to know everyone else involved in a given communications."

Moreover, "Private negotiations between providers of peering and transit agreements have worked well on the whole in the absence of international treaty requirements. There should be a compelling showing of how the current system is not working before this matter is taken up in treaty negotiations, and that case simply has not been made."

Also, the ETNO's proposal is "a relic of an industry and network structure that no longer exists".

He said the the ETNO proposal would "almost certainly" impose "new burdens throughout the chain of Internet connections, reaching both content providers and end users. ... Implementing a sending-party-pays regime would require a cascading series of payments across all involved networks."

Strickling added that there are also the issues of "attempting to meter and bill for Internet traffic, what happens to network performance if such a system is grafted onto the Internet, and the likely reduction of overall Internet usage that might result."

He concluded it would be "foolhardy" for the ETNO proposal to be taken seriously at the WCIT.

9/28. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted of a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture that fines NobelTel LLC $5 Million for deceptively marketing prepaid calling cards to immigrants in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). The FCC released a redacted copy [11 pages in PDF].

There is no statute enforced by the FCC that specifically prohibits deceptive marketing of prepaid calling cards. Subsection 201(b) is a general provision that states, in part, that "All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful".

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stated in a release that the FCC "will continue to monitor marketing activities around prepaid calling cards -- and will not hesitate to take decisive action when warranted."

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), a member of the House Commerce Committee (HCC), has been introducing bills for years that would require the FCC to "promulgate regulations that require prepaid calling card providers and prepaid calling card distributors to accurately disclose the terms and conditions applicable to prepaid calling cards". See, HR 4319 [LOC | WW], the "Calling Card Consumer Protection Act", and story titled "Rep. Engel Again Introduces Bill to Regulate Prepaid Calling Card Disclosures" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,366, April 9, 2012.

The HCC has not marked up this bill. However, a similar bill in the 111th Congress was marked up in subcommittee. See, story titled "House Subcommittee Approves Calling Card Consumer Protection Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,065, March 25, 2010.

9/24. The American Library Association (ALA) sent an angry letter to book major publishers criticizing them for not letting libraries distribute their e-books.

This letter, signed by Maureen Sullivan, head of the ALA, states that "Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, and Penguin have been denying access to their e-books for our nation's 112,000 libraries". She demanded that "Simon & Schuster must sell to libraries".

"We librarians cannot stand by and do nothing while some publishers deepen the digital divide. We cannot wait passively while some publishers deny access to our cultural record. We must speak out on behalf of today's -- and tomorrow's -- readers. The library community demands meaningful change and creative solutions that serve libraries and our readers who rightfully expect the same access to e-books as they have to printed books."

Sullivan also alleged that these publishers' actions are "discriminatory". However, she did not disclose which discrimination statute has been violated. Nor did she threaten legal action or referral to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division or other prosecutorial or regulatory agency.

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) responded in a release on September 28 that "The issues surrounding e-lending, however, are not as simple as Ms. Sullivan claims. Publishers support the concept of e-lending but must solve a breadth of complex technological, operational, financial and other challenges to make it a reality. Each publishing company is grappling individually with how to best serve the interests of its authors and readers, protect digital intellectual property rights and create this new business model that is fair to all stakeholders."

The AAP response is too polite to point out that while the public lending library model once served important purposes, it is becoming increasingly obsolete and irrelevant. The benefits once provided to many only through lending libraries are now provided elsewhere.

For example, a wide range of information is now available online for free, rendering the limited collection of printed books and periodicals in lending libraries less useful and less convenient. Also, readers can now purchase from a huge selection of new books via online book sellers, and from an even larger range of used books, often at trivial prices, through online secondary markets for books such as those of Amazon, Abe's Books, and eBay. In addition, commercial e-book sales have substantially lowered new book prices. Moreover, a large number of books are available online for free, and the Google Books program is digitizing and making available public domain works from major libraries for free.

In the case of educational material, most of the great literary works, including novels, poetry, and drama, and much of the best books in fields such as history and philosophy, is in the public domain, and available online for free.

The AAP is also too polite to state that the ALA's public lending library members, as well as its school and university library members, are mostly run by political subdivisions of states. States, due to an unfortunate series of 5-4 opinions written by the Rehnquist court's states rights faction, have immunity from suits for damages for copyright infringement. Some states now infringe, and hide behind 11th Amendment immunity. Until this loophole is rectified, publishers have particular cause to fear unauthorized distribution of their works via the state library systems.

See, 1999 Rehnquist opinion in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627, invalidating the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act, and 1999 Scalia opinion in College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666, invalidating the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act.

Information technology has reduced the costs of reproducing, storing, and transferring books to trivial levels. However, the cost of researching, writing, editing, and marketing quality works remains expensive. It requires intelligent and educated people. It is time consuming and labor intensive. And, returns are based on purchases, which are highly uncertain. Providing digital copies of copyrighted books to the ALA's 112,000 libraries could threaten the financial viability of writing and publishing.

9/27. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) published a short piece condemning web browser technology known as "Do Not Track" or "DNT". The author is the ITIF's Daniel Castro.

The ITIF asserts that "Do Not Track is a detrimental policy that undermines the economic foundation of the Internet." The ITIF criticizes the "typical fear-mongering that privacy advocates tend to engage in (and that the media tends to subsequently report)." (Parentheses in original.)

The ITIF wants to "stop the madness".

"Advertising revenue supports most of the free content, services, and apps available on the Internet. In exchange for viewing online ads, users get access to a wide range of free content (e.g., news, music, movies, and games), free services (e.g., email, storage, and personal productivity tools), and increasingly free mobile apps." (Parentheses in original.)

The ITIF adds that "advertisers are willing to pay more to advertise to individuals who are more likely to be interested in their products. In general, everyone wins: ad-supported websites increase their revenue, users receive fewer irrelevant ads and more free content, and advertisers get to be front of their target audiences." But, DNT threatens this model.

Currently, recent versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Firefox support DNT. See, story titled "Microsoft's Next Brower Will Have Do Not Track on by Default" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,389, June 4, 2012. "Microsoft Reaffirms Its Commitment to Do Not Track By Default" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,426, August 10, 2012.

This ITIF piece states that "Do Not Track has been heavily promoted by various groups, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the White House."

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report [112 pages in PDF] on March 26, 2012, titled "Protecting Consumer Privacy in a Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policy Makers". It states that while companies that make browsers offer "a mechanism to limit online tracking", "consumers are largely unaware of their ability to limit or block online tracking through their browsers, in part because these options may be difficult to find".

The FTC report also states that FTC "staff supports a more uniform and comprehensive consumer choice mechanism for online behavioral advertising, sometimes referred to as ``Do Not Track.´´ Such a universal mechanism could be accomplished by legislation or potentially through robust, enforceable self-regulation. The most practical method of providing uniform choice for online behavioral advertising would likely involve placing a setting similar to a persistent cookie on a consumer's browser and conveying that setting to sites that the browser visits, to signal whether or not the consumer wants to be tracked or receive targeted advertisements. To be effective, there must be an enforceable requirement that sites honor those choices."

The ITIF also states that "privacy advocates ... have been pushing for the creation and implementation of a Do Not Track standard".

The World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Tracking Protection Working Group (TPWG) is an internet standards body that is working on a standard regarding what DNT means, and what web sites are expected to do, or not expected to do, in response to a user's DNT expression. See, W3C's March 13, 2012 draft document titled "Tracking Preference Expression". See also, story titled "Rep. Barton and Rep. Markey Write W3C Regarding Do Not Track" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,399, June 19, 2012.

The ITIF states that web sites could "block users who have enabled Do Not Track ... So users who wanted to access sites for free would have to disable Do Not Track". Hence, "the only way that Do Not Track would be viable is if policymakers passed legislation that would require websites to allow users who opt out of tracking to access to their sites".

There is legislation pending in the Congress. For example, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced HR 1895 [LOC | WW], the "Do Not Track Kids Act", on May 13, 2011. See, story titled "Rep. Markey and Rep. Barton Release Draft of Do Not Track Kids Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,236, May 9, 2011. Also, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) and others introduced HR 654 [LOC | WW], the "Do Not Track Me Online Act", on February 11, 2011.

The ITIF's argument is predicated on the assumption that advertising is the best business model for financing the creation of internet based services, and that market price transactions should not be the basis of these services. Rather, internet services must be free, and must be financially supported by ads.

The ITIF further argues "This is a classic case of economic externalities: individuals may receive a small benefit from enabling Do Not Track, but in doing that, they impose costs on the rest of Internet users."

Economic externalities is a theoretically loose, and hence easily asserted, consequence of any market transaction.

The ITIF does not point out that there are also positive externalities to DNT. For example, universal adoption of broadband is widely agreed to be a meritorious policy objective. Yet, some people do not adopt broadband out of concerns over loss of privacy or security. The availability of DNT would assure some of these people, and therefore provide the positive externality of increasing adoption and use of broadband.

Second, service providers have engaged in illegal or bad tracking and/or advertising related behavior on the internet that harms the interests of individuals in privacy and security. The availability of DNT would give increased incentives in the online ad industry to work out methods and practices to diminish such illegal and bad behavior, and therefore provide the positive externalities that would flow from a more secure internet. Third, this might also obviate the need for, or pressure upon government to create, a government regulatory regime. Any regulatory regime would be burdensome, outdated at inception, subject to politically manipulated enforcement, and would treat all individuals as if they had the same interests in privacy.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM in pro forma session.

The Senate will meet at 11:00 AM in pro forma session.

9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's (DOS) Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy (ACICIP) will meet to discuss preparations for the World Conference on International Telecommunications to be held in Dubai, UAE, on December 3-14, 2012. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 162, August 21, 2012, at Page 50543. Location: Henderson Auditorium, Truman Building, DOS, 2201 C St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Silicon on Insulator Technologies SA v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., App. Ct. No. 2011-1534. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (DDel) in a patent infringement case involving silicon wafer technology. Panel B. This is the second item of the Court's agenda. Location: Courtroom 201, National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, NW.

RESCHEDULED FROM SEPTEMBER 14. 10:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will host an event titled "Technology and Trading: Promoting Stability in Today's Markets". See, notice. Location: SEC, Room L-006, 100 F St., NE.

1:00 - 2:00 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and  teleconferenced panel discussion titled "Technology Amendments to the Model Rules: Answers to the Questions You Should Be Asking". The speakers will be John Barkett (Shook Hardy & Bacon), Judith Miller (Markle), and Seth Row (Parsons Farnell & Grein). Prices vary. CLE credits. See, notice.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) will host a program titled "The Changing International Regulatory Landscape". The speakers will be Jennifer Manner (Deputy Chief of the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau), Troy Tanner (Deputy Chief of the FCC's International Bureau), Kathryn O’Brien (Assistant Chief of the FCC's International Bureau), Cecily Holiday (Director of the Department of State's ITAC-R Communications and Information Policy Group), Laura Stefani (Goldberg Godles), Jennifer Warren (Lockheed Martin), Kent Bressie (Wiltshire & Grannis), Aspasia Paroutsas (Squire Sanders), Elvis Stumbergs (Wilmer Hale), Bill Check (NCTA), Aparna Sridhar (Google), Mike Chartier (Intel). CLE credits. Prices vary. See, agenda and notice and registration form. The deadline for registrations and cancellations is 12:00 NOON on October 1. Location: Wiley Rein, 1776 K St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Ewinwin, Inc. v. Groupon, Inc., App. Ct. No. 2012-1165. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (MDFl) in a patent infringement case. Panel C. This is the third case on the Court's agenda. Location: Courtroom 201, National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:00 AM - 3:00 PM. The Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology's (ONCHIT) HIT Policy Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 181, September 18, 2012, at Page 57567. Location: Dupont Circle Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Ave.,  NW.

TIME? The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) will hold a public hearing to assist it in preparing its annual report to the Congress on the People's Republic of China's (PRC) compliance with its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 161, August 20, 2012, at Pages 50206-50207. See also, story titled "OUSTR to Receive Comments and Hold Hearing on PRC Compliance with WTO Obligations" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,431, August 17, 2012. Location: OUSTR, Room 1, 1724 F St., NW.

12:00 NOON. The World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Tracking Protection Working Group will meet by teleconference. The call in number is 1-617-761-6200. The passcode is TRACK (87225).

2:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 180, September 17, 2012, at Page 57085. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305, 445 12th St., SW.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Networking and Information Technology Research and Development National Coordination Office's Large Scale Networking Coordinating Group's Middleware and Grid Interagency Coordination Team will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 183, September 20, 2012, at Pages 58416. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia.

5:00 PM. Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Copyright Office (CO) in response to its notice in the Federal Register (FR) that announces, describes, recites and requests comments on its proposed rules regarding the verification of Statements of Account and royalty payments that are deposited with the CO by cable operators and satellite carriers. See, original notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 115, June 14, 2012, at Pages 35643-35652, and extension notice in the FR, Vol. 77, No. 176, September 11, 2012, at Page 55783.

10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 158, August 15, 2012, at Pages 48968-48969. See also, story titled "Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee to Meet" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,431, August 17, 2012. Location: DOC, Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Comint Systems Corporation and EyeIT.com, Inc. v. USA , App. Ct. No. 2012-5039. This is an appeal from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Panel D. This is the second of four cases on the agenda. Location: Courtroom 201, National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, NW.

5:00 PM. Extended deadline to submit reply comments to the Copyright Office (CO) in response to its notice in the Federal Register (FR) in which it proposes rules changes regarding the definition of a claimant for purposes of copyright registration. The CO proposes to eliminate the footnote to the definition of a claimant codified at 37 CFR § 202.3(a)(3)(ii), which provides that a claimant includes individuals or entities that have obtained the contractual right to claim legal title to copyright in an application for copyright registration. See, original notice, FR, Vol. 77, No. 96, Thursday, May 17, 2012, at Pages 29257-29259, and extension notice, FR, Vol. 77, No. 171, September 4, 2012, at Page 53829. See also, story titled "Copyright Office Proposes to Change Definition of Claimant" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,386, May 30, 2012.

The Senate will meet at 1:00 PM in pro forma session.

The Department of Labor's (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is scheduled to release its September 2012 unemployment data.

8:30 - 10:00 AM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host a book presentation. Robert Atkinson (head of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation) will discuss his just published book [Amazon] titled "Innovation Economics: The Race for Global Advantage". See, ITIF notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Ritz Camera & Image v. SanDisk, App. Ct. No. 2012-1183. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDCal), D.C. No. 10-CV-2787. At issue is whether direct purchasers have standing under the antitrust laws to recover damages for overcharges resulting from a monopoly obtained or maintained through the enforcement of patents procured by fraud. See, District Court opinion at 772 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (2011). See also, FTC/DOJ amicus curiae brief. And see, story titled "FTC/DOJ File Amicus Brief on Antitrust Standing of Direct Purchasers Who Allege Fraud Upon USPTO" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,386, May 30, 2012. Panel E. This is the fourth case on the agenda. Location: Courtroom 201, National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a class titled "iPad for Lawyers". The speaker will be Tasha Coleman. Free. No CLE credits. See, notice. For more information, contact Daniel Mills at 202-626-1312. The DC Bar has a history of barring reporters from its events. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St., NW.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to its notice in Federal Register (FR) requesting comments regarding its proposed changes to its rules of practice in patent cases to implement the changes to the conditions of patentability, to implement the first inventor to file system provisions of the Leahy Smith America Invents Act, and to eliminate the provisions pertaining to statutory invention registrations. See, FR, Vol. 77, No. 144, July 26, 2012, at Pages 43742-43759. See also, story titled "USPTO Announces First Inventor to File NPRM and Roundtable" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,430, August 16, 2012.

Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in response to its notice in Federal Register (FR) requesting comments regarding its proposed changes to its examination guidelines to implement the first inventor to file system provisions of the Leahy Smith America Invents Act. See, FR, Vol. 77, No. 144, July 26, 2012, at Pages 43759-43773.

Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) regarding its draft SP 800-40 Rev. 3 [26 pages in PDF] titled "Guide to Enterprise Patch Management Technologies".

Columbus Day. This is a federal holiday. See, OPM list of 2012 federal holidays.

Deadline for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to submit its biennial report to Congress on the "Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010", which is also known as the CVAA.

The Senate will meet at 11:00 AM in pro forma session.

2:00 - 3:30 PM. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division's (AD) Economic Analysis Group (EAG) will host a presentation titled "vGUPPI: Scoring Unilateral Pricing Incentives in Vertical Mergers". The speaker will be Steve Salop (Georgetown University Law Center). See, paper with the same title by Salop and Serge Moresi (Charles River Associates). For more information, contact Gloria Sheu at gloria dot sheu at usdoj dot gov or 202-532-4932 or Nathan Miller at nathan dot miller at usdoj dot gov or 202-307-3773. Location: Liberty Square Building, EAG conference room, LSB 9429, 450 5th St., NW.

10/1. Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), gave a speech in Indianapolis, Indiana in which he stated that "monetary policy is no panacea". He said that "many other steps could be taken to strengthen our economy over time, such as putting the federal budget on a sustainable path, reforming the tax code, improving our educational system, supporting technological innovation, and expanding international trade".

9/26. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [59 pages in PDF] titled "Information Technology: Department of Labor Could Further Facilitate Modernization of States' Unemployment Insurance Systems".

9/26. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [49 pages in PDF] titled "Information Technology: DHS Needs to Enhance Management of Cost and Schedule for Major Investments".

9/21. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report [47 pages in PDF] titled "Divers License Security: Federal Leadership Needed to Address Remaining Vulnerabilities". It states that "While most states have taken steps required by the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Act), officials in some states indicated that they may not comply with certain provisions -- such as re-verifying SSNs for license renewals -- because of state laws or concerns that these requirements are unnecessary and burdensome." Title II of the REAL ID Act imposes federal mandates on the states' identification document process, and mandates state electronic databases and data sharing. The Act sets minimum standards for states, penalizes states that do not implement its standards, but nevertheless relies upon states to implement it, at their own cost. Many states have refused to comply. See also, story titled "House Judiciary Subcommittee Holds Hearing on REAL ID Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,352, March 21, 2012.

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 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
3034 Newark St. NW, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2012 David Carney. All rights reserved.