District Court Denies Rep. Jefferson's Motion for Return of Property

7/10. The U.S. District Court (DC) denied Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) motion for return of property and other relief in his challenge to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) search of, and seizure of paper documents and computer files from, his Congressional office in the Rayburn Building.

The District Court wrote in its Memorandum Opinion [28 pages in PDF] that "the search executed on Congressman Jefferson's congressional office was constitutional, as it did not trigger the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, did not offend the principle of the separation of powers, and was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

The FBI obtained a search warrant from the District Court to search Rep. Jefferson's office. It conducted the search without notice to, or consent from, either Rep. Jefferson or the House of Representatives.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the Majority Leader, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the Majority Whip, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the Democratic Leader, and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the Democratic Whip, filed a joint amicus brief in support of Rep. Jefferson.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has not charged, or obtained an indictment of, Rep. Jefferson. Hence, Rep. Jefferson filed a motion for return of property, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rather than a motion to suppress evidence.

Rep. Jefferson, and the House leaders, argued that the search violated the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, which provides that "The Senators and Representatives ... shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

In particular, they argued that the no notice search of his office entailed search of privileged materials, in violation of the speech or debate clause. They also argued that the search violated the doctrine of separation of powers.

This proceeding is In Re: Search of the Rayburn House Office Building Room Number 2113, Washington, D.C. 20515, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 06-0231 M-01, Judge Thomas Hogan presiding.

Schwab Discusses Doha Negotiations and Russia's Enforcement of IPR

7/10. Susan Schwab, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), gave a speech and answered questions regarding the absence of progress in recent Doha round negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland.

She said, "Where does Doha go from here? Above all we need to avoid defeatist thinking. That's not going to help us. ... What does the United States do from here? Obviously, as you can tell, we're still committed to getting this Doha round done and done this year. We also have, I might mention just in closing, a very ambitious bilateral and regional agenda ..."

Schwab also discussed Russia's joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) and intellectual property theft in Russia. She said that "it is in Russia’s own best interest to be fully integrated into the global economy. You can’t be fully integrated into the global economy unless you are operating under a system of rules, of controls, of in this case trade agreements with transparency and due diligence and processes that are internationally accepted, internationally recognized."

She continued that "It is in Russia’s interest, both in terms of its own entrepreneurs, its own creative class, its own engineers and inventors, to protect intellectual property. Not just the intellectual property, international, that other foreign companies or individuals create but also Russian intellectual property. President Putin has spoken specifically about this and there have been some real improvements in terms of their treatment and protection of intellectual property. We're not there yet, but they’re doing it and they’re doing it for their own sake. They’re doing it for the right reasons."

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee stated on July 11, 2006, in a conference call with farm broadcasters that he would not "bring in a Doha ``light´´ agreement to my committee".

He added that "My advice to Susan Schwab was go to Geneva -- she did two weeks ago -- and just think of two things; sit, in other words, sit and listen, and the second one is, if you sit and don't like what you hear, then walk. And I think basically that's what she's done, she's done right".

PFF Recommends Process at FCC for Limiting Outmoded Social Regulation

7/10. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) released a paper [11 pages in PDF] titled "Beginning to Limit ``Social´´ Regulation of Communications". The author is the PFF's Kyle Dixon.

Dixon was previously a legal advisor to former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell.

He argues that the focus of the Congress in drafting communications reform legislation is economic regulation. In contrast, social regulation provisions are being added to the legislation, but the topic is not being addressed in a coherent fashion.

He argues for limited social regulation. He also argues that the FCC's current powers (forbearance and biennial reviews) for limiting outmoded social regulation are inadequate. He offers suggestions for how the Congress might add to its legislation a provision that would institute processes to be followed by the FCC that might prompt the FCC to eliminate social policy mandates as they become outmoded.

He writes that in the Senate's ongoing consideration of communications reform legislation, there is an "absence of any coherent framework governing attempts by regulators to pursue various ``social´´ goals, such as universal service, ``911´´ emergency service and access by persons with disabilities."

He argues that "Current legislative proposals read, instead, like ``laundry lists´´ held together by naked (or tacit) political judgments. By leaving many of the objectives and interrelationships of social regulation inchoate, legislators make the reform process needlessly uncertain, while sacrificing the benefit of focused input on these issues by academics and other technical experts. And this, in turn, makes it harder for thoughtful policymakers to ensure that proposed social obligations do more good than harm."

He states that the Congress, in enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, "failed to anticipate the degree to which companies that did not compete historically would enter each others' markets using flexible Internet protocol technologies. The Act merely continued the distinct regulatory treatment afforded each type of company -- telephone, cable, broadcast, etc. The Act thereby frustrated attempts to reconcile disparities among the regulation of increasingly similar, competing services." And now, writes Dixon, the Congress is focusing solely on the economic regulation.

He argues that while "Pursuing social goals through regulation is not always or necessarily a bad thing", there can be pitfalls to social regulation. He argues, among other things, that market competition and innovation often benefit consumers more than regulation, that regulation often inhibits investment, and that some incumbent companies "may be more adept at shaping how rules are written to minimize their own burdens while maximizing those of their competitors". He elaborates that the new IP based services companies "often are no match for traditionally-regulated companies when it comes to the day-in, day-out minutiae of monitoring, influencing and ultimately complying with the actions of administrative agencies."

He also argues that the forbearance and biennial review provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the 1996 Act are inadequate "to serve as a meaningful spur to regulators to eliminate social policy mandates as economic and technological forces obviate such mandates".

Hence, he offers suggestions for how the Congress might direct the FCC to deal with such social policy mandates. He suggests that the Congress direct the FCC to periodically re-examine the goals of regulation and how they derive them from statute, identify trade-offs among policy goals, and reconsider whether mandates are necessary, formulate actions to eliminate unnecessary rules, and justify implementation by the FCC (as opposed to some other agency).

People and Appointments

7/10. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) approved the nomination of Henry Paulson (at right) to be Secretary of the Treasury on June 28, 2006. The Senate confirmed Paulson on June 28. Paulson took the oath of office on July 10. President Bush spoke at a White House ceremony. He said that "Hank Paulson will be my leading policy advisor on a broad range of domestic and international economic issues, and he will be the principal spokesman for my administration's economic policies." Bush also said that "we will work to open up new markets to American products, and to ensure that our trading partners play by the rules and respect intellectual property rights, and maintain market-based exchange rates for their currencies." Bush also said that one "challenge is to keep America competitive by fostering a spirit that rewards innovation and risk-taking and enterprise. America is the most innovative nation in the world because our free enterprise system unleashes the talent and creativity of our people." See, transcript.

More News

7/10. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a letter report [7 pages in PDF] to the Chairmen and ranking Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee. This letter is titled "LOCAL Television Act: Status of Spending for Fiscal Year 2005". This act created the Local Television Loan Guarantee Program. The letter states that "Since inception of the program, no loan guarantees have been approved and there are no current or anticipated budgetary resources available for future loan guarantees. On December 13, 2004, the board authorized closing out one of two existing contracts. The other contract expired on December 31, 2005. Fiscal year 2005 administrative costs totaled about $6,500. Given that the President’s Budgets for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 both pointed out that the unobligated budget authority for this program had been rescinded and the administration was not proposing additional funds for this program, we reiterate our previous matter for congressional consideration to rescind the balance of the appropriation for administrative expenses."

7/10. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in McCready v. eBay, affirming two District Court dismissals, and ordering McCready to show cause why he should not be sanctioned by the District Court for abuse of process. The Court of Appeals wrote that Kenneth A. McCready, who has had accounts with eBay, has a long and "wildly unsuccessful" history of filing complaints in state and federal courts around the country against eBay and its customers. However, the Court of Appeals wrote that McCready's complaints and numerous motions are meritless and harassing. This case is Kenneth A. McCready v. eBay, Inc., Bruce Kamminga, and David McDuffee, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. Nos. 05-2450 and 05-3043, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, D.C. Nos. 03 C 2117 and 05 C 2033.

More News

7/9. The New York Times (subscription required) wrote in its July 9, 2006, issue that on May 18, 2006, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to President Bush regarding the administration's failure to keep Congressional intelligence committees informed of intelligence activities. Rep. Hoekstra also discussed the subject on television interview program titled "Fox News Sunday". See, Fox story.

Bush Discusses Technology, Innovation and Foreign Investment

7/7. President Bush gave a speech at Cabot Microelectronic Corporation, in Aurora, Illinois, in which he discussed innovation and the collection of policy proposals that he titles "American Competitiveness Initiative". He gave a second speech in Chicago, Illinois, in which he discussed foreign investment and free trade.

Bush first announced his competitiveness initiative in his January 31, 2006, speech titled "State of the Union Address". See, story titled "Bush Announces American Competitiveness Agenda" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,301, February 1, 2006. See also, Bush's speech of February 13, 2006, and story titled "Bush Awards National Medals of Technology and Science" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,312, February 17, 2006.

Bush said in his July 7 speech in Aurora that "one way to make sure this country is competitive is to enhance math and science in early grades, and encourage people to take math and science in the later years. And there's all kinds of ways to do that. One is to encourage advanced placement programs in our nation's schools, and help train 30,000 teachers in advanced placement. Another is to get people from institutions like this to go into our middle schools and high schools and say, it's okay to be a scientist, you know; math and science will be important for your future. In other words, try to inspire people. We call that an adjunct professor program."

He continued that "We've got a role at the federal government to make sure that we're research oriented in a technology-driven economy, and that is to spend your money on basic research, so that, for example, nanotechnology is a really important part of the economy -- an important growing part of the economy. And I believe, and the Speaker believes -- as a matter of fact the House of Representatives believes that it makes sense to double the basic research budget of our federal government to help companies like this stay on the leading edge of change."

The innovation agendas of House Republicans, House Democrats, and President Bush are quite similar. See, story titled "House Democrats Promote Their Innovation Agenda" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,312, February 17, 2006.

President Bush also said that "in order for us to be competitive in the future, we've got to emphasize math and science and research and technology."

He also praised Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL) for bringing to the floor some bills that incorporate parts of his innovation agenda. (Aurora is in the 14th District, which Rep. Hastert represents.) Bush also called upon the Senate to act.

Also on July 7, Bush also gave a speech and answered questions at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, Illinois. See, transcript.

He was asked this: "There's been a lot of mergers with companies in the technology industry, and one of the more recent ones was Lucent Technologies with Alcatel, which is French-owned. How do you feel about a lot of the foreign-owned companies buying out U.S. tech companies, especially those that have military contracts?"

Bush responded that "We have laws that prevent sensitive technologies from being transferred as a result of sale and/or merger. And we watch that very carefully." But, he added, "I have no problem with foreign capital buying U.S. companies; nor do I have a problem with U.S. companies buying foreign companies. That's what free trade is all about."

Bush continued that "A lot of the jobs in America exist as a result of foreign companies investing here in our country. So I believe in opening markets. I do believe in protecting secrets, but we've got laws on the books to prevent secrets from being transferred, or vital technology from being transferred. But I believe in free flows of capital, and I believe in free trade. And that's not a given in the United States. There are people who say, well, we can't compete with China, let's throw up roadblocks, let's protect ourselves. Or, we don't want foreigners coming to invest in our country. I think that would be a mistake. I think that's the early signs of protectionist sentiments, which would mean our economy wouldn't grow."

He added that "if we became isolationist, we would not do our duty to protect the American people and kind of lay the foundations for a better world."

Finally, he remarked that "People say, well, you know, China is too tough to compete with, let's just throw up tariffs. I completely disagree. I think competition is good and healthy. I think it's important to have a competitive world. It means that people are constantly producing a better product and a better service at a better price, which is good for consumers."

On Tuesday, July 11, the House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing titled "CFIUS Reform: HR 5337, the Reform of National Security Reviews of Foreign Direct Investments Act". See, HR 5337 and HCC notice. Also, back on April 27, 2006, the House Financial Services Committee's (HFSC) Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology held a hearing titled "CFIUS and the Role of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States". See, HFSC web page with hyperlinks to prepared testimony.

More News

7/7. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its opinion [31 pages in PDF] in LG Electronics v. Bizcom Electronics, a case involving several patents related to personal computers. The District Court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the District Court. This case is LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 05-1261, 05-1262, 05-1263, 05-1264, 05-1302, 05-1303, and 05-1304, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wilkin presiding. Judge Mayer wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Michel and Newman joined.

District Court Rules in DVD Content Editing Copyright Case

7/6. The U.S. District Court (DColo) issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order [16 pages in PDF] in Clean Flicks v. Soderbergh, a dispute between motion picture studios and businesses that edit for sex, violence, profanity, and other content the motion picture studio's movies.

These editing parties created and distributed, or obtained and distributed, edited copies of movies. The District Court granted summary judgment to the motion picture studios on some of their copyright infringement claims, and on the affirmative defenses of fair use and first sale.

This opinion addresses editing objectionable content out of copyrighted movies in a manner that results in the creation and distribution of fixed copies of the altered movies. The opinion thus addresses practices not protected by the recently enacted Family Movie Act.

Family Movie Act. This case concerns only practices not exempted by the Family Movie Act, which was enacted in early 2005. The Congress enacted the "Family Movie Act of 2005" as part of the S 167, the "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005", or FECA. The FECA is now Public Law No. 109-9. See also, story titled "House Approves Copyright Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,119, April 20, 2005.

The FECA added a new paragraph (11) to 17 U.S.C. § 110. The exclusive rights of copyright are listed in 17 U.S.C. § 106. Section 110 provides that "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright: ..." The FECA added this: "(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology".

The FECA added that the term "making imperceptible" does not include "the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture".

The FECA also included a related amendment to the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide an exemption from trademark infringement.

That is, the Family Movie Act component of the FECA provides that technology that enables content skipping, at the direction of the consumer, that does not create a fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture, is not copyright infringement.

Background of the District Court's Opinion. The District Court's just issued opinion deals with business practices that fall outside of the exemption of the Family Movie Act. It pertains to content skipping, and other editing, at the direction of the editor, that results in the creation of a fixed copy of the altered version, that is the sold or leased to consumers.

The motion picture studio parties include MetroGoldwynMayer Studios Inc., Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. (successor in interest to Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.), Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., DreamWorks L.L.C., Universal City Studios LLLP, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, and Paramount Pictures Corporation.

The four editing parties are CleanFlicks, LLC, Family Flix, U.S.A., L.L.C., ASR Management Corporation, dba CleanFilms and fka MyCleanFlicks, and Play It Clean Video, LLC.

The District Court offered this description of ClearFlicks' actions. "CleanFlicks first obtains an original copy of the movie from its customer or by its own purchase from an authorized retailer. It then makes a digital copy of the entire movie onto the hard drive of a computer, overcoming such technology as a digital content scrambling protection system in the acquired DVD, that is designed to prevent copying. After using software to make the edits, the company downloads from the computer an edited master copy which is then used to create a new recordable DVDR to be sold to the public, directly or indirectly through a retailer. Thus, the content of the authorized DVD has been changed and the encryption removed."

The District Court wrote that Family Flix used methods comparable to ClearFlicks. It then "sells or rents its DVDRs directly to subscribers and to retailers. The original DVD is disabled and generally mounted inside the case with the DVDR. The Family Flix logo with a disclaimer sticker is put on the case. There are no technical obstructions to copying the DVDRs."

CleanFilms and Play it Clean both rent and sell edited versions of the movies obtained from Family Flix.

The motion picture studios argued that CleanFlicks and Family Flix are infringing their exclusive right to reproduce their copyrighted works in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), that CleanFlicks and Family Flix are violating their right to create derivative works in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106(2), and that all four of the editing parties are infringing their exclusive right of distribution of copies in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106(3).

The editing parties argued that their activities fall within the scope of the fair use doctrine, which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107, and the first sale doctrine, which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109(a)

District Court's Holding. The District Court held that CleanFlicks and Family Flix infringed the studios' exclusive reproduction rights under § 106(1), and that all four of the editing parties infringed the studios' exclusion distribution rights under § 106(3). However, the District Court held that CleanFlicks and Family Flix did not infringe the studios' exclusive right to create derivative works under § 106(2). The District Court rejected both the fair use and first sale defenses. And, the District Court granted partial summary judgment accordingly. Finally, the District Court granted broad injunctive relief to the studios, and ordered the four editing parties to promptly turn over to the studios the infringing materials.

The Court briefly reasoned that CleanFlicks and Family Flix infringed the studios' exclusive reproduction rights under § 106(1) simply because they reproduced copies. The Court added that this conclusion is not altered their assertion that they made copies only on a one to one ratio with purchased originals.

The § 106(3) distribution rights claim was not disputed by the editing parties.

The Court ruled for the editing parties only on the § 106(2) derivative works claim.

17 U.S.C. § 101, the definitional section of the Copyright Act, provides that a "derivative work" is "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ``derivative work´´."

The Court reasoned that the copies in this case are not used in a transformative manner. It wrote that "The transformative nature of the use of copyrighted material requires such a contribution of originality as may be of such public benefit as would serve the underlying purpose of providing copyright protection". Hence, it concluded that the copies are not derivative works, and since they are not derivative works, there can be no violation of § 106(2).

The Court then addressed at length the fair use defense. The Court followed the four part test specified by § 107. This section provides that notwithstanding § 106, "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of a copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

The Court wrote first that it is not the function of the courts to make policy determinations. It noted that the editing parties asked the Court to "establish a public policy test that they are criticizing the objectionable content commonly found in current movies and that they are providing more socially acceptable alternatives to enable families to view the films together, without exposing children to the presumed harmful effects emanating from the objectionable content."

The Court concluded that public policy is a legislative function. Moreover, the Congress considered this topic when in drafted the Family Movie Act. It choose to exempt technology based content skipping that does not create any fixed copies, but not to exempt editing the creates altered versions in fixed copies.

The Court then addressed the four part fair use test. It first wrote that the first part of the test includes consideration of whether the infringing work in transformative. The Court concluded that the copies are not transformative. The use is also commercial. Hence, this prong weighs in favor of the studios.

The Court also concluded that the third prong, "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", weighs in favor of the studios because "the movies are copied in almost their entirety for nontransformative use".

The Court also concluded that the fourth prong, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work", also weighs in favor of the studios. The Court referred to the "the intrinsic value of the right to control the content of the copyrighted work which is the essence of the law of copyright."

It added that "Whether these films should be edited in a manner that would make them acceptable to more of the public playing them on DVD in a home environment is more than merely a matter of marketing; it is a question of what audience the copyright owner wants to reach."

Finally, the Court addressed the first sale defense. It wrote that this "doctrine protects the purchaser in any use of the authorized copy acquired but does not permit the making of additional copies."

More on the Family Movie Act. The Congress enacted legislation containing the Family Movie Act early in the 109th Congress. However, there were also hearings, debates, and draft bills in the 108th Congress. On May 20, 2004, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (CIIP) held a hearing titled "Derivative Rights, Moral Rights, and Movie Filtering Technology". See, story titled "House CIIP Subcommittee Holds Hearing on DVD Filtering Technology" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 903, May 21, 2004.

On July 21, 2004, the House Judiciary Committee approved HR 4586, the "Family Movie Act of 2004" by a vote of 18-9. See, story titled "House Judiciary Committee Passes Family Movie Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 944, July 23, 2004.

On September 28, 2004, the House approved HR 4077, the "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 ", by a voice vote. See story titled "House Approves Copyright Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 986, September 29, 2004.

This case is Clean Flicks of Colorado, LLC., et al. v. Steven Soderbergh, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, D.C. No. 02cv01662RPM, Judge Richard Matsch presiding.

FCC Announces Agenda for July 13 Meeting

7/6. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an agenda [PDF] for its event on July 13, 2006, titled "Open Meeting".

The FCC will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding rules governing medical devices that rely on radiocommunications for critical aspects of their functionality (RM-11271), and will consider the extension of current waivers of the existing rules held by Biotronik, Inc. and DexCom, Inc. (ET Docket Nos. 05-213 and 03-92, respectively).

Second, the FCC will consider Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NALF) against 1st Source Information Specialist, Inc., d/b/a LocateCell.com, a databroker, for repeated failure to respond to directives of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau to provide subpoenaed information in connection with the customer proprietary network information (CPNI) investigation. The FCC's agenda provides no proceeding number for this NALF. However, the FCC's underlying CPNI investigation include Docket No. 96-115 and RM-11277.

Third, the FCC will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order (MOO) regarding the applications of Adelphia Communications Corporation and subsidiaries, debtors-in-possession, Time Warner Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc. and Comcast Communications Corporation for consent to the acquisition by Time Warner Cable Inc. and Comcast Communications Corporation of substantially all of the domestic cable systems owned or managed by Adelphia. This is MB Docket No. 05-192.

Fourth, the FCC will consider a Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration and Second Further NPRM regarding "digital audio broadcasting". The FCC's agenda states that the title of this is "Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service". The FCC's agenda provides no other details, and no docket number.

The FCC issued a Further NPRM and NOI back on April 15, 2004. See, story titled "FCC Announces FNPRM and NOI Regarding Digital Audio Broadcasting" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 878, April 16, 2004. This FNPRM/NOI is FCC 04-99 in MB Docket No. 99-325.

The FCC adopted a First Report and Order [27 pages in PDF] on October 10, 2002, in the proceeding titled "In the Matter of Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems And Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service". This report and order selects in-band, on-channel (IBOC) as the technology to be used by AM and FM broadcasters for the introduction of digital broadcasting.

Finally, the FCC will consider a Further NRPM regarding the compensation of telecommunications relay providers from the Interstate TRS Fund. This is CG Docket No. 03-123.

This event is scheduled for 9:30 AM on Thursday, July 13, 2006 in the FCC's Commission Meeting Room, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street, SW. The event will be webcast by the FCC. The FCC does not always consider all of the items on its published agenda. The FCC sometimes adds items to the agenda without providing the "one week" notice required 5 U.S.C. § 552b. The FCC does not always start its monthly meetings at the scheduled time. The FCC usually does not release at its meetings copies of the items that it adopts at its meetings.

More News

7/6. Donald Kohn, Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, gave a speech in London, United Kingdom, titled "Reflections on Globalization and Policies".

Go to News from July 1-5, 2006.