Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2010/07/26.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:11:58+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,111, July 26, 2010.
July 26, 2010, Alert No. 2,111.
7/21. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and other Republican Senators introduced S 3624 [LOC | WW], the "Freedom For Consumer Choice Act" or "FCC Act".
In the short run, this bill, if enacted, would have the effect of reigning in Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski from following through on any of his schemes to impose network neutrality mandates on broadband internet access service providers.
More broadly, this bill would require the FCC to apply certain principles of antitrust law, and the economic analysis underlying antitrust, to electronic communications service (ECS), including the writing of rules affecting ECSs.
Sen. DeMint (at right) stated in a release that "President Obama's handpicked FCC chairman is attempting to impose unnecessary, antiquated regulations on the Internet in spite of court rulings limiting the FCC’s authority, against bipartisan congressional concern over damaging economic consequences, and without any evidence of market failure. The FCC Act will ensure that the FCC properly uses its rulemaking authority to respond to clear cases of competitive market failure that have proven to harm consumers, and this principle should be the starting point for any debate on Internet governance."
See, April 6, 2010, opinion [36 pages in PDF] in Comcast v. FCC, and story titled "Court of Appeals Vacates FCC's Comcast Order" and related stories in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,072, April 7, 2010.
Sen. Hatch (at left) argued that "This regulatory overreach could jeopardize hundreds of billions of dollars in investment and accompanying hundreds of thousands of jobs that have resulted from an Internet governed by competition."
He also commented that "The only reason the FCC Chairman and his colleagues are taking this path is because there is no way they can get far-reaching and costly net neutrality legislation through Congress. In fact it was recently reported that 282 Members of Congress, including 74 Democrats, asked the FCC to drop its plans to reclassify broadband. Enough is enough. The Government needs to keep its hands off the Internet so it can prosper and grow, benefiting consumers and our economy alike."
The other original cosponsors of the bill are Sen. John Ensign (R-NE), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Rep. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).
S 3624 was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC).
Legislative History. This bill is a variation upon S 2113 (109th Congress), the "Digital Age Communications Act of 2005" or "DACA", which was introduced on December 15, 2005, by Sen. DeMint.
The DACA followed from the legislative recommendations of a set of panels of economists, law professors, and others organized by the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) in early 2005. See, story titled "PFF Announces Digital Age Communications Act Project" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,068, February 2, 2005. See also, PFF web page with hyperlinks to reports of these panels.
See also, paper [PDF] by Kyle Dixon (Wilkinson Barker Knauer), who was involved in the PFF DACA process, titled "Joining the snake: A balanced and pragmatic approach to network neutrality". He argued for FCC "regulation only if broadband providers exercise coercive influence in the marketplace, or market power, similar to that wielded by monopolists".
Bill Summary. This bill states that "It shall be the policy of the United States Government ... that economic regulation of communications markets should be presumed unnecessary absent circumstances that demonstrate the existence of a significant threat of abuse of market power that poses a substantial and nontransitory risk to consumer welfare".
The bill provides that "It shall be unlawful for any provider of electronic communications service, including any State, or any general purpose political subdivision of a State, to engage or participate, or to attempt to engage or participate, in -- (1) unfair methods of competition in or affecting electronic communications networks and electronic communications services; or (2) unfair or deceptive practices in or affecting electronic communications networks and electronic communications services."
The bill defines "electronic communications service" as "a service normally provided for remuneration which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks", which in turn is defined as "a transmission system" and "where applicable, switching or routing equipment and other facilities which permit the conveyance of signals by wire, radio, optical, or other electromagnetic means, over satellite, cable, or other facilities, whether fixed or mobile, to the extent that such facilities are used for the purpose of transmitting signals, irrespective of the type of information conveyed".
The bill defines "unfair methods of competition" as "practices that present a threat of abuse of significant and nontransitory market power as determined by the Commission consistent with the application of jurisprudential principles grounded in market-oriented competition analysis", such as those employed by the antitrust units of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ).
It further provides that the FCC "may, by rule, define with specificity, the acts or practices that shall constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices", but that the FCC "shall have no authority to issue rules that declare unlawful an act or practice on the grounds that such act or practice is an unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice".
Then, the bill provides an exception to the exception. The FCC "may declare an act or practice unlawful if the Commission determines, based on a showing of clear and convincing evidence presented in a rulemaking proceeding, that -- (i) marketplace competition is not sufficient to adequately protect consumer welfare; and (ii) such act or practice -- (I) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers; and (II) is not -- (aa) avoidable by consumers themselves; and (bb) outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition."
The bill also provides that such rules sunset after five years, unless the FCC makes an "affirmative determination", after notice and comment, "that the rule continues to be necessary because marketplace competition is not sufficient to adequately protect consumers from substantial injury which is not -- (A) avoidable by consumers themselves; and (B) outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition."
7/22. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil complaint [61 pages in PDF] in the U.S. District Court (DC) against Dell, and several of its officers, alleging violation of federal securities laws in connection with its failure to disclose receipt of exclusivity payments from Intel for not using AMD processors.
The SEC alleged in the complaint that for the time period of 2001-2006 Dell "fraudulently misrepresented the basis for Dell's improving profitability. Dell's separate fraudulent and improper accounting during this time period wrongfully made it appear that Dell was consistently meeting Wall Street earnings targets and reducing its operating expenses through the company's management and operations."
The SEC elaborated that "Intel effectively paid Dell not to use processors manufactured by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD"), Intel's arch-rival. Intel's payments to Dell, which were the subject of various antitrust investigations and claims, grew significantly. When measured as a percentage of Dell's operating income, these payments grew from about 10% in fiscal year 2003 ("FY03") to 38% in FY06, peaking at 76% in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 ("Q1FY07"). While almost all of the Intel funds were incorporated into Dell's component costs, Dell did not disclose the existence, much less the magnitude, of the Intel exclusivity payments."
Then, in 2006, "Dell announced that it intended to begin using AMD microprocessors in certain of its products later that year. Intel responded by cutting its exclusivity payments. In that same quarter Dell reported a 36% drop in its operating income." Nevertheless, the complaint alleges, "Dell told investors that the sharp drop in the company's operating results was attributable to Dell pricing too aggressively in the face of slowing demand and to component costs declining less than expected."
The complaint also names as defendants Michael Dell (Ch/CEO of Dell Inc.), former CEO Kevin Rollins, former CFO James Schneider, former regional Vice President of Finance Nicholas Dunning, and former Assistant Controller Leslie Jackson.
The SEC simultaneously announced in a release that it has settled this case, without defendants admitting to any wrongdoing. It wrote that "Dell Inc. agreed to pay a $100 million penalty to settle the SEC’s charges. Michael Dell and Rollins each agreed to pay a $4 million penalty, and Schneider agreed to pay $3 million, to settle the SEC’s charges against them. Dunning and Jackson also agreed to settle the SEC’s charges."
Dell, Inc. stated in a release that "Under his settlement, Mr. Dell has consented to a permanent injunction against future violations of these negligence-based provisions and other non-fraud based provisions of certain federal securities laws and SEC rules. In addition, Mr. Dell has agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty of $4 million. The settlement does not include any restrictions on Mr. Dell’s continued service as an officer or director of the company."
Former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), the presiding director of the Dell Board, stated in this release that "The Board believes that this settlement is in the best interest of the company, its customers and its shareholders, as it brings a five-year SEC investigation to closure. Dell's Board reaffirms its unanimous support for Michael Dell's continued leadership, and the management team in its ongoing commitment to transparent accounting, integrity in financial reporting and strong corporate governance."
This case is SEC v. Dell, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 1:10:cv-01245.
7/13. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy held a hearing titled "Impact of China's Antitrust Law and other Competition Policies on U.S. Companies".
Tad Lipsky (Latham & Watkins) wrote in his prepared testimony that "China’s antitrust rules were a long time in gestation, dating back at least to the early 1990’s, but when the law was finally enacted in 2007, there was no time wasted in implementation. Within a very short time after China implemented its merger review process under the new AML, the responsible Chinese government agency, the Ministry of Commerce (known by its acronym MOFCOM), was conducting in-depth merger investigations and blocking or placing significant conditions on transactions involving major firms based in the United States and in other jurisdictions." He said that currently enforcement is "shrouded in uncertainty".
Shanker Singham (Squire Sanders), who testified on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote in his prepared testimony [PDF] that "Competition law implementation generally works best in countries that have already accepted competition as a normative organizing principle for the economy, i.e., countries that advocate regulatory frameworks that tend to maximize and facilitate business competition on the merits. There are some questions as to the direction of China’s economic development – in particular whether state-led economic development and industrial policy are the driving forces behind regulatory promulgation. There are some serious challenges associated with placing a competition agency in an environment where industrial policy is the operating governing principle, and there is a real danger that such an agency could become another tool of industrial policy in the hands of those who would favor certain State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) or other national champions over other competitors. This concern is a real one in the case of China ..."
Thomas Barnett (Covington & Burling), a former Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ's Antitrust Division, wrote in his prepared testimony that "At the most basic level, U.S. businesses should applaud the enactment of the AML. The AML represents a critical step on the road toward introducing market competition into the Chinese economy. Competition laws provide a backstop that enables governments to deregulate sectors of the economy."
However, Barnett (at right) continued that "a competition law regime can cause more harm than good", for example, by "by creating barriers to entry" or protecting certain competitors.
He said that "China has taken significant positive steps forward by adopting a well-consider competition law regime that generally comports with international norms. It is, however, too early to draw conclusions on the implementation process. Our focus in the U.S. should be on helping the Chinese agencies to implement the law in a principled and effective manner that will spur economic growth, which also should have the effect of opening opportunities for U.S. and other businesses operating in China."
Susan Beth Farmer (Pennsylvania State University school of law) wrote a short summary of the AML in her prepared testimony. She noted for example, that "AML Article 55 provides that the mere exercise of intellectual property rights is not prohibited and is not a violation of the antitrust law, but ``abuse´´ of intellectual property rights that restrains competition does violate the statute."
7/7. Joaquín Almunia, VP of the European Commission responsible for competition policy, gave a speech titled "Competition in Digital Media and the Internet". He said that "I believe that the principles of competition must be maintained in the digital economy with the same intensity that they are imposed in the brick and mortar world."
Almunia (at right) said, regarding "physical networks", that "new regulation will not be a regulatory holiday for the big telecom operators. We will not lose the benefits of a decade of liberalisation by creating new private monopolies. The proposed new regulatory framework will continue to mandate access to the network when a dominant player operates in a market."
He then discussed online content. "The market for online content in Europe is a shameful anachronism, and the distribution of content online across the entire European Union is expensive and difficult. This market fragmentation deprives us of scale and the lack of scale deprives us of business. One of the key initiatives of our Digital Agenda in Europe is to develop an internal market for content. We must find a way to develop pan-European licensing while preserving and promoting the diversity of our culture. In this exercise, we must not confuse threats to the creators of content and threats to the current intermediaries."
He said that "We have not yet generated a meaningful internal market for e-commerce and as a consequence efficient e-retailing has a difficult time developing in Europe". He added, "Although most barriers to e-commerce are regulatory or have to do with, competition policy does have a role to play in promoting the internal market."
He then addressed cloud computing. He said that this "aims to provide integrated communication, data storage, data management and application services to businesses, all in one service."
"We cannot and should not predict the way these environments will develop. Some companies favour open and interoperable systems. Others develop closed environments and others navigate between the two. The markets should decide which business models prevail. The task of competition authorities will remain to ensure that no market is foreclosed to competitors better able to serve their final users."
However, he concluded, "Notwithstanding this, I consider that open models and interoperability do favour entry by a greater number of players."
He also addressed standards setting and Rambus. "For a standard to serve its purpose there should be a commitment to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. If so called ``FRAND commitments´´ have been given, they should be adhered to. Moreover, those standardisation bodies that require full disclosure of the proposed terms and conditions of licensing can be assured that they will not infringe EU competition law by doing so. In the IPComm and Rambus cases, the Commission has already shown that it is ready to intervene under competition rules to enforce these principles."
7/26. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will hold a hearing titled "Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division" at 10:15 AM on Tuesday, July 27, 2010. See, notice.
purpose of considering a proposed consent agreement. Under the June 21, 2010 order, this matter is scheduled to revert to Part 3 adjudicative status at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, July 23, 2010. To facilitate further consideration of a proposed consent agreement, the Commission has decided to further extend the withdrawal of this matter from adjudication. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 3.25(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.25(c) (2010), this matter will remain withdrawn from adjudication until 12:01 a.m. on Friday, August 6, 2010, at which time it will return to adjudicative status under Part 3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice."
7/15. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a notice in the Federal Register that lists recent grants of requests for early termination of the waiting period under the premerger notification rules. See, Federal Register, July 15, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 135, at Pages 41201-41205. See also, July 6 FTC notice in the Federal Register, July 6, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 128, at Pages 38813-38817.
7/14. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) that announces that the DVD Copy Control Association filed a notification of a change in its membership, pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, which pertains to limiting antitrust liability of standard setting consortia. See, Federal Register, July 14, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 134, at Page 40851. See, also DOJ FR notice regarding the Advanced Media Workflow Association (at Page 40851), DOJ FR notice regarding the Connected Media Experience (at Page 40852), and DOJ FR notice regarding the Open SystemC Initiative (at Page 40852).
6/30. The U.S. District Court (DC) issued its Final Judgment in U.S.A., et al. v. Elections Systems & Software, Inc., D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00380, on June 30, 2010. On March 8, 2010, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and nine states filed a civil complaint in the District Court against Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ESS) alleging violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18, in connection with ESS's recent acquisition of the Premier subsidiary of Diebold, Inc. See, story titled "Antitrust Division Requires Divestiture by Election Systems and Software, Inc." in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,057, March 9, 2010. See also, June 28 Motion and Memorandum of the United States in Support of Entry of Final Judgment. And see, notice in the Federal Register, June 28, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 123, at Pages 36689-36693. It publishes comments received on the proposed Final Judgment.
6/29. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division filed a proposed final judgment with the U.S. District Court (DC) on June 29, 2010, in U.S.A. v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., et al., D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00139. See also, story titled "DOJ Requires Ticketmaster Live Nation to License Ticket Software and Divest Ticketing Assets" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,038, January 25, 2010. See also, notice in the Federal Register, June 29, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 124, at Pages 37651-37706.
6/29. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division charged another defendant in its long running series of criminal prosecutions alleging thin film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act. The DOJ also announced in a release that the defendant, HannStar Display Corporation, agreed to plead guilty and pay a fine of $30 Million. The DOJ added that "Including today's charge, as a result of this investigation, seven companies have pleaded guilty or have agreed to plead guilty and have been sentenced to pay or have agreed to pay criminal fines totaling more than $890 million. Additionally, 17 executives have been charged to date in the department's ongoing investigation."
6/21. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division filed its Response to Public Comments with the U.S. District Court (DC) in USA v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, as required by the Tunney Act.
The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour, and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:00 PM. The scheduled includes consideration of HR 3101 [LOC | WW], the "Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010", under suspension of the rules. See, amendment in the nature of a substitute [70 pages in PDF] and a further amendment approved by the House Commerce Committee (HCC) on July 21. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of July 26.
The Senate will meet at 3:00 PM. It will resume consideration of S 3628 [LOC | WW], a bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced this bill on July 21.
8:00 AM - 5:30 PM. Day one of a two day joint meeting of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled "Enabling the Convergence of Communications and Medical Systems: Ways to Update Regulatory and Information Processes". See, FCC Public Notice (DA 10-1071 in ET Docket No. 10-120). The deadline to register to attend is 5:00 PM on July 19, 2010. The deadline to submit written comments is June 25, 2010. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding its proposed consent agreement with Twitter. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 30, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 125, at Pages 37806-37808.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding the communications requirements of utilities, including, but not limited to the requirements of the Smart Grid. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 14, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 113, at Pages 33611-33612.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) regarding unlicensed personal communications services devices in the 1920-1930 MHz band. The FCC adopted this NPRM on May 4, 2010, and released the text [19 pages in PDF] on May 6, 2010. It is FCC 10-77 in ET Docket No. 10-97. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 11, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 112, at Pages 33220-33226.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding regulation of ownership of media companies. The FCC adopted and released this item on May 25, 2010. It is FCC 10-92 in MB Docket No. 09-182. See, FCC June 11, 2010, Public Notice (DA 10-1066), and notice in the Federal Register, June 11, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 112, at Pages 33227-33237. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts Broadcast Ownership NOI" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,087, May 26, 2010.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding expanding the range of products and services covered by the FCC's e-rate subsidy program. The FCC adopted this NPRM on December 1, 2009, and released the text [43 pages in PDF] on December 2, 2010. It is FCC 09-105 in CC Docket No. 02-6. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 9, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 110, at Pages 32692-32699. See also, story titled "FCC Expands and Seeks Comments on List of Items Eligible for E-Rate Subsidies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,019, December 2, 2009.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the FCC's e-rate tax and subsidy program. The FCC adopted and released this NPRM on May 20, 2010. It is FCC 10-83 in CC Docket No. 02-6 and GN Docket No. 09-51. See, notice in the Federal Register: June 9, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 110, at Pages 32699-32719. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts Another E-Rate NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,087, May 26, 2010.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Inquiry (NOI) [12 pages in PDF] regarding the survivability in broadband communications networks and ways to reduce network vulnerability to failures in network equipment or severe overload conditions, such as would occur in natural disasters and pandemics. The FCC adopted and released this item on April 21, 2010. It is FCC 10-62 in PS Docket No. 10-92. See, notice in the Federal Register, May 11, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 90, at Pages 26180-26183.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice (PN) regarding Global-Tel Corporation's March 4, 2010, Petition for Expedited Clarification and Declaratory Ruling regarding application of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). This PN is DA 10-997 in CG Docket No. 02-278. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 30, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 125, at Pages 37803-37804.
EXTENDED TO AUGUST 2. Deadline to submit comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding its draft [76 pages in PDF] of its "FY 2010-2015 Strategic Plan". See, notice in the Federal Register, July 9, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 131, at Pages 39493-39494. See also, story titled "USPTO Releases Draft Five Year Plan" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,102, July 12, 2010. See, notice of extention.
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for morning hour, and at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The schedule for the week includes consideration of HConRes 266, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Taiwan should be accorded observer status in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of July 26.
8:00 AM - 5:30 PM. Day two of a two day joint meeting of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled "Enabling the Convergence of Communications and Medical Systems: Ways to Update Regulatory and Information Processes". See, FCC Public Notice (DA 10-1071 in ET Docket No. 10-120). The deadline to register to attend is 5:00 PM on July 19, 2010. The deadline to submit written comments is June 25, 2010. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.
9:00 AM - 4:45 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the International Trade Administration (ITA) will host an event titled "Cybersecurity and Innovation in the Information Economy". See, notice in the Federal Register, June 28, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 123, at Pages 36633-36634. Location: Amphitheater, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
9:30 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will hold a partially closed meeting. The open portion of this meeting is open to public attendance, and will also be teleconferenced. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 13, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 133, at Page 39920. Location: DOC, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Aves., NW.
10:00 AM. The House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) will meet to mark up several bills, including HR 2267, the "Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act". See, notice. Location: Room 2128, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response will hold a hearing titled "Interoperable Emergency Communications: Does the National Broadband Plan Meet the Needs of First Responders?". The witnesses will be James Barnett (Chief of the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau), Greg Schaffer (DHS's Office of Cyber Security and Communications), Jeff Johnson ( International Association of Fire Chiefs), Charles Dowd (New York City Police Department), Robert LeGrande (LeGrande Technical and Social Services LLC), and Eric Graham (Rural Cellular Association). This hearing will cover proposals to auction the D-Block. The HHSC will webcast this event. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.
10:15 AM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will hold a hearing titled "Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division". See, notice. The HJC will webcast this event. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
11:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hold a hearing titled "Federal Rulemaking and the Regulatory Process". See, notice. There will be no webcast. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
1:00 PM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Health will hold a hearing titled "Implementation Of The HITECH Act". See, notice. Location: Room 2322, Rayburn Building.
1:30 PM. The House Ways and Means Committee's (HWMC) Subcommittee on Trade will hold a hearing titled "Enhancing the U.S.-EU Trade Relationship". The witnesses will be Stuart Eizenstat (Covington & Burling), Kathryn Hauser (Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue), Peter Chase (U.S. Chamber of Commerce), Frances Burwell (Atlantic Council of the United States), and Stephen Flanagan (Center for Strategic and International Studies). See, notice. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.
2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a hearing titled "Consumer Online Privacy". The witnesses will be Jonathan Leibowitz (Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission), Julius Genachowski (Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission), Bud Tribble (Apple), Bret Taylor (Facebook), Alma Whitten (Google), Jim Harper (Cato Institute), Dorothy Atwood (AT&T), and Joe Turow (Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania). See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding amending Part 87 of the FCC's rules to allow use of the frequency 1090 MHz by aeronautical mobility mobile stations for airport surface detection equipment (ASDE-X), also known as vehicle squitters. The FCC adopted this item on March 11, 2010, and released the text [19 pages in PDF] on March 16, 2010. It is FCC 10-37 in WT Docket Nos. 09-42 and 10-61. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 28, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 81, at Pages 22352-22356.
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for the week of July 26.
9:00 AM. Day one of a two day meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC). The July 28 agenda includes "Smart Grid", "Civil Satellite Telecommunications", and "GPU/CPU/Accelerators". The July 28 portion of this meeting is open to the public, and will also be teleconferenced. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 13, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 133, at Pages 39919-39920. Location: DOC, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Aves., NW.
10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation". The witness will be FBI Director Robert Mueller. See, notice. The SJC will webcast this event. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
11:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) WRC-12 Advisory Committee will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 30, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 125, at Pages 37802-37803. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St., SW.
1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast and teleconferenced event titled "New Developments and Trends in Music Publishing Law". The speakers will be Zeina Hamzeh (Warner Chappell Music, Inc.) and Ed Pierson. See, notice. Prices vary. CLE credits.
2:00 PM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing titled "Online Privacy, Social Networking, and Crime Victimization". See, notice. The HJC will webcast this event. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Nominations". The witnesses will be Kathleen O'Malley, nominated to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), Beryl Howell (U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia), and Robert Wilkins (USDC/DC). See, notice. The SJC will webcast this event. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
5:00 - 7:00 PM. The New America Foundation (NAF) will host a panel discussion titled "Digital District: Local News and Online Media Access in Washington". The speakers will be Dan Silverman, Veronica Davis, Ariel Valdez, Justin Jouvenal, and Steve Coll (NAF). See, notice. Location: NAF, Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.
10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda currently does not include consideration of any technology related bills, federal judicial nominees, or technology related executive branch nominees. See, notice. The SJC will webcast this event. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
7/23. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division (CRD) released four documents titled "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (ANPRM) regarding expanding the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to regulate certain communications and information technologies.
First, the CRD released an ANPRM regarding expanding ADA Title III regulation of public accommodations to include certain websites. In this document the CRD appears to have retreated from its April 22, 2010, assertion that the ADA applies to web site only businesses -- that is, even when there is no actual physical public accommodation. See, story titled "DOJ CRD May Write Regulations to Expand the ADA to Cover the Internet and Information Technologies" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,080, April 26, 2010.
The CRD appears to now take the position that it can extend Title III to the web sites of certain businesses that also maintain physical facilities. It bases this claim upon the opinion of the U.S. District Court (NDCal) in AFB v. Target, while dismissing or ignoring precedent to the contrary. See also, story titled "Interpretation of the ADA" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,080.
This ANPRM fails to provide clarity on the CRD's planned regulations and legal theory, and fails to pose questions on numerous critical issues.
Second, the CRD released an ANPRM regarding expanding ADA Title III regulation of public accommodations to include close captioning and video description for movies shown by movie theater owners or operators. The plain language of Title III provides for access by persons disabilities to enumerated "public accommodations", including a "motion picture house". The CRD now asserts authority to regulate things used within enumerated public accommodations to facilitate use by persons with other disabilities.
Third, the CRD released an ANPRM regarding expanding ADA Title II (which covers discrimination by state and local governments) to include regulation of 911 call taking centers.
Fourth, the CRA released an ANPRM regarding expanding ADA Title II and III regulation to include certain "equipment and furniture", including "electronic and information technology (EIT) equipment and furniture, such as kiosks, interactive transaction machines (ITMs), point-of-sale (POS) devices, and automated teller machines (ATMs)". The CRD appears to limit its proposed regulation of IT equipment to that found in enumerated public accommodations or government facilities; it appears not to propose to regulate IT products sold directly to consumers.
Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech on Friday, July 23, at the DOJ headquarters at an event regarding the ADA. He only briefly touched on writing regulations.
Holder stated that "We’re also working hard to ensure that the ADA keeps up with technological advances that were – quite simply -- unimaginable 20 years ago. Just as these quantum leaps can help all of us, they can also set us back – if regulations are not updated or compliance codes become too confusing to implement. We won’t let that happen. To avoid this, the Department will soon publish four advanced notices of proposed rulemaking regarding accessibility requirements for websites, movies, equipment and furniture, and 911 call-taking technologies.
Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the CRD, spoke at length at the same event, without discussing regulation of new technologies. Former Rep. Tony Cuello (D-CA), and former Attorney General Richard Thornburg, also spoke, without discussing the regulation of new technologies.
Note: This is a cursory article. TLJ is writing more detailed summaries of the ANPRMs for publication in a forthcoming issue.
7/23. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a notice in the Federal Register that announces the creation of an advisory committee titled "Emergency Response Interoperability Center Public Safety Advisory Committee''. See, Federal Register, July 23, 2010, Vol. 75, No. 141, at Page 43164.
7/21. Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), testified before the Senate Banking Committee (SBC), and presented the FRB's "Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress". He wrote in his prepared testimony that "The economic expansion that began in the middle of last year is proceeding at a moderate pace". The Monetary Policy Report to the Congress [56 pages in PDF] states that "Economic activity expanded at a moderate pace in the first half of 2010 after picking up in the second half of 2009." It continues that "After rising at an annual rate of about 4 percent, on average, in the second half of 2009, U.S. real GDP increased at a rate of 2 3/4 percent in the first quarter of 2010, and available information points to another moderate gain in the second quarter." This report elaborates that real outlays for equipment and software (E&S) rose at an annual rate of 11 1/2 percent in the first quarter after an even larger increase in the fourth quarter ... As it had in the fourth quarter, business spending on motor vehicles rose briskly, and outlays on information technology (IT) capital -- computers, software, and communications equipment -- continued to be spurred by the need to replace older, less-efficient equipment and by the expansion of the infrastructure for wireless communications networks."

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 v.