Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2003/12/19.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:28:24+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 803, December 19, 2003.
December 19, 2003, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 803.
12/18. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released a report [73 pages in PDF] titled "2003 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance".
12/18. The California Court of Appeal (4/2) issued its opinion [MS Word] in Williams v. Riverside, a case regarding a California city's attempt to exact monopoly rents from a company installing a fiber optic network using the city's local rights of way. The company paid under protest, built its network, and then sued the city. The Superior Court upheld the city's scheme. The Court of Appeal, applying California's public utilities and government codes, reversed.
Williams Communications installed conduit, fiber optic cable, and related equipment in streets in the City of Riverside, in southern California. Riverside required Williams to pay $750,000, calculated at the rate of $1.50 per foot, to build these facilities. Williams paid under protest, and built the facilities.
Williams then filed a complaint in Superior Court for Riverside County arguing that the mandated payment was in excess of Riverside's reasonable costs, and therefore illegal under California's Public Utilities Code section 7901 and Government Code section 50030. Williams further argued that the payment was coerced and that it had the right to recover the illegal payment under the California Mitigation Fee Act, codified at Gov. Code, § 66000, et seq.
Riverside argued that it did not require the payment. Rather, it was negotiated. However, it did not assert that $750,000 represented its costs.
The trial court ruled in favor of Riverside, and ordered Williams to pay Riverside an additional $212,861, as attorneys fees.
Section 7901 provides that "Telegraph or telephone corporations may construct lines of telegraph or telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State, and may erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters."
Riverside argued that section 7901 is inapplicable because Williams failed to show that it is a telephone corporation which will use the right of way on Riverside to provide telephone services. The gist of its argument was that Williams does not provide telephone services within the meaning of this section because it is building a digital fiber optic network that that provides voice, data, video, and internet transmission services.
The trial court adopted this argument. The Court of Appeal did not. It wrote that "The fundamental issue, therefore, is whether the City may levy charges for use of the City streets to a telephone company when the telephone company lines may carry signals which are not telephone signals." It concluded that "Williams established that it is a telephone company which provides telephone services. The bulk of its income is derived from telephone transmission services. The fact that other data is transmitted over the telephone lines does not deprive Williams of the protection afforded by section 7901."
Section 50030 provides that "Any permit fee imposed by a city, including a chartered city, a county, or a city and county, for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of telecommunications facilities such as lines, poles, or antennas by a telephone corporation that has obtained all required authorizations to provide telecommunications services from the Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, shall not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged and shall not be levied for general revenue purposes."
The Court of Appeal held that the payment was in excess of "reasonable costs" under section 50030, and hence, illegal.
The Court of Appeal construed sections 7901 and 50030. However, it also referred to the legislative history of section 50030, which was enacted in 1996. It addresses the policy of promoting emerging technologies, and hence, economic growth and social benefits.
The Court of Appeal quoted from the state legislature's findings and declarations: "(1) Connecting all California homes and businesses to the information superhighway has the potential to position the state on the leading edge of the telecommunications revolution. The emerging technologies will encourage economic growth and provide social benefits to all Californians, as well as allow California businesses and residents to compete in national and international markets. [¶] (2) Congress and the Legislature of the State of California have enacted telecommunications policies that include provisions to encourage the development and deployment of new technologies, and the equitable provision of services in a way that efficiently meets consumer need and encourages the ubiquitous availability of a wide choice of state-of-the-art services, and to promote economic growth, job creation, and the substantial social benefits that will result from the rapid implementation of advanced information and communications technologies. [¶] (3) New technologies require investment and expansion of telecommunications networks in order to bring greater choice to consumers by encouraging universally available telecommunications service. [¶] (b) The Legislature further finds and declares that this act does not constitute a change in existing law."
The Court of Appeal also rejected Riverside's argument that it did not require the payment. It wrote that "The evidence established, however, that the City would not grant the necessary permits without a license agreement, and would not enter into a license agreement without payment of the fee".
The Court of Appeal also reversed the trial court's holding that the California Mitigation Fee Act does not apply.
Finally, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorneys fees to Riverside, because Williams is the prevailing party.
This case is Williams Communications LLC v. City of Riverside, Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, No. E032661, an appeal from the Superior Court for Riverside County, Super. Ct. No. RIC354749.
12/18. Kurt Schroeder, Deputy Chief of the Telecommunications Consumers Division of the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wrote a letter [4 pages in PDF] to CPM Funding, Inc., d/b/a California Pacific Mortgage, regarding its alleged failure to comply with the FCC's national do not call rules.
FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David Solomon stated in a release [PDF] that "This is a landmark enforcement step -- the first FCC action to enforce our new National Do Not Call rules. This citation demonstrates our resolve to ensure that consumers are not bothered by unwanted, intrusive calls to their homes. Do Not Call enforcement is the FCC’s top consumer protection priority and we, along with our partners at the FTC, will continue to be vigilant in this area on behalf of the American public."
TLJ experienced technical difficulties yesterday and today with e-mail delivery, resulting in delays. Some subscribers also received multiple identical copies yesterday. TLJ apologizes for this. In the event that any subscribers did not receive yesterday's issue, it is now in the TLJ web site. See, TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 802, December 18, 2003.
The TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert will not be published on Wednesday, December 24, Thursday, December 25, or Friday, December 26.
12/18. The General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report [427 pages in PDF] titled "Information Technology: Leadership Remains Key to Agencies Making Progress on Enterprise Architecture Efforts".
This report, which was prepared for the House Government Reform Committee, finds that federal agencies' progress toward effective enterprise architecture management is limited. Of the agencies studied by the GAO, only the Executive Office of the President reported performing all of the management practices that are indicative of effective enterprise architecture management. In contrast, the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) both performed only one of five such practices.
In addition, the report states that "when agencies are assessed against the recent update of our maturity framework (Version 1.1), the percentage that have established at least a foundation for enterprise architecture management drops to 21 percent; only one agency (1 percent), the Executive Office of the President, reported performing all of the management practices that are indicative of effective enterprise architecture management.
The report concludes that "This limited progress can be attributed in part to long-standing enterprise architecture challenges that have yet to be addressed. In particular, since 2001, more agencies now report that agency executive understanding of enterprise architecture and the scarcity of skilled architecture staff are significant challenges. Until agencies have and use well-defined enterprise architectures, their ability to effectively leverage IT in transforming mission operations will be impaired."
12/18. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in Primeco Personal Communications v. City of Mequon, a cell tower construction case. The city denied a permit. The District Court granted summary judgment to the service provider. The Appeals Court affirmed.
The City of Mequon, in the state of Wisconsin, denied Primeco's (dba Verizon Wireless) request to build a cell tower. Primeco then filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (EDWisc) against Mequon alleging violation of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7).
Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) requires that "Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record."
The Appeals Court wrote that Mequon's decision was made "without opinion, so that the only written record of the evidence and reasoning supporting denial is the transcript of the planning commission’s deliberations". Nevertheless, the Appeals Court gave a detailed review of the statute and precedent, analyzed the planning commission's members' statements, and concluded that Mequon had violated the statute.
The Court wrote, in the end, that "It is doubtful that the planning commission's decision can be said to be supported by any evidence at all; certainly it cannot be said to be supported by substantial evidence."
Judge Richard Posner wrote the opinion of the Court, in which Judges Kanne and Rovner joined.
This case is Primeco Personal Communications, Limited Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. City of Mequon, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Nos. 03-1514 and 03-1548, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, D.C. No. 01-C-1205, Judge Lynn Adelman presiding.
12/18. Timothy Donahue, P/CEO of Nextel Communications, will be the chairman of the newly re-chartered Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC VII). See, FCC release [PDF].
12/18. The Members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) elected Bradley Smith as Chairman and Ellen Weintraub as Vice Chair for 2004. See, FEC release. Smith is best known for taking seriously First Amendment protections of political speech. Before his appointment to the FEC in 2000, Smith was a law professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio.
12/18. Howard Griboff was named Assistant Chief of the Policy Division of the International Bureau (IB) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC stated in a release that Griboff will "manage projects and provide policy and legal expertise, including regarding spectrum policy rulemaking items. He also will oversee certain licensing activities, including mergers." Griboff has worked in the IB since 1998. From 1996-1998, he worked in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Before that, he worked for the law firm of Fisher Wayland Cooper Leader & Zaragoza.
12/18. Paul Locke was named Assistant Chief -- Engineering of the Policy Division of the International Bureau (IB) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC stated in a release that he will "provide engineering management expertise and contribute to the technical aspects of spectrum policy rulemaking items". He has worked for the FCC since 2000.
12/18. Real Networks filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal) against Microsoft alleging violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Real stated in a release that Microsoft has "illegally used its monopoly power to restrict competition, limit consumer choice and attempt to monopolize the growing field of digital media". Microsoft responded in a release that "this is a case where a leading firm is seeking to use the antitrust laws to protect and increase its marketplace share and to limit the competition it must face". Microsoft added that "These issues are a rehash of the same issues that have already been the subject of extensive litigation and a tough but fair resolution of the government antitrust lawsuit."
12/18. Microsoft filed six complaints on December 17, 2003 in King County Superior Court in the state of Washington against numerous individuals, corporations, and unknown parties, alleging violation of anti-spam laws of the states of New York and Washington by sending deceptive spam messages that contained forged sender names, false subject lines, fake server names, inaccurate and misrepresented sender addresses, or obscured transmission paths. See, Microsoft release and list of cases. Much of the spam was routed through compromised internet protocol (IP) addresses located in the state of New York. Eliot Spitzer (Attorney General of New York), Brad Smith (SVP/GC of Microsoft), and Tim Cranton (Senior Corporate Attorney for Microsoft) held a press conference on December 18 to announce the lawsuits. See, transcript.
12/18. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that they will jointly hold a three day workshop on February 17-19, 2004 on application of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines. Also, February 10, 2004 is the deadline to submit comments to the DOJ and FTC regarding this workshop. See, notice. The DOJ and FTC also released a report titled "Merger Challenges Data, Fiscal Years 1999-2003". See also, DOJ release.
Christmas. Executive branch agencies will be closed.
Executive branch agencies will be closed. See, Executive Order.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding digital low power television and television translator stations. This is FCC 03-198, in MB Docket No. 03-185. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 26, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 187, at Pages 55566 - 55573.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to promoting spectrum based services in rural areas. See, notice in the Federal Register summarizing this NPRM, and story titled "FCC Announces NPRM Regarding Regulations Affecting the Use of Spectrum in Rural Areas" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 739, September 15, 2003. This NPRM is FCC 03-222 in WT Docket Nos. 02-381, 01-14, and 03-202. The FCC adopted this NPRM on September 10, 2003, and released it on October 6, 2003. See, Federal Register, November 12, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 218, at Pages 64050-64072.

References: v. 
 § 66000
 v. 
 v. 
 § 332
 v.