Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2003/12/02.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:53:01+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 790, December 2, 2003.
December 2, 2003, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 790.
12/1. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) held a forum on Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) issues. All five Commissioners sat through both the morning and afternoon sessions.
Chairman Michael Powell again stated that the FCC will issue a Notice of Public Rulemaking (NPRM) "to inquire about the migration of voice services to IP-based networks and gather public comment on the appropriate regulatory environment for these services". See, FCC release of November 6, 2003. However, at the VOIP forum, he declined to offer a prediction about when the FCC will release this NPRM.
The Commissioners generally called for a light regulatory touch, and focused on five regulatory issues: E-911 mandates, wiretapping and surveillance under the CALEA, access by disabled people, universal service subsidies, and access charges. No Commissioners spoke in support of price regulation of VOIP services.
The FCC often hosts forums, roundtables and other gatherings. Frequently, one or more Commissioners attend the beginning of the program, make brief remarks, and then leave. This forum was atypical in that all five Commissioners attended, remained for the entire program, and participated in questioning the other participants.
The FCC also announced the formation of Internet Policy Working Group. See, following story.
The FCC will keep the record open for two weeks. Written comments must be 1,000 words or less.
Opening Statements by Commissioners. FCC Chairman Michael Powell read a statement [PDF] at the beginning of the program. He said that "As one who believes unflinchingly in maintaining an Internet free from government regulation, I believe that IP-based services such as VOIP should evolve in a regulation-free zone. No regulator, either federal or state, should tread into this area without an absolutely compelling justification for doing so. Innovation and capital investment depend on this premise. The entrepreneurs seated before us depend upon this premise. In my view, we should come to this forum with a sense of regulatory humility - mindful that it is entrepreneurs, not governments, who came up with the idea of making high-quality, inexpensive phone calls over the Internet."
Powell (at right) continued that "In my view, that policy environment must begin with the recognition that the Internet is inherently a global network that does not acknowledge narrow, artificial boundaries." But, he added, "This is not to say that states don’t have important roles in the areas of their traditional police powers."
Powell also stated that "To be sure, health, safety and welfare concerns may give rise to uniquely state interests and it might be proper for them to play a role in these areas. Economic regulation, however, is entirely another matter and we should approach that area of regulation with significant skepticism."
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy stated that the rapid pace of technological development and state regulatory actions require that the FCC now take a lead role in setting federal policy in this area. She advocated a "predominantly federal regulatory scheme" with "a light regulatory touch". She also said that the FCC must address "core social policy objectives" including universal service, 911, CALEA, and disabled access.
Commissioner Michael Copps also read an opening statement [PDF]. He said that "While none of us knows where this will all come out, we need to pull back and think anew. It’s incumbent on us to identify good policy going forward and not just shoehorn VoIP into statutory terms or regulatory pigeonholes without adequate justification. It’s no slam-dunk that the old rules even apply. But we do need to discuss the consequences of the proliferation of VoIP services on our important statutory objectives—universal service, homeland security, 911 services, accessibility by people with disabilities, and encouraging the build-out of advanced telecommunications services. We need to craft a space in which this technology succeeds because of its inherent ability, not due to regulatory arbitrage or exception. Indeed, tackling VoIP may force us to come to terms with other pending proceedings that also cry out for solution.
Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said in his opening statement [PDF] that the FCC must provide for FBI surveillance of VOIP communications, E911, and other existing programs.
Adelstein (at left) stated that "we must understand the concerns raised by DOJ and FBI that classifying Vonage’s VoIP as an information service severely undercuts CALEA. They say that call content and caller identification could evade lawful electronic surveillance, and that VoIP jeopardizes the ability of federal, state, and local governments to protect public safety and national security against domestic and foreign threats. Public safety is not negotiable."
He also stated that "emergency services are not negotiable."
He also said that "We must protect the underpinnings of universal service. Congress clearly stated that all Americans, whether urban or rural, should have access to high quality services at reasonable rates. If VoIP providers are not required to contribute, it creates an opportunity for regulatory arbitrage and further undermines the already troubled funding mechanism. So if VoIP is the future, then the steps we take must protect universal access to the best services available."
Finally, Adelstein addressed access charges. He said that "We also need to determine how underlying carriers are compensated for carrying third parties' traffic. Some VoIP providers pay no access fees even though in many instances they are using local phone lines to route their traffic. We cannot afford to let the rise of VoIP to undercut the very networks that carry it."
FCC Staff Presentations. Jennifer McKee and Russell Hanser gave presentations on the current regulatory framework, and pending FCC proceedings, respectively.
McKee reviewed the FCC's Second Computer Inquiry, with its definitions of basic and enhanced services, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with its definitions of telecommunications and information services, and the FCC's 1998 Stevens report, which addressed VOIP.
The FCC defined "basic service" as a pure transmission capability offered on a common carrier basis for the movement of information. Basic services are subject to common carrier regulation under the Communications Act, including interconnection, privacy, CALEA, universal service, and disability access. The Computer II decision stated that "enhanced service" involves computer processing, interaction with customer supplied information, and interaction with stored information. And, it stated that enhanced services are not subject to Title II regulation.
The 1996 Act defined "telecommunications" as the "transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received." It defined "telecommunications service" as the "offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, regardless of facilities used."
The 1996 then defined "information service" as the "offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications." The 1996 Act provided that telecommunications services are generally subject to Title II regulation, while "information services" are not subject to Title II regulation.
Finally, in April of 1998, the FCC wrote a report to the Congress, as required by §623(b)(1) of a CJS Appropriations Act, in which it made some tentative conclusions about VOIP. It concluded that computer to computer VOIP is not a telecommunications service. However, phone to phone VOIP may be treated as a telecommunications service, if the provider holds itself out as providing voice telephony services, and meets certain other criteria. The primary concern of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), and others, was universal service contributions. See also, TLJ story titled "FCC Claims Authority to Tax Internet Telephony", April 13, 1998.
Russell Hanser then reviewed the three proceedings currently pending at the FCC regarding VOIP: an AT&T petition, a Pulver.com petition, and a Vonage petition.
See, outline [PDF] of these two FCC staff presentations.
Panel Presentations. The Commission then heard from two panels. The first panel was assigned the task of presenting technical and market issues. The second panel was assigned the task of addressing policy issues. However, both panels discussed both technical and policy issues.
The first panel was comprised of Kevin Werbach (Supernova Group), Charles Giancarlo (SVP/GM of Cisco Systems), Jeff Pulver (Pulver.com), John Hodulik (UBS), and John Billock (COO of Time Warner Cable).
The second panel was made up of Michael Gallagher (National Telecommunications and Information Administration), Carl Wood (Commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission), Charles Davidson (Commissioner of the, Florida Public Services Commission), James Crowe (CEO of Level3), Tom Evslin (CEO of ITXC), Jeffrey Citron (CEO of Vonage), and Gregg Vanderheiden (University of Wisconsin).
Kevin Werbach, who worked at the FCC when the 1998 VOIP report was written, gave an overview of devices and applications that have VOIP capabilities. He also argued that the greatest threat to VOIP is not regulatory action, but regulatory inaction. The risk, said Werbach, is that legacy regulations would be applied to VOIP. See, PowerPoint presentation.
Jeff Pulver, discussed his Free World Dialup service. See, PowerPoint presentation.
John Billock of Time Warner Cable (TWC) discussed the deployment of VOIP by cable operators. He also stated that TWC "is committed to supporting important public policies associated with its delivery of IP voice services. As I mentioned earlier, Digital Phone supports and offers access to Enhanced 911 services. In addition, Time Warner Cable will support the goals of Universal Service by contributing to both state and federal Universal Service Funds in connection with the Digital Phone service. Finally, the IP voice solution deployed by Time Warner Cable supports the capability to assist law enforcement agencies by permitting the capture, where necessary, of both call identifying information and call content." See, prepared testimony [MS Word].
Cisco's Charles Giancarlo discussed Cisco's IP phones and services. He made the points, as did other presenters, that VOIP is tied to broadband access, and that is is just one of many services that may be provided with broadband service. He also said that while currently telephone charges may be based upon time, the basis for charging for broadband service will be bandwidth and the services to which one subscribes.
John Hodulik, the Wireline Telecommunications Analyst at UBS Securities, gave an investment community viewpoint. He wrote in his prepared testimony [MS Word] said that "Ironically, the existing regulatory framework is promoting the adoption of VoIP as well as any focused strategy could reasonably be expected to do. When VoIP providers say they worry that regulators could slow the acceptance of the technology and their growth, they are acknowledging the underlying regulatory benefits they have relative to the traditional telcos."
"If the regulatory imbalance remains, the incentive for incumbent carriers to shift traffic to IP-based platforms will remain strong. The Bells have made it clear with recent announcements regarding VoIP that they will follow the path of least resistance. Over time, this will put undue stress on the existing regulatory framework, making the existing intercarrier compensation regime and Universal Service funding mechanisms untenable."
Hodulik continued that "From a network standpoint, voice and IP services can be commingled relatively easily. However, this marriage pits the micro-managed regulatory world of voice, where returns are almost guaranteed, with the hands-off, market driven world of IP where companies are left to sink or swim on their own. From a capital market’s standpoint, much of the uncertainty is because there appears to be a regulatory void when it comes to VoIP. The FCC needs to take a leadership position, creating one set of rules that distinguish between the different types of VOIP Until this is completed, investors will remain wary about funding new ventures that provide the service."
He called for "a regulatory framework that will stand the test of time, allowing investors to anticipate the winners and losers based on strategy and execution rather than unforeseeable changes in Washington." He also called for a "national standard". He wrote that "A patchwork of differing state regulations does nothing to provide clarity and, frankly, makes no sense considering the lack of geographic distinction on the Internet where there are no LATAs or state boundaries."
He concluded that "VoIP has created not just the need but also the opportunity for regulators to rethink the traditional framework that governs telephony in the United States. I believe this forum should be as much about creating parity as it is about fostering the growth of VoIP. Regulating VoIP similar to the traditional telephone network is not the answer. The answer is to fundamentally reassess regulation of the traditional telephone network before the value-creating portion of that infrastructure and the regulatory framework that governs it, becomes obsolete."
The second panel included two state regulators with different views. Carl Wood is a Commissioner of the California PUC who was appointed by former Gov. Gray Davis. Wood stated that the CPUC is currently in the process of starting regulation of VOIP providers.
In contrast, Charles Davidson is a Commissioner of the Florida PSC who was appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush. He argued for a "hands off approach". He argued that wireline telephony regulations derive from an era of monopoly providers and geographically based providers, while VOIP has no market leader, and is not tied to any locality.
Davidson argued that VOIP is interstate. Wood argued that "there are issues of interest to states" such as consumer protection. Davidson argued that for nascent, emerging technologies, the market can protect consumers.
Davidson also argued that VOIP should be free from economic regulation, but not other regulation, such as 911 and universal service. He also stated that a VOIP service should be subject to access charges if it meets a "but for" test. That is, if a call cannot be made or completed, but for reliance on the PSTN, then it should be subject to access charges.
Gregg Vanderheiden of the University of Wisconsin argued that regulation is necessary to provide access to disabled people. He said that market incentives do not lead companies to provide for disabled access.
James Crowe (Level3), Tom Evslin (ITXC), and Jeffrey Citron (Vonage) all stated in their various ways that the current system of access charges is a hopeless, nonsustainable, broken system, and that VOIP should not be subject to access charges. Crowe argued that VOIP should be subject to 911 regulation and the CALEA, and contribute to universal service. Evslin too said that VOIP should contribute to universal service.
Citron argued that law enforcement entities should go to the Congress for CALEA authority. He also said that progress is being made on emergency services absent regulation.
Evslin cautioned that regulation could drive VOIP providers offshore or to peer to peer technologies.
Court Opinions. No one from the FCC's Office of General Counsel gave a presentation at the VOIP forum. However, there are two major recent court opinions that are pertinent to FCC regulation of VOIP.
First, on October 6, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [39 pages in PDF] in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC, vacating the FCC declaratory ruling that cable modem service is an information service, and that there is no separate offering as a telecommunications service. The FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [75 pages in PDF] at its March 14, 2002 meeting. This is FCC 02-77 in Docket No. 00-185 and Docket No. 02-52.
The Declaratory Ruling (DR) component of this item states that "we conclude that cable modem service, as it is currently offered, is properly classified as an interstate information service, not as a cable service, and that there is no separate offering of telecommunications service." The opinion of the Court of Appeals vacates this DR.
Second, October 16, 2003, the U.S. District Court (DMinn) issued its Memorandum and Order [PDF] in Vonage v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, holding that Vonage is an information service provider, and that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) cannot apply state laws that regulate telecommunications carriers to Vonage. The Court wrote that "State regulation would effectively decimate Congress's mandate that the Internet remain unfettered by regulation." The District Court in Minnesota ignored the 9th Circuit.
See also, story titled "District Court Holds that Vonage's VOIP is an Information Service" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 760, October 17, 2003.
These opinions could affect the FCC's ability to use definitions to accomplish its regulatory goals.
Congressional Comments. No Senators or Representatives participated in the forum. However, several Senators wrote letters regarding the issue. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and its Communications Subcommittee, wrote that "As a strong supporter of the Universal Service and E-911 programs, I am concerned that the way in which VOIP is regulated may affect support for these vital programs, and I urge that this be thoroughly explored. However, it would be a tragedy if misunderstanding and fear were to prevent VOIP from reaching its full potential."
He also wrote that "the inherently interstate and international nature of the internet argue for caution in imposing regulations" and that "uniform treatment of VOIP would help the technology serve customers".
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH), another member of the Senate Commerce Committee, wrote that "I share your interest in ensuring that this platform is not saddled with undue regulatory burdens at either the federal or state level." He continued that "There is concern that if states approach VoIP in the same manner they regulate the current local phone systems, the external benefits of the technology, including increased levels of connectivity and significant network efficiencies, could be lost, which would hurt individual companies and more importantly consumers. Further, there is a risk that this kind of action may lead to obligations that are wholly inappropriate for this platform and might undermine the ability of this new technology to develop and succeed."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, wrote that "The existing regulatory uncertainty over the treatment of these services, however, threatens to quickly create an unhealthy environment for continued investment and development of competition in this area."
Options Available to the FCC. Powell and Martin both discussed with panel participants, in broad strokes, some of the options open to the FCC if it seeks a "light regulatory touch". One approach would be definitional. However, Martin noted that the 9th Circuit opinion presents an obstacle. Another approach would be forbearance. However, Powell noted that the FCC cannot forbear on behalf of the states.
12/1. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced the formation of an Internet Policy Working Group (IPWG).
The FCC issued a release [PDF] that states that the IPWG will "will assist the Commission in identifying, evaluating and addressing policy issues that will arise as telecommunications services move to Internet-based platforms. The cross-bureau and multi-disciplinary working group will be directed by a steering committee comprised of senior management and staff from several Commission Bureaus and Offices, and will be staffed as needed by attorneys, engineers and economists from across the Commission. This Working Group will also reach out to key constituencies including state regulators, consumer groups and public safety organizations."
The Co-Directors of the IPWG will be Robert Pepper (Chief of Policy Development) and Jeff Carlisle (Senior Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau).
The other members of the IPWG will be June Taylor (Chief of Staff, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau), Anna Gomez (Deputy Chief, International Bureau), Kyle Dixon (Deputy Chief, Media Bureau), Jeffery Goldthorp (Chief of the Network Technology Division, Office of Engineering, and Technology), Mary McManus (Special Counsel, Office of the General Counsel), and David Furth (Associate Bureau Chief/Counsel, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau).
9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will hold a meeting that is open to the public. The PCAST's notice in the Federal Register states that the agenda includes the following: "(1) Discuss and, pending the discussion, approve a draft report from its information technology manufacturing competitiveness subcommittee; (2) discuss the preliminary observations and draft recommendations of its workforce education subcommittee; and (3) continue its discussion of nanotechnology and its review of the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative." The notice states both that the meeting will be on December 2 and December 3. Stan Sokul, Executive Director of the OSTP, states that the meeting is on December 2. For more information, contact Stan Sokul at 202 456-6070 or ssokul@ostp.eop.gov. Location: Monticello Ballroom (lower level), Wyndham Washington Hotel, 1400 M Street, NW.
9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (PIPS) will host a panel discussion titled "Enabling New Information Technologies in the War on Terrorism -- And Protecting Our Privacy at the Same Time". The scheduled speakers include Robert Popp (DARPA), Dan Gallington (PIPS), Michael Scardaville (Heritage Foundation), Jeff Jonas, and Kim Taipale. To register, contact 703 525-0770 or jgatchalian@potomacinstitute.org. Location: Room 106, Dirksen Building.
10:15 AM. The Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age will hold a press briefing on its report titled "Creating a Trusted Information Network for Homeland Security". From 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM there will be a panel discussion. Lunch will be served. RSVP to: rsvp@neted.org or 202 638-4370. For more information, contact Todd McGovern at tmcgovern@markle.org or 212 713-7633. Location: Russell Caucus Room (SR-325), Russell Building.
4:00 PM. Deadline for the U.S. Telecom Association's (USTA) and CenturyTel to file with the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) their reply to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) response to their emergency motion for stay of the FCC's number portability rules.
ruth.nyblod@uspto.gov. Location: 400 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to SBC Communications' petition requesting that the FCC forbear from applying the terms of 47 U.S.C. § 271(c)(2)(B) to the extent, if any, those provisions impose unbundling obligations on SBC that this FCC has determined should not be imposed on incumbent local exchange carriers pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 251. See, FCC notice [PDF]. This is WC Docket No. 03-235.
Deadline to register for the symposium to be hosted on December 10-11 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "Building Trust and Confidence in Voting Systems". The topics to be addressed include computer security. See, notice and symposium web site.
12/1. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a document [73 pages in PDF] titled "Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O and 2nd FNPRM) that pertains to enhanced 911 (E911) rules.
The FCC announced, but did not release, this item at its November 13 meeting. See, story titled "FCC Announces Report and Order Regarding E911 Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 779, November 14, 2003. This is FCC 03-290 in CC Docket No. 94-102 and IB Docket No. 99-67.
The R&O revises the scope of the FCC's E911 rules to clarify which technologies and services are required to be capable of transmitting E911 information to public safety answering points (PSAP).
This R&O concludes that "Mobile satellite service (MSS) carriers that provide interconnected two-way voice service must establish call centers for the purpose of answering 911 emergency calls and forwarding these calls to an appropriate PSAP."
It further states that "Telematics providers that offer a commercial wireless service may have E911 obligations and need to work with the underlying licensees to ensure that E911 requirements are met. Those providers that do not offer such services, while they do not have an obligation, should continue their efforts with industry and public safety stakeholders to implement advanced telematics safety capabilities."
It further states that "Resold and pre-paid mobile wireless service providers have an independent obligation to comply with our 911 rules to the extent that the underlying licensee has deployed the technology necessary to deliver enhanced 911 service."
It further states that "We find it is unnecessary to place a separate obligation on manufacturers of disposable phones or personal data assistant that contain a voice service component because the obligation for ensuring access to enhanced 911 service is with the wireless service provider, and they are responsible for ensuring that the devices used with their service satisfy their 911 obligations."
And, it states that "Automated maritime telecommunications systems (AMTS) are not required to comply with our rules because their service fails to meet the four criteria."
This item also contains a NPRM. It states that "Although we will not adopt federal rules at this time requiring multi-line telephone systems (MLTS) operators to implement E911, the Commission expects that states will act expeditiously on this topic, and references the Model Legislation as a valuable guide. We also issue a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to continue our consideration of this issue, and to ensure that we are in a position to take appropriate action should states fail to do so or should it otherwise be warranted. Additionally, the Commission will issue a public notice in a year to examine states' progress on implementing E911 in this area."
The deadline to submit comments in response to the NPRM will be 45 days from publication of a notice in the Federal Register. Reply comments will be due within 75 days of publication in the Federal Register. The FCC has not yet published this notice.
11/21. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) and Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) introduced HR 3644, the "Homeland Security Technology Improvement Act of 2003". The bill would mandate the establishment of a "multi-agency homeland security technology, equipment, and information transfer program to allow for the transfer of technology, equipment, and information to State, regional, and local fire, emergency medical service, and law enforcement agencies".
11/21. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced HR 3631, the "Television Viewer Privacy Act of 2003". The bill would provide that "An interactive video-related service provider may not collect, maintain, or disclose any personal viewing information regarding a subscriber to the service that is personally identifiable, without the prior written or electronic consent of such subscriber", with certain exceptions, such as for billing purposes, or pursuant to a court order. The bill provides for enforcement by states and by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
11/21. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) and Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) introduced HR 3598, the "Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2003". The bill would provide that "The President shall establish an interagency committee on manufacturing research and development, which shall include representatives from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Small Business Administration, the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Industrial Technology, a representative of the Department of Energy National Laboratories with expertise in manufacturing research, and any other agency that the President may designate."
11/20. Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH) introduced HR 3564, the "Economic Sovereignty and Job Security Act of 2003". The bill provides that "No funds available to the Department of State or any other Federal department or agency may be used to make a United States contribution to the World Trade Organization (WTO)." But, the bill then provides that this provision does not apply "if the President determines and certifies to Congress that the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (as referred to in section 101(d)(16) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act) does not apply with respect to the United States involving a dispute under the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (as referred to in section 101(d)(7) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act), the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (as referred to in section 101(d)(12) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act), and the Agreement on Safeguards (as referred to in section 101(d)(13) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act)." (All parentheses in original.) The bill was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.
11/24. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) a pleading [21 pages in PDF] titled "Opposition of the Federal Communications Commission to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus". This case is In re Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 03-1270. It pertains to the FCC's wireless number portability rules, which went into effect on November 24, 2003.
11/26. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) a pleading [PDF] titled "Opposition of the Federal Communications Commission to Emergency Motion For Stay" in the case U.S. Telecom Association v. FCC & USA, No. 03-1414.
12/1. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) released a Change Notice [2 pages in PDF] regarding Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 180-2, the Secure Hash Standard. The NIST requests public comments on the proposed change by January 16, 2004. Comments should be addressed to ebarker@nist.gov. See also, FIPS 180-2 [75 pages in PDF], released on August 1, 2002.
12/1. The Copyright Office published a notice in the Federal Register summarizing its final rule its cost of living adjustment of 2% in the royalty rates paid by colleges, universities, or other nonprofit educational institutions that are not affiliated with National Public Radio for the use of copyrighted published nondramatic musical compositions in the BMI, ASCAP and SESAC repertoires. The rule takes effect on January 1, 2004. See, Federal Register, December 1, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 230, at Page 67045.

References: §623
 v. 
 v. 
 § 271
 § 251
 v.