Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2006/05/22.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:31:21+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,375, May 22, 2006.
May 22, 2006, Alert No. 1,375.
5/18. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced HR 5417 [5 pages in PDF], the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006".
The bill would also provide exceptions "to protect the security of such network", "to give priority to emergency communications", and "to prevent a violation of a Federal or State law, or to comply with an order of a court to enforce such law".
The bill would also define the term "broadband network provider" broadly. It would mean "means a person engaged in commerce that owns, controls, operates, or resells any facility used to provide broadband network service to the public, by whatever technology and without regard to whether provided for a fee, in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free".
The bill would also define "broadband network service" broadly. It would mean any "2-way transmission service that connects to the Internet and transmits information at an average rate of at least 200 kilobits per second in at least one direction, irrespective of whether such transmission is provided separately or as a component of another service".
Rep. Boucher (at left) stated in a release that "The measure which we are introducing will assure that the status quo is preserved and that the market power broadband providers now exercise over transmission is not extended to control of content". He added that "This measure is particularly important and timely because H.R. 5252, the Energy and Commerce Committee video franchising measure, is insufficient to ensure that broadband network providers do not abuse their market power to discriminate against competitive Internet content or services."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) stated in the same release that "The Internet has revolutionized the way Americans communicate with one another and do business. It's just common sense to keep that revolution where it belongs--in the hands of ordinary individuals instead of a handful of big corporations. Our bill will prevent an Information Superhighway Hijacking."
This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It would amend antitrust law.
There is also a House Commerce Committee network neutrality bill, HR 5273, the "Network Neutrality Act of 2006 ", introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and others on May 2, 2006. See, story titled "Rep. Markey Introduces Network Neutrality Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,363, May 3, 2006.
Herschell Abbott, of BellSouth, stated in a release that "This bill proposes to fix a problem that does not exist. It proposes to regulate the internet that has developed in an atmosphere of freedom devoid of regulation. That is a bad idea. Consumers are poorly served by this legislation. The end result of this legislation is that consumers will be forced to bear the entire cost of the internet. Moreover, if network service providers cannot offer customers a quality product, something the details of this legislation would all but prohibit, then the opportunity for a bigger, better, faster broadband will be something available only in other countries. We oppose this legislation."
Earl Comstock, of Comptel, stated in a release that "Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers have always been staunch advocates for consumers and a competitive communications industry. This bill demonstrates that members of the House Judiciary understand the dangers posed by the reconsolidation of Ma Bell and the adverse impact that it could have on the open Internet. This bill is a great step in the right direction toward establishing much needed safeguards, especially in light of the FCC's complete capitulation to those who would restrict access to the Internet."
The Free Press, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Media Access Project and U.S. PIRG released a joint statement in support of the bill. They wrote that the bill is an "important step toward preserving a free and open Internet. From its inception, the Internet has prospered on a foundation of equality and neutrality, open to all and protected from discrimination by unnecessary gatekeepers. Network Neutrality is about preserving the Internet as truly free market that encourages competition and innovation."
5/19. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and others introduced S 2917 [9 pages in PDF], the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act". It would amend Title I of the Communications Act by adding a section titled "Internet Neutrality".
Sen. Snowe described her bill. "The legislation we introduce today keeps the rules where they always have been, until last year. First, the bill bars network operators from blocking, degrading or impairing Internet traffic. Second, the bill ensures that network operators are not allowed to create a two-tiered Internet--an Internet that treats those who can afford to do business with large nationwide broadband providers more favorably than those who do not. Virtually everyone has called for more widespread deployment of broadband facilities: this bill ensures that those high-speed networks are available for all users of the Internet." See, Congressional Record, May 19, 2006, at Page S4840.
She also stated that "If we allow companies to set up tollbooths along the Information Superhighway, we will fundamentally alter every Internet user's experience and stifle the entrepreneurship that flourishes on the world's last remaining frontier. Network operators should not have the power to decide which Web pages load faster, which content their customers can access, and whose data has the highest priority. Network operators already enjoy near-monopolistic privileges in many markets across the country. Should this market power now be extended to messaging services, streaming video, or online shopping, just to name a few?"
Back on March 2, 2006, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is also a cosponsor of S 2917, introduced S 2360, the "Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006". See, story titled "Sen. Wyden Introduces Net Neutrality Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,324, Tuesday, March 7, 2006.
5/17. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced HRes 819, a two paragraph resolution regarding the National Security Agency's (NSA) access to records of communications companies.
It provides as follows. "Requesting the President and directing the Attorney General to submit to the House of Representatives all documents in the possession of the President and the Attorney General relating to requests made by the National Security Agency and other Federal agencies to telephone service providers requesting access to telephone communications records of persons in the United States and communications originating and terminating within the United States without a warrant."
"Resolved, That the President is requested and the Attorney General is directed to submit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, all documents in the possession of the President and the Attorney General, including all legal opinions, relating to requests made without a warrant by the National Security Agency or other Federal departments and agencies to telephone service providers, including wireless telephone service providers, for access to telephone communications records of persons in the United States (other than as authorized under title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or chapter 119 or 121 of title 18, United States Code), subject to necessary redactions or requirements for handling classified documents."
There are no cosponsors. This resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, of which Rep. Wexler is a member.
Rep. Wexler (at left) also issued a release in which he wrote that on May 12, 2006, he "sent letters to executives at AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon requesting that they immediately stop providing their customers' phone records to the National Security Agency (NSA), until an independent investigation has been conducted to determine the full scope and legality of the Bush Administration’s domestic spying program."
Rep. Wexler's resolution, and his letters, follow the article published on May 11, 2006, by the USA Today that states that "The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth". See also, story titled "Bush Responds to USA Today Story Regarding NSA Database of Phone Calls" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,369, May 12, 2006, and story titled "BellSouth and Verizon Attack USA Today Story" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,372, May 17, 2006.
In addition, Rep. Wexler is a cosponsor of HR 5371, the "Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by NSA Act", or "LISTEN Act". Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) introduced HR 5371 on May 11, 2006.
HR 5371 provides, in part, that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, chapters 119 and 121 of title 18, United States Code, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted."
5/19. A grand jury of the U.S. District Court (CDCal) returned a superceding indictment [105 pages in PDF] that charges the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman (MWBS), David J. Bershad (a partner in MWBS), Steven G. Schulman (a partner in MWBS), Seymour M. Lazar (a frequent class action plaintiff), and Paul T. Selzer (an attorney of Lazar) with various crimes associated with the bringing class action cases (including securities cases).
The indictment, which covers the time period of 1981 through 2005, alleges various crimes associated with the payment of kickbacks to named plaintiffs in class action lawsuits filed by MWBS. It alleges that Bershad and Schulman "and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury agreed to and did secretly pay kickbacks to named plaintiffs in class actions and shareholder derivative actions in which MILBERG WEISS served as counsel."
Moreover, the indictment alleges that to conceal these illegal kickbacks, the defendants engaged "in various fraudulent and deceptive acts, practices, and devices".
The indictment alleges the payment of illegal kickbacks in class actions against Infinity Broadcasting, Barnesandnoble.com, Sun Microsystems, and numerous other publicly traded companies.
MWBS responded in a release that "The government's allegations of wrongdoing have been categorically denied by the indicted partners, and the firm intends to join with them in vigorously defending against the charges."
It continued that "The government's insistence that the firm waive attorney-client privileges as a condition to avoiding indictment is in derogation of one of the bedrock principles of American law and extended to parties the firm did not control. Governmental insistence on such broad waivers has been criticized by the American Bar Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and is currently being reviewed by Congress. The prosecutors also insisted that the firm make unfounded statements accusing its own partners of crimes and otherwise become an agent for the government. Unfortunately, the prosecutors insisted on indicting the firm unless it made these impossible concessions."
Lisa Rickard, President of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), stated in a release "The Chamber has long been concerned about the questionable practices of Milberg Weiss and has repeatedly sought an investigation into their activities by the Federal Government". However, she continued that "Apparently, the Justice Department based its decision to indict Milberg Weiss, at least in part, on the firm's refusal to waive its attorney-client privilege. The Chamber opposes any attempt to deny the constitutional right to attorney-client privilege to individuals and organizations. While there are many ways to demonstrate cooperation in an investigation, it is fundamentally wrong for anyone to be denied the right to consult freely and confidentially with their attorney."
The indictment alleges violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (racketeering conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1346 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (money laundering conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (money laundering), 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (subscribing to false tax return), 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (obstruction of justice), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 21 U.S.C. § 853 (criminal forfeiture), 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (criminal forfeiture), and 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 853 (criminal forfeiture).
The original indictment, which was unsealed last summer, charged only Lazar and Selzer. It did not charge MWBS, or any of its partners or attorneys. See, June 23, 2005, release of the U.S. Attorneys Office.
Debra Yang (at right), the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, stated in a release that "This case is about protecting the integrity of the justice system in America ... Class-action attorneys and named plaintiffs occupy positions of trust in which they assume responsibility to tell the truth and to disclose relevant information to the court. This indictment alleges a wholesale violation of this responsibility."
This case is USA v. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, David J. Bershad, Steven G. Schulman, Seymour M. Lazar, and Paul T. Selzer, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Los Angeles, D.C. No. CR 05–587(A)-DDP.
The Senate will meet at 1:00 PM. It will resume consideration of S 2611, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006".
CANCELLED. 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "The Telecommunications Economy: Internet Evolution and Innovation". The speaker will be David Farber of Carnegie Mellon University. The Chamber notice states that "There is a limited amount of reserved seating for credentialed journalists. For more information, or to register, contact" press at uschamber dot com or call 202-463-5682. Location: Room HC-6, Capitol Building.
12:30 PM. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) will give a speech. Location: Ballroom, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Around 5:30 PM. The Senate Finance Committee will meet to consider the nomination of Susan Schwab to be the U.S. Trade Representative. See, notice. Location: Room S-219, Capitol Building.
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for morning hour, and at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider the agriculture appropriations bill. See, Republican Whip Notice.
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold a hearing titled "Reconsidering Our Communications Laws: Ensuring Competition and Innovation". See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones hearings without notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
CANCELLED. 10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime may hold a hearing on HR __, the "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth (SAFETY) Act of 2006." This bill contains a data retention mandate. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492.
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Intellectual Property may hold a hearing titled "Perspectives on Patents: Post-Grant Review Procedures and Other Litigation Reforms". See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones hearings without notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold the second of two hearings on S 2686 [135 pages in PDF], the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". See, notice of hearing, statement [5 pages in PDF] by Sen. Stevens, and Sen. Stevens' section by section summary [7 pages in PDF]. See also, stories titled "Stevens Introduces Telecom Reform Bill" and "Section by Section Summary of Sen. Stevens' Telecom Reform Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,362, May 2, 2006. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 106, Dirksen Building.
5/19. Randy May has founded, and is the President of, the Free State Foundation (FSF). He is currently Director of Communications Policy Studies at the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF). The FSF web site states that it is "a non-profit Maryland-based think tank. Its purpose is to promote, through research and educational activities, understanding of free market, limited government, and rule of law principles in Maryland and throughout the United States. FSF focuses on eliminating unnecessary and counterproductive regulatory mandates, reducing overly burdensome taxes, protecting individual and economic liberty, reforming civil liability laws, and making government more effective, efficient, and accountable." See also, PFF release. May will leave the PFF on May 31, 2006. As of June 1, 2006, May's contact information will include 301-299-3182 and rmay at freestatefoundation dot org.
5/19. President Bush announced his intent to designate Steven Aitken to be acting Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget, effective June 3, 2006. See, White House release.
5/19. Jarrod Agen was named Deputy Press Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
5/17. Denise Michel was named Vice President - Policy Development at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). See, ICANN release.
5/19. President Bush gave a speech at Northern Kentucky University in which he referenced intercepted communications. He stated that "the enemy" is "cold blooded killers", "driven by an ideological fervor", that is "totalitarian in nature", and akin to "fascism and communism". He continued that "After all, they've told us what their ambitions are. It's in intercepted communications and the different ways of finding out information. They have made it clear in their communications with each other that democracies are soft, capitalism is a failed system, and that it's just a matter of time before the United States of America were to lose its nerve." He added that "They want to reestablish roots in a country like they did in Afghanistan so they can help topple moderate governments in the Middle East, as well as launch attacks against the United States of America. That's what they have said."
5/19. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to award a sole source contract to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to perform Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) services. The NTIA stated in a release [PDF] that "These functions include coordination of the assignment for technical protocol parameters, administration of certain responsibilities associated with Internet DNS root zone management; and allocation of Internet Protocol Version (IPv4) and Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) address space".
5/19. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) released its report [PDF] titled "Report on Informal Consumer Inquiries and Complaints: 1st Quarter Calendar Year 2006".
5/18. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) released a paper [30 pages in PDF] titled "Canadian Quandary: Digital Rights Management, Access Protection, and Free Markets". The author is Michael Einhorn. See also, PFF release. In 1997 Canada agreed to ratify the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. These treaties require the signatories to provide "adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures" used by copyright holders to protect their works. Canada has not adopted enacting legislation. However, there is little in this paper about Canada. Rather, it is a review of digital rights management (DRM), anti-circumvention laws, peer to peer (P2P) music file sharing, and broadband deployment. It is a cross national study of developed nations. For example, it finds a statistical correlation between broadband deployment in these nations, and decreases in music CD sales. This paper is a defense of DRM and enforcement of property rights in digital works.

References: § 371
 § 1962
 § 1956
 § 1956
 § 7206
 § 1503
 § 2
 § 2461
 § 981
 § 853
 § 1963
 § 982
 § 853
 v.