Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2004/01/13.asp
Timestamp: 2017-09-25 00:57:00
Document Index: 434935308

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 253', '§ 251', '§ 332', '§ 365', '§ 251', '§ 153']

TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 814, January 13, 2004.
January 13, 2004, 9:00 AM ET, Alert No. 814.
Supreme Court Returns from Recess
1/12. The Supreme Court returned from the recess that it began on December 15, 2003. It heard oral arguments in pending cases, and released a 29 page order list that announces the denial of petitions for writ of certiorari in several communications and technology related cases.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, regarding 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) and state statutes that prohibit political subdivisions from offering telecommunications services. See, story titled "Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 687, June 25, 2003, and "Briefs Filed With Supreme Court in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 776, November 11, 2003.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in WorldCom, Inc. v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., No. 03-603, and Bie v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., No. 03-656. See, Order List [29 pages in PDF] at page 23. These petitions involved the interconnection provisions of §§ 251 and 252 of the Communications Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its split opinion [18 pages in PDF] on August 12, 2003. See, story titled "7th Circuit Holds State Cannot Substitute Tariff Filings for Negotiations to Set Prices and Terms for Interconnection" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 717, August 13, 2003.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Omnipoint Communications Enterprises v. Zoning Hearing Board, Easttown, No. 03-666. See, Order List [29 pages in PDF] at page 5. This is a cell tower citing case involving application of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i). See, story titled "Third Circuit Rules in Cell Tower Section 332 Dispute" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 605, February 17, 2003.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Fax.com, Inc. v. Missouri, ex rel Nixon, No. 03-507. See, Order List [29 pages in PDF] at page 4.
The Supreme Court also denied certiorari in Charter Communications v. Santa Cruz. See, story below.
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Case Involving LFAs and Cable Franchise Transfers
1/12. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Charter Communications, Inc. v. Santa Cruz County, California, No. 02-1267. See, Order List [29 pages in PDF] at page 21. This case involves the authority of local franchising authorities over cable franchise transfers.
Santa Cruz County refused to consent to the transfer of a cable franchise. Charter Communications then filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (NDCal), and prevailed. (See, 133 F.Supp. 2d 1184.) Santa Cruz County appealed. On September 20, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [13 pages in PDF] reversing the District Court.
The Solicitor General submitted an amicus brief in November urging the Supreme Court to deny the petition for writ of certiorari. The Solicitor General argued that the Ninth Circuit erred, and that "The Ninth Circuit's error in this case could threaten to undermine important federal restrictions on local cable regulation."
However, the Solicitor General reasoned that "The question presented in this case does not appear to have arisen yet in any other appellate case. If the issue is one of genuine significance, it can be expected to arise in other circuits and in other factual settings in the future. This Court might benefit from further analysis by the courts of appeals of cases, like this one, in which a cable franchising authority is found to have acted with mixed motives, some of which are lawful under federal law and some of which are not."
7th Circuit Opinion Addresses Number Portability
1/9. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [11 pages in PDF] in In the Matter of StarNet, Inc., a case regarding number porting obligations. The Appeals Court referred the matter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with a request for guidance.
StarNet, which is in bankruptcy, is an intermediary between local telephone networks and the internet. It contracts with internet service providers (ISPs) to maintain a network that will accept local calls and transfer the data to the ISPs over high-speed lines that StarNet owns or maintains. ISPs then publish local access numbers at which their customers may connect without incurring long distance charges. StarNet in turn contracts with competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), such as Global Naps, for phone lines and numbers at which the calls may be received and transferred to the high-speed network.
StarNet has exercised its option under 11 U.S.C. § 365(a) to escape high priced contracts with Global NAPs for local-access service in three markets. However, StarNet also wants Global Naps to port existing numbers to its new CLECs. Global Naps refuses.
Bankruptcy Judge Squires issued an injunction compelling Global Naps to port the local numbers to other CLECs, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(2), which requires carriers "to provide ... number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission."
In addition, 47 U.S.C. § 153(30) provides that "number portability" is "the ability of users of telecommunications service to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another." .
The Appeals Court concluded that "We therefore refer this matter to the FCC with a request that it inform us how the ``same location´´ restriction applies to a local exchange carrier that hands off traffic to a modem pool at a collocation facility, when the customer wants to change local exchange carriers and move the modems. This matter is referred to the FCC so that it may address the meaning of the word ``location´´ for purposes of wireline-to-wireline portability."
This case is In the Matter of StarNet, Inc., No. 03-2990., an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, D.C. No. 03 C 4835, Judge Milton Shadur presiding.
USTR Releases Statement on Doha Development Agenda
1/12. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released a statement [PDF] regarding the Doha Development Agenda.
It states that "The U.S. does not want 2004 to be a lost year for the Doha Development Agenda of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick has written to the WTO Ministers responsible for trade (over 140) to suggest a "common sense" approach to advancing negotiations this year."
It further states that the letter of Robert Zoellick (at right) "proposes a WTO Ministerial meeting before the end of this year in Hong Kong. Zoellick plans a round-the-world tour of key capitals in February to meet with Ministers, listen to ideas, and work for progress."
The USTR statement also provides that "With regard to the ``Singapore Issues´´, the letter suggests proceeding with negotiations on trade facilitation, further exploring interest in negotiations on transparency in government procurement, and dropping -- or developing a plan of further study for -- the issues of competition and investment."
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, responded in a release. "I appreciate any efforts to move the WTO talks forward, so Ambassador Zoellick's proposals for WTO negotiations in 2004 are very welcome. Negotiations within the World Trade Organization are clearly where U.S. farmers and workers have the most to gain from trade negotiations. But WTO negotiations are complicated. If we want to complete these negotiations within the timeframe established by the Trade Act of 2002, we don't have a lot of time to waste. Trade Promotion Authority must be renewed in 2005. Once renewed, it terminates in 2007. Ambassador Zoellick is right -- we can't afford to make 2004 a lost year. If we want to negotiate a solid agreement and get it passed by the U.S. Congress, we need to get these negotiations moving again. I hope all of our trading partners will seize the opportunity to engage in a realistic way at the negotiating table. If so, we can start making some real progress at the WTO that will benefit Iowa's farmers, workers, and consumers."
1/12. Jon Dudas (at right) became acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). He replaces the former Under Secretary and Director, James Rogan. Dudas has been Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO for two years. Previously, he worked for the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. See, USPTO release.
1/6. The law firm of Arnold & Porter announced that Leslie Jacobs was elevated from associate to partner. He is a member of the intellectual property/technology group in the Washington DC office. His practice includes patent procurement and litigation, licensing, and client counseling on intellectual property issues. He has a BS in Electrical Engineering. See, release.
1/6. The law firm of Arnold & Porter announced that Robert Jones Worrall, was elevated from counsel to partner. He is a member of the intellectual property/technology group in the Washington DC office. He focuses on patent litigation and collateral litigation issues pertaining to technology, and has represented clients on patent matters involving semiconductors, computer systems, wireless technologies, voice and data communication systems, photo imaging, software, and mechanical systems. He has a BS in Electrical Engineering. See, release.
TO BE DECIDED WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT. 9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Carol De La Hunt v. FCC, No. 03-1029. Judges Edwards, Roberts and Williams will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.
10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) will host a program titled "Trade With China After WTO". The speakers will be Robert Cassidy (former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative) and Tian Jun (Minister Counselor for Economic Policy, Embassy of China). See, notice [PDF]. For more information, contact Mark Schoeff at 202 775-3242 or mschoeff@csis.org. Location: CSIS, 1800 K Street, NW, B-1 Conference Level.
12:30 PM. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell will give a luncheon speech. For information about prices and reservations, call 202 662-7501. Location: Ballroom, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Report and Order Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [72 pages in PDF] in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Digital Broadcast Content Protection". This item is FCC 03-273 in MB Docket 02-230. This FNPRM seeks comment regarding a permanent approval mechanism for content protection and recording technologies to be used in conjunction with device outputs. For more information, contact Rick Chessen rchessen@fcc.gov or Susan Mort at smort@fcc.gov or 202-418-7200.
EXTENDED TO FEBRUARY 13. Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding digital plug and play compatibility. This item is FCC 03-225 in CS Docket 97-80 and PP Docket 00-67. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 28, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 229, at Pages 66776 - 66781. See, order [PDF] extending deadlines.
Deadline to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding revisions to the FCC's high cost universal service support mechanism. This is FCC 03-249 in CC Docket No. 96-45. This is also known as the "10th Circuit Remand". See, notice in the Federal Register, December 15, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 240, at Pages 69641 - 69647. See also, stories titled "FCC Announces Order on Remand Regarding High Cost Universal Service Support Mechanism" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 761, October 20, 2003, and "FCC Publishes Notices Regarding 10th Circuit Universal Service Remand" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 800, December 16, 2003.
9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The event will be webcast. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room). See, agenda [PDF].
9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in Advanced Communications Corp. v. FCC, No. 03-1082. Judges Rogers, Garland and Williams will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Computer Security Division (CSD) in response to its Change Notice [2 pages in PDF] regarding Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 180-2, the Secure Hash Standard. Comments should be addressed to ebarker@nist.gov. See also, FIPS 180-2 [75 pages in PDF], released on August 1, 2002.
Iowa Presidential Caucuses.
1/12. The Brookings Institution announced the forthcoming publication a book titled Point, Click, and Vote The Future of Internet Voting, by Michael Alvarez and Thad Hall. See, Amazon and Brookings order pages. Amazon states that "This item has not yet been released. You may order it now and we will ship it to you when it arrives."
1/9. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filed its brief [60 pages in PDF] with the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) in SBC Communications v. FCC. This is a petition for review of an FCC forfeiture order regarding requirements that incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECS) provide competitive carriers access to the incumbents' shared network transmission facilities -- or shared transport. This is Appeals Court No. 03-1118.
1/12. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) extended the deadline to submit comments regarding its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement a revised version of the BIS's Simplified Network Application Processing (SNAP+) system. This proposed rule also would mandate use of SNAP+ for all filings of Export License applications (except Special Comprehensive Licenses), Reexport Authorization requests, Classification requests, Encryption Review requests, and License Exception AGR notifications, unless the BIS authorizes paper filing for a particular user or transaction. See, notice in the Federal Register, November 12, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 218, at Pages 64009-64023 (setting January 12, 2003 deadline), and notice in the Federal Register January 12, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 7, at Page 1685 (extending deadline to February 12).