Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2005/11/02.asp
Timestamp: 2018-05-24 00:28:07
Document Index: 364458397

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 252', '§ 251', '§ 73', '§ 552']

TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,245, November 2, 2005.
November 2, 2005, 8:00 AM ET, Alert No. 1,245.
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in RF Radiation Cases
10/31. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Nokia v. Naquin and Cellco Partnership v. Pinney, class action cases regarding radio frequency (RF) radiation of wireless telephones. See, Order List [16 pages in PDF] at page 15. This is a setback for cell phone makers and cellular service providers, and a victory for class action lawyers.
The Supreme Court wrote that "The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. The Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions."
These are petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir), which issued its opinion [42 pages in PDF] on March 16, 2005. See, story titled "4th Circuit Reverses in Pinney v. Nokia" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,098, March 18, 2005.
The decision of the Court of Appeals pertains to the procedural battles over whether these class action cases should be heard in federal court, which is Nokia's choice, or in various state courts, which is the choice of the class action lawyers, and whether the claims are preempted by the federal Communications Act.
The District Court held that the plaintiffs' claims in four actions arise under federal federal law, and hence, that the U.S. District Court has subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court further held that the claims in all five of these cases are preempted by federal law, and hence, must dismissed. The Court of Appeals reversed in a divided opinion.
The denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court lets stand the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Hence, equipment makers may now be held liable by state courts, under state law, for selling equipment that satisfies the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) radiation standards.
There are two cases consolidated by the Supreme Court. First, there is Nokia, Inc., et al. v. Garrett Naquin, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 05-198, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 03-1433. See, Supreme Court docket. The second case is Cellco Partnership, et al. v. J. Douglas Pinney, et al., Sup. Ct. No. 05-207, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 03-1433. See, Supreme Court docket.
Nokia is represented by Andrew McBride of the law firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding. See also, Nokia's petition [296 pages in PDF]. Cellco is represented by John Beisner of the Washington DC office of the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), which filed an amicus brief, is represented by John Rogovin of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale Door.
FCC Approves SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI Mergers With Conditions
10/31. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted, but did not release, two orders that give the FCC's approval to the mergers of SBC and AT&T and Verizon and MCI, with numerous temporary conditions imposed.
The FCC issued a short press release [4 pages in PDF] that describes these orders, and the four Commissioners each released statements. The FCC release states that the FCC conducted an "analysis of the competitive effects of the mergers", and now imposes numerous conditions on the merging entities. However, most of these are effective for only one to three years.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin (at right) wrote in a separate statement [PDF] that "I do not believe that all of the conditions imposed today are necessary. I believe that the affected markets would remain vibrantly competitive absent these conditions."
FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy wrote a statement [3 pages in PDF] devoted mostly to criticizing the conditions imposed in these orders as at best unnecessary, and perhaps harmful. She wrote that "today we focus too much on micromanaging the growth and pace of change". She added that "some of the conditions in the Orders reflect a failure to appreciate the degree to which the market has changed and how that constrains market behavior by the applicants."
She continued that "In my judgment, the conditions included in the Orders before us require the merged companies to provide offerings that the market might not demand, to sacrifice synergies by needlessly treating their affiliates at arms’ length, and to maintain business relationships based on current assumptions even if those assumptions cease to reflect economic reality. Moreover, the companies will have to abide by these conditions while their most aggressive competitors -- whether they use wireline, wireless, cable, or other, next-generation facilities -- remain exempt."
In contrast, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps wrote in a separate statement [PDF] that these orders do not go far enough in regulating the conduct of the merging companies. "These conditions provide only a bare minimum."
Similarly, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein wrote in a separate statement [PDF] that "I would have preferred additional and more rigorous safeguards beyond those set forth in these Orders."
The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, which has statutory authority to conduct antitrust merger reviews, announced its approval of the two mergers on October 27, 2005, subject to divestiture of some local fiber optic network facilities. See, DOJ release. See also, stories titled "DOJ Approves Verizon MCI and SBC AT&T Mergers Subject to Divestitures", "DOJ Initiates Clayton Act § 7 Proceeding Against SBC and AT&T", and "DOJ Initiates Clayton Act § 7 Proceeding Against Verizon and MCI" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,242, October 28, 2005.
Interconnection of Internet Backbone Providers. The release states that for two years the parties must "post their peering policies on publicly accessible websites. During this two-year period, the applicants will post any revisions to their peering policies on a timely basis as they occur."
The release also requires the parties for three years to "maintain settlement-free peering arrangements with at least as many providers of Internet backbone services as they did in combination on the Merger Closing Dates."
The FCC has no statutory authority to regulate interconnection among internet backbone providers. Moreover, internet companies have successfully interconnected without any regulatory action.
Copps (at left) wrote that "We require the Applicants to continue peering with as many providers as they do today. This will help prevent the network outages that come from de-peering. It will also help ensure that the free flow of traffic continues -- and that new costs are not passed on to end-users."
Adelstein wrote that "By agreeing to publicly release their peering policies and by committing to maintain settlement-free peering with at least as many backbone providers as they peered with pre-merger, we give competitors important tools to assess and monitor the accuracy of these claims."
Chairman Martin wrote in his statement that "Concerns have also been raised about the impact of this merger on the Internet backbone market. We have found this market, which has never been regulated, to be sufficiently competitive. It is the Commission’s prediction that these mergers will in no way alter this dynamic. In any event, the Applicants have committed to publicly post their peering criteria and to continue settlements-free peering arrangements with the same number of providers post-merger as they did, in combination, pre-merger."
FCC's August 5 Policy Statement. The release states that for two years the parties shall "conduct business in a way that comports with the Commission’s Internet policy statement issued in September."
This incorporates by reference the many items contained in the FCC's Policy Statement [3 pages in PDF], adopted on August 5, 2005, and released on September 23, 2005.
It relates to guaranteeing for consumers the freedom to use their internet connections to access any content, use any applications, and attach any devices, that they choose. It also relates to limitations upon these freedoms, imposed by their service providers, or by the government. It also contains language regarding competition in a variety of industry sectors.
See, stories titled "FCC Adopts a Policy Statement Regarding Network Neutrality" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,190, August 8, 2005; and "FCC Releases Policy Statement Regarding Internet Regulation" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,221, September 26, 2005.
Copps wrote that "Today, we make these principles enforceable. As a result, consumers will have an enforceable right to use their bandwidth as they see fit, going where they choose and running the applications they want on the Internet."
Adelstein (at right) addressed this at more length. He wrote that "Commenters have voiced concern that the horizontal and vertical integration of the Applicants’ Internet backbone networks, particularly considering the two mergers together, may create an incentive and ability to discriminate against other providers in what has heretofore been a competitive market. Maintaining an open and robust Internet is absolutely critical. Just two months ago, the Commission set out in this Policy Statement a basic set of consumer expectations for broadband providers and the Internet. With this Statement, we sought to ensure that consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice, to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement, and to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network. ... I must admit a deep foreboding that this commitment is only for two years."
Stand Alone DSL. The FCC release states that the parties, within 12 months of the closing dates of the mergers, shall provide "DSL service to in-region customers without requiring them to also purchase circuit-switched voice telephone service. The companies will make the offering for two years from the time it is made available in a particular state."
Commissioner Copps praised this item. He wrote that "We require the Applicants to make available stand-alone, or ``naked´´ DSL. This means consumers can buy DSL without being forced to also purchase voice service. This is good news. If savvy consumers have cut the cord and use only a wireless phone, why should they have to pay for wireline voice service they don't even want? Looking forward, this condition is important for the development of VoIP."
Adelstein (at right) also praised this mandate, but argued that it should have gone further. He wrote that "Especially vexing is that the stand-alone DSL offering outlined in this Order could also have been more robust. For example, we could have done more to enable consumers to purchase DSL services free from any voice service, rather than just traditional circuit-switched voice services."
Unbundled Network Elements. The release states that the parties shall "not to seek an increase in state-approved rates for unbundled network elements (UNEs) for two years (except for rates that are subject to current appeals in specific states)." (Parentheses in original.)
Martin commented that "UNE rates are effectively capped for two years and special access prices are essentially frozen for 30 months from the merger closing date."
Copps stated that "To keep competition growing from competitive carriers, we require the Applicants to update the wire center test from the Triennial Review Remand. We also provide stability by capping UNE input rates for two years."
The release also mandates "a one-time recalculation to exclude fiber-based collocation arrangements established by AT&T in SBC’s region and MCI in Verizon’s region in identifying wire centers in which SBC or Verizon claims there is no impairment pursuant to the UNE triggers in the Triennial Review Remand Order so that dedicated transport and/or high-capacity loops need not be unbundled."
Special Access. The FCC release states that for 30 months the parties shall not "provide special access services to themselves, their interexchange affiliates, or each other or their affiliates, that are not generally available to other similarly situated customers."
The release states that for 30 months before the parties "provide new or modified contract tariffed service to their own section 272(a) affiliate(s), they will certify to the Commission that they provide service pursuant to those contract tariffs to unaffiliated customers other than each other or their wireline affiliates."
The release states that the FCC requires the parties, for 30 months, "not to increase rates set forth in SBC’s and Verizon’s interstate tariffs for special access services, including contract tariffs, that they provide in their in-region territory that are on file with the Commission on the Merger Closing Dates."
Also, the release states that the parties must "implement a ``Service Quality Measurement Plan,´´ which will provide the Commission with quarterly performance results for interstate special access services." This requirement "will terminate the earlier of 30 months and 45 days after the beginning of the first full quarter following the closing of the mergers, or the effective date of a Commission order adopting general special access performance measurement requirements."
Copps stated that "We provide a measure of stability for businesses and carriers that use special access services --the high capacity facilities that so much of our communications rely on. We freeze rates and provide some protection against discriminatory practices. Let me note, however, that the Commission still has a longstanding and more comprehensive proceeding on special access to complete. It is vitally important that we do so without further delay."
More Mandates. The release also states that for 30 months the parties shall not "increase the rates paid by existing in-region customers of AT&T in SBC’s region or MCI in Verizon’s region for wholesale DS1 and DS3 local private line services."
The release also states that there are some mandates that only apply to SBC/AT&T in the sparsely populated state of Alaska, which is represented by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the Chairman of Senate Commerce Committee.
The release also states that the parties must "file annual certifications that they are complying with these enforceable commitments."
The FCC's yet to be released Memorandum Opinion and Order in the SBC/AT&T proceeding is numbered FCC 05-183 in Docket No. 05-65. The FCC's yet to be released Memorandum Opinion and Order in the Verizon/MCI proceeding is numbered FCC 05-184 in Docket No. 05-75.
8th Circuit Affirms in Qwest v. Minnesota PUC
11/1. The U.S. Court of Appeals (8thCir) issued its opinion [15 pages in PDF] in Qwest v. Minnesota PUC, a case regarding interconnection agreements between an ILEC and CLECs.
The Minnesota Department of Commerce filed an administrative complaint with the Minnesota Public Utility Commission (MPUC) against Qwest Communications, an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC), alleging that it had entered into secret interconnection agreements with some competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). It further alleged that Qwest did not submit these to the MPUC, and that this discriminated against non-party CLECs.
The Communications Act, at 47 U.S.C. § 252, mandates that interconnection agreements must be submitted to state PUCs for approval. § 252(a) provides, in part, that "Upon receiving a request for interconnection, services, or network elements pursuant to section 251 of this title, an incumbent local exchange carrier may negotiate and enter into a binding agreement with the requesting telecommunications carrier or carriers ... The agreement ... shall be submitted to the State commission ..."
§ 252(e) provides that "Any interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation or arbitration shall be submitted for approval to the State commission. A State commission to which an agreement is submitted shall approve or reject the agreement, with written findings as to any deficiencies."
§ 252(i) then provides that "A local exchange carrier shall make available any interconnection, service, or network element provided under an agreement approved under this section to which it is a party to any other requesting telecommunications carrier upon the same terms and conditions as those provided in the agreement."
The MPUC held that Qwest knowingly and intentionally violated §§ 251 and 252 of the Communications Act by failing to file twelve agreements, fined Qwest $25.95 Million, and ordered Qwest to pay restitution, pursuant to Minnesota state law, to the non-party CLECs.
Qwest filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DMinn) against the MPUC. The District Court upheld the fine. But, the District Court held that the MPUC lacks the authority under Minnesota law to order Qwest to comply with restitution for CLECs that were not parties to unfiled interconnection agreements. Both Qwest and the MPUC appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues before it.
This case is Qwest Corporation v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 04-3368, 04-3408, and 04-3510, appeals from U.S. District Court of the District of Minnesota. Judge Lay wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Riley and Fagg joined.
4th Circuit Affirms in NCSC v. Cisco
11/1. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion [14 pages in PDF] in NCSC v. Cisco, a dispute between Cisco and one of its former distributors. Cisco prevailed in the District Court, and on appeal.
Cisco Systems makes networking equipment. Network Computing Services Corporation (NCSC) entered into a contract with Cisco to become a reseller of Cisco equipment in the state of South Carolina. NCSC also provides consulting services. Cisco authorized other resellers in South Carolina. Cisco also required NCSC it to agree not to be listed as an official distributor of any of Cisco’s competitors.
NCSC filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DSC) against Cisco alleging violation of the Sherman Act, breach of an oral contract, violation of the South Carolina unfair trade practices statute, and common law fraud. NCSC alleged that Cisco took advantage of sales leads that NCS supplied to it, and then told several potential customers to do business with other Cisco distributors instead of NCSC.
NCSC dropped the Sherman Act and breach of contract claims. The District Court granted summary judgment to Cisco on the unfair trade practices claim, and the common law fraud claim. NCSC appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals, applying the law of South Carolina, wrote that the unfair trade practices claim fails because there was no evidence that Cisco's conduct caused harm to any member of the South Carolina public.
This case is Network Computing Services Corporation v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 04-2166 and 04-2213, appeals from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia, Judge Joseph Anderson presiding, D.C. No. CA-01-281-3. This is a per curiam opinion by Judges Widener, Niemeyer and Michael.
The Court of Appeals also wrote that this is an "unpublished" opinion, and that "Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c)."
Court of Appeals Vacates in Kidd v. FCC
10/25. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion [12 pages in PDF] in Kidd v. FCC, vacating and remanding a final order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that approved the transfer of Kidd Communication's AM radio license to Paradise Broadcasting, Inc.
Kidd purchased an insignificant AM radio station somewhere in eastern California. It gave the seller, Paradise, a promissory note. The FCC approved the transfer of the associated broadcast license.
Kidd did not pay. Kidd and Paradise then executed another document in which Kidd gave Paradise a reversionary interest in, among other things, the license. Kidd still did not pay. So, Paradise filed a complaint in state court in California. The state court had the authority to give a money judgment to Paradise, and to enable Paradise to regain possession of the physical assets. However, it recognized that it lacked authority to transfer ownership of the license. So, it appointed a trustee to apply to the FCC to transfer the license. The FCC did so. Kidd appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
There is nothing particularly important about this one AM license. Nevertheless, the case illustrates the tension between the FCC statute and regulations, which treat spectrum as government property, and the FCC's efforts to allow the various spectrum using industry sectors to operate in a manner that resembles free enterprise.
The FCC's spectrum related statute and regulations today are still written in language that Herbert Hoover would understand and appreciate. For example, the regulation at issue in this case provides that "In transferring a broadcast station, the licensee may retain no right of reversion of the license, no right to reassignment of the license in the future, and may not reserve the right to use the facilities of the station for any period whatsoever. ... No license, renewal of license, assignment of license or transfer of control of a corporate licensee will be granted or authorized if there is a contract, arrangement or understanding, express or implied, pursuant to which, as consideration or partial consideration for the assignment or transfer, such rights, as stated in paragraph (a) of this section, are retained." See, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1150(a). Licenses are only to be transferred by the FCC, and only upon a public interest finding.
In the present case, Kidd did execute an agreement that provided for a right of reversion. Paradise went to court to exercise this right of reversion. And, the California court held for Paradise. All that remained was for the FCC to actually revert the license. It did so -- contrary to its regulation.
However, to have done otherwise would have had consequences for the broadcast industry. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, reposing a radio station, without repossessing its broadcast license, is of little use to the creditor. It wrote that "state courts faced with contract disputes involving conflicting claims to broadcast stations realize that the physical assets are worthless without the licenses, and so are inclined to fashion remedial orders that treat the two as a bundle."
Had the FCC applied its regulation, and denied the reversion, it would have undermined the ability of broadcasters like Paradise, or any other similar creditors of license holders, to enforce their contracts. This would make creditors less likely to extend credit to a broadcaster, and thus make it harder for broadcasters to obtain credit. Markets cannot operate efficiently without credit, and the enforceability of credit contracts.
The Court of Appeals did not apply any such reasoning. It simply considered the regulation, the FCC's history of interpretation of that regulation, and the precedent regarding review of agency decisions.
The FCC argued that it must as a matter of policy accommodate state court decisions. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the FCC "may see itself in an awkward position", but, it failed to adequately explain it deviation from the policy of not permitting reversionary interests in broadcast licenses.
It wrote in conclusion that "We think the FCC has inadequately explained why these related policies do not apply and failed to reconcile them with its competing policy of accommodating state court decisions. We therefore vacate and remand."
This case is Kidd Communications, appellant, v. FCC, appellee, Paradise Broadcasting, Inc., intervenor, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 04-1274, an appeal from a final order of the FCC. Judge Silberman wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Garland and Williams joined.
Rep. Oxley to Retire
11/1. Rep. Mike Oxley (R-OH) (at right) announced that he will retire from the Congress at the end of his current term. He is currently the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC). See, release.
Rep. Oxley (at right) was first elected Chairman at the beginning of the 107th Congress, in early 2001. House Republican rules term limit Chairmen after six years. Hence, he would have relinquished the Chairmanship at the end of the current Congress.
Some of the other members who might be considered for the HFSC Chairmanship include Rep. Richard Baker (R-LA), Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), and Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE).
In recent years, Rep. Baker has sponsored and promoted legislation, which did not become law, that would have required public companies to expense only those stock options granted to the CEO and the next four highest paid officers. It also provides an exemption for small businesses. As for the top five employees, the bill required companies to follow the FASB standards, but with a zero volatility assumption. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) mandated expensing of all stock options. However, many technology companies, technology workers, and the groups that represent them, opposed the FASB mandate, and sought a legislative remedy.
The House approved Rep. Baker's bill, HR 3574 (108th Congress), the "Stock Options Accounting Reform Act", on July 20, 2004. See also, story titled "House Passes Stock Option Accounting Reform Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 942, July 21, 2004. The Senate did not approve the bill.
Alternatively, if the Democrats obtain a majority in the House in the 2006 elections, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) would likely become the next HFSC Chairman.
11/1. President Bush formally nominated Ben Bernanke to be a member and Chairman of the Board Of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. See, White House release. President Bush announced this nomination last week. See, story titled "Bush Picks Bernanke to Replace Greenspan" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,239, October 25, 2005.
10/31. William Reynolds, who has been Communications Director for Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), was named both Chief of Staff and Communications Director. Blaine Rethmeier remains the media contact for the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Scott Hoeflich remains the media contact for Sen. Specter's personal office.
FCC Revises Agenda for November 3 Meeting
11/1. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on November 1 that it "will consider one additional item" at its meeting of November 3. The FCC announced in a release [PDF] that it will also consider a First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding its Emergency Alert System rules. This proceeding is EB Docket No. 04-296.
On October 21, the FCC issued an agenda that listed this item for its October 28 meeting. The FCC rescheduled this meeting several times, eventually holding it on October 31.
Also on October 31 the FCC issued a notice stating that this Emergency Alert System item was taken off the agenda for the October 31 meeting. Now, the FCC has put it on the agenda for its November 3 meeting.
5 U.S.C. § 552b requires that agencies give notice "at least one week before the meeting, of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting".
On October 27, the FCC released the original agenda [PDF] for its November 3 meeting. This agenda lists three items, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding Section 621 and new video entrants, a Report and Order regarding DTV tuners, and Clarification Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the use of distributed transmission system (DTS) technologies by digital television stations.
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The House may take up HR 1606, the "Online Freedom of Speech Act", HR 4061, the "Department of Veterans Affairs Information Technology Management Improvement Act of 2005", and/or HR 4128, the "Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005". See, Republican Whip notice.
The Senate will meet at 8:30 AM. It will resume consideration of S 1932, the deficit reduction omnibus reconciliation bill.
11/2. 12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The DC Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Section will host a panel discussion titled "Intellectual Property Damages From An Economist’s Perspective". The speakers will include Carla Mulhern (Analysis Group), John Jarosz (Analysis Group), and Abram Hoffman (Abram E. Hoffman, LLC). Mike Morin (Finnegan Henderson) will moderate. The price to attend ranges from $15-$30. For more information, call 202 626-3463. See, notice. Location: Finnegan Henderson, 901 New York Ave., NW.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a panel discussion titled "Trade with China: What Next?". The speakers will include David Stewart (aide to Rep. Phil English (R-PA)), Haiying Jiang (Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China), Patricia Mears (National Association of Manufacturers), John Greenwald (Wilmer Cutler), and Keith Loken (Department of State). The price to attend ranges from $15-$25. For more information, call 202 626-3463. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.
2:00 PM. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Telephone Bank will meet. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 25, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 205, at Page 61600. Location: USDA, Whitten Building, Conference Room 104-A, 12th & Jefferson Drive, SW.
2:30 PM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will meet to mark up S 1063, the "IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005". This bill had previously been scheduled for mark up on October 19 and 20, 2005. See, notice. Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) 202 224-8456 or Melanie_Alvord at commerce dot senate dot gov, or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202 224-4546 or Andy_Davis at commerce dot senate dot gov. Location: Room 216, Hart Building.
5:00 PM. The House Rules Committee will meet to adopt a rule for consideration of HR 4128, the "Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005". Location: Room 312, Capitol Building.
6:00 PM. The House Ways and Means Committee will meet to hold an informal markup of the draft implementing proposal [49 pages in PDF] for HR __, the "United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act". Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.
Day three of a five day conference sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Networks and Information Integration (OSD NII) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff titled "DoD Spectrum Summit 2005". See, notice.For more information, contact Patty dot Hopkins at osd dot mil or 703 607-0613. Location: Radisson Hotel, Annapolis, MD.
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee may hold an executive business meeting. See, notice. The SJC rarely follows the agenda for its business meetings. The SJC frequently cancels of postpones meetings without notice. Press contact: Blain Rethmeier (Specter) at 202 224-5225, David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242 or Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at 202 224-2154. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The agenda [PDF] includes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding Section 621 and new video entrants, and an Report and Order and Further NPRM regarding DTV tuners. See also, story titled "FCC Releases Agenda for November 3 Meeting" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,242, October 28, 2005. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).
10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will meet to mark up HR 4127 [16 pages in PDF], the "Data Accountability and Trust Act". Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) will preside. The meeting will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202 225-5735 or Paul Flusche (Stearns) at 202 225-5744. See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare for meetings of the ITU-D Telecommunication Development Advisory Group (TDAG). See, notice in the Federal Register, October 26, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 206, at Page 61876. Location: DOS, Harry Truman Building, Room 2533A.
10:30 AM. The U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB) and Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a panel discussion titled "Private Sector Perspectives on the World Summit on the Information Society". The speakers will include Michael Gallagher (head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration), Richard Beaird (Department of State), Tae Yoo (Cisco Systems), Fred Tipson (Microsoft), and Thomas Niles (VCh of the USCIB and ICANN board member). For more information, contact Jonathan Huneke (USCIB) at 212 703-5043 or jhuneke at uscib dot org. Location: Cosmos Club, 2121 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
12:00 NOON. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity will hold a hearing titled "The Future of TSA’s Registered Traveler Program". The witnesses will be Kip Hawley (head of the Transportation Security Administration), Charles Barclay (American Association of Airport Executives), Steven Brill (Verified Identity Pass), Thomas Conaway (Unisys), and Marc Rotenberg (head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center). See, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.
2:00 PM. House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold an oversight hearing titled "Content Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole". The witnesses will be Gigi Sohn (Public Knowledge), Michael Petricone (Consumer Electronics Association), Mitch Bainwol (RIAA) and Dan Glickman (MPAA). See, HJC notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
5:00 PM. Pamela Samuelson (UC Berkeley) will give a lecture titled "Copyright and Consumer Protection". There will be a reception at 5:00 PM. The lecture will be at 6:00 PM. The lecture is hosted by the American University Washington College of Law's (AUWCL) Program on Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. RSVP to Steve Roberts at iplecture at wcl dot american dot edu or 202 274-4148. Location: AUWCL, 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Room 603.
Day one of a two day event sponsored by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Standing Committee on Law and National Security titled "15th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law". Location: Crystal City Marriott, Arlington, VA.
Day four of a five day conference sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Networks and Information Integration (OSD NII) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff titled "DoD Spectrum Summit 2005". See, notice.For more information, contact Patty dot Hopkins at osd dot mil or 703 607-0613. Location: Radisson Hotel, Annapolis, MD.
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip notice.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a panel discussion titled "Interconnection Without Regulation: Lessons for Telecommunications Reform from Four Network Industries". The speakers will be Richard Levine (PFF), Bill Hunt (Level 3 Communications), Lyman Chapin (Interisle Consulting Group), and Donald Baker (a former AAG for the Antitrust Division). Randolph May (PFF) will moderate. Lunch will be served. See, notice. Press contact: Patrick Ross at 202 289-8928 or pross at pff dot org or Amy Smorodin at 202 289-8928 or asmorodin at pff dot org. Location: Room B369, Rayburn Building, Capitol Hill.
12:00 NOON. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Wireless Telecommunications Practice Committee will host a luncheon titled "Wireless Telecom Practice Committee Luncheon on Mobile Content". The speakers will include Mark Desautels (VP Wireless Internet Development, CTIA), and Jim Healy (T-Mobile USA). The price to attend is $15.00. Registrations and cancellations due by 12:00 NOON on Tuesday, November 1, 2005. See, registration form [MS Word]. Location: Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, NW, 6th Floor.
Day two of a two day event sponsored by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Standing Committee on Law and National Security titled "15th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law". Location: Crystal City Marriott, Arlington, VA.
Day five of a five day conference sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Networks and Information Integration (OSD NII) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff titled "DoD Spectrum Summit 2005". See, notice.For more information, contact Patty dot Hopkins at osd dot mil or 703 607-0613. Location: Radisson Hotel, Annapolis, MD.
6:00 - 9:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "How to Litigate a Trademark Case". The speakers will be Shauna Wertheim (Roberts Abokhair & Mardula) and Steven Hollman (Hogan & Hartson). The price to attend ranges from $70-$125. For more information, call 202 626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.
7:30 AM - 5:30 PM. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee will hold a partially closed meeting. The meeting will be closed from 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 24, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 204, at Pages 61465 - 61466. Location: 3811 N. Fairfax Drive, 6th Floor, Conference Room, Arlington, VA.
9:00 AM - 4:45 PM. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will host an event titled "CCOutreach Program National Seminar". This event is for Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) of mutual fund and investment advisers. See, SEC notice and registration pages. Location: SEC, 100 F Street, NW.
9:30 AM. The Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) will meet. The topic will be "Antitrust and the New Economy". The morning panel, from 9:30 to 11:30 AM, will include Richard Gilbert, Howard Morse, James O'Connell, John Osborn, and Carl Shapiro. The afternoon panel, from 12:45 to 2:45 PM, will include Susan DeSanti, Peter Detkin, Mark Lemley, Stephen Merrill, Stephen Pinkos, and Stephen Stack. See, AMC notice and notice in the Federal Register, October 21, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 203, at Page 61247. Location: Federal Trade Commission, Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.
8:00 - 11:30 AM. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy (DCPEP) and Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) will host an event titled "Rules Customer Partnership Meeting". See, notice [PDF] Location: Madison Auditorium, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA.
9:00 AM. Day one of a two day partially closed meeting of the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee. The agenda of the public portion of the meeting includes "1. Microprocessor Roadmap Update. 2. Update on BIS programs and activities. 3. Quantum Computing. 4. First Annual HPC Review. 5. InfiniBand Technology and the EAR. 6. Industry proposal to change 4A3g. 7. Network Performance discussions. 8. China ``catch all´´ August 9, 2005 Regulation." See, notice in the Federal Register, October 25, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 205, at Page 61601. The BIS did not disclose the agenda of the closed portion of the meeting. Location: DOC, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Aves., NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in IP Innovation v. eCollege.com, No. 04-1571. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.
10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Computervision Corp. v. US, No. 05-5014. Location: Courtroom 201, 717 Madison Place, NW.
12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Enforcement Committee will host a brown bag lunch titled "Meet the Enforcement Bureau Chief, Kris Monteith". RSVP to Margaret Davis at margaret dot davis at wilmerhale dot com Location: Wilmer Hale, 1801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The DC Bar Association will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Secrets of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act". The speaker will be Milton Babirak (Babirak Vangellow & Carr). The price to attend ranges from $70-$125. For more information, call 202-626-3488. See, notice. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 Level.