On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Broadband and Cable Industry Law 2018

Released on: Apr. 18, 2018
Running Time: 09:53:05

Hear cutting-edge analysis of federal initiatives and FCC regulations, plus examine the latest negotiation and regulatory trends, current case law, and the latest technology forecasts. Join the country’s leading outside and in-house counsel representing cable operators, cable programmers, and online service providers — and the regulators themselves — to gain an understanding of what has transpired in broadband and cable law over the past year and of where we might be heading.

 
Lecture Topics [Total time 00:10:30]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:04:57]
    Tara M. Corvo, Markham C. Erickson
  • Capitol Hill, The White House and the FCC [01:38:42]
    James M. Assey, Matthew Berry, Douglas Kinkoph
  • Issues Arising in retransmission consent negotiations and the latest news on ATSC 3.0 [01:00:59]
    Mary Lovejoy, Michael D. Nilsson, Brian Markwalter
  • The FCC’s new business data services order and other competitive telecommunications issues [01:16:13]
    Sheba Chacko, Angie Kronenberg, Michael Pryor
  • Efforts on the Hill and at the FCC to spur broadband deployment through rights-of-way reform [01:31:13]
    John Burchett, Michael Grover, Thomas C. Power, James Bradford Ramsay
  • What the FCC’s recent GSN decision – and anticipated responses to pending complaints – means for program carriage disputes [00:59:54]
    Michael D. Hurwitz, Stephanie A. Roy, William Dever
  • Net Neutrality – the Commission’s anticipated new way forward on this highly contentious issue [01:19:44]
    Sarah Morris, Angie Kronenberg, Matthew T. Murchison
  • The FCC’s spectrum proceedings: what do they mean for cable operators, programming networks and ISPs? [00:59:39]
    Russell H. Fox, Hank Hultquist, Danielle Piñeres
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity Update [01:01:43]
    Harold J. Feld, Christopher J. Harvie, James M. Assey

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK

  • NCTA—The Internet & Television Association, Delivering Broadband to All Americans: An NCTA Issue Brief (June 2017)
    James M. Assey
  • Comments of the American Television Alliance, In Re: Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142 (May 9, 2017)
    Mary Lovejoy, Michael D. Nilsson, Alison A. Minea
  • Comments of the American Cable Association, In Re: Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142 (May 9, 2017)
    Mary Lovejoy, Alison A. Minea, Michael D. Nilsson
  • Comments of America’s Public Television Stations, The AWARN Alliance, The Consumer Technology Association and The National Association of Broadcasters, In Re: Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142 (May 9, 2017)
    Mary Lovejoy, Michael D. Nilsson, Alison A. Minea
  • Reply Comments of the American Television Alliance, In Re: Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142 (June 8, 2017)
    Alison A. Minea, Michael D. Nilsson, Mary Lovejoy
  • Petition for Reconsideration of the National Association of Broadcasters, In Re: 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services; Rules and Policies Concerning Attribution of Joint Sales Agreements in Local Television Markets, MB Docket Nos. 14-50, 09-182, 07-294, 04-256 (December 1, 2016)
    Michael D. Nilsson, Alison A. Minea, Mary Lovejoy
  • Order on Reconsideration and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In Re: 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services; Rules and Policies Concerning Attribution of Joint Sales Agreements in Local Television Markets; Rules and Policies to Promote New Entry and Ownership Diversity in the Broadcasting Services, MB Docket Nos. 14-50, 09-182, 07-294, 04-256, 17-829, FCC 17
    Michael D. Nilsson, Alison A. Minea, Mary Lovejoy
  • Letter from Michael D. Nilsson, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, Counsel to the American Television Alliance, to Secy. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, In Re: Ex Parte Communication in: MB Docket No. 15-216 (Good Faith Negotiation); MB Docket No. 10-71 (Retransmission Consent); MB Docket Nos. 14-50, 09-182, 07-294, 04-256 (Local Media Ownership) (February 17, 2017)
    Michael D. Nilsson, Alison A. Minea, Mary Lovejoy
  • Letter from Michael D. Nilsson, Mark Davis, Jared Marx, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, Counsel to the American Television Alliance, to Secy. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, In Re: Ex Parte Communication in: MB Docket No. 15-216 (Good Faith Negotiation); MB Docket No. 10-71 (Retransmission Consent); MB Docket Nos. 14-50, 09-182, 07-294, 04-256 (Local Media Ownership); 17-179 (Sinclair-Tribune Proceeding) (August 17, 2017)
    Michael D. Nilsson, Alison A. Minea, Mary Lovejoy
  • Letter from Michael D. Nilsson, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, Counsel to the American Television Alliance, to Secy. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, In Re: Ex Parte Communication in: MB Docket No. 15-216 (Good Faith Negotiation); MB Docket No. 10-71 (Retransmission Consent); MB Docket Nos. 14-50, 09-182, 07-294, 04-256 (Local Media Ownership); GN Docket No. 16-142 (ATSC 3.0) (November 3, 2017)
    Mary Lovejoy, Alison A. Minea, Michael D. Nilsson
  • Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In Re: Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142, FCC 17-158 (November 20, 2017)
    Alison A. Minea, Michael D. Nilsson, Mary Lovejoy
  • Pursuant to Protective Order, Highly Confidential Information from Tribune Media Company, In Re: Tribune Media Company and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Consolidated Applications for Consent to Transfer Control, MB Docket No. 17-179 (July 19, 2017)
    Alison A. Minea, Mary Lovejoy, Michael D. Nilsson
  • Petition to Dismiss or Deny of DISH Network L.L.C., In Re: Tribune Media Company and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Consolidated Applications for Consent to Transfer Control, MB Docket No. 17-179 (August 7, 2017)
    Mary Lovejoy, Alison A. Minea, Michael D. Nilsson
  • Petition to Deny of American Cable Association, In Re: Applications of Tribune Media Company and Sinclair Broadcast Group for Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No. 17-179 August 7, 2017)
    Alison A. Minea, Mary Lovejoy, Michael D. Nilsson
  • Applicants’ Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny, In Re: Tribune Media Company and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Consolidated Applications for Consent to Transfer Control, MB Docket No. 17-179 (August 22, 2017)
    Mary Lovejoy, Alison A. Minea, Michael D. Nilsson
  • Reply of Dish Network L.L.C., In the Matter of Tribune Media Company and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Consolidated Applications for Consent to Transfer Control, MB Docket No. 17-179 (August 29, 2017)
    Alison A. Minea, Michael D. Nilsson, Mary Lovejoy
  • Regulation of Business Data Services (January 26, 2018)
    Michael Pryor
  • Reply Comments of Cox Communications, Inc., In Re: Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment; Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket Nos. 16-143; 05-25 (August 9, 2016)
    Michael Pryor
  • Report and Order, In Re: Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment; Technology Transitions; Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers; AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking to Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services, WC Docket No. 16-143; GN Docket No. 13-5; WC Docket No. 05-25, RM-10593, FCC 17-43 (April 28, 2017)
    Michael Pryor
  • Sealed Joint Opening Brief of Ad Hoc. Et Al. and Access Point Et Al., Citizens Telecommunications Co. of Minnesota, LLC, v. FCC; U.S., Nos. 17-2296, 17-2342, 17-2344, 17-2685 (September 26, 2017)
    Angie Kronenberg
  • Joint Reply Brief of Petitioners, Ad Hoc. Et Al. and Access Point Et Al., Citizens Telecommunications Co. of Minnesota, LLC, v. FCC; U.S., Nos. 17-2296, 17-2342, 17-2344, 17-2685 (December 19, 2017)
    Angie Kronenberg
  • Summary, Bills Providing Infrastructure Relief
    Thomas C. Power
  • Comments of CTIA, In Re: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79; WC Docket No. 17-84 (June 15, 2017)
    Thomas C. Power
  • Draft Model Code for Municipalities, Federal Communications Commission, Broadband Development Advisory Committee, Model Code for Municipalities Working Group (Discussion Draft January 18, 2018)
    Michael Grover
  • Memorandum Opinion and Order, In Re: Game Show Network, LLC v. Cablevision Systems Corp., MB Docket No. 12-122; File No. CSR-8529-P, FCC 17-96 (July 14, 2017)
  • Comments of Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal Media, LLC, In Re: Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 17-214 (October 10, 2017)
  • Comments of NCTA—The Internet & Television Ass’n, In Re: Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108 (July 17, 2017)
    Matthew A. Brill
  • Comments of the Open Technology Institute at New America, In Re: Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108 (July 17, 2017)
    Sarah Morris
  • Reply Comments of NCTA—The Internet & Television Ass’n, In Re: Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108 (August 30, 2017)
    Matthew A. Brill
  • Reply Comments of the Open Technology Institute at New America, In Re: Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108 (August 30, 2017)
    Sarah Morris
  • Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, In Re: Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108, FCC 17-166 (January 4, 2018)
    Matthew A. Brill
  • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, In Re: Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354, FCC 12-148 (December 12, 2012)
    Russell H. Fox
  • Notice of Inquiry, In Re: Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, GN Docket No. 17-183, FCC 17-104 (August 3, 2017)
    Russell H. Fox
  • Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, In Re: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services; Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz Bands; Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services; Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands...
    Russell H. Fox
  • Presentation Outline
    Danielle Piñeres
  • Comments of NCTA—The Internet & Television Association, In Re: Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, GN Docket No. 17-183 (October 2, 2017)
    Danielle Piñeres
  • Comments of NCTA—The Internet & Television Association, In Re: Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 17-258 (December 28, 2017)
    Danielle Piñeres
  • Start with Security: A Guide for Business, Lessons Learned from FTC Cases, Federal Trade Commission (June 2015)
    Loretta Polk
  • A Report to the President on Enhancing the Resilience of the Internet and Communications Ecosystem Against Botnets and Other Automated, Distributed Threats, Transmitted by The Secretary of Commerce and The Secretary of Homeland Security, Draft for Public Comment (January 5, 2018)
    Loretta Polk

Presentation Material


  • Retransmission Consent
    Mary Lovejoy
  • Spurring Wireless Broadband Deployment
    Thomas C. Power
  • Broadband and Cable Industry Law 2018
    William Dever
  • Program Carriage after GSN v. Cablevision
    Michael D. Hurwitz
  • Net Neutrality Overview
    Matthew T. Murchison
  • Net Neutrality Panel
    Angie Kronenberg
  • Net Neutrality: The Need for Pro-Consumer Protections to Preserve an Open Internet
    Sarah Morris
  • Spectrum & Wireless Policy Update
    Danielle Piñeres
  • Spectrum and Infrastructure Legislative Updates
    Russell H. Fox
  • Cybersecurity Policy Update
    Christopher J. Harvie
Co-Chair(s)
Tara M. Corvo ~ Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Markham C. Erickson ~ Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Speaker(s)
James M. Assey ~ Executive Vice President, NCTA -The Internet & Television Association
Matthew Berry ~ Chief of Staff, Federal Communications Commission
John Burchett ~ Head of Public Policy, Google Fiber
Sheba Chacko ~ Chief Regulatory Counsel, BT Americas Inc.
William Dever ~ Special Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
Harold J. Feld ~ Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge
Russell H. Fox ~ Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo, P.C.
Michael Grover ~ Vice President, Government Affairs, Cox Communications, Inc.
Christopher J. Harvie ~ Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Hank Hultquist ~ Vice President, Federal Regulatory, AT&T Communications
Michael D. Hurwitz ~ Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Douglas Kinkoph ~ Associate Administrator, OTIA, National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce
Angie Kronenberg ~ Chief Advocate and General Counsel, INCOMPAS
Mary Lovejoy ~ Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, American Cable Association
Brian Markwalter ~ Consumer Technology Associatio
Sarah Morris ~ Deputy Director, Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation
Matthew T. Murchison ~ Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Michael D. Nilsson ~ Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
Danielle Piñeres ~ Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTA- The Internet & Television Association
Tom C. Power ~ SVP and General Counsel, CTIA- The Wireless Association
Michael Pryor ~ Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Schreck
James Bradford Ramsay ~ General Counsel/Director, Policy Department, NARUC
Stephanie A. Roy ~ Partner, Perkins Coie LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Broadband and Cable Industry Law 2019 (New York, NY) May. 13 - 14, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Broadband and Cable Industry Law 2019  
Broadband and Cable Industry Law 2018 Jonathan K. Youngwood, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Markham C. Erickson, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.