On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Broadband and Cable Industry Law 2017

Released on: Apr. 12, 2017
Running Time: 09:24:42

In this renowned program, hear cutting-edge analysis of federal initiatives and FCC regulations. Plus examine the latest negotiation trends, current case law, and the latest technology forecasts. Join the country’s leading outside and in-house counsel representing cable operators, cable programmers, municipalities, 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.

You will learn:

  • Capitol Hill, the White House and the new FCC: understanding their priorities and where they might align
  • Recent proposed industry mergers: lessons learned
  • Who is responsible for apps' or devices' compliance with accessibility, privacy, copyright and other laws?
  • The changing role of the FCC
  • Privacy and cybersecurity update

Credit Offered:

CLE and CPD


Practitioners in the field of cable and telecommunications law, state and local regulators, and executives of MVPDs and companies supplying cable video programming and technology, cable Internet and voice technology will benefit from this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 09:24:42]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Introduction* [00:01:00]
    Markham C. Erickson, Tara M. Corvo
  • Capitol Hill, The White House and The New FCC [01:32:59]
    James M. Assey, Kate Forscey, David J. Redl, Matthew Berry
  • Lessons Learned From Recent Proposed Industry Mergers [01:15:41]
    David I. Gelfand, Maureen R. Jeffreys, Jonathan B. Sallet
  • New Technologies’ Intersection with FCC Rules [01:17:33]
    Paul Glist, Michael Nilsson, Rachel A. Miller, Gerard J. Waldron
  • The Changing Role of the FCC [01:30:26]
    Sam Feder, Howard J. Symons, Christopher J. Wright
  • Limits of Program Carriage Rules [00:59:15]
    Michelle M. Carey, Barbara S. Esbin, Michael D. Hurwitz, Stephanie A. Roy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity Update [01:33:05]
    Jose M. Jimenez, Loretta P. Polk, Dallas Harris, Jonathan E. Nuechterlein
  • Competitive Telecom Issues [01:14:43]
    Sheba Chacko, Alysia M. Long, Joshua M. Bobeck, Brian A. Rankin

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Tell Congress to Oppose Anti-FCC Legislation and Protect Consumers, Public Knowledge Memorandum
    Kate Forscey
  • Comments of Public Knowledge, In Re: Technological Transition of the Nation’s Communications Infrastructure, GN Docket No. 12-353 (January 28, 2013)
    Kate Forscey
  • The Interesting Case of the Vertical Merger, Remarks by Jon Sallet, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, at the American Bar Association Fall Forum, November 17, 2016
    Jonathan B. Sallet
  • Competitive Impact Statement, USA v. Charter Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 1:16-cv-00759 (RCL) (May 10, 2016)
    Jonathan B. Sallet
  • The Federal Communications Commission and Lessons of Recent Mergers & Acquisitions Reviews, Remarks by Jon Sallet, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission General Counsel as Prepared for Delivery before the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, September 25, 2015
    Jonathan B. Sallet
  • New Developments in ATSC 3.0, Video Navigation, and Regulatory Responsibilities for New Video Service Technologies (January 17, 2017)
    Brad Guyton, Paul Hudson, Maria Browne, Paul Glist
  • Letter from Mike Chappell, Executive Director, American Television Alliance, to Secy. Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, Re: Notice of Ex Parte Communication in GN Docket No. 16-142 (December 2, 2016)
    Michael Nilsson
  • Joint Petition for Rulemaking, In Re: Authorization of Next Generation TV for Permissive Use as a Television Standard (April 13, 2016)
    Michael Nilsson
  • Comments, In Re: Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Joint Petition for Rulemaking of America’s Public Television Stations, the AWARN Alliance, the Consumer Technology Association, and the National Association of Broadcasters Seeking to Authorize Permissive Use of the “Next Generation TV” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142 (May 26, 2016)
    Michael Nilsson
  • Reply Comments of America’s Public Television Stations, The AWARN Alliance, The Consumer Technology Association and the National Association of Broadcasters, Media Bureau Seeks Comments on Joint Petition for Rulemaking of America’s Public Television Stations, the AWARN Alliance, the Consumer Technology Association, and the National Association of Broadcasters Seeking to Authorize Permissive Use of the “Next Generation TV” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16-142 (June 27, 2016)
    Michael Nilsson
  • Press Release, Statement of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Announcing Another Process Reform Measure (February 6, 2017)
    Howard J. Symons
  • Press Release, Statement of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Announces Pilot Program to Release Commission Documents to the Public (February 2, 2017)
    Howard J. Symons
  • Press Release, FCC Chairman Pai Takes First Step to Increase Transparency of Rulemakings, Pilot Program Will Release Documents to the Public for the First Time (February 2, 2017)
    Howard J. Symons
  • Hearing on “FCC Reauthorization: Improving Commission Transparency,” Statement of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives (April 30, 2015)
    Howard J. Symons
  • Report Together with Dissenting Views, Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2015 (October 22, 2015)
    Howard J. Symons
  • Comments of Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal Media, LLC, In Re: Promoting the Availability of Diverse and Independent Sources of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 16-41 (January 26, 2017)
    Michael D. Hurwitz
  • Joint Comments of the American Cable Association, MAVTV Motorsports Network, One America News Network and AWE, and Ride TV, In Re: Promoting the Availability of Diverse and Independent Sources of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 16-41 (January 26, 2017)
    Barbara S. Esbin
  • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In Re: Promoting the Availability of Diverse and Independent Sources of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 16-41, (Adopted September 29, 2016)
    Barbara S. Esbin
  • Reply of Game Show Network, LLC to Cablevision’s Exceptions to the Initial Decision, In Re: Game Show Network, LLC v. Cablevision Systems Corp., Program Carriage Discrimination, MB Docket No. 12-122, File No. CSR-8529-P (January 13, 2017)
    Barbara S. Esbin
  • Cablevision Systems Corporation’s Exceptions to the Initial Decision, In Re: Game Show Network, LLC v. Cablevision Systems Corp., MB Docket No. 12-122, File No. CSR-8529-P (January 3, 2017)
    Barbara S. Esbin
  • Memorandum Opinion and Order, In Re: Liberman Broadcasting, Inc., et al. v. Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Program Carriage Complaint, MB Docket No. 16-121, File No. CSR-8922-P (August 26, 2016)
    Barbara S. Esbin
  • Protecting Privacy, Promoting Competition: A Framework for Updating the Federal Communications Commission Privacy Rules for the Digital World (February 2016)
    Dallas Harris, Harold J. Feld, Meredith Rose, Charles Duan, Joseph Gasparini, Tennyson Holloway
  • Formation of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), Statement of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai (January 31, 2017)
    Joshua M. Bobeck
  • FCC Public Notice, FCC Announces the Establishment of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee and Solicits Nominations for Membership (January 31, 2017)
    Joshua M. Bobeck
  • FCC Public Notice, Comment Sought on Streamlining Deployment of Small Cell Infrastructure by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies; Mobilitie, LLC Petition for Declaratory Ruling, WT Docket No. 16-421 (December 22, 2016)
    Joshua M. Bobeck
  • Petition for Declaratory Ruling, In Re: Promoting Broadband for All Americans by Prohibiting Excessive Charges for Access to Public Rights of Way (November 15, 2016)
    Joshua M. Bobeck
  • Remarks of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, CTIA Wireless Foundation Smart Cities Expo (November 2, 2016)
    Alysia M. Long
  • A Digital Empowerment Agenda, Remarks of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, the Brandery (September 13, 2016)
    Alysia M. Long
  • Reply Declaration of Michael L. Katz and Bryan G.M. Keating (On behalf of NCTA), In Re: Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment, et al. (August 9, 2016)
    Alysia M. Long
  • Press Release, FCC Seeks Comment on Framework to Advance Competition in the Business Data Services Market (April 28, 2016)
    Alysia M. Long
  • Chairman Wheeler’s Proposal to Promote Fairness, Competition, and Investment in the Business Data Services Market
    Alysia M. Long
  • Ethernet Leased Lines: An International Benchmark (February 2016)
    Sheba Chacko

Presentation Material


  • Memorandum Opinion and Order In Re: Applications of AT&T Inc. and DIRECTTV
  • Memorandum Opinion and Order In Re: Applications of Charter Communications Inc, Time Warner Cable Inc and Advance/Newhouse Partnership
  • Limits of Program Carriage Rules
    Michael D. Hurwitz
  • Limits of Program Carriage Rules
    Barbara S. Esbin
  • Programming & Online Video Distribution
    Stephanie A. Roy
  • Cybersecurity Policy Landscape
    Loretta P. Polk
  • The Cybersecurity Tightrope
    Jose M. Jimenez
  • Tariff Investigation Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
  • Telecom Regulation and Competition: Business Data Services
    Alysia M. Long
  • Competitive Telecom Issues: FCC Infrastructure Initiatives
    Joshua M. Bobeck
  • Competitive Telecom Issues
    Sheba Chacko
  • Cable Voice Services Review
    Brian A. Rankin
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
Joshua M. Bobeck ~ Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Michelle M. Carey ~ Deputy Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
Sheba Chacko ~ Snr. Counsel & Head, Americas Regulation and Global Telecoms Policy, BT Americas Inc.
Barbara S. Esbin ~ Cinnamon Mueller
Sam Feder ~ Jenner & Block LLP
Kate Forscey ~ Associate Counsel, Government Affairs, Public Knowledge
David I. Gelfand ~ Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Paul Glist ~ Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Dallas Harris ~ Policy Fellow, Public Knowledge
Michael D. Hurwitz ~ Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Maureen R. Jeffreys ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Jose M. Jimenez ~ Executive Director, Regulatory Affairs, Cox Communications, Inc.
Alysia M. Long ~ Assistant General Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Cox Communications, Inc.
Rachel A. Miller ~ Vice President Legal Affairs, Technology, HBO
Michael Nilsson ~ Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
Jonathan E. Nuechterlein ~ Sidley Austin LLP
Loretta P. Polk ~ Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTA - The Internet & Television Association
Brian A. Rankin ~ Vice President, Chief Regulatory Counsel - Cable; Senior Deputy General Counsel, Comcast Corporation
David J. Redl ~ Assistant Secretary of Communications and Information, National Telecommunications & Information Administration
Stephanie A. Roy ~ Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Jonathan Sallet ~ The Brookings Institution
Howard J. Symons ~ Jenner & Block LLP
Gerard J. Waldron ~ Covington & Burling LLP
Christopher J. Wright ~ Harris,Wiltshire & Grannis 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.

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

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand 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:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

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.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. 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.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Broadband and Cable Industry Law 2018 (New York, NY) Apr. 10 - 11, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Broadband and Cable Industry Law 2018  
Broadband and Cable Industry Law 2017 Tara M Corvo, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Markham C Erickson, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.