With companies that send personal data to the U.S. facing a January deadline to find legal transfer mechanisms now that the safe harbor agreement is dead, the question is whether the EU and U.S. can successfully negotiate "safe harbor 2.0." Max Schrems, whose challenge to the Irish data protection commissioner over Facebook's storage of Europeans' personal information in the U.S. led to the Oct. 6 European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision overturning agreement (see 1510060001), predicted there would be no new agreement. Privacy lawyers we spoke with said there will likely be another safe harbor but that many obstacles remain. European Justice Commissioner Vera Jourová, who updated the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee Monday on negotiations with the U.S., said progress is being made but agreement won't be easy.

With companies that send personal data to the U.S. facing a January deadline to find legal transfer mechanisms now that the safe harbor agreement is dead, the question is whether the EU and U.S. can successfully negotiate "safe harbor 2.0." Max Schrems, whose challenge to the Irish data protection commissioner over Facebook's storage of Europeans' personal information in the U.S. led to the Oct. 6 European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision overturning agreement (see 1510060001), predicted there would be no new agreement. Privacy lawyers we spoke with said there will likely be another safe harbor but that many obstacles remain. European Justice Commissioner Vera Jourová, who updated the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee Monday on negotiations with the U.S., said progress is being made but agreement won't be easy.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers are assembling spectrum legislation to overhaul parts of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF), in accordance with pressure from the administration, several staffers on Capitol Hill told us. Bipartisan activity fills both chambers on this front, and Hill staffers say they hope to hitch such an overhaul measure to larger spectrum initiatives coming together.

FCC General Counsel Jonathan Sallet will take the lead on behalf of the agency defending a key part of its net neutrality order in the Dec. 4 oral argument, most of the parties to the case told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a filing Friday. The FCC issued the 3-2 February net neutrality order that has since faced several industry challenges as part of USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063. At stake in the order is the FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service, which attracted significant opposition from industry and Capitol Hill Republicans. Peter Keisler, an attorney with Sidley Austin, will present the argument on behalf of USTelecom, the filing said. Sallet and Keisler will address the arguments in the Title II portion of the case. Other FCC and industry attorneys will address other arguments raised in the case. Filings from litigants were due at the end of last week (see 1509080059). Sallet’s legal history includes partnerships at three law firms -- O’Melveny & Myers, Jenner & Block and Miller Cassidy -- in addition to a policy position at MCI and a Supreme Court clerkship for Justice Lewis Powell. “They’ve picked the best lawyer in the government uniform to argue the most important case in the history of the FCC,” former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt told us.

FCC General Counsel Jonathan Sallet will take the lead on behalf of the agency defending a key part of its net neutrality order in the Dec. 4 oral argument, most of the parties to the case told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a filing Friday. The FCC issued the 3-2 February net neutrality order that has since faced several industry challenges as part of USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063. At stake in the order is the FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service, which attracted significant opposition from industry and Capitol Hill Republicans. Peter Keisler, an attorney with Sidley Austin, will present the argument on behalf of USTelecom, the filing said. Sallet and Keisler will address the arguments in the Title II portion of the case. Other FCC and industry attorneys will address other arguments raised in the case. Filings from litigants were due at the end of last week (see 1509080059). Sallet’s legal history includes partnerships at three law firms -- O’Melveny & Myers, Jenner & Block and Miller Cassidy -- in addition to a policy position at MCI and a Supreme Court clerkship for Justice Lewis Powell. “They’ve picked the best lawyer in the government uniform to argue the most important case in the history of the FCC,” former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt told us.

The House Communications Subcommittee locked down 10 a.m. Wednesday in 2123 Rayburn for an expected hearing on barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment. “With ever-increasing demand for broadband Internet access, whether fixed or mobile, the subcommittee will review proposals break down barriers preventing consumer access to this vital resource,” the committee said in a news release. “The proposals would streamline processes for getting access to federal lands and utility poles, require smart dig-once policies that take advantage of existing roadwork to deploy fiber conduit, and examine the bureaucracy that impedes private sector investment in broadband.” Lawmakers on multiple House committees raised the issue of “dig once” policies Thursday, including Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., who has prioritized the issue in past sessions of Congress. In the Transportation Committee, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., proposed an amendment to the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act (HR-3763) during a Thursday markup. The amendment would have set up a process by which “the conduit would be laid in as that road was repaired or constructed,” he said, calling it “pretty simple” but with major economic development and public safety implications: “The cost is minor compared to the potential benefit,” Garamendi said. “Ms. Eshoo has introduced a similar bill that will eventually be discussed in committee.” Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., opposed the amendment, arguing it would be “imposing new mandates” on states. Garamendi disagreed but withdrew the amendment, promising “we’ll continue to work this.” In the Communications Subcommittee, Eshoo and Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., introduced the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act, an Eshoo bill that lacked GOP backing in the past. “Paving the way for smoother deployment of state-of-the-art-broadband networks has long been a goal for our subcommittee,” Walden said in a statement. “This legislation meets that goal and makes it easier to connect more Americans to this vital 21st century resource.” The American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, Incompas, Public Knowledge, TechFreedom and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation lauded the bill. Similar provisions exist as part of a bipartisan bill that Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is spearheading in the Senate. The bill “will further reduce the cost of laying thousands of miles of fiber optic lines by private businesses,” American Cable Association President Matt Polka said. The bill attracted 26 other lawmakers as co-sponsors, Eshoo’s spokesman told us. The backers are a mix of Democrats and Republicans, from Commerce Committee Vice Chairwoman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., to Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C. Garamendi also backs the Eshoo/Walden bill.

The House Communications Subcommittee locked down 10 a.m. Wednesday in 2123 Rayburn for an expected hearing on barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment. “With ever-increasing demand for broadband Internet access, whether fixed or mobile, the subcommittee will review proposals break down barriers preventing consumer access to this vital resource,” the committee said in a news release. “The proposals would streamline processes for getting access to federal lands and utility poles, require smart dig-once policies that take advantage of existing roadwork to deploy fiber conduit, and examine the bureaucracy that impedes private sector investment in broadband.” Lawmakers on multiple House committees raised the issue of “dig once” policies Thursday, including Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., who has prioritized the issue in past sessions of Congress. In the Transportation Committee, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., proposed an amendment to the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act (HR-3763) during a Thursday markup. The amendment would have set up a process by which “the conduit would be laid in as that road was repaired or constructed,” he said, calling it “pretty simple” but with major economic development and public safety implications: “The cost is minor compared to the potential benefit,” Garamendi said. “Ms. Eshoo has introduced a similar bill that will eventually be discussed in committee.” Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., opposed the amendment, arguing it would be “imposing new mandates” on states. Garamendi disagreed but withdrew the amendment, promising “we’ll continue to work this.” In the Communications Subcommittee, Eshoo and Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., introduced the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act, an Eshoo bill that lacked GOP backing in the past. “Paving the way for smoother deployment of state-of-the-art-broadband networks has long been a goal for our subcommittee,” Walden said in a statement. “This legislation meets that goal and makes it easier to connect more Americans to this vital 21st century resource.” The American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, Incompas, Public Knowledge, TechFreedom and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation lauded the bill. Similar provisions exist as part of a bipartisan bill that Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is spearheading in the Senate. The bill “will further reduce the cost of laying thousands of miles of fiber optic lines by private businesses,” American Cable Association President Matt Polka said. The bill attracted 26 other lawmakers as co-sponsors, Eshoo’s spokesman told us. The backers are a mix of Democrats and Republicans, from Commerce Committee Vice Chairwoman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., to Congressional Black Caucus Chairman G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C. Garamendi also backs the Eshoo/Walden bill.

A U.S. District Court judge in Milwaukee granted Performant Technologies a stay Tuesday of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act-related lawsuit pending the outcome of various cases before federal courts of appeal. Judge Rudolph Randa commented on the FCC July declaratory ruling on the TCPA (see 1506180046). Randa said he agrees with Commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly, who raised concerns about how the FCC ruling interpreted the word capacity as spelled out in the TCPA. The FCC found that use of the term “capacity” in the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system,” doesn't exempt equipment that lacks the “present ability” to dial randomly or sequentially, Randa wrote. Pai said in dissenting from the ruling that the FCC “dramatically expands the TCPA’s reach,” Randa noted. According to Pai, the FCC found that the “TCPA prohibits a person from making ’any call’ to a mobile phone ’using any automatic telephone dialing system,’ except in certain defined circumstances,” Randa said. Randa said he granted Performant a stay because of the probability that finding won't survive legal challenge. “Thus, it seems to the Court, as it seemed to the dissenting Commissioners, that the majority’s interpretation of the term ‘capacity’ contradicts the plain language of the statute,” Randa wrote. The decision came in case no.13-C-1196.

A U.S. District Court judge in Milwaukee granted Performant Technologies a stay Tuesday of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act-related lawsuit pending the outcome of various cases before federal courts of appeal. Judge Rudolph Randa commented on the FCC July declaratory ruling on the TCPA (see 1506180046). Randa said he agrees with Commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly, who raised concerns about how the FCC ruling interpreted the word capacity as spelled out in the TCPA. The FCC found that use of the term “capacity” in the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system,” doesn't exempt equipment that lacks the “present ability” to dial randomly or sequentially, Randa wrote. Pai said in dissenting from the ruling that the FCC “dramatically expands the TCPA’s reach,” Randa noted. According to Pai, the FCC found that the “TCPA prohibits a person from making ’any call’ to a mobile phone ’using any automatic telephone dialing system,’ except in certain defined circumstances,” Randa said. Randa said he granted Performant a stay because of the probability that finding won't survive legal challenge. “Thus, it seems to the Court, as it seemed to the dissenting Commissioners, that the majority’s interpretation of the term ‘capacity’ contradicts the plain language of the statute,” Randa wrote. The decision came in case no.13-C-1196.

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., fears the effects of the FCC’s direction on USF and what it has done to rural telecom companies’ ability to invest. Moran. a member of the Commerce Committee, also chairs the Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, where he held a hearing on rural development Wednesday and aired many concerns about how FCC policies may affect investment.