House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., attacked FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Wednesday, saying antitrust law is better than relying on the agency's net neutrality order. He slammed the order's Communications Act Title II reclassification of broadband. It was the fifth hearing for Wheeler in under two weeks. Democrats had told us they feared this hearing would become partisan (see 1503050047), and broke from committee Republicans to defend the order.

Alamo Broadband appealing Monday the FCC net neutrality order in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and USTelecom in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1503230066) were examples of circuit shopping for a favorable court to hear the cases, said public interest lawyers in interviews. It's "about circuit shopping,” said Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld. “The D.C. Circuit and the 5th Circuit are generally considered to be extremely conservative, anti-regulation, and generally hostile to the FCC.” Litigators won't "forgo any possible advantage, including looking for the forum they think will be most favorable to their appeal,” said Feld.

Alamo Broadband appealing Monday the FCC net neutrality order in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and USTelecom in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1503230066) were examples of circuit shopping for a favorable court to hear the cases, said public interest lawyers in interviews. It's "about circuit shopping,” said Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld. “The D.C. Circuit and the 5th Circuit are generally considered to be extremely conservative, anti-regulation, and generally hostile to the FCC.” Litigators won't "forgo any possible advantage, including looking for the forum they think will be most favorable to their appeal,” said Feld.

Net neutrality dominated FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s fourth hearing in under two weeks Tuesday, as he faced off against a House GOP appropriator expressing the desire to punish the agency financially for its focus on net neutrality. Wheeler said that the FCC FY 2016 budget request of $388 million largely developed from “unavoidable costs” such as the agency’s proposed move. Commissioner Ajit Pai, as expected (see 1503230067), opposed the budget request and asked Congress to defund the net neutrality order’s execution.

Net neutrality dominated FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s fourth hearing in under two weeks Tuesday, as he faced off against a House GOP appropriator expressing the desire to punish the agency financially for its focus on net neutrality. Wheeler said that the FCC FY 2016 budget request of $388 million largely developed from “unavoidable costs” such as the agency’s proposed move. Commissioner Ajit Pai, as expected (see 1503230067), opposed the budget request and asked Congress to defund the net neutrality order’s execution.

Congress should quickly repeal country-of-origin labeling requirements to avoid massive retaliatory tariffs expected to follow the World Trade Organization’s upcoming decision in the long-running dispute, said industry and business leaders in testimony before a House Agriculture subcommittee on March 25. Many industry critics previously called for more Agriculture Department authority to reform the COOL regime (see 1411060019), but the “looming” WTO rejection of the U.S. appeal in the case raises concern to critical levels, said the witnesses at the hearing. Canadian and Mexican officials continue to pressure a change in law (see 1502040064).

Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., want the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide information on “whether law enforcement’s use of technology capable of scanning data from thousands of cell phones is part of a domestic test operation on behalf of the intelligence community,” said a Monday joint release about a March 18 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Acting Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Grassley and Leahy sent a letter to the DOJ in June and December last year asking about the use of cell-site simulators, also known as “IMSI Catchers,” “dirtboxes,” or “Stingrays,” which “mimic standard cell towers and force affected cell phones to reveal their approximate location and identifying serial number,” the March 18 letter said. The FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) both “maintain that they do not use the devices in this way,” and said they “purge any data collected from non-targeted telephones once an investigation is complete,” the letter said. But the Wall Street Journal reported March 10 that the “USMS field-tested various versions of this technology in the United States on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency,” the letter said. “If this report is true, such practices raise additional concerns,” and the DOJ’s “failure to answer” previous questions have “heightened our concerns,” the letter said. The senators asked the DOJ to provide a written response to their questions by March 27. Questions included: Does DOJ policy ever permit the use of cell-site simulators to capture the content of communications domestically? Has DOJ or any DOJ entity tested cell-site simulators or other surveillance technology on behalf of the intelligence community, by employing the devices in the course of domestic law enforcement operations? What, if any, DOJ policy governs the testing and deployment of new surveillance technology?

The FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau sought comment on a petition by Blackboard for clarification of Telephone Consumer Protection Act rules on calls to wireless phones. Blackboard offers a mass notification platform, Blackboard Connect, “that allows Blackboard’s customers to send notifications to parents, students, faculty, and others ‘regarding emergency weather closures, threat situations, event scheduling, or to provide other important education-related information,’” the bureau said Monday. Blackboard said systems using its service are responsible for obtaining prior consent from called parties, the bureau said. “Blackboard argues that the autodialed or prerecorded messages sent by its customers using Blackboard Connect comprise calls made for emergency purposes and are therefore permissible under the Commission’s rules without the recipient’s prior express consent.” The bureau sought comment on the various issues raised by the petition. Comments are due April 22, replies May 7.

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said he believes “the vast majority of the privacy issues” raised in advance of the committee’s expected release this week of its version of cybersecurity information sharing legislation “have been met and we will still have a product that is effective to counter these attacks.” His comments came during a C-SPAN Newsmakers interview that was shown Sunday. The bill House Intelligence is to release will mirror much of what’s contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (S-754), Schiff said. Senate Intelligence cleared S-754 March 13 and released the postmarkup text of the bill last week, with the revised bill’s text drawing criticism from privacy groups (see 1503190058). Schiff said the situation has changed from last year, when “we were far apart on key issues and concerns in the privacy community.” There’s broader agreement on the need to remove personally identifiable information (PII) from cyberthreat data shared with the government, which “gives me confidence that we can move forward on a bill,” Schiff said. Meanwhile, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, circulated a discussion draft Friday of his National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act, which would make the Department of Homeland Security the “primary interface” for private sector-to-government cyber information sharing. The bill doesn’t prohibit the private sector from sharing information via other agencies, including the National Security Agency. The bill includes guidelines for DHS monitoring and oversight of the sharing program and includes a mechanism for the department to end sharing with a specific company if it repeatedly fails to strip out PII. The bill would also rename DHS’ National Protection and Programs Directorate as the “Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Directorate.”

Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., want the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide information on “whether law enforcement’s use of technology capable of scanning data from thousands of cell phones is part of a domestic test operation on behalf of the intelligence community,” said a Monday joint release about a March 18 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Acting Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Grassley and Leahy sent a letter to the DOJ in June and December last year asking about the use of cell-site simulators, also known as “IMSI Catchers,” “dirtboxes,” or “Stingrays,” which “mimic standard cell towers and force affected cell phones to reveal their approximate location and identifying serial number,” the March 18 letter said. The FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) both “maintain that they do not use the devices in this way,” and said they “purge any data collected from non-targeted telephones once an investigation is complete,” the letter said. But the Wall Street Journal reported March 10 that the “USMS field-tested various versions of this technology in the United States on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency,” the letter said. “If this report is true, such practices raise additional concerns,” and the DOJ’s “failure to answer” previous questions have “heightened our concerns,” the letter said. The senators asked the DOJ to provide a written response to their questions by March 27. Questions included: Does DOJ policy ever permit the use of cell-site simulators to capture the content of communications domestically? Has DOJ or any DOJ entity tested cell-site simulators or other surveillance technology on behalf of the intelligence community, by employing the devices in the course of domestic law enforcement operations? What, if any, DOJ policy governs the testing and deployment of new surveillance technology?