Gov performance

I can summarize my testimony in three sentences. First, promoting universal access to modern communication services and the Internet, especially for low-income and disadvantaged Americans, is a noble cause and a pragmatic objective which deserves Federal support. Second, the Federal Communications Commission’s current lifeline program is not an effective or efficient means of achieving these goals, nor are current reform efforts likely to make it so. Third, we cannot give up: the doors of digital opportunity must be opened for low-income and disadvantaged Americans, and it is therefore incumbent on policymakers to develop a new approach that is both effective and a good investment for the American taxpayer.

In May 2017, we published a report on Federal Communications Commission's oversight of Lifeline that identified steps FCC has taken in the last few years to enhance the integrity of the program and stated the weaknesses that remained. Specifically, this testimony discusses (1) the extent to which Lifeline demonstrates effective performance towards program goals; (2) steps FCC and Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) have taken to improve financial controls in place for Lifeline and the USF, and any remaining weaknesses that might exist; (3) steps FCC and USAC have taken to improve subscriber eligibility verification, and any remaining weaknesses that might exist; and (4) steps FCC and USAC have taken to improve oversight of Lifeline providers, and any remaining weaknesses that might exist...

In conclusion, Lifeline’s large and diffuse administrative structure creates a complex internal control environment susceptible to significant risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. FCC’s and USAC’s limited oversight of important aspects of program operations further complicates the control environment—heightening program risk. We are encouraged by FCC’s recent steps to address weaknesses we identified, such as the 2016 order establishing a National Verifier, which, if implemented as planned, could further help to address weaknesses in the eligibility-determination process. We also plan to monitor the implementation status of the recommendations we made in May 2017.

The Federal Communications Commission’s public commenting process on network neutrality was such a debacle that the legitimacy of the entire body of comments is now in question. Many of the comments were filed with obviously bogus names.

Among the more visible cases of name theft: journalist and net neutrality advocate Karl Bode's identity was used without his consent for a comment favoring a roll back of the rules. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's name was used on hundreds of comments opposing his proposal, some threatening him with death or using racial slurs. John Oliver's name was used on more than 2,000 of comments as well. On a case by case basis, these forgeries are easy enough to spot. But in aggregate, they're making it harder to draw conclusions about the overall public sentiment of the proceeding. In May 2017, the FCC's site was also hit with what appeared to be a spambot submitting hundreds of thousands of anti-Title II comments with the exact same boilerplate language. The broadband industry is now using the chaos of the comments process to claim that the public actually supports repealing Title II.

Former FCC special counsel Gigi Sohn said, "I can’t imagine there is nothing they can do, and I’d love to see a citation to anything that says that they cannot remove a comment that has been proven to be fake." If anything, she says, the agency might have an obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act to remove fake comments from its consideration. "At a bare minimum, they should investigate these comments and if they can’t actually remove the comments, they can and should disregard them as part of their consideration of record."

[Commentary] Since the Justice Department named a special investigator, Robert Mueller, to handle the government’s official inquiry into Russian meddling in the U.S. election, the weight of public expectation has largely fallen on his shoulders. While the two congressional panels, the Senate and House intelligence committees, continue to hold hearings and question witnesses, both are led by members of a party that is, with the exception of Charlottesville, skittish about criticizing the president. The two intelligence committees should act as if their investigations will be the final (and possibly the only) ones — because they may be.

A central role for Congress is the only real way to guarantee a full report, with conclusions and recommendations, for the American people. I oversaw a similarly complex and politically fraught inquiry as co-chairman of the joint congressional inquiry into 9/11, so I know what it takes — as a matter of resources, time, perseverance and, yes, occasional political courage — to run an investigation of this size and importance. And I know this, too: The congressional intelligence committees, as they are constituted today, are not ready for this burden.

[Bob Graham was a U.S. senator from Florida from 1987 to 2005. He served as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 2001 to 2003 and as co-chairman of the Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.]

President Donald Trump seized on a letter from two Republican senators claiming evidence that FBI Director James Comey cleared former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing over her private e-mail server before concluding his investigation. In a message on Twitter, President Trump said it looked like Comey had "exonerated" Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee for president, before the investigation was over. “Wow, looks like James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton long before the investigation was over...and so much more. A rigged system!” he tweeted.

By this Public Notice, the Federal Communications Commission announces the states that will be part of the initial launch of the National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (National Verifier). The Commission established the National Verifier in the 2016 Lifeline Order to make eligibility determinations and perform a variety of other functions necessary to enroll subscribers into the Lifeline program. The National Verifier will verify Lifeline subscriber eligibility, conduct checks to prevent duplicate benefits, recertify subscriber eligibility, and calculate support payments to eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). In the 2016 Lifeline Order, the Commission set as an expectation that the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) would deploy the National Verifier in at least five states by December 31, 2017.3 USAC has announced that the National Verifier will launch in six states – Colorado, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming – in December 2017. The National Verifier will have a soft launch date of December 5, 2017, and a hard launch date of March 13, 2018.

President Donald Trump promised big changes on cybersecurity after his election. During the Obama administration, the nation’s cybersecurity was “run by people that don’t know what they’re doing,” the president said during a post-election press conference. The Trump administration, he promised, would gather “some of the greatest computer minds anywhere in the world” and “put those minds together … to form a defense.” Seven months into the president’s administration, however, analysts are wondering what’s so different.

On most major cybersecurity issues, such as securing federal networks and critical infrastructure, Trump officials are in near lockstep with their Obama-era predecessors. Where they differ, there’s no clear Trump cybersecurity doctrine to explain the divergence. “It’s schizophrenic,” said Peter Singer, a cyber theorist and senior fellow at the New America Foundation. “That may be because of the absence of a strategy or it may be because the chaotic execution of that strategy undermines it.”

After months of debate, protests, and disruptions, the Federal Communications Commission’s comment period on its proposal to kill network neutrality is now over. The commission stopped accepting comments closing out with nearly 22 million total replies — setting an immense new record. The FCC’s previous comment record was just 3.7 million, set during the last net neutrality proceeding. But the process of receiving all those comments was far from smooth this time around.

The FCC’s website is fairly confusing. It’s also, apparently, susceptible to spam and other attacks, which we saw at multiple points across the past four months. All the while, the FCC’s chairman has been trying to explain that comments don’t really matter anyway, despite the commission’s requirement to act in the public interest and take public feedback. From the very beginning of the proceeding, FCC leadership laid out that it would be the quality, not the quantity, of the comments that made a difference. On the surface, that’s a reasonable argument, but it’s being set out as an excuse to ignore the overwhelming millions of comments in support of net neutrality in favor of few well-written filings by Comcast and the like. Now that the comment period has ended, the FCC will begin work on a revised version of its proposal, which it will then vote on and quite likely pass, making it official policy. The commission is supposed to factor public input into its revisions — and in fact, much of the original proposal was just a big series of open-ended questions — so it’ll probably be a little while before we see a final draft.

It’s entirely possible that the commission will go ahead with its original, bare-bones plan to simply kill net neutrality and leave everything else up to internet providers to sort out. But if the commission does decide to put in place some sort of protections, then we’ll have another debate to run through — one over exactly how effective those rules might be, and exactly how many ways companies can weasel around them.

The Federal Communications Commission's website already gets a lot of traffic—sometimes more than it can handle. But thanks to a weakness in the interface that the FCC published for citizens to file comments on proposed rule changes, there's a lot more interesting—and potentially malicious—content now flowing onto one FCC domain.

The system allows just about any file to be hosted on the FCC's site—potentially including malware. The application programming interface (API) for the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System that enables public comment on proposed rule changes has been the source of some controversy already. It exposed the e-mail addresses of public commenters on network neutrality—intentionally, according to the FCC, to ensure the process' openness—and was the target of what the FCC claimed was a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. But as a security researcher has found, the API could be used to push just about any document to the FCC's website, where it would be instantly published without screening. Because of the open nature of the API, an application key can be obtained with any e-mail address. While the content exposed via the site thus far is mostly harmless, the API could be used for malicious purposes as well. Since the API apparently accepts any file type, it could theoretically be used to host malicious documents and executable files on the FCC's Web server.

In his first seven months as president, Donald Trump has generally drawn high job approval ratings among Republicans. But a new survey finds that nearly a third of Republicans say they agree with the president on only a few or no issues, while a majority expresses mixed or negative feelings about his conduct as president. A separate survey, conducted on Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, finds stark divisions between those who approve and those who disapprove of Trump’s job performance in their impressions of the president.

Those who disapprove of Trump cite several concerns about him: 32% point to his personality, including his temperament; 25% mention his policies, particularly foreign policy and its impact on U.S. standing in the world; and 19% fault his intelligence or competence. Trump’s supporters raise different concerns: 17% of those who approve of his job performance cite his use of Twitter and other social media, while 16% say they are most concerned about obstruction from others, such as Congress and the news media. About one-in-ten of those who approve of Trump say their biggest concern is his personality (11%) and a similar share point to his policies (10%).