July 2010

Computer networks and infrastructures, on which the United States and much of the world rely to communicate and conduct business, contain vulnerabilities that can leave them susceptible to unauthorized access, disruption, or attack. Investing in research and development (R&D) is essential to protect critical systems and to enhance the cybersecurity of both the government and the private sector. Federal law has called for improvements in cybersecurity R&D, and, recently, President Obama has stated that advancing R&D is one of his administration's top priorities for improving cybersecurity.

GAO was asked to determine the key challenges in enhancing national-level cybersecurity R&D efforts among the federal government and private companies. To do this, GAO consulted with officials from relevant federal agencies and experts from private sector companies and academic institutions as well as analyzed key documents, such as agencies' research plans.
GAO is recommending that the Director of OSTP direct NITRD to exercise its leadership responsibilities by taking several actions, including developing a national agenda, and establishing and utilizing a mechanism to keep track of federal cybersecurity R&D funding. OSTP agreed with GAO's recommendation and provided details on planned actions.

(GAO-10-466)

The Obama Administration is trying to fix the Internet's dog problem. The problem, as depicted in Peter Steiner's legendary 1993 New Yorker cartoon, is that on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog. And thus the enduring conundrum over who can be trusted in cyberspace.

The Internet affords anonymity to its users -- a boon to privacy and freedom of speech. But that very anonymity is also behind the explosion of cybercrime that has swept across the Web. Can privacy be preserved while bringing a semblance of safety and security to a world that seems increasingly lawless? Last month, Howard Schmidt, the nation's cyberczar, offered the Obama administration's proposal to make the Web a safer place -- a "voluntary trusted identity" system that would be the high-tech equivalent of a physical key, a fingerprint and a photo ID card, all rolled into one. The system might use a smart identity card, or a digital credential linked to a specific computer, and would authenticate users at a range of online services. The idea is to create a federation of private online identity systems. Users could select which system to join, and only registered users whose identities have been authenticated could navigate those systems. The approach contrasts with one that would require a government-issued Internet driver's license. (Civil liberties groups oppose a government system, fearful that it could lead to national identity cards.) Google and Microsoft are among companies that already have these "single sign-on" systems that make it possible for users to log in just once but use many different services. In effect, the approach would create a "walled garden" in cyberspace, with (virtually) safe neighborhoods and bright (cyber) streetlights to establish a sense of a trusted community.

If your Internet service provider can't block some low-bandwidth application like VoIP simply because it competes with one of their own offerings, why should mobile operators have the right to do so? In Canada, they no longer do.

Last week, Canadian regulators decided that ISPs all have to play by the same traffic management rules, regardless of the technology they use to deliver the bits. This makes tremendous sense, as opposed to the technology-centric approach taken previous by Canada (and still used in the US). The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) laid down the rules for wireline ISPs last year, but at the time did not address whether they applied to mobile operators. On June 30 2010, CRTC at last decided to apply the same traffic management framework to mobile Internet access in order to address "potential issues regarding unjust discrimination or undue preference in the provisioning of mobile wireless data services." The country's Internet traffic management rules don't amount to strict "net neutrality," and management practices like P2P delay are still allowed. But Canadian ISPs do operate under a set of useful rules. Internet traffic management must not be "unjustly discriminatory nor unduly preferential." Management must "be designed to address a defined need, and nothing more." Outright blocking of content is prohibited, and so is any "delay" technique in which content is "slowed down to such an extent that it amounts to blocking."

The Big Ten Network, the all-collegiate sports channel, prompted chuckles when it launched in 2007. But no one's laughing at it now: The network has pumped up viewership and ad dollars — and has caught the eye of schools considering defecting from their own conferences.

The Chicago-based network's early programming efforts have been long on game coverage and short on the kind of opinionated banter that fans expect from sports broadcasters. But Big Ten Network LLC brass says new programming is in the works, which CEO Mark Silverman hopes will win over more advertisers and answer skeptics who once thought the Big Ten Conference's appeal wasn't broad enough to support a stand-alone network. The network has become a moneymaker for Big Ten Conference schools, generating millions of dollars that support athletic programs, scholarships and facilities. Other bonuses: brand-building, luring prospective students and keeping alumni engaged. Mr. Silverman says the Big Ten Network's profit more than doubled this year over 2009; ad revenue rose 30% as the audience expanded to 40 million homes. He wouldn't provide specific numbers, but the conference's IRS filing for the year ended June 2009 — the most recent data available — showed the network paid the conference $72 million.

The Big Ten Network is 51% owned by the conference and 49% owned by News Corp.'s Fox unit. It delivered about $8 million to each school this year for the right to broadcast some games, while other national networks, including ABC and ESPN, pay the schools nearly $14 million each for the biggest games, says Ron Guenther, athletic director at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign