Judge Jeanine Is A Vile Human Who Sucked My Sworn Testimony Then Bastardized It To Falsely Advise Trump

Let this serve as public notice that I intend to hold you, Judge Jeanine, accountable, not just being a "Legal Genius" (trademark pending), but for bearing false witness in the public record.

Trump, as well as congress, relies upon the public record for the purposes of obviation of law and policy.

You falsely advised POTUS and I consider that a war crime, against humanity.

You just spat on the entire democratic process, of which I consider as an act of treason, because you made money off me, and my children.

You are a really vile human.

You steal a part of my personal life, from my blog, then have the audacity to turn around and demography my testimony to the heavens, to further your contractual obligations for ratings, just ignoring my copyright and not citing me as your source.

It was you who participated in the 2016 election interference, also, but you failed to include that part in your glorious rant of propaganda.

I gleefully look forward to your self-extraction from humanity as well as your retraction of the crap you just spewed in the public record through my personae, bastardizing my legacy for my children.

You are a nasty, lyin' skank bitch.

Congratulations for your new place in the annals of history.

To my #Superfans, go forth with much love from the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Hoisted By Her Own Petard: How Hillary Clinton Really Lost Michigan

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Hoisted By Her Own Petard: How Hillary Clinton Really Lost Michigan
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

#maytheheavensfall

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Energy & Commerce and Judiciary Committee Leaders Announce Joint Hearing on T-Mobile & Sprint Merger

 

Hearing With Executives Expected Wednesday, February 13^th

Washington, D.C. – Today, Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chairman Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law Chairman David N. Cicilline (D-RI) announced a joint hearing on the T-Mobile and Sprint merger on Wednesday, February 13.  The joint Subcommittee hearing will examine the merger’s potential impacts on consumers, workers and the wireless industry. 

While the complete list of hearing participants is still being confirmed, T-Mobile CEO John Legere and Sprint Executive Chairman Marcelo Claure have both agreed to testify.  

This will be the first merger review hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee in more than eight years—the last time Democrats held the majority in the House of Representatives.

“A merger between T-Mobile and Sprint would combine two of the four largest wireless carriers and the carriers with the largest numbers of low-income customers.  As the Committees with oversight of the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice, we must hold this hearing to examine the effects on important issues like jobs, costs to consumers, innovation and competition,” said Pallone, Nadler, Doyle and Cicilline.  “We look forward to examining this merger from the perspective of what is in the best interest of consumers and hardworking people.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DEFANGO: Cyberstalking the Russia Narrative - DEFNEWS 08/20/2018

DEFNEWS reports on #cyberwars, directly from the battlefield of the internet.

Keep up to date on the latest propaganda attacks as legal defense strategies in the ongoing investigations up on Capitol Hill, all over the nation, the world.

Multistreaming with https://restream.io/ 

Back to the Danger Zone, Let's get some frags and clip any of our stalker to send over to pubg. Man I love FPS Shooters Donate if you wanna https://streamlabs.com/defango 

Support VIA PATREON Patreon.com/defango 

 BUY FRESH MERCH https://streamlabs.com/defango/#/merch 

paypal.me/defango

 LTC - MRoQpUx1fZxXMBRLa9uZfuzeUKY8YsY9nL 

BTC - 325BQU2qBxuxBvWnUPHonzNzpRFTaYdf3s 

ETH - 0xfD651b1FCD273cE68F8BD87FEB896f92F44595D5 

Multi Streaming with https://restream.io 

 My Setup: S9+ Hp Omen 2017 i7 3770k + 16gb Ram + 500gig SDD + RX 580 4gig Razer Ripsaw Capture Card Razer Blackwidow Chroma Headset Mouse keyboad Skills Contact us at defango@gmail.com 

 Check out My Live Stream Channels 

https://youtube.com/defango 

https://twitch.com/d3fango 

https://periscope.tv/defango

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

The Tale Of Public Private Partnerships In Social Media: Why C-SPAN, Facebook & Twitter Suck

Gather round, boys and girls, for the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed is about to tell the tale of why C-SPAN, Facebook & Twitter suck through the story of of Public Private Partnerships.

To begin, we must first understand what a Public Private Partnership is.

What is the differenc between promoting public propaganda and public private partnerships?

Absolutely nothing as they are both PPPs.

There are no civil rights or FOIAs in PPPs and they control the cyber-infrastructure, meaning they control the how the public accesses information, particularly in this instance, public education.

C-SPAN is outdated, drole, boring, not a very well designed site for navigation, the search options suck, and it choses, without any public input, as to which federal government videos it will allow to share and even embed.

It even destroys federal records.

It has filed with the IRS as a non-profit and with the FCC as an educational foundation, C-SPAN Education Foundation.

Its mission statement is as follows:

TO CONDUCT AND PROMOTE THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE EDUCATION OF PERSONS REGARDING NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND OTHER SUCH SUBJECTS AS THEY MAY AFFECT THE GOVERNANCE OF SOCIETY.

C-SPAN, Facebook & Twitter silencing public officials

C-SPAN, most commonly recognized, controls the public narrative because it is a monopoly and can block whoever it wants, with no opportunity to challenge, unless someone comes up with a new and improved way of holding them accountable.

Yes, that is correct, you must sign in to your cable provider to watch live congressional hearings and C-SPAN, the keeper of the public record, is in violation of the FCC Educational and Informational Programming for Children Act.

C-SPAN is the only broadcast channel for Congress and now charges a fee to access live public hearings because it is a private, non-profit foundation.

That means schools, or other educational platforms for children, are banned from public access to congressional, as well as executive and judicial events, whereby manipulating their voices in the classrooms by controlling the narrative.

C-SPAN can not only block remote access to public congressional hearings, but it can charge a toll for entry, or rather access a fee through the cable providers to control viewing and commenting in real time because it is a private corporation.

In many situations, the only access to information of our government and elected officials is through C-SPAN which should have taken an oath to preserve the public record, and ensure access for children, as defined in its mission statement.

Children are persons, too, who learn from other persons called teachers, families and freinds.

No money, no public access.

Before I was blocked, I had an account for years with CSPAN where I generated clips of everything John Conyers did in congress.

I had to preserve the annals of history of his work so I did it by creating a special databases and posted up on my blogs because his staff and associates were too busy plotting and scheming on how to come up with new and improved ways of stealin' behind his back.

Well, one day C-SPAN just blocked me.

I filed complaints and contacted IT a few times, but they just ignored me until I found out that the IT people were the same people who had already come up with complex machinations of stealin' from my Sweetie.

So, now, we see Facebook and Twitter engaging in new and improved ways of controlling the narrative which is nothing more than a furtherance of propaganda for the best interests of the highest contractual bidder in the political realm.

What I mean by this is simple:  The more money you pay, the greater the access one has to the public in dissemination informating of governance. 

Political parties, special interest groups and candidates can now through a fee structure, control how the public is educated in public matters, which I consider new and improved propaganda.

C-SPAN, Facebook & Twitter rendering decisions
on what is worthy for public discussion
by a public official & constituents

These social media companies, particularlly Facebook and Twitter, which owns every single comment and audio-visual material posted, registered in the Library of Congress, affect the governance of society because they have created conditions to stop the advacement of education in public affairs.

Perhaps the reason why no one wants to talk about the trafficking of tiny humans is because child welfare fraud is intentionally extracted from public education as C-SPAN arbitrarily and capisoucly considers it not worthy of being one of its "other such subjects" identified in its FCC filed mission statement.

This would mean that any action in blocking, shadowbanning, or deleting accounts of private individuals who wish to communicate with their publicly elected officials in the capacity of a constituent is a constitutional violation of free speech, an infringement of voting rights.

This would mean that any action in blocking, shadowbanning, or deleting accounts of public officials is a constitutional violation of free speech, an infringement of voting rights.

I am a public official and so is my Sweetie.

C-SPAN sucks because they not only blocked the recording of the public record, but so did Facebook and Twitter.

How can public officials obviate public policy when the public record is corrupt?

Be it resolved, that C-SPAN sucks because it is promoting public propaganda by using governmental resources and destroying federal records (videos), in its position of a PPP, for its own inurement and the inurement of other privately contracted entities for political gain.

I believe Judiciary and Oversight should call upon C-SPAN, Facebook and Twitter for pubilc hearings regarding the issues I have just raised because something tells me they already know who are behind these Public Private Partnership transgressions and I bet they are not FARA certified.

Stay tuned because I just filed this with the FCC.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Spoofing For Policy: The Transposable Model Of Net Neutrality Policy Formation Process

This video is an actual person, PewDiePie, who has a base of almost 58 million, with thousands of other online vloggers, expressing public concerns to Net Neutrality, with tens of millions of more followers, whose views have been silenced from main stream media, and now through a cyber suppression of speech.

Sometimes, it is not about the policy, but the process of policy formation.

It is called Restoring Internet Freedom and it is nothing more than a product from the transposable privatization model of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a child welfare model.

In this instance, online comments were used as a form of voting mechanism, with no verificaiton of identities, or, more than likely AI bots programmed to enteract and engage as anti-net neurtrality agents of communities.

If this is the case, that means dissinformation was disseminated that corrupted the public record in manipulation of data.

These data are used, in the same exact fashion as the purposes of the Library of Congress to advise in the obviation of policy.

This is false advise, in turn, strips the vote of the people by having the Member vote in accordance to its constiuents, who just so happen to be in this scenario, propaganda bots.

This is the transposable model for the historic investigation and why I am the scribe of history as an original source, or "Spoofing For Policy" because you must always ask yourself, "Cui bono?"

More than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments were Likely Faked

I used natural language processing techniques to analyze net neutrality comments submitted to the FCC from April-October 2017, and the results were disturbing.

The FCC Is Blocking a Law Enforcement Investigation Into Net Neutrality Comment Fraud

In addition, the agency told me there was nothing it could do after someone hijacked my identity to claim I falsely supported killing net neutrality protections.

The FCC is blocking a law enforcement investigation into fraudulent comments designed to provide bogus support for the agency’s looming net neutrality repeal. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman recently announced his office has been conducting an investigation into who submitted millions of fraudulent comments (some using the identities of dead people) during the public comment period.

The FCC is already facing a lawsuit alleging the agency ignored FOIA requests pertaining to these fake comments. The agency similarly told me there was nothing it could do after someone hijacked my identity to claim I falsely supported killing net neutrality protections.

Detailed analysis of the record 22 million comments filed with the agency indicate the majority of the public overwhelmingly supports keeping the rules intact. But several analysts also found that some group or individual tried to counter this genuine opposition with fake support for the plan. Schneiderman's office believes these comments were filed by a bot that pulled identities from a compromised database of some kind.

According to Schneiderman, his office made nine attempts over a period of five months to obtain server logs, API key details, or other information that could aid his office’s investigation into the identity theft. But in a public letter to FCC boss Ajit Pai, Schneiderman noted that the agency simply refused to aid the investigation in any capacity whatsoever.

“We all have a powerful reason to hold accountable those who would steal Americans’ identities and assault the public’s right to be heard in government rulemaking,” argued Schneiderman. “If law enforcement can’t investigate and (where appropriate) prosecute when it happens on this scale, the door is open for it to happen again and again.”

Last week, the FCC doubled down on its refusal to cooperate in a more formal response to the AG.

In a letter to the AG’s office by FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson, the agency lawyer again makes it clear the FCC has no interest in helping law enforcement get to the bottom of whoever is behind the farmed support for its repeal. Throughout the letter, Johnson repeatedly tries to imply that the wholesale fraud that occurred is inconsequential.

Johnson told the AG’s office that "while your letter suggests that the public comment process was somehow 'corrupted' by the alleged submission of comments under false names, you offer no evidence that this activity affected the Commission’s ability to review and respond to comments in the record."

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the FCC is required to solicit and seriously consider relevant comments from the public whenever issuing what’s called a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Consumer groups charge the current FCC is not only ignoring the massive public backlash to the rules’ repeal, but is turning a blind eye to comment fraud in order to raise doubts about the validity of the entire process—and therefore the value of legitimate public opposition.

In the letter, Johnson tries to argue that manipulation of the FCC comment process is routine, while subsequently downplaying the importance of the comment process itself.

“As in many important rulemakings, this proceeding carries the potential for advocates on either side to abuse the process to create an appearance of numerical advantage," Johnson said. "But the Commission does not make policy decisions merely by tallying the comments on either side of a proposal to determine what position has greater support, nor does it attribute greater weight to comments based on the submitter's identity."

Johnson also tried to imply that actually helping the AG’s inquiry into the bogus comments would be “too burdensome” for the FCC.

“Your staff has previously asked us to provide logs of Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses for certain comments,” said Johnson. “Even assuming that these logs would indicate that some comments originated from cloud-based automatic ‘bots,’ many others would reflect the IP addresses of authentic human users. It would be unduly burdensome, if not impossible, for the Commission to separate legitimate from illegitimate entries in the logs. Revealing the IP addresses of public commenters would also raise significant personal privacy concerns."

Given many of these folks either don’t exist or are mysteriously deceased, this sudden professed dedication to consumer privacy rings hollow (especially given the agency’s recent support of killing consumer broadband privacy protections). Similarly, FCC staffers have told me it would be relatively trivial for the FCC to provide data indicating which group used FCC APIs to submit fraudulent comments en masse.

Needless to say, Schneiderman’s office wasn’t particularly impressed by the FCC’s apathy to the problem.

"Today the FCC make[s] clear that it will continue to obstruct a law enforcement investigation," said Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for Schneiderman’s office. "It’s easy for the FCC to claim that there’s no problem with the process, when they’re hiding the very information that would allow us to determine if there was a problem."

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel also blasted the FCC's refusal to cooperate.

"This letter shows the FCC’s sheer contempt for public input and unreasonable failure to support integrity in its process," said Rosenworcel. "To put it simply, there is evidence in the FCC’s files that fraud has occurred and the FCC is telling law enforcement and victims of identity theft that it is not going to help. Moreover, the FCC refuses to look into how nearly half a million comments came from Russian sources. Failure to investigate this corrupted record undermines our process for seeking public input in the digital age."

As it stands, consumer advocacy firms indicate that undermining the process appears to have been the entire point. If you downplay the importance and integrity of the public’s one opportunity to weigh in on the FCC’s plan, it’s easier to pretend said plan is in the public interest.

Unfortunately for the FCC, this problem won’t be going away anytime soon. Despite requests to delay the vote by Schneiderman’s office and others, the FCC is scheduled to repeal the rules on Thursday. Once the repeal hits the federal register in January, the FCC will be bombarded with lawsuits accusing the agency of ignoring the public interest. Expect the agency’s failure to police comment fraud to play a starring role in these legal arguments to come.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Judiciary and E&C Committee Leaders Urge FCC to Release Text of Set-Top Box Proposal

Conyers, Goodlatte, Upton, & Walden Push For FCC Transparency

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI), Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR), today sent a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler regarding the agency’s set-top box proposal.

 

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

The committee leaders write, “While much remains unknown, what is clear at this point is that the proposal would benefit from public process. … Absent a public vetting of the Commission’s proposal it is unclear what the Commission is planning, let alone its impact. Without further delay, we request that you release the text of your proposal. The proposal raises issues of significance to both our Committees, and we believe the Commission should release text in order to allow all stakeholders to meaningfully discuss the implications of the proposal.”

“We remain concerned that the FCC’s op-ed in the LA Times, as well as the fact sheet raise new questions rather than resolve questions posed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” added Upton and Walden. "Unfortunately, this behavior is not new and this aversion to transparency has come to define the FCC.”

House Judiciary Letter To FCC on Set Top Box Letter 9.16.16 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, GOODLATTE Raise Copyright Concerns with FCC’s Set-Top Box Proposal

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) released the following statement regarding copyright concerns with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) set-top box proposal.

Dean of the U.S, House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the FCC’s efforts to create set-top box alternatives, we have very serious concerns that this should not be accomplished through a compulsory copyright licensing process that may well exceed the FCC’s jurisdiction. The proposed text of the FCC’s revised set-top box proposal has not been given to Congress, but published reports indicate that the FCC is considering a licensing body to develop a one-size fits all standard apps license.  There are many unresolved questions about this proposal, not the least of which is the fundamental question of whether the FCC even has the authority to create such a regime.  We are also concerned that this proposal encroaches upon the Judiciary Committee’s copyright jurisdiction, and may not adequately protect creators’ rights and the contractual rights of parties.  We will be conducting oversight over this matter in the weeks and months to come.”

Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers also joined Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) in sending a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler requesting that he release the text of the set-top box proposal in order to allow all stakeholders time to examine and discuss the implications of his proposal.

Goodlatte and Conyers Raise Copyright Concerns with FCC’s Set-Top Box Proposal Letter by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Ranking Member Conyers Statement at Net Neutrality Hearing

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law held a hearing entitled, “Net Neutrality: Is Antitrust Law More Effective Than Regulation in Protecting Consumers and Innovation?” During his opening remarks Ranking Members John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) delivered the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“I thank Subcommittee Chairman Spencer Bachus for holding this important hearing on net neutrality and the role of antitrust law in ensuring a free and open Internet. The Judiciary Committee has a central role in studying the issue of net neutrality and, more generally, competition on the Internet, and I appreciate the Chairman’s decision to assert our jurisdiction.

“Turning to the specific question of whether antitrust is more effective than regulation in addressing net neutrality, we should keep three things in mind. To begin with, we need a regulatory solution to address potential threats to net neutrality and must allow the Federal Communications Commission to do its job. Congress created the FCC to develop the expertise so that it could properly regulate the complex telecommunications industry. Any FCC rules to address net neutrality could have the benefit of addressing some potential threats to net neutrality before they fully materialize. And, it could do so in a manner that would be more comprehensive than the piecemeal approach of antitrust enforcement.

“Additionally, having a set of best practices enshrined in rules would provide certainty for industry.  The FCC’s efforts, therefore, must be given the opportunity to develop. In developing its rules to ensure a free and open Internet, the FCC should incorporate the following principles: broadband network providers should be prohibited from failing to provide access to its broadband network for any provider of content, applications, or services on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; broadband network providers should be prohibited from blocking, impairing, or discriminating against or otherwise interfering with the ability of any person to use a broadband service to use or access lawful content, applications, or services on the Internet; and there should be strong transparency requirements regarding clear disclosure to users of information concerning any terms, conditions, or limitations on the broadband network service.

“The FCC began its latest rulemaking process only a month ago, and we must allow that process to proceed. To the extent that we do look to antitrust law as a way of ensuring net neutrality, enforcement of existing antitrust law would be insufficient. Under current antitrust law, there is relatively little that antitrust enforcers can do outside the merger review context to address the conduct of a regulated industry like broadband Internet service with respect to enforcing net neutrality principles. Through a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has limited the potential to successfully pursue claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act arising in the net neutrality context.

“Moreover, exclusive reliance on antitrust enforcement, while having the benefit of a more nuanced and fact-specific approach to the problem, would also be a cumbersome, more limited, more resource-intensive, and after-the-fact way to develop a regulatory regime for net neutrality. Another potential approach would be for the Federal Trade Commission to use its authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to stop ‘unfair methods of competition.’ While I hold an expansive view of Section 5, to the extent that this approach goes beyond the scope of the Sherman Act or other antitrust laws it would be very controversial, as my friends on the other side of the aisle would be the first to note. Moreover, antitrust law is not sufficiently broad in scope as it does not address the non-economic goals of net neutrality, including the protection of free speech and political debate.

“Former Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Representative Zoe Lofgren and I introduced bipartisan legislation back in 2006 to strengthen antitrust law to address net neutrality, in part because the FCC was doing too little at that time, in my view. I am certainly open to suggestions on how antitrust law can be better tailored to address net neutrality concerns, but if we go down that path, current law must be modified to codify net neutrality principles. Whether one supports a more antitrust approach or a more regulatory approach, inaction by Congress and regulators is not an option, as potential threats to net neutrality remain present.

“In my opening statements at our 2008 and 2011 hearings on this issue, I noted that in many parts of our country, consumers have the choice of only one or two broadband Internet service providers that effectively function as monopolies or duopolies. I noted then that the market power that these broadband providers enjoyed could lead to differential treatment of content carried by the provider depending on how much a customer pays or the financial incentives for discriminating for or against given content. The concerns I noted may have only grown since then, particularly in light of increasing consolidation in the telecommunications industry that may result in even less choice, less innovation, higher costs, and more power in the hands of fewer broadband providers.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers concerned about delays in LightSquared approval

Conyers concerned about delays in LightSquared approval

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) urged Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski to move forward with his agency's review of controversial wireless start-up LightSquared.

"I write to express concern about delays in the approval process involving LightSquared's proposed 4G-LTE wireless broadband network," Conyers wrote in a letter sent last Wednesday and obtained by The Hill on Monday. "I strongly urge the Commission to move with urgency to fully test potential solutions to the LightSquared-GPS interference issue employing transparent, fact-based methodologies, common-sense standards and independent testing facilities."

LightSquared has invested billions of dollars to launch a nationwide wireless broadband service, but the company ran into problems last year when tests showed its planned network could interfere with GPS devices.As recently last week,government officials have testified that the network could disrupt critical GPS devices, including flight safety systems.

LightSquared argues the problem is that GPS receivers are poorly designed and are receiving signals from outside their designated frequency bands. The GPS industry says its receivers are too sensitive to filter out the powerful signals from LightSquared's cell towers on nearby frequencies.

The FCC granted LightSquared a conditional waiver to move forward last year, but officials now say the company will have to fix the interference problem before receiving final approval to launch its network.
In his letter, Conyers argued that LightSquared would expand wireless broadband access and increase competition in the wireless industry.

"The U.S. wireless sector is in need of increased competition," Conyers wrote, noting that there are only four national carriers, with AT&T and Verizon controlling about 60 percent of the market.

"Millions of Americans, especially in rural areas, lack even a single adequate wireless broadband option, with little hope on the horizon unless new providers enter the market," he wrote.

LightSquared plans to sell access to its network wholesale to other companies, providing an alternative to the four national wireless carriers.

The company has until mid-March to secure regulatory approval or it risks losing a multibillion-dollar contract with Sprint.

Some Republicans have questioned whether the FCC and the White House have shown inappropriate favoritism to LightSquared. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has vowed to block President Obama's two FCC nominees unless the agency releases internal records on its review of the company.

The White House and the FCC have denied giving any special treatment to LightSquared, but expanding broadband access has been a top priority of both agencies.

In a separate letter sent last December, GOP Reps. Cliff Stearns (Fla.) Brian Bilbray (Calif.), Devin Nunes (Calif.) and John Campbell (Calif.) said they believed a solution to the interference problem is possible, and urged Genachowski to "quickly move forward on a solution."

Stearns' support for LightSquared is noteworthy: as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight subcommittee, Stearns has led the congressional probe of the White House funding failed solar firm Solyndra.

U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr. Letter to FCC Re Light Squared February 8, 2012