Technology/Telecom Project
Washington Policy Center’s Technology Project focuses on the importance of the technology industry to Washington state – one that affects both large and small businesses, citizens, education institutions and government agencies. The Project is tasked with handling policy areas in regard to the telecom/technology industries. The area of focus includes wireless regulations, access to broadband internet, wireline regulatory environment, open source issues, telecom regulations, video franchise reform, technology and privacy issues, and more.
-
What's New
-
About the Center
Technology Publications | Technology Blog
ITTN Interview of Carl Gipson at CES 2010
Washington Policy Center Submits Comments Opposing Net Neutrality Regulation
Seattle – Yesterday Carl Gipson, director for technology and telecommunications research at Washington Policy Center, submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission in response to the agency's “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” proposing new regulations that would impact the future growth and quality of the Internet by subjecting it to the whims of federal regulators.
Read the full press release here >>
Net neutrality: Don't subject the Internet to politicians and bureaucracies
This op-ed appeared in The Seattle Times.
FOUR years ago, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an advisory statement that laid out four principles of Internet network management.
The principles, which have no statutory authority, include the right of consumers to access lawful Internet content of their choice, the right to run applications and services of their choice, the right to connect legal devices that do not harm networks, and competition among network, application, service and content providers.
New FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, with strong backing from the Obama administration, is pushing for this "statement of principles" to become enforceable regulations, along with two more rules that would regulate how Internet Service Providers (ISPs) manage their own networks, whether wired or wireless, and require ISPs to be "transparent" about their network management practices.
Procurement Policies and the Differences among Open Source Software, Open Standards, and Open Government
Most computer software is sold like any other commercial product and
is protected by U.S. intellectual property laws (primarily copyright and patent
protection). Such software products are sold under defined legal controls.
Customers, without prior permission or a license agreement, cannot see or change
the software program’s basic source code.
It is also important to understand that the software world has evolved and is not divided into an “either/or” model anymore but rather an “and” model, where customers and governments want a “mixed” source environment so that proprietary software can run on top of OSS and vice-versa. Tech companies recognize this and are developing licensing agreements that can meet customer needs. Moreover, many in the OSS community have embraced a commercial business model because of this customer demand.
However, there are some people in the OSS community who embrace an
ideological view of the ongoing debate over OSS and are critical of free-market
capitalism – intellectual property (IP) and software patents in principle. They
believe computer software should be community property freely available to
everyone, regardless of who created it.
It is through a combination of those with a business interest and those with an ideology that pressure is put on governments to mandate one form of software or an “open standard” based on just OSS, while shutting out proprietary software.
High-tech companies that develop software and sell it under license, whether open or proprietary, have a strong economic incentive to stand behind their product, to create improved versions of it and to search continually for ways to protect it from attack by computer viruses and hackers. The government should not pick winners and losers in their procurement process. Rather, they should have a neutral policy aimed at the best technology solution for taxpayer dollars.
Recommendations
1. State and local laws should
remain neutral and objective
regarding the procurement of
open source software (OSS) by
government agencies.
2. State laws should avoid special tax subsidies or tax breaks that favor OSS or open standards development.
3. Policymakers should take care not to confuse OSS and open standards with open government.
Read or download the full Policy Note here (pdf)
Restrict VOIP Regulations to Federal Standards, by Carl Gipson, February 2009
Washington legislators introduced Senate Bill 5628 and House Bill 1585 to restrict the ability of state agencies, or agency subdivisions, to regulate VoIP. This limits regulators from dictating rates, terms and conditions of service, or the entry into the market by a digital voice provider. The idea that state regulators should refrain from regulating this important medium of communication was recommended early on in a Policy Note by Washington Policy Center back in 2004. This Legislative Memo recounts the huge success VoIP services has brought to Washington residents and businesses and encourages state regulators to continue their “hands-off” approach in lieu of the national regulatory framework currently in place.
The Fallacy of Network Neutrality
The Internet is doing just fine with minimal government interference
October 2008
Synopsis
A government policy of “Network Neutrality” would force Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon, to treat all content that goes across
their online networks as the same. Consumer groups are pushing for a net-neutrality law
that would ban ISPs from prioritizing data streams or charging more for faster Internet
service. The issue is at the heart of a debate on how people share information with each
other over the Internet in ways that may disproportionately consume available bandwidth.
Key Findings
1. Net Neutrality threatens the
Internet’s future expansion of
capacity and services.
2. Network providers should be
free to responsibly manage their
own networks.
3. Net Neutrality could result
in taxpayers funding future
broadband rollout--something the
private sector has largely paid for in
the past.
4. Government regulators should
adopt some basic principles for
effective network management.
Read or download the full Policy Note here (pdf)
Balancing Technology and Privacy
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, developed over twenty years ago, have become a well-used tool in many different industries. Acting as a next-generation bar code, an RFID system consists of a small microchip and an antenna placed on a product that sends information a short distance via radio waves. Similar to a bar code, the RFID chip holds inventory information related to the product to which it is attached. An RFID-tagged product can be easily tracked as it moves through the various stages of commerce; but the distance the information is transmitted varies from direct contact to several feet, which helps control who gets access to the data on the tag. Read the full Legislative Memo here>>
Communications Guide 2.0
The communications industry continues to undergo dramatic change. The most recent federal law affecting the industry as a whole, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is now completely out of date. It failed to anticipate the widespread adoption of wireless communications and new applications like Instant Messaging and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), let alone the broad substitution for traditional wire-line phone service. Never has there been a clearer example of the inability of law to keep pace with technology. Download the PDF>>
Leaving Well Enough Alone:
State Wireless Regulations Could Harm Consumers
Of all the technological inventions over the last two centuries, none seems to have penetrated American households as profoundly as the wireless telephone. It took more than 90 years for landline service to reach 100 million consumers. It took over 21 years for 100 million consumers to buy a color television. But in less than 17 years wireless phones had reached 100 million consumers. Read the full Policy Note here>>
Better Prices and Better Services for More People
Assessing the Outcomes of Video Franchise Reform
Franchise reform, the movement to replace local regulatory regimes that govern legacy cable monopolies with statewide franchise agreements that encourage competition and improved service, has taken on new urgency. Encouraged by telephone companies eager to provide an array of new broadband video services to anxious customers, ten states—Texas, Indiana, North Carolina,South Carolina, New Jersey, California and Michigan—have enacted bipartisan statewide franchise reform since 2005. Read the full Policy Brief here>>
Technology/Telecom Project
Washington Policy Center’s Technology Project focuses on the importance of the technology industry to Washington state – one that affects both large and small businesses, citizens, education institutions and government agencies. The Project is tasked with handling policy areas in regard to the telecom/technology industries. The area of focus includes wireless regulations, access to broadband internet, wireline regulatory environment, open source issues, telecom regulations, video franchise reform, technology and privacy issues, and more.
Director Carl Gipson
Carl Gipson is the Director for the Center for Small Business, Technology and Telecommunications. He regularly writes opinion pieces, Legislative Memos, and Policy Notes focusing on current technology issues and is the author of The Fallacy of Network Neutrality, RFID: Balancing Technology and Privacy, Restrict VOIP Regulations to Federal Standards and more. He also is a voting member of the Telecommunications and I.T. Task Force with the American Legislative Exchange Council. Carl holds a degree in Political Science from Western Washington University.
Contact Information
For questions or for more information from the Center for Small Businessplease e-mail cgipson@washingtonpolicy.org.
