The Worst Technology Laws

Once upon a time, our government decided that we didn't need a cellular technology standard. The cost of that strategy has been slower networks, spotty coverage, and more limited services than in many other countries.

The United States has four major cellular carriers--AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon--which use two base technologies (GSM/GPRS and CDMA) and at least four upgraded technologies (EDGE, UMTS, EvDO, HSDPA) to handle their users' traffic. Coverage areas vary by vendor because each one has to build its own network, but even users of the same carrier will get different network speeds depending on where they are, since vendors deploy faster technologies in stages.

Because of these competing and incompatible technologies, when you switch carriers you often must get a new phone even if you don't want one. And it's easier for carriers to lock in a popular cell phone model (iPhone, anyone?). Moreover, since hardware makers must create models to support each of these different technologies, their development costs go up as well, and that eventually gets passed on to consumers.

Many European and Asian countries, whose governments have chosen a single cellular technology standard, have services that simply don't exist here or have been slow to debut, such as cellular payment systems (which are made easier by use of a single tech standard) and live TV broadcasts (which require ubiquitous high speeds).

This one varies by region, but it's a bad idea no matter where you are. Certain states, such as Missouri and Pennsylvania, havemade it illegalfor individual cities and towns to offer broadband, video, or wireless services to their residents. Yes, private companies do often provide those services to the cities in question, and such companies may be able to maintain the networks required for these services more cheaply than a government agency. It's also true that not all residents of a given area would want their tax dollars used this way. But why shouldn't local governments compete with their own offerings if that's what the majority of residents want?

If my town wants to offer free or low-cost wireless access with my tax dollars and it can do so efficiently, why shouldn't it? Given the importance of an always-on connection in today's society, and the high value we place on competition, having an extra player willing to step in and offer greater choice--and sometimes the only choice--should be encouraged, not prohibited.

Errors of Omission

It's not just the laws Congress has passed that get us in trouble. Sometimes the problem lies with the major technology issues that our senators and representatives have ignored. On the next few pages are five technology problems desperately in need of a law.

As our world grows ever more connected, the amount of data any one company (or government agency) collects about us also increases, as do thenew threats to your privacy. But outside of a few heavily regulated fields such as the financial and health-care industries, few rules exist to govern the collection, storage, sale, accuracy, and security of that data.

Google knowstremendous amounts about us, and it's only going to learn more as increasing numbers of users sign up for its services and as itsproposed acquisition of advertising firm DoubleClickgives it access to a huge new treasure trove of databases. Nothing but Google's own goodwill can keep the company from storing that data until your grandchildren have kids or selling that data to all and sundry. (Sure, Google's privacy policy promises some protections, but only until the company decides to change its policy.)

GPS services know where you are anytime you have your device on, and could be used to tell how fast you're traveling--a fact your auto-insurance agent would likely want to know. And mobile marketers want access to your location information so they can send you ads for restaurants and shops in your immediate area. Again, no rules exist to spell out what these companies can and can't do with the data they're collecting about you.

We need a comprehensive set of standards for how these different companies handle our data and what they can do with it. We also need laws that allow us to review and challenge data about us, just as we can with financial data now. And we should have a national lawrequiring companies and government agenciesthat collect and store sensitive information to notify us quickly if our data is lost or stolen.