An NCSL newsletter from the Communications, Technology and
Interstate Commerce Committee

Contents

COMMITTEE UPDATE

The Communications, Technology and Interstate Commerce Committee will hold its next meeting at the NCSL Annual Meeting in Seattle, Washington, August 16-20, 2005. 

For those involved with the Executive Committee Task Force on State and Local Taxation of Telecommunications, meetings will begin on Monday, August 15th.  Contact Neal Osten, 202-624-5400, to register for these meetings.

Committee meetings will begin on Tuesday, August 16^th, at 12:45 pm with a tour to Microsoft in Redmond, Washington to see Microsoft Home and Microsoft's Center for Information Work.  If preferred, Committee members may join the NALIT staff section on Tuesday morning for a briefing about legislative information technology at the State Capitol in Olympia.  The NALIT tour departs at 8:00 am and will continue to Microsoft headquarters in the afternoon, where the two groups will meet.  Members can choose to attend either tour.  Advance registration is required for both of the tours as space is limited.  Contact Jo Anne Bourquard, 303-856-1355. 

The Seattle Committee agenda will include sessions on wireless communication regulation, universal service, streamlined sales tax, municipal Wi-Fi, radio frequency ID (RFID) and re-writing telecommunications laws.  In addition, the Committee will sponsor concurrent sessions on technology for legislators, telecommunications taxation, Congress and state taxes, electronic waste, and security of personal information.  Updated information about the Seattle agenda will be available through the Committee web page.

At the Seattle meeting Committee members may be asked to consider policy regarding universal service, streamlined sales tax, telecommunications tax reform, and government involvement in providing communications services.  Any committee member who wishes to  introduce policy in these or other areas is asked to provide this information to Hawaii Senator Carol Fukunaga, Committee Chair, and to NCSL staff,  by August 1^st. 

If you have any questions about the agenda or the Committee, call or e-mail NCSL Committee staff, Jo Anne Bourquard, in Denver at 303-856-1355, jo.anne.bourquard@ncsl.org or Neal Osten, Washington, DC at 202-624-8660, neal.osten@ncsl.org.

Difficulties for consumers in understanding contract terms and in addressing service quality prompted several states to consider cell phone consumer protection measures in 2005.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

The total number of cellular telephone subscribers in America now exceeds 180 million, and in 2004 Americans used more than 1 trillion wireless minutes.  The convenience of the cell phones allows consumers to communicate how they want, when they want and where they want.  However, difficulties for consumers in understanding contract terms and in addressing service quality prompted several states to consider cell phone consumer protection measures in 2005.

The California State Assembly is scheduled to begin debate on S.B. 1068 in June.  The measure requires the California Public Service Commission to develop and enforce consumer protection rules for telecommunications services including mobile telephone services.  Connecticut lawmakers considered bills (H.B. 6034, S.B. 81) that attempt to protect consumers from confusing and misleading contract terms in wireless telephone contracts.  Massachusetts lawmakers considered establishing a cellular telephone users’ bill of rights (H.B. 3331, S.B. 1790).  New York lawmakers proposed a measure (A.B. 3906) that establishes rights of users who misplace or have stolen their cellular telephones and whose telephones malfunction or become defective.  Oregon H.B. 3136 establishes a bill of rights for telecommunications consumers.

On Wednesday, August 17^th, from 10:15 am – 12:00 noon at the NCSL Annual Meeting in Seattle, Washington, the Committee will address these issues in a session entitled, Wireless Communications and Governmental Regulation: What is the Proper Balance?

- Submitted by Bob Boerner

In 2005, at least two state legislatures considered measures supporting municipal broadband development.

The President, the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have called for the rapid deployment of broadband networks.  President Bush has set a deadline of 2007 to achieve broadband access for all citizens.  A variety of approaches are being explored in order to make the goal of universal deployment a reality.  Some local governments including California, Indiana and Pennsylvania, either directly or in partnership with others, have recently begun exploring how to provide high-speed broadband through municipal or community networks.  Communities are building wireless systems, installing fiber to homes, providing broadband over power lines or some combination of these options.

In 2005, at least two state legislatures considered measures supporting municipal broadband development.  New Hampshire lawmakers considered a bill (H.B. 653) that grants municipalities the ability to issue bonds for the development of broadband services.  South Carolina S.B. 585 authorizes a municipality to construct and operate high speed wireless and broadband Internet networks.

Bans or severe restrictions on municipal broadband have been passed in 15 states.  These laws have been held to be constitutional bans or restrictions by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In 2005, Nebraska lawmakers passed legislation, L.B. 645 , sponsored by Senator Kermit Brashear, which permanently prohibits political subdivisions from offering new wholesale and retail broadband, Internet, telecommunications and video services. The ban on public power suppliers providing wholesale telecommunications services terminates on Dec. 31, 2007.

A Committee session on this topic, Municipal WiFi: Government as a Communications Provider - Is It a Proper Role?, is scheduled for Wednesday, August 17^th from 1:45 pm to 2:15 pm in Seattle, Washington during the NCSL Annual Meeting.

- Submitted by Bob Boerner

Contrary to recent rumors circulating on the Internet, the federal government does not maintain and is not establishing a separate Do-Not-Call Registry for mobile telephones. 

Contrary to recent rumors circulating on the Internet, the federal government does not maintain and is not establishing a separate Do-Not-Call Registry for mobile telephones.  The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission have established the National Do-Not-Call Registry to enable consumers to reduce the number of unwanted telemarketing calls to their telephones.  The registry covers both traditional and wireless telephones.  Personal cellular telephone users have always been able to add their numbers to the National Do-Not-Call Registry either online at www.donotcall.gov or by calling toll-free at 1-888-382-1222 from the telephone number they wish to register.

- Submitted by Bob Boerner

Additional breaches have occurred and numerous states have introduced legislation requiring that companies and/or state agencies disclose to consumers security breaches involving personal information.

INTERNET & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

In February 2005, ChoicePoint, a corporation that collects and compiles information that includes personal and financial information on millions of consumers, disclosed that it been the victim of a security breach wherein it had sold personal information of almost 145,000 people to a criminal enterprise.  The company first disclosed the breach only to California residents, as required by California's Notice of Security Breach law, enacted in 2002.  However, the company later disclosed that residents in other states, the District of Columbia and three territories also may have been affected by the ChoicePoint breach (see List of states affected by ChoicePoint).

Since these disclosures, additional breaches have occurred and numerous states have introduced legislation requiring that companies and/or state agencies disclose to consumers security breaches involving personal information.  Legislation has been introduced in at least 35 states  in 2005 and enacted in at least 13 states: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas and Washington (see http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/priv/breach.htm).  Additional bills have been sent to the governor in Nevada and Tennessee. NCSL's Identity Theft Web page has additional information on related legislation.

To address this issue, the Committee will a co-sponsor a concurrent session, Who Has Your Personal Information and How Safe Is It? on Friday, August 19^th from 2:15 to 4:00 pm at the NCSL Annual Meeting in Seattle, Washington. 

- Submitted by Pam Greenberg

Two new threats have emerged for Internet users. 

In the past few years, two new threats have emerged for Internet users.  Spyware is software that can track or collect the online activities or personal information of Web users, or change settings on users computers.  "Phishing" is the act of sending e-mail messages that falsely claim to be from a bank or other established legitimate business.  The user often is told that his account needs updating or is asked to provide personal information.  This information may in turn be used for identity theft purposes.

Spyware legislation was enacted in California and Utah in 2004 and was introduced in at least five other states in 2004.  In 2005, the number of states introducing legislation grew to 28, and seven states—Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Utah, Virginia and Washington—enacted legislation so far this year. 

Legislative concerns about phishing also grew in 2005, and at least 11 states introduced legislation.  At least seven states, Arkansas ( H.B. 2904), Colorado (H.B. 1347), Hawaii (S.B. 1170), Minnesota (H.F. 1), Texas (H.B. 1098), Virginia (H.B. 2471 and S.B. 1147), and Washington (HB 1888) have already enacted legislation. 

- Submitted by Pam Greenberg

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology can be thought of as a next-generation bar code. 

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology can be thought of as a next-generation bar code. A simple RFID tag consists of a microchip and antenna, which when stimulated by a remote "reader," sends back information via radio waves. Like a bar code, an RFID tag identifies the product it is attached to for inventory or purchasing purposes; but an RFID tag can do even more. For example, RFID tags can hold information related to the expiration date of a product, record whether a product has been exposed to excessive heat, or could be used to assist with product recalls.  An RFID-tagged product can be tracked as it moves in commerce, providing better ways to identify and meet consumer demand for products.

Privacy concerns arise when the information in RFID tags is combined with personally identifiable information.  In 2005, at least 10 states introduced privacy legislation relating to the use of RFID.  (See 2005 Privacy Legislation Related to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID.)

The NCSL ID Systems Partners Project and the Committee will co-sponsor a program, Technology and Privacy:  Update on Radio Frequency IDs (RFID), on Thursday, August 18^th from 10:00 am to 11:30 am during the NCSL Annual Meeting in Seattle, Washington.

- Submitted by Pam Greenberg

While the exact definition of nanotechnology is still being worked out, this budding technology offers incredible benefits. 

While the exact definition of nanotechnology is still being worked out, this budding technology offers incredible benefits.  Miniscule devices on the nanometer scale (1/1,000,000,000^th of a meter) offer the chance to revolutionize all manner of technologies, from medical science to industrial manufacturing and even stain resistant clothing.  Nanotechnology is estimated to become a trillion dollar industry in only fifteen years, requiring over 2 million workers worldwide. 

It is no wonder that the US government and the states are trying to entice nanotechnology markets.  The federal government has established research funding and investment programs through the Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR) and the Nation Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  States also are hoping to attract a sizable portion of this emerging industry.  Several states have already started to look into the economic opportunities and are devising plans to facilitate the growth of nanotechnology locally.  For example, some states have modified existing technology nurturing programs to encompass nanotechnology as a targeted industry.  Others are establishing nanotechnology degree programs, funding school research facilities and offering grants to private businesses and organizations.  In addition, some states are considering building their own nanotechnology facilities in an effort to draw in nanotechnology businesses. 

The Massachusetts Research Center Matching Fund has provisions under Chap. 23G §27(c)  designed to provide additional funding for institutions of higher education and other nonprofit research institutions that pursue nanotechnology in the state.  In 2004, Oklahoma expanded the Oklahoma Science and Technology Research and Development Act to include nanotechnology ( §74-5060.1a).  At the direction of the General Assembly, the Virginia Joint Commission on Technology and Science began a study of nanotechnology research and development in 2004 which continues through 2005. 

In 2005, several state legislatures considered nanotechnology-related legislation.   New laws in New York, S.B. 4271, assigned to Chapter 63,  and Illinois S.B. 1548, Public Act 04-0015, provide funding for nanotechnology research and development.  Connecticut S.B. 1258, P.L. 05-198, promotes more research applications with industry by Connecticut colleges and universities.  Arkansas passed S.B. 763, which sets aside $5,000,000 to help the University of Arkansas to prepare a nanotechnology research facility.  And, Connecticut S.B. 1167, P.L 05-13, creates a nanotechnology program to allow students to continue their education and to accelerate the entry of students into related science programs. 

- Submitted by Ricardo Ochoa