[From the last episode: we reviewed the IoTThe Internet of Things. A broad term covering many different applications where "things"  are interconnected through the internet. basics so far.]

The IoT is being built out by private technology companies. The private sector is where ideas – both good and bad ones – can flourish more freely. There’s risk; there may be failure, and there may be reward. That environment is not the stuff of government.

But government can play a role. They do best when issuing rules of the road that promote a level playing field and give new, not-as-well-financed ideas a chance to compete against the big money that might try to squash competition not with innovation, but with cash and lawyers.

Exactly what that means for the IoT is unclear; it’s still early days in the industry. The best approach historically has been where government stays out during the first wave of innovation, stepping in only once patterns emerge and the chaos starts to settle.

Establishing a National IoT Strategy Dialog (NISD)

To help sort through this for the IoT, a number of organizations got together starting in June of 2016 to establish a strategy for how public and private groups can work together as we aim for a cogent IoT rollout. The discussion involved both industry and government groups, including the following (yes, we can has acronyms…):

• Industry companies
  • Intel (founding)
  • Samsung (founding)
• Industry groups
  • Informational Technology Industry Council (ITI; founding)
  • SemiconductorA material that, under some circumstances, can conduct electricity and, in other circumstances, cannot. Industry Association (SIA; chipmakers)
  • CTIA – the Wireless Association (formerly Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association; wireless systemThis is a very generic term for any collection of components that, all together, can do something. Systems can be built from subsystems. Examples are your cell phone; your computer; the radio in your car; anything that seems like a "whole." makers)
  • Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed; healthcare technology companies)
  • World Bank (global finance)
  • Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF; innovation-related think tank)
• Government groups
  • Department of Commerce
  • Health and Human Services (HHS)
  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
  • National Institute of StandardsA way of doing something specific that has been agreed by multiple parties in an official manner. Some "standards" aren't official standards; the best ones have been established in an open fashion, where anyone with an interest can contribute and where large companies can't push little companies around. and Technology (NIST)
  • White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
  • National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA)
  • Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

The result of the effort is a 30-page report that contains their conclusions. Don’t worry, we’re not going into detail – just hitting the highlights, which we’ll divide into three sections.

Principles for Government Efforts

This industry, like most, isn’t crazy about regulations. Occasionally you’ll hear calls for zero regulation, but that’s like demanding that referees stay out of football. But what is too much regulation? The strategy codifies that.

One principle is that there should be no additional regulation where best practicesA term referring to ways of doing things (business, technology, etc.) that an industry generally views as the best way to do things. Best practices take time to establish, and they usually relate to basic principles, leaving lots of options on how to do specific things. and relevant regulations already exist. This sounds reasonable, although, sometimes, best practices get turned into regulations so that they are enforceable rather than voluntary. Voluntary works only until one company has a competitive reason to ditch the best practices, and then it can become a race to the bottom. If the best practice becomes a regulation, then, assuming it’s reasonable, everyone plays by the same rules.

In general, the strategy contains an aversion to “inconsistent, duplicative, and unnecessary” regulations. That would seem like a no-brainer.

The government should promote standards. If you’re not familiar with what we mean by standards, we’ll be addressing that in a few weeks. In particular, the feds should work across international borders to foster international standards, to allow a free flow of data across borders, and to prevent discrimination against the US.

That “free flow of data” thing sounds pretty obvious, but, as we saw with IoT privacy, some countries are more protective of personal data than others. So you might not want such a free flow if it involves your own data.

Security Principles

Here the priority is to encourage multi-level security. This is consistent with communications (and other notions) operating in layers; we’ll look at this in the future.

In particular, anyone asking for government funding would need to demonstrate that they’ve nailed the securityRefers to whether or not IoT devices or data are protected from unauthorized viewers. thing. Likewise, government procurement should make security an important consideration.

The government also has a role in encouraging flexible policies to promote innovation and best practices. In particular, it should invest in “multi-stakeholder” efforts. In other words, companies shouldn’t go it alone or work with only a select few. Finally, the government should promote “cybersecurity hygiene” – safe computing (or safe IoTing) – through education and outreach.

Priorities: Infrastructure

They also laid out priority industries. These include:

• Transportation
• “Foundational” technology, especially as it relates to the next wave of cell phone technology (called “5G”). SpectrumA range of frequencies. A prism shows a range, or spectrum, of visible light frequencies (yes, light is a wave). This is the literal definition of spectrum. Other uses – like references to the autism spectrum use the word figuratively to indicate a continuous range. In our context, this refers to the range of radio frequencies available for communication. Access to those frequencies is usually regulated by governments since they're viewed as a public asset. should be allocated neutrally; the government shouldn’t pick the winners and losers. (If the notion of spectrum allocation isn’t familiar, we’ll talk about that in the future.)
• Smart buildings for both the military and civilians

Finally, the government should invest in private/public partnerships to ensure that all stakeholder concerns are considered.

These are, to some extent, obvious conclusions. But it’s good that both industry and government have established them so that you can count on more consistency in how your IoT devices get built.