Learning to code can be an incredibly lucrative skill in today’s technical age, but is it a potential “threat to order and security?”

Ohio and Michigan prisons ban books that aim to teach computer programming skills, according to MuckRock, a non-profit site aimed at sharing public information via the Freedom of Information Act. The organization recently obtained a list of banned books in state prisons.

“Their decisions to ban educational texts related to programming, alongside erotica and literature published by neo-nazi groups, are in stark contrast with practices in other states and countries, where prisons include coding in educational programs,” writes MuckRock.

Ohio’s list of banned books contained titles like “Beginning Linux Programming 4th Edition,” “The Linux Professional Institute Certification Guide,” and “Operating Systems Demystified.” The state gave no explanation as to why the books were banned.

Ohio prisons ban books on learning @Linux alongside erotica and neo-Nazi literature https://t.co/kYNt6Qfb6E pic.twitter.com/9sUeg204Zw

— MuckRock (@MuckRock) August 18, 2017

In Michigan, prisoners were specifically banned from reading books the Department of Corrections believes “contains information about computer programs and applications.” Texts like “Windows 98 6 in 1” and “Windows Game Programming for Dummies” were banned because they represent a “threat to the order and security of the institution.”

According to MuckRock, 15 books are banned for including information about computer programming, including guides to web design and a book aimed at teaching the elderly how to use computers.

Stark Contrast to Silicon Valley

The decision to ban these kinds of books is a stark contrast from rehabilitation efforts in San Quentin, California. At the San Quentin State Prison, Chris Redlitz of The Last Mile helps to prepare inmates for successful reentry into society through web education and career training opportunities. In 2014, he launched Code.7370 San Quentin, the first computer programming curriculum in a U.S. prison.

Inmates in the program help build apps and other software for startups and established companies like Airbnb. Because they can’t use the internet, the development shop’s coders work on a closed network. The men in the program make $16.77 an hour.

In April, CNBC reported that none of the prisoners who had gone through the program had returned to prison. That is likely due to the fact that the program is exceptionally beneficial to inmates, because it provides prisoners with an entrepreneurial skillset that enables them to start a career for themselves upon release, rather than relying on limited job opportunities available to felons.

The Code.7370 curriculum has since expanded to five more prisons in California, including two women’s prisons, and Redlitz has hopes to create a national program within the next five years.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why are Some Prisons Banning Inmates From Teaching Themselves to Code? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Health Care Bill Fails in a Senate Vote Shocker

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

While McCain is getting much of the credit for being the third “no” vote, many are also calling for more recognition for Collins and Murkowski. After all, had McCain not come back to vote in favor of discussing the bill in the first place, he wouldn’t have needed to dramatically vote against it.

Tomorrow the headlines will focus on McCain, but let’s not forget it was Susan Collins and Senator Murkowski who held the line all the way. https://t.co/J2TWixYHC9

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 28, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Uber leadership is scrambling to react this week to the sexual harassment allegations of former employee Susan J. Fowler, whose blog post on her experience at Uber has gone viral. Fowler describes how she was repeatedly sexually harassed and discriminated against yet every time she made a report to her managers or to human resources, she was dismissed. Fowler’s story throws a spotlight on sexism in an industry that loves to paint itself as forward thinking and inclusive, and her experience was not an isolated case–as Fowler’s blog gained traction, women from a range of companies began sharing their experiences with sexual harassment in the tech world.

Uber’s reputation already took a hit this winter when #deleteUber began to trend after Uber failed to condemn the Trump Administration’s immigration ban and continued sending cars to airports during a tax driver protest. After Fowler’s blog post, the deleting trend is back in full force. With rival Lyft picking up some of the client base that was once so loyal to Uber, the company’s reputation–and financial success–could begin to crumble.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has stated that he was disturbed and shocked by Fowler’s experience and within a matter of hours had hired former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct a review of sexual harassment claims at the company. This will be Holder’s second venture into creating a more inclusive Silicon Valley brand. After Airbnb received widespread complaints of discrimination from hosts, Holder and Laura Murphy, former head of the ACLU, were hired to craft an anti-discrimination policy for the company. Airbnb now has hosts accept its anti-discrimination rules before they can become part of the Airbnb community, and while there have been arguments that the rules are not actually effective and that they don’t go far enough, the new rules were at least a step in the right direction. Holder has always been a staunch advocate for civil rights and was fully committed to women’s rights during his tenure as attorney general–but is he truly being asked to overhaul Uber’s culture or simply being brought on for publicity reasons?

There are doubts that Holder’s team will be able to defeat sexism in an industry where women are rarely given a seat at the table within a nation where sexual harassment has gone unpunished for decades and where the sitting president has bragged about assaulting women. Uber, like most companies across Silicon Valley and around the world, prioritizes results over respect for women in the workplace. Multiple interviews from current and former Uber employees have revealed that the work environment can be very hostile but that no one reports it out of fear of retaliation.

Now that Fowler’s case has shone a spotlight on a reality that we often ignore, Uber has at least taken steps to acknowledge the problem immediately, both by hiring Holder and by issuing a message that acknowledges Fowler’s case when users try to delete the app. However, over the coming weeks as media attention shifts, Uber may have minimal incentives to improve its sexual harassment policies. Uber is still an exciting company for any young developer to work at, and while Fowler’s case may give female programmers and engineers pause, there is little reason to think that many male candidates will choose not to work at Uber because of Fowler’s story.

The most effective boycott would be taking #deleteUber a step further–don’t work for Uber. If Uber takes a hit in its hiring pool, that is when it will truly feel the pressure to reform. It is the responsibility of young, qualified candidates who are working in Silicon Valley to turn down offers at companies that subscribe to a toxic work environment that devalues female voices. Holder will be working to create new policies and investigate past offenses, but his investigation will be futile if we continue to ignore the results and sign up for Uber just the same.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Eric Holder Can’t Save Silicon Valley Alone appeared first on Law Street.

Leaders of tech giants are finding ways to oppose President Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, which could hurt their employees and potential new hires.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said he would consider taking legal action against the order, while the heads of other companies have pledged millions of dollars to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

According to the Wall Street Journal, the ban affects hundreds of Apple employees. Cook told the Journal:

More than any country in the world, this country is strong because of our immigrant background and our capacity and ability as people to welcome people from all kinds of  backgrounds. That’s what makes us special. We ought to pause and really think deeply through that.

On January 27, Trump signed the executive order blocking citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria from entering the United States for at least 90 days (though the ban could be expanded), citing concerns over foreign terrorism. The measure also prevents refugees from being admitted into the country for four months.

While Cook has not specified exactly what type of action Apple would take, Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos has already taken to court to condemn the ban. The company submitted a sworn statement supporting the Washington state attorney general, who filed a lawsuit against Trump’s order. Amazon employs nearly 50 people born in one of the seven countries, and is currently offering jobs to non-U.S. citizens, some of whom were born in Iran.

Meanwhile, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey and Chairman Omid Kordestani plan to donate $1.59 million to the ACLU, respectively matching $530,000 that Twitter employees raised for the organization.

The Executive Order's humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt

— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017

The ACLU sued Trump on January 28 on behalf of two men from Iraq – one of whom is a former engineer and interpreter for the U.S. government – who were detained at JFK International Airport in New York.

The taxi service app Lyft announced support for the ACLU as well, promising to donate $1 million over the next four years. Lyft’s primary competitor, Uber, faced backlash when it continued to pick up passengers from JFK during protests – which some saw as a move to profit from the situation. Uber responded to the complaints by calling the ban “unjust” and setting up a $3 million legal defense fund for its drivers impacted by the ban.

3/ We are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. https://t.co/0umGOlkhSx

— logangreen (@logangreen) January 29, 2017

Google cofounder Sergey Brin at SFO protest: "I'm here because I'm a refugee." (Photo from Matt Kang/Forbes) pic.twitter.com/GwhsSwDPLT

— Ryan Mac (@RMac18) January 29, 2017

The blanket entry ban on citizens from certain primarily Muslim countries is not the best way to address the country’s challenges

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2017

Executives and founders of companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla have also released statements criticizing the order.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Technology Companies Rally Against Immigration Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, when Mark Zuckerberg announced his new TechPrep project, my brilliant sister turned to me and said “Zuckerberg having a daughter is probably the greatest thing that ever happened to the world.”

That may seem like a hyperbolic comment but let’s take a look at Zuckerberg’s new project: a website designed to make coding a more inclusive field and teaching the next generation how to code while they are young. TechPrep aims at diversifying the tech world, reaching out to Black and Hispanic populations, women, and low-income communities. If it is successful, it may transform Silicon Valley from the stomping grounds of white twenty-somethings wearing stained hoodies into a cosmopolitan center that finally includes those who have been barred from the coding world in the internet age. The site is designed to connect with parents as well as their children, encouraging them to ask for computer science courses at their schools and asking them to support their children’s efforts. Zuckerberg’s past philanthropic efforts never emphasized parent participation. It’s hardly a stretch to think that Zuckerberg designed this project with his daughter in mind, hoping to make the coding world more inclusive for her as she grows up within it. Most parents want to make the world a better place for their children, and Zuckerberg is no exception.

Zuckerberg has spent the past five years donating generously to education–his infamous $100 million donation to Newark Public Schools has been dissected at length in Dale Russakoff’s “The Prize“—but this is the first time he has stepped forward to launch his own community outreach initiative. Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan are also launching a K-12 school in Palo Alto designed for low-income students (tuition will be free and healthcare services will be provided for all students). Like TechPrep, the school promotes parent involvement, offering parent-inclusive activities for infant and toddler students. Chan is the mastermind behind the project, with a passion for education and healthcare–she taught elementary school science, ran an after-school program in a housing project and worked as a pediatrician in a low-income area. Chan’s experience gives the project credibility while Zuckerberg’s commitment guarantees efficiency. A well-funded school with educated leadership? This is a fairy tale that could only come true in Silicon Valley.

Before TechPrep and “The Primary School,” Zuckerberg’s donations to education were massive and undeniably made with the best intentions, but lacking organization and creativity. Throwing money at the Newark Public School system, without oversight or active involvement, was a recipe for disaster. Zuckerberg had no experience with the administration or bureaucracy of the school system, therefore he had no idea which changes would be most effective and how long it would take to implement them.  He thought teachers would be the linchpin of educational reforms but had no concept of the power and obstinacy of teacher’s unions. The Newark project essentially crashed and burned because he jumped into philanthropy without sufficient research on the realities of the challenges he was hoping to solve. In contrast, TechPrep holds a greater potential for success because it capitalizes on Zuckerberg’s existing skill set–of course the man who launched the social media revolution should train the next generation of coders. Of course the person with the most knowledge on the subject should be in charge. TechPrep is the ideal successor to the Newark fiasco. Zuckerberg has learned his lesson about inefficient philanthropy and is going back to doing what he is best at: innovating in front of a computer screen.

Zuckerberg’s child will be tantamount to a First Daughter–celebrated as an icon, photographed like a movie star, and referred to on a first-name basis by complete strangers. With parents like Zuckerberg and Chan, it is almost certain that this child will be working hard and achieving from an early age. For all we know, the Zuckerberg baby may unlock the cure to cancer, undo global warming and make pigs fly. But even if she doesn’t do all those things, we are already in this baby’s debt. This child has her father-to-be thinking creatively about how to level the playing field in education–and nothing is more promising than a day when Mark Zuckerberg is on his A-game.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Mark Zuckerberg’s Baby May Save the World appeared first on Law Street.

No one has ever stopped their friend in a parking lot and said, “Quick, take a photo of me with that Prius.” But on the stage of the Fremont warehouse where Elon Musk revealed the Tesla Model X two weeks ago, every smartphone camera in the room was flashing as invitees to the event jostled each other in attempts to take the best Instagram. Tesla Motors is a brand committed to making electric energy exciting, creative and even sexy. Yet Tesla is frequently categorized as a niche product reserved for Silicon Valley that will never create significant change outside of a designated tax bracket.

This perception of Tesla is a key part of green energy’s clique mentality–only a narrow percentage of green activists are considered to be truly making impactful change and other innovators and policymakers get written off as merely jumping on the bandwagon. The stereotype of the aging hippie with a handmade sign and a tie dye shirt is not a comical caricature–it’s a key part of why green energy movements freeze out certain voices and interests. The idea of “selling out” or “going corporate” is so antithetical to the roots of the green energy movement that activists fear even being associated with luxury products. Here lies the paradox of the Tesla Model X: it is an innovative and high performing electric vehicle yet because it is priced as a luxury product, the green energy movement feels uncomfortable endorsing it. Silicon Valley, for all of its flaws, is one of the world’s greatest incubators of alternative energy and technology but in recent years, it has been labeled too elitist and narrowly-focused. Green energy leaders tend to laud the advances of American technology but then proceed to write Silicon Valley off as disconnected from the economic and political realities of energy implementation. Yet this criticism comes without any proposed reforms–Silicon Valley gets dismissed without advice on how to improve.

Take the Model X as an example. After the initial slew of articles describing the features of the Model X, newspapers picked up a second story: the potential $25,000 tax loophole for small business owners who purchase a Model X. The Model X was immediately transformed from a feather in the cap of electric energy into a symbol of corrupt capitalism. The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” is almost a curse word in the green energy world and may create significant backlash against the Model X. Why? Because being “part of the establishment” is the cardinal sin of the green energy movement (even in the case of the Model X, where Tesla is merely following the rules of the IRS tax code). However, opponents of this tax break present no other viable solution to get more drivers behind the wheel of electric vehicles. In fact, tax breaks for electric vehicles are a key part of green energy reforms across the country–so why attack one electric energy tax break while lauding another?

Green energy no longer lives on the periphery–the fact that multiple candidates in the 2016 presidential race have outlined detailed alternative energy plans that reach as far as 2050 is proof that activists have done incredible work in educating policymakers. However, green energy will never match the lobbying power of traditional energy companies if it continues to subscribe to the outdated idea that green energy can’t exist across a broad range of commercial interest–including the luxury market. Environmental activism was born out of populist desire to protect the environment, for both current and future populations, regardless of class, creed, or color. Green energy can’t fully commit to this goal unless it lets go of its own prejudices and accepts that you don’t have to rock a peace sign and long hair to care about alternative energy.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Fear and Loathing in Green Energy: Prejudice Against the Tesla Model X appeared first on Law Street.

Innovation is only imagined in the face of a problem without a solution. Take the electric car, for example. An electric car could save drivers gas money–you get Tesla. Let’s create an app that brings a car to your location on demand–you get Uber.

That’s what tech startups do: they brainstorm new innovations to help overcome challenges. Sometimes they can find homes in surprising places. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar is becoming a new and fast-growing land for tech startups.

After nearly 50 years under a military junta, Myanmar transitioned to a civilian-led government in 2011. Under President Thein Sein, the government initiated a series of political and economic reforms leading to the opening of the long-isolated country. Reforms included releasing political prisoners, reaching preliminary peace agreements with major armed ethnic groups,  providing better protections for basic human rights, and gradually reducing restrictions on the press.

Out of all Southeast Asian countries, why Myanmar?

After such a long isolation, things are changing very quickly. When the military junta was ruling the country in the early 2000s, a SIM card could cost $2,000; today it costs $1.50. The government took a $105 million loan from Japan in order to upgrade the local telecommunication infrastructure, and it is expected that nearly everyone will be carrying smartphones and tablets by the end of 2015. There is room for competition and new products, and the tech community recognizes that.

One of the parties helping to shape the entrepreneurial ecosystem is Sydney-based Pollenizer.

Pollenizer’s “Startup Science” is a framework designed to build incubation and acceleration programs that help entrepreneurs and big companies all over the world get started with high-growth, tech-powered businesses. Part of its support is providing services such as management training or office space.

Here are some of the latest featured developments in Myanmar:

• Carmudi, the Carmax of Myanmar: an online vehicle marketplace.
• Hush, a mobile app that allows you to post anonymous messages based on location. You are then able to view what others have posted while in the same location.
• Harmoneat, Myanmar’s first food truck. Harmoneat runs cooking classes and other tourist services to finance the operations of a community food truck.
• Nexy Keyboard, “the first iOS8 keyboard in Myanmar” that allows users to type in “Myanglish.”
• SmartSales, a point-of-sale (POS) system for restaurants that runs on batter power to overcome power outages.
• Fyre, web-based software that helps businesses set up online stores and mobile apps without needing any programming knowledge.

With celebrity entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and record-breaking valuations leading the headlines, it’s easy to forget the markets that are at the beginning of their tech revolutions and ready for explosion. The Myanmar market is very big as there are many places people still use pen and paper to conduct business. This new frontier for entrepreneurs has an exciting future.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Myanmar the Next Big Destination for Startups? appeared first on Law Street.

Silicon Valley and its main industries–tech companies and venture capital firms–has been long under fire for its lack of gender diversity. From depressing statistics about the diversity of various tech companies, to female developer Adria Richards live tweeting sexist comments at a tech conference in 2013, Silicon Valley has done plenty to live up to that reputation. However, if you’re looking for a pretty damning example of sexism in the industry, look no further than the recent Ellen Pao-Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers case, decided late last week. The decision concluded that the prominent VC firm didn’t discriminate against former employee Pao.

Pao, who is now the interim CEO of social media and news site “Reddit,” started at the prestigious venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers in 2005. A graduate of Princeton, Harvard Law, and Harvard Business School, she was brought on as the chief of staff for John Doerr, one of the senior partners at the firm. Doerr–who was involved in the success of Netscape, Amazon, and Google–is well known as one of Kleiner’s most prominent voices. Pao was then made a junior investing partner, but was never made a senior partner, and was fired in 2012.

Her suit alleged that she was passed over for the senior partner promotion based on sex discrimination, that she was retaliated against for complaining about sex discrimination, and that she was fired because of the complaints she levied. Kleiner claimed that they treated her fairly, and passed her over because she was not going to be a good fit for the job. Pao argues that men with similar profiles and histories were promoted when she wasn’t. Pao’s suit asked for $16 million total, a combination of both punitive and compensatory damages.

The suit was decided against Pao–in other words, it was concluded that Kleiner was not guilty of sex discrimination. Based on the information that the jury had, I have no reason to believe they decided the case as anything other than fairly and to the best of their ability. But there’s an important distinction here–Kleiner can both be not discriminatory and still be a really crappy place to work.

That’s pretty much exactly what happened–Pao brought up a lot of pretty bad evidence about Kleiner’s employees and culture. While Kleiner did end up successful in the suit, they were still dragged through through the mud. Examples cited by Pao include Doerr, who had seemingly always been one of her biggest supporters and mentors, saying to an investor that she had “a female chip on her shoulder.” She also complained that partner Ajit Nazre retaliated against her after their consensual relationship ended. When she complained to Ray Lane, another high-ranking partner, he told her to marry Nazre to solve her problems. She claims another partner gave her a book of sexually explicit drawings, and that yet another didn’t invite women to parties because they “kill the buzz.” It wasn’t all just about Pao, either, as there was discussion of an incident in which Nazre showed up at a female junior partner’s hotel room in just a bathrobe, propositioning her.

So, while Kleiner may not have been guilty of discriminating against Pao specifically because of her gender, it’s pretty clear that they didn’t act appropriately at every turn. This isn’t any sort of surprising revelation–gender discrimination and sexism have long been alleged in Silicon Valley–but this case certainly didn’t help to dispel that concept. While Pao didn’t get her money, she certainly made her point.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ellen Pao Loses Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Kleiner appeared first on Law Street.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is well on its way to becoming one of the more popular global industries as household appliances and security systems go online. In the last decade, we’ve watched cell phones evolve from basic devices that could only make phone calls into pocket-sized computers that many of us would be lost without. I’m not saying we’re on our way to using our internet-connected dishwashers to play Flappy Bird, but the IoT evolution, like cell phones, is moving into a new era complete with its own cellular network.

The evolution of the IoT means that this technology is moving beyond just consumer electronics and utilities, and into transportation, healthcare, agriculture and environment, construction, and intelligent buildings. As we prepare for nearly everything to have an internet connection, we cannot ignore the amount of bandwidth that could potentially be used to connect the IoT. With worries already mounting over reaching current bandwidth limits and our ability to improve infrastructure to ensure better and faster connectivity to meet the demands of use, adding the IoT could cause us to reach bandwidth limits even faster. Wouldn’t it be great if someone created a network just for the IoT?  Well, someone did create such a network and it’s not only global, but will finally be coming to the U.S.

France-based company SigFox recently agreed to create a cellular network strictly for IoT use in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco area. While this is a new development in the U.S., SigFox’s services are already active in Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Russia. The creation of a cellular network strictly for the use of IoT connectivity will free up bandwidth used for standard internet use by computers and cell phones, allowing the faster connectivity that users have become accustomed to, to continue as usual. But concerns over bandwidth will continue as new internet-based technologies are created. For now, however, IoT may not be a threat to that.

SigFox has chosen the perfect area to test their IoT cellular network. The Silicon Valley-Bay Area is one of the largest technology hubs in the country.  Because of this, the search for a decent internet connection is at an all-time high and anything that can be done do decrease the number of connections on their geographic network is welcomed.  Although the IoT is gaining popularity nationally, this area has an abundance of consumers who are already operating IoT technologies.  If Sigfox’s IoT-only network is well received, this could become a guide for the rest of the country.  In fact, American companies like Qualcomm have also begun developing machine-only networks, which shows there could be considerable competition in the near future. More competition will allow costs for IoT connectivity to decrease and will free up space on the current network. In all, this is a win for consumers.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Geralt via Pixabay]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The IoT-Only Network is a Big Win for Consumers appeared first on Law Street.