What would the IT industry be like without the entrenched
institution of political lobbying? How much more worthy of our
trust would it be?
I find I've been wondering about that a lot lately, especially
since I have very little patience for the practice of lobbying in
the first place.
There just seems to be something inherently unhealthy about any
system that rewards deep pockets with influence and access.
I get especially antsy when I see those deep pockets being used
to influence decisions on adopting technology standards. If there's
any decision that should be made totally independent of
self-serving vendor lobbyists, it's the adoption by a government or
an international organization of a technology standard. Such
decisions must be made on the basis of nothing other than what is
in the best interests of the people being served by that body.
As I continue to monitor the controversy over Massachusetts'
plan to adopt the OASIS OpenDocument format standard for office
productivity applications, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that
Microsoft will ultimately succeed in beating the state into
submission. It's no secret that the Microsoft lobbying machine has
pulled out all the stops to compel the state to abandon its
initiative to adopt OpenDocument, a standard Microsoft clearly sees
as a serious competitive threat. And given that Microsoft has
virtually unlimited funds to throw at the challenge, it's difficult
to imagine that those within the state's IT apparatus who continue
to push the standard will prevail.
The Massachusetts case is something of a red flag. It makes me
wonder how widespread and institutionalized the effort is on the
part of technology vendors to influence standards-related
decisions. In fact, I can't help but wonder what they're doing
behind the scenes to sway the standards bodies themselves.
That's why I was intrigued by the news last week that the
International Standards Organization had rebuffed China's
submission of the WLAN Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure
(WAPI) security protocol for consideration as an international
standard for wireless LANs. The ISO voted overwhelmingly to reject
WAPI in favor of the IEEE's 802.11i submission.
There has been no stronger voice in favor of 802.11i, and in
opposition to WAPI, than Intel -- another vendor with almost
unfathomably deep pockets. The last thing Intel wants is any market
segmentation that would create competition for its Centrino mobile
technology, which incorporates 802.11i. The prospect of China
producing WAPI chip sets under the aegis of an ISO certification no
doubt sent some pretty uncomfortable chills through the Intel
hierarchy.
So, did Intel exert some sort of influence or pressure on the
ISO? Not surprisingly, the Chinese certainly think so. Cao Jun,
general manager of IWNComm, the Chinese company that developed the
WAPI technology, earlier this month alleged that Intel had engaged
in backroom politicking with the ISO.
Moreover, a Chinese industry group that backs WAPI, the
Broadband Wireless IP Standard Working Group, maintains that the
IEEE had spread misinformation about WAPI, and it wants an
investigation into the IEEE's activities during the voting process.
The group accused the IEEE of acting "selfishly and irresponsibly"
to protect a monopoly commercial interest -- an apparent reference
to Intel.
Obviously, all of this could well be nothing more than sour
grapes on the part of the Chinese, who have invested heavily in
WAPI. But their concerns merit serious consideration. Given the
fact that fairly zealous lobbying is standard procedure in the U.S.
business community, it's no wonder the Chinese are suspicious.
Don Tennant is editor in chief of Computerworld. Contact him at
don_tennant@computerworld.com.
icon.
