U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

33–380 WASHINGTON : 2019

INTERNET OF THINGS LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 22, 2018 

Serial No. 115–133 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virgina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 4 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 7 

Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

WITNESSES

Tim Day, Senior Vice President, Chamber Technology Engagement Center, 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce ................................................................................ 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 103 

Michelle Richardson, Deputy Director, Freedom, Security, and Technology 

Project, Center for Democracy and Technology ................................................. 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 108 

Dipti Vachani, Vice President, Internet of Things Group, General Manager, 

Platform Management and Customer Engineering, Intel Corporation ........... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 112 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the Consumer Technology Association ............................................ 95 

Statement of CTIA ................................................................................................... 97 

Statement of the Electronic Privacy Information Center ..................................... 98 

(1) 

INTERNET OF THINGS LEGISLATION 

TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Latta, Burgess, Lance, Guthrie, McKinley, Bilirakis, Mullin, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Schakowsky, Clarke, Ca ́ rdenas, Dingell, Matsui, Welch, Kennedy, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director; Melissa 

Froelich, Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Ali 

Fulling, Legislative Clerk, Oversight & Investigations, Digital 

Commerce and Consumer Protection; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff, Digital Commerce and 

Consumer Protection; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Austin Stonebraker, Press Assistant; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; Greg Zerzan, 

Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Michelle 

Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel; Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; Michelle 

Rusk, Minority FTC Detailee; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Well, good morning. I’d like to call the Subcommittee 

on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection to order and the 

chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

And again, good morning to our witnesses and welcome to this 

legislative hearing on the Internet of Things. Today, we will discuss the bipartisan State of Modern Application, Research, and 

Trends of IoT Act, or the SMART Act IoT discussion draft. 

The SMART IoT Act discussion draft is the result of work the 

Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee has 

done over the past 2 years. Last July, this subcommittee held an 

Internet of Things Showcase. At that event, members invited comVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:25 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-133 CHRIS
2 

panies from our districts and across America to demonstrate products and services in the IoT field. It was a wonderful opportunity 

to see this revolutionary work up close and interact with the inventors doing this important work. To accompany that Showcase, we 

held a hearing where participants from the Showcase discussed 

their companies, challenges they face with growing in this space, 

and what we, as policymakers, can do to help promote the continued development of the IoT solutions. 

This January, we held a hearing on the state of manufacturing 

in the IoT space and over the following months we met with other 

builders, suppliers, customers, and experts to better understand 

IoT’s enormous potential. 

This technology is having a real-life impact for many of our constituents. I’ve personally met with manufacturers in my district 

that are using this cutting-edge technology to maintain their machinery and keep production on track. I also met with farmers in 

Defiance, Ohio, who are using IoT for better grain management, increased planting and harvesting efficiency, and improved monitoring of the temperature in their storage facilities. 

The draft legislation we discuss today is the result of important 

bipartisan work after hearing from the experts where we noticed 

one lingering question: What does the universe of rules, regulations, guidelines, and best practices look like for the IoT space? 

While we know there are many other topics of interest in this 

space, this legislation kicks off a process to give all stakeholders a 

base set of information to frame the other challenges without speculating or hypothesizing about what already exists. 

The IoT is already revolutionizing the way that we organize factories and supply chains, transport commodities like oil and gas, 

make manufacturing more efficient, maximize energy efficiency, 

and even restock our refrigerators. 

This subcommittee has engaged in historic bipartisan work with 

the SELF DRIVE Act this Congress and I am pleased to see that 

cooperation continue with the SMART IoT. When safely applied to 

autonomous vehicles, the Internet of Things holds the potential to 

significantly reduce traffic fatalities and make our roads safer 

while reducing costs through more efficient fuel consumption. 

In these areas and more, the IoT holds the potential to greatly 

improve the lives of Americans. 

I want to thank my colleague, Representative Welch, for his willingness to continue our work together on this very important issue. 

As many here know, in previous Congresses Representative Welch 

and I started the Internet of Things Working Group. We heard 

from industry and other stakeholders about the importance of 

light-touch regulation to foster innovation and jobs here in the 

United States. This bipartisan draft is a result of the lessons 

learned in those meetings, this subcommittee’s Disrupter Series 

hearings, and lays the groundwork for constructive conversations 

in the future. The SMART IoT Act will give all stakeholders, both 

private in industry and at the Federal level, a better sense of what 

guidelines and best practices exist or are in development. 

As we all know, IoT issues cut across so many industries and so 

many Federal agencies. Ensuring that we know about overlaps or 

potential duplication is important for many reasons from ensuring 

3 

efficient use of government resources to understanding how stakeholders are addressing some of the important but challenging 

issues of privacy and data security. 

From the Department of Commerce’s efforts to foster the advancement of the IoT ecosystem to the Department of Transportation’s focus on advancing automated vehicle, so much work is 

being done in this space. We want to encourage our interagency 

collaboration and foster an environment where transparency is key. 

Likewise, I would like to ensure that the environment for innovation in the United States across all of these industries remains a 

priority by optimizing our own efforts to promote good, consistent 

government. I believe the SMART IoT Act is an important step in 

doing just that. 

And again, one of the things I always like to say is that one of 

the great things about serving on the Energy and Commerce Committee is that we kind of look over the horizon five to 10 years. 

When we hear from our witnesses we want to hear from you to 

know exactly where you’re going to be because we don’t want to 

have our regulators or our laws that we were thinking about enacting looking in the rear view mirror or at the end of a car. We need 

to be looking far out into the future. 

So, again, I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today 

and I look forward to your testimony today and, with that, I recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA

Good Morning and welcome to this legislative hearing on the Internet of Things. 

Today we will discuss the bipartisan State of Modern Application, Research, and 

Trends of IoT Act or the SMART IoT Act discussion draft. 

The SMART IoT Act discussion draft is the result of work the Digital Commerce 

and Consumer Protection Subcommittee has done over the past two years. Last 

July, this Subcommittee held an Internet of Things Showcase. At that event, Members invited companies from our Districts and across America to demonstrate products and services in the IoT field. It was a wonderful opportunity to see this revolutionary work up close and interact with the inventors doing this important work. 

To accompany that Showcase, we held a hearing where participants from the Showcase discussed their companies, challenges they face with growing in this space and 

what we, as policymakers, can do to help promote the continued development of IoT 

solutions. 

This January we held a hearing on the state of manufacturing in the IoT space 

and over the following months we met with other builders, suppliers, customers and 

experts to better understand IoT’s enormous potential. 

This technology is having a real-life impact for many of our constituents. I’ve personally met with manufacturers in my district that are using this cutting- edge 

technology to maintain their machinery and keep production on track. I also met 

with farmers in Defiance, Ohio who are using IoT for better grain management, increased planting and harvesting efficiency, and improved monitoring of the temperature in their storage facilities. 

The draft legislation we will discuss today is the result of important bipartisan 

work after hearing from the experts where we noticed one lingering question-what 

does the universe of rules, regulations, guidelines, and best practices look like for 

the IoT space? 

While we know there are many other topics of interest in this space, this legislation kicks off a process to give all stakeholders a base set of information to frame 

the other challenges without speculating or hypothesizing about whatalready exists. 

The IoT is already revolutionizing the way that we organize factories andsupply 

chains, transport commodities like oil and gas, make manufacturing more efficient, 

maximize energy efficiency, and even restock our refrigerators. 

4 

This subcommittee has engaged in historic bipartisan work with the SELF DRIVE 

Act this Congress and I am pleased to see that cooperation continue with the 

SMART IoT Act discussion draft. When safely applied to autonomous vehicles the 

Internet of Things holds the potential to significantly reduce traffic fatalities, and 

make our roads safer while also reducing costs through more efficient fuel consumption. 

In these areas and more, the IoT holds the potential to greatly improve the lives 

of Americans. 

I thank my colleague, Representative Welch, for his willingness to continue our 

work together on this very important issue. As many here know, in previous congresses Representative Welch and I started the Internet of Things Working Group. 

We heard from industry and other stakeholders about the importance of light-touch 

regulation to foster innovation and jobs here in the U.S. This bipartisan draft is a 

result of the lessons learned in those meetings, this subcommittees’ Disrupter Series 

hearings, and lays the groundwork for constructive conversations in the future. The 

SMART IoT Act will give all stakeholders, both in private industry and at the Federal level, a better sense of what guidelines and best practices exist or are in development. 

As we all know, IoT issues cut across so many industries and so many Federal 

agencies. Ensuring that we know about overlaps or potential duplication is important for many reasons from ensuring efficient use of government resources to understanding how stakeholders are addressing some of the important but challenging 

issues of privacy and data security. 

From the Department of Commerce’s efforts to foster the advancement of the IoT 

ecosystem to the Department of Transportation’s focus on advancing automated vehicle, so much work is going on in this space. We want to encourage interagency 

collaboration and foster an environment where transparency is key. Likewise, I 

would like to ensure that the environment for innovation in the U.S. across all of 

these industries remains a priority by optimizing our own efforts to promote good, 

consistent government. I believe the SMART IoT Act is an important step in doing 

just that. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This subcommittee frequently discusses the Internet of Things. 

We have hearings on IoT in manufacturing and wearable devices, 

not to mention our IoT showcase last summer. 

Today, we transition from general discussion to discussion of actual legislation. The SMART IoT Act is a first step. It would require the Commerce Department to survey the use of connected devices and examine the Federal role in this space. 

As the bill acknowledged, internet-connected devices provide an 

opportunity for economic growth. But we want to ensure that those 

devices are developed securely. My hope is that the report generated by the SMART IoT Act provides the foundation for further 

legislative efforts. 

Our hearings on the Internet of Things have raised important 

issues. What privacy and cybersecurity protections are going to be 

baked into these devices? Normal household items can now collect 

very personal data that must be stored and used appropriately. 

Connected devices present new safety concerns. The Consumer 

Product Safety Commission just held a public hearing on IoT and 

safety last week with stakeholders on that very subject. 

We need the infrastructure to support the rise of connected devices including affordable broadband. The Internet of Things could 

also disrupt the current labor market. We must ensure workers are 

prepared for a changing economy. 

5 

Finally, we must make the strategic investments in research to 

promote future innovation. Last week’s hearing on quantum computing made clear that the United States is not providing the consistent support necessary to keep groundbreaking research moving 

forward. Standing on the sidelines is simply not an option. These 

are big issues for Congress to tackle and we must rise to the challenge. We know what happens if we rely on industry self-regulation. Consumer privacy goes unprotected and safety is put at risk. 

The SMART IoT Act should provide a resource for us to better understand the variety of devices on the market. 

I plan to use this information as I continue my push for comprehensive consumer privacy and data security legislation. We 

have had bipartisan furor over misuses of consumer data. It’s time 

now for bipartisan solutions to the problem. The bill before us is 

a natural extension of the work that members of the subcommittee 

have been doing for the last couple of sessions. 

In 2016, Congressmen Latta and Welch convened stakeholders 

for several forums under their IoT Working Group to discuss the 

Internet of Things and the issues that new technology raise. 

In many ways, the study and the SMART IoT Act is a formalization of that very survey. In the coming weeks, I look forward to 

working on a bipartisan basis to move this legislation forward, and 

then I am ready to take the next step of updating consumer protections and funding key investments. 

The Internet of Things has tremendous potential. We must work 

together to make sure that America benefits from that opportunity. 

I thank you, Chairman Latta. I yield back, unless anybody wants 

the remaining time. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, the chairman of the full committee for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and other members 

on the committee and to our witnesses on the panel. Thank you for 

being here. 

Today, we will hear testimony about the draft bill, the SMART 

IoT Act, to support the development of the Internet of Things here 

in the United States. This bipartisan effort underscores one of the 

key goals of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and that is 

helping American entrepreneurs and established businesses expand 

to create jobs for American workers and help improve the lives of 

American consumers. 

So I would like to thank Chairman Latta and Representative 

Welch for working on this issue and finding a bipartisan path forward. This is what we do at the Energy and Commerce Committee, 

particularly on this subcommittee when faced with new technology 

policy questions. We have done that on the Self Drive Act. I would 

commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the good work 

there. Now we just need to get the Senate to move forward, as we 

are won’t to do in many cases. 

6 

The Internet of Things, or IoT, does hold great promise to connect workers, suppliers, products, consumers throughout efficient 

networks that can save time, money, and bring about new innovation and resources. 

Building this network won’t be easy. We know that. It requires 

engineers, entrepreneurs, and visionaries. It also requires public 

policies that foresee a world designed for the next-century policies 

that foresee a world designed for the next century policies that are 

forward looking and that reflect a world to come of self-driving 

cars, self-organizing materials, and innovations we have yet to even 

think of. These must replace many of our still-existing rules and 

policies that reflect the old technologies of the last century. While 

America has changed, many of our regulations, unfortunately, have 

not. 

That is one of the purposes of this legislation that’s before us 

today. It is meant to set the stage by making sure stakeholders are 

aware of the playing field and are not creating conflicting or duplicative obligations or requirements. So the SMART IoT Act will create the first compendium of essentially who is doing what in the 

IoT space. This includes the efforts undertaken by private industry 

as well as a review of what agencies are doing. 

Removing regulatory barriers to innovation is one of the most important duties of this committee. Doing so allows our economy to 

grow, our workers to flourish, and innovation to occur here in the 

United States. The best way to start is to know what is out there 

already or being developed today. 

It’s important to note that since January of 2017 more than 3 

million new jobs have been created in America. The U.S. unemployment rate, now at 3.9 percent, is the lowest seen in this country 

since the year 2000, and what’s more, this comes as more Americans rejoin the workforce, millions once again finding work after 

years of hardship. 

So creating jobs and opportunity is a goal shared by all of us on 

this committee, in fact, reflected in the bipartisan work on the 

SMART IoT Act. Chairman Latta and Representative Welch have 

been working on these issues for several years now. Glad to see 

that this progress has been made and we have a great opportunity, 

going forward, to do even more. 

So, Mr. Chairman and members of both sides of the aisle, thanks 

for your good work on this. We have a couple hearings going on simultaneously, as I am sure our witnesses and members know. 

So some of us will be popping back and forth. But we value your 

testimony that we have here and the good bipartisan work. 

And with that, I yield back the remaining balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses for appearing before 

theSubcommittee. Today we will hear testimony about a draft bill, the SMART IoT 

Act, to support the development of the Internet of Things here in the United States. 

This bipartisan effort underscores one of the key goals of the Energy and Commerce 

Committee: helping American entrepreneurs and established businesses expand to 

create jobs for American workers and help improve the lives of consumers. 

I would like to thank Chairman Latta and Representative Welch for working on 

this issue and finding a bipartisan path forward. This is what we do at the Energy 

7 

and Commerce Committee and particularly on this subcommittee when faced with 

new technology policy questions. 

The Internet of Things, or IoT, holds the promise to connect workers, suppliers 

and products through more efficient networks that can save time, money and resources. 

Building this network will not be easy. It requires engineers, entrepreneurs and 

visionaries. It also requires public policies that foresee a world designed for the 

next-century policies that are forward looking, and that reflect a world to come of 

self-driving cars, self-organizing materials, and innovations we have yet to even 

think of. These must replace many of our still-existing rules and policies that reflect 

the old technologies of the last century. While America has changed, many of our 

regulations have not. 

That is one of the purposes of the legislation we will discuss today. It is meant 

to set the stage by making sure stakeholders are aware of the playing field and are 

not creating conflicting or duplicative obligations or requirements. The SMART IoT 

Act will create the first compendium of essentially who is doing what in the IoT 

space. This includes the efforts undertaken by private industry as well as a review 

of what agencies are doing. 

Removing regulatory barriers to innovation is one of the most importantduties of 

this Committee. Doing so allows our economy to grow, our workers to flourish and 

our citizens to benefit. The best way to start is to know what is out there already 

or being developed today. 

Since January 2017 over three million new jobs have been created in America. 

The U.S. unemployment rate is 3.9 percent, the lowest seen in this country since 

the year 2000. What’s more, this comes as more Americans rejoin the workforce, 

millions once again finding work after years of hardship. 

Creating jobs and opportunity is a goal shared by all of us on this Committee, 

a fact reflected in the bi-partisan work on the SMART IoT Act. Chairman Latta and 

Representative Welch have been working on these issues for several years now, and 

I’m glad to see the progress they have made. 

We have made great progress over the last two years in restoring jobs for American workers, restarting American manufacturing, and creating opportunities for 

Americans of all ages and backgrounds. But there is more work yet to be done. Legislation such as the draft bill we consider today is one way that we will continue 

to fulfill our duty to the American people to remove barriers to success while promoting policies that help our workforce. 

American ingenuity and leadership is once again transforming the world.That is 

something we can all be proud of. Thank you Chairman Latta for the leadership 

you have shown, and thanks as well to all the Members of this Subcommittee. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields 

back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing on the draft SMART Internet of Things Act is 

the next step in this subcommittee’s review of new and evolving 

technological development and I commend Chairman Latta and 

Representative Welch for working together over the last several 

years to explore and learn how the Internet of Things, or IoT, can 

enrich our lives, help us be more efficient, and grow the U.S. economy. 

Today, more and more people have multiple internet-connected 

devices in their homes, things like thermostats, vacuums, and digital personal assistants, and more and more people are wearing 

internet-connected devices such as fitness trackers. But IoT is not 

limited to consumer products. Connected devices of all kinds are 

8 

used in practically every industry sector like manufacturing, agriculture, and medicine. 

We have learned about drones that fly into dangerous areas to 

assess hazards, sensors helping farmers understand the topography 

acidity of their land, and doctors receiving real-time data from 

monitors so that patients in remote areas do not have to travel for 

daily appointments. 

And today we are considering a bipartisan draft bill that would 

direct the Department of Commerce to conduct a comprehensive 

study and report on the Internet of Things. Commerce will survey 

the industry sectors that make internet-connected devices as well 

as all industry sectors that use those devices. The study will also 

look at how the Federal Government oversees the use and development of connected devices, which agencies deal with the Internet 

of Things, what expertise those agencies have, and what entities 

those agencies interact with, and the study will identify government resources available to consumers and small businesses to 

help them evaluate connected devices. 

The report will provide a one-stop source of how businesses are 

integrating connectivity and how the Federal Government is helping the country adapt to this age of connectivity. Federal and local 

government agencies could also use the report to better coordinate 

their work and I hope the study will encourage them to do so. And 

any report will be a snapshot in time, but given the integration of 

IoT into all parts of our lives in the global economy, the report will 

provide a jumping-off point for more work. 

I would certainly like to see cybersecurity issues given more emphasis when we look at IoT. Throughout our review, cybersecurity 

was the issue that came up most often. Cybersecurity is imperative 

to keeping ourselves and our country safe from malicious actors. 

And I know some stakeholders have asked that cybersecurity be 

specifically called out in the study. I would support such a change. 

But whether it’s made part of the study required by this bill or not, 

Congress must take action to ensure that strong cybersecurity and 

data security are fundamental to IoT. 

So I am glad that this subcommittee is working on this bipartisan legislation and I’d like to yield the balance of my time to the 

sponsor, Congressman Welch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, and I want to thank Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Schakowsky for this hearing. It 

was great to work with Mr. Latta too in the IoT Working Group— 

21 members that had hearings in advance. 

We are trying to get educated before we pass legislation, which 

isn’t necessarily how we usually operate. But this is a huge opportunity with the Internet of Things. McKinsey and Company did a 

study and says that it can be between $4 and $11 trillion annually 

by 2025. So that’s really quite extraordinary. 

My colleagues have already spoken about what many of these opportunities are and also, Ranking Member Schakowsky, I think 

pointing out some of the implications that we have to contend with 

with labor is really, really important for all of us to keep in mind. 

9 

But I’ll just give one example. In Vermont, the brutal pressure 

on our dairy farmers right now—the price is down, the costs are 

up—and technology is helping some of those farmers hang on. And 

Mangan Brothers, a dairy farm in East Fairfield, Vermont, has a 

computerized internet-based milking system that’s really been 

helpful to them. They installed a milking parlor about two decades 

ago and now what happens when the cow comes in they have a pedometer on their leg, and as soon as the cow crosses the threshold 

of the milking parlor the sensor picks up which cow it is and relays 

the information to the computer and all the statistics about the 

cow’s movements and body temperature and other pertinent information is sent to the computer, and it’s even relevant for when the 

breedings are done just based on activity spikes. It also gives them 

a report at the end of every milking day with respect to the salt 

content and that’s an indicator that allows the farmers to take 

steps to avoid diseases. 

So it’s a big deal in terms of productivity for them and it is made 

possible by the Internet of Things. And just the last point in my 

last few seconds, the only way we are going to have the Internet 

of Things in rural America is to have broadband in rural America, 

and that’s another enormous challenge we have and it’s woefully 

underserved. 

So we can talk all we want about the Internet of Things, but unless we have broadband it’s not going to happen. 

So I yield back and thank my colleagues for the time. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman yields back, and I just want to say 

just briefly I really appreciate all the work that you and I have 

done on IoT and also not only chairing the working group but also 

working together chairing the rural broadband, so I appreciate all 

you’ve been doing and thank you very much. 

That now concludes members’ opening statements and the chair 

now reminds members that pursuant to committee rules, all members opening statements will be made part of the record. 

And, again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being with 

us today. We greatly appreciate you taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. 

Today’s witnesses will have the opportunity to give 5-minute 

statements followed by a round of questions from our members. 

Our witness panel for today’s hearing will include Mr. Tim Day, 

the Senior Vice President of the Chamber Technology Engagement 

Center at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Michelle Richardson, Deputy Director of the Freedom Security and Technology 

Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Dipti 

Vachani, Vice President of the Internet of Things Group and General Manager of the Strategy and Solutions Engineering Division 

at Intel. 

And, again, I want to thank you all for being here today and Mr. 

Day, you are recognized for 5 minutes. If you’d just pull that mic 

up close and turn the mic on, the microphone is yours. 

10 

STATEMENTS OF TIM DAY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHAMBER TECHNOLOGY ENGAGEMENT CENTER, U.S. CHAMBER 

OF COMMERCE; MICHELLE RICHARDSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FREEDOM, SECURITY, AND TECHNOLOGY PROJECT, 

CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY; DIPTI 

VACHANI, VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNET OF THINGS GROUP, 

GENERAL MANAGER, PLATFORM MANAGEMENT AND CUSTOMER ENGINEERING, INTEL CORPORATION 

STATEMENT OF TIM DAY 

Mr. DAY. Thank you very much. 

Good morning, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, 

and distinguished members of the House Subcommittee of Digital 

Commerce and Consumer Protection. 

Thank you for the opportunity today to testify about the Internet 

of Things. I am Tim Day, Senior Vice President of the Chamber’s 

Technology Engagement Center, or C 09TEC. The Chamber established C 09TEC 3 years ago to tell the story of how technology can 

empower all Americans. At C 09TEC, we have focused our work on 

autonomous vehicles, unmanned aircraft, telecommunications, and 

the new economy. 

All of these issues and technologies are connected and supported 

by the Internet of Things. Everyone participating in this hearing 

today is in one way or another one of the nearly 11 billion internetconnected devices projected by Gartner to be in use today worldwide. 

Whether we are streaming this hearing on a smart phone, 

whether or not we have asked Amazon, Alexa, or Google Home directions to the Rayburn House Office Building, or a wearable 

counted the number of steps it took to get here, we all have been 

connected and our lives are being improved by the Internet of 

Things. 

Not only does IoT technology directly benefit consumers, it is also 

making businesses smarter and more efficient. For example, the 

agricultural sector for better crop yields, health care for improved 

patient outcomes, and manufacturing for improved operations and 

maintenance. One study has shown that industrial manufacturing 

IoT spending is predicted to increase to $890 billion worldwide by 

2020. And, of course, government also stands to benefit from IoT 

by creating efficiencies in public services, by finding new value for 

citizens, enhancing capabilities, and streamlining processes. IoT 

may provide a much-needed answer for agencies seeking to meet 

increasing citizen needs with decreasing budgets. 

And, Chairman Latta, back home in the Buckeye State, Columbus, which was awarded the DoT’s 2016 Smart Cities Challenge 

Grant, is using IoT in research and development to create smart 

vehicle technologies. Another study has shown that wireless providers will invest $275 billion towards building 5G networks, which 

will be part of the connectivity backbone of smart cities and IoT. 

This investment will add $500 billion in GDP and 3 million jobs to 

the American economy. This number pales in comparison to the 

$11 trillion worldwide economic impact that is predicted by 2025 

for IoT. 

11 

Needless to say, IoT is an economic game changer. The Chamber’s president and CEO, Tom Donohue, has stated that technology 

must be embraced as the growth driver and game changer that it 

is. That is why it is so critical that the United States maintain 

leadership in IoT by adopting the right regulatory framework. 

I would like to suggest a couple of ideas for your consideration 

to strike the correct regulatory balance. Congress and agencies 

should do more to reduce the regulatory burdens, compliance costs, 

and overlap. Government should evaluate existing regulatory activities and bring together stakeholders in government industry to 

shape IoT policy. 

Legislation like the DIGIT Act and the draft legislation today, 

the SMART IoT Act, are much-needed steps in the right direction 

to achieve this goal. Additionally, actions like those done by the 

FCC led by Commissioner Carr to streamline communications 

siting rules are also to be praised. As IoT is still in its infancy, policymakers should avoid the temptation to impose prescriptive regulations on IoT and single out IoT for regulation for issues such as 

privacy. 

Congress should continue a policy of technology neutrality and, 

finally, a skilled workforce will also be critical to the development 

of this new technology and investment in human capital will determine which countries lead, going forward in this space. 

We are currently witnessing a new industrial revolution led by 

advanced technology including IoT, which is a force for good that 

should be fostered by smart regulatory frameworks that encourage 

investment, promote innovation, as well as connect and empower 

all Americans. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Day follows:] 

12 


33380.001
13 


33380.002
14 


33380.003
15 


33380.004
16 


33380.005
17 


33380.006
18 


33380.007
19 


33380.008
20 


33380.009
21 


33380.010
22 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. Richardson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE RICHARDSON 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of 

the Center for Democracy and Technology. 

CDT is a nonprofit technology policy organization dedicated to 

protecting civil liberties and human rights in a digital world including privacy, free speech, and access to information. 

We believe the Internet of Things has the power to enrich people’s lives in ways both big and small. But we also recognize that 

the Internet of Things poses unique privacy and security challenges. Many of these devices collect information that is intensely 

personal yet ungoverned by U.S. policy and privacy law. It has also 

become common to hear of serious security breaches which have allowed hackers to use IoT devices to either steal information or participate as part of a botnet. 

CDT’s preference for technology policy is for private industry to 

voluntarily create and adopt standards. The government plays an 

important role in setting standards and incentivizing good behavior, especially in sectors where security failures had extreme consequences or in the consumer market when users don’t have a fair 

shot at understanding or managing products. 

Congress has the authority and the responsibility to determine 

whether the current government and private balance is the right 

one. We hope this bill will help collect information to assess that 

in two ways. First, we hope the SMART IoT Act will collect information to determine whether voluntary standards and privacy 

standards are not only being created whether they are being adopted by a critical mass of industry players. Voluntary standards are 

the default in the IoT space and billions of devices are up and operating on the internet, and more are coming. The foundational question we should be asking is whether this approach is working as 

a general matter. 

Second, the study should tease out any overlap or gaps in government oversight of these IoT devices. Cross-agency coordination 

is crucial to sharing information and will help make sure that the 

government is not issuing conflicting guidance or requirements. 

Now, we recommend the bill clearly state that nothing in it 

should be interpreted to discourage agencies from continuing work 

in critical areas like connected cars or health devices. Agencies like 

the FDA and NHTSA are driving standards for devices or systems 

that have literal life or death consequences and that work cannot 

wait. 

While industry deserves an overarching government plan for IoT, 

IoT is already too large and too diverse to cabin in a single agency, 

and developing sector-specific expertise will ensure that government involvement is supported by the technical and policy knowledge needed to make the right decisions. 

After you receive this report, we expect that you will find that 

one of the largest gaps in standards and oversight is in the consumer market. As Ms. Vachani mentions in the IoT report for Intel, 

most IoT devices and applications relate to industrial products, 

23 

smart cities, and the health industry. Many of these devices are 

subject to practical and regulatory limits already. For example, 

some of these devices are embedded in critical infrastructure, 

which is already regulated writ large, and some of these devices 

are really quite simple and do not collect personal information or 

offer computing power that makes them attractive hacking targets. 

Think of sensors that only measure water pressure or county the 

number of cars that pass through an intersection. The users of 

these sorts of devices also are often more sophisticated and the corporate versus corporate relationship can contractually ensure that 

IoT devices continue to work safely. 

But the consumer ecosystem does not have many of these checks 

and balances. Consumers are stuck in a take it or leave it system 

and they will not have the option to leave it much longer, as 

connectivity is built into everything. Lay users just do not have the 

technical capacity to understand and control the current crop of IoT 

devices on the market. They also have few legal remedies when 

something does go wrong. If security fails, devices can be a gateway 

to stealing personal information or subject the owner to actual spying. Failures can harm a person or her property in the real world 

like smart locks that can remotely open front doors. And these devices can be taken over as part of a botnet that can send scam 

email or, in the case of the Mirai botnet, take down websites and 

internet access, more generally. 

In other words, there’s a lot at stake in the consumer market and 

the current system is just not working. We are hoping that this 

committee finds the report to be just the jumping off point for better oversight of consumer products and we look forward to working 

with you and your staff on this bill. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:] 

24 


33380.011
25 


33380.012
26 


33380.013
27 


33380.014
28 


33380.015
29 


33380.016
30 


33380.017
31 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. Vachani, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DIPTI VACHANI 

Ms. VACHANI. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and 

members of the subcommittee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of Intel 

Corporation and I commend you and Congressman Welch for your 

leadership on the SMART IoT Act. 

First, I would like to turn to the vast benefits of the IoT and discuss real-life IoT use cases that are relevant to the committee’s jurisdiction. Gartner predicts that IoT technology will be in 95 percent of electronics for new product design by 2020. The transformational, societal, and economic benefits that will flow from this 

broad deployment of IoT technology is what energizes Intel. And 

the SMART IoT Act is a welcome indication that this enthusiasm 

is matched by this subcommittee. The IoT is already transforming 

sectors like health care, smart cities, and transportation. 

I would like to go over a few use cases. Smart health care—less 

than .01 percent of patient data is available beyond the bedside for 

health care teams to make clinical decisions. To solve this problem, 

Medical Informatics, Intel, and Dell partnered on an FDA-cleared 

IoT platform called Sickbay. Sickbay continuously captures patient 

data from the bedside medical devices and transforms it into actionable intelligence. This enables care teams to make better and 

fast decisions and predict patient deterioration before it occurs. In 

the last 4 1A1⁄2 years, Texas Children’s Hospital used Sickbay to 

improve health care for 2.1 million patients. 

Smart cities—92 percent of the world’s population lacks access to 

clean air and leading to millions of deaths annually. To address 

this, Intel and Bosch developed IoT-powered pollution monitoring 

systems that provide intelligent data and enable real-time analysis. 

These IoT systems are used by governments to improve air quality 

in congested cities like Pune, India, by factory owners to track 

emissions and provide safety checks for all workers, by construction 

site managers to provide air quality warnings and improve efficiency, and by cities to provide residents with recommended times 

for exercising outdoors. 

Use case number three, transportation—as the subcommittee is 

aware, the impact of autonomous vehicles will be life changing, 

particularly in our disabled community and aging population. The 

number of U.S. residents aged 78 and older will increase by 53.7 

million by 2030, compared to just 30.9 million in 2014. Many of 

these residents live in communities with poor or no public transportation. AVs will offer vastly improved mobility benefits. Intel 

applauds the committee’s leadership on AV. 

Next, I would like to offer Intel’s strong support for the SMART 

IoT Act and respectfully offer recommendations to enhance the legislation. Nations are racing to lead in this competitive IoT sector. 

It has been Intel’s strong desire that the Federal Government be 

more proactive in ensuring U.S. IoT leadership in declaring the 

U.S. the IoT a national priority for the innovation in investment 

and competitiveness. 

32 

We applaud the subcommittee for its bipartisan work to set 

America on its leadership path by ensuring an IoT study and recommendations to promote IoT adoptions to grow our economy. 

I was on the Hill last October to unveil a broadly supported industry report on IoT. Intel recommendations to the SMART IoT reflect this report. First, we urge the subcommittee to include a robust definition in IoT that is nonproprietary, neutral regarding 

technologies and applications, and contemplates both the consumer 

and the industrial IoT. In fact, industrial, smart city, and connected health will make up 70 percent of the use cases. 

Second, we urge you to seek specific recommendations that would 

be highly impactful on laying the groundwork for the national IoT 

strategy. This includes recommendations on incentives for the Federal Government and agencies to adopt IoT technologies to advance 

their Federal mission including smart infrastructure solutions. 

How the Federal Government can best support global industry-led 

IoT standard efforts and avoid new regulations that duplicate existing industry standards and a criteria for the Federal Government 

to invest in IoT public-private partnerships and testbeds. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share Intel’s thoughts on the 

SMART IoT Act. We look forward to working with you to see this 

bipartisan bill enacted into law—that first step towards a national 

IoT strategy—and ensure U.S. leadership in this transformational 

sector. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vachani follows:] 

33 


33380.018
34 


33380.019
35 


33380.020
36 


33380.021
37 


33380.022
38 


33380.023
39 


33380.024
40 


33380.025
41 


33380.026
42 


33380.027
43 


33380.028
44 


33380.029
45 


33380.030
46 


33380.031
47 


33380.032
48 


33380.033
49 


33380.034
50 


33380.035
51 


33380.036
52 


33380.037
53 


33380.038
54 


33380.039
55 


33380.040
56 


33380.041
57 


33380.042
58 


33380.043
59 


33380.044
60 


33380.045
61 


33380.046
62 


33380.047
63 


33380.048
64 


33380.049
65 


33380.050
66 


33380.051
67 


33380.052
68 


33380.053
69 


33380.054
70 


33380.055
71 


33380.056
72 


33380.057
73 

Mr. LATTA. Well, again, I want to thank our witnesses for being 

with us today. We really appreciate your testimony, and that will 

conclude our testimony from our witnesses and we’ll begin our 

questioning from our members, and I will recognize myself for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. Day, do you believe a compendium of all current Federal action on IoT-related issues will help promote interagency collaboration and consistent federal action? 

Mr. DAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I think what 

we’ve heard is that the Internet of Things holds incredible promise 

for our economy and the quality of life for citizens. 

I do. I think the draft that we have before us today helps with 

increased transparency and how government regulates this technology in a better way. 

We are firm believers that the government should make data 

available and complying a list of Federal policies that affect IoT, 

I believe, would go a long way in enabling the companies that we 

are working with at the Chamber and others and especially also 

small and startup companies to understand the regulatory environment that we are faced with today. 

Mr. LATTA. Yes, let me ask you about that right there because 

I know that when my friend from Vermont and I were doing our 

Working Group meetings—and actually we had them right here in 

this room—it didn’t make any difference if you’re from the East 

Coast, the West Coast, the Midwest, what type you’re in, as Ms. 

Vachani was talking about, from everything from health care to 

manufacturing to FinTech, you name it. 

There was one thing that we heard from everyone—that we 

needed to make sure that we have a soft touch regulation out there 

so people can be out there innovating and it’s no—we didn’t hear 

anybody ever say that they were against regulations but not to 

have anything that was over burdensome that they couldn’t go out 

and regulate. 

When you’re talking about these smaller companies out there, 

could you talk to me or talk to the committee a little bit about 

what you have heard from them some of the major hurdles that 

they’re facing right now or things that need to be overcome? 

Mr. DAY. Absolutely, and I think what’s exciting about this is 

that this does impact middle America, the coasts. Everyone, as you 

said, is impacted by this and I think when you’re a small business 

and a startup, and my focus at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 

the emerging technology space, it is just that. It’s emerging. It’s 

changing by the day. 

We are still learning what the technology means and so I think 

there needs to be a structure but not too prescriptive in the approach and, you know, quite frankly, business leaders and new 

startups and entrepreneurs are looking to run their businesses 

with the support of the government but not being told exactly how 

to do it because we are still working on the benefits and how this 

actually applies to the companies that we are working with. 

And so I think what business leaders want to know is give me 

the ability to invest, to be able to take my idea to the next step 

but don’t regulate me so much that I am not able to produce quality results and in the end be successful as a startup. 

74 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Ms. Vachani, again, I would like to turn a question to you now. 

What are some of the IoT applications that Intel is focused on and 

can you explain how those applications benefit the economy and 

jobs? 

And, again, I was very interested because I know you were going 

through the health care, the manufacturing, the transportation, 

and construction, but if you could get a little bit more in depth with 

that I would appreciate it. 

Ms. VACHANI. Absolutely. So we have over 500 market-ready solutions that we work with the industry to create because one of the 

common misconceptions about IoT it’s vertical, right. 

You have a retail solution and you have an industrial solution, 

and honestly, when you look across the board, our customers are 

looking at solutions that go across multiple industries. 

And so there are multi-industry solutions. They don’t necessarily 

sit in one nice little box as a vertical, and so you will see an industrial environment where they’re trying to do predictive maintenance at the same time as inventory management, the same time 

as building management, and you see several different vertical like 

solutions coming together into one application. 

And we believe that the maximum benefit is when these solutions start to come together. One of the areas that I want to reflect 

on is that the U.S. is actually a leader worldwide in our innovation 

that we have in IoT. 

So you will see solutions overseas that have Intel or other companies within the United States technology, our AI applications, our 

software, that are driving innovation around the world, and that’s 

expanding our economy just the same because that’s created here 

in the United States. 

It’s built here by us and by our companies that are innovating 

at a faster rate. 

Mr. LATTA. In my last 24 seconds follow up with that because, 

again, it’s good to hear the United States is leading on this. What’s 

happening across the globe that is making the United States be the 

innovator out there? 

Ms. VACHANI. Well, I think that what we come down to is we 

have some companies here that are able to look at these solutions 

like Intel, truly, and that goes from the data center all the way to 

the thing. 

And so we can look at this problem holistically and that’s important that we do that, as well as some of the new technologies that 

we come up with with specifically integrated circuits as well as the 

software and artificial intelligence and the leadership in artificial 

intelligence within this country. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. My time has expired and 

I yield back, and I recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Connected devices can follow us through every aspect of our 

lives, collecting data. At the same time, the committee has spent 

a lot of time looking at how the data collected about us is used by 

companies and by the government. 

75 

We heard from Facebook about how much data it collects, how 

it shared that data with third parties, and how it used our data 

to sell advertising. As more and more devices collect data about us, 

that data can be used to affect our decision making. 

So, Ms. Richardson, let me ask you some questions. While IoT 

devices provide benefits, are you concerned about their data collection? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Absolutely. The way the U.S. works its privacy 

law is to do it categorically, to cover, for example, communications, 

financial data, health information held by doctors, and if you don’t 

fall into one of these categories you’re just not protected and there 

are very few, if any, limits on how the information can be collected 

and used. 

It’s going to be possible that a lot of these IoT devices are going 

to collect data that is not covered by one of these categories already 

and that would be one of the benefits of having a baseline comprehensive privacy law in the United States as we would not have 

so many cracks and you would see the IoT data have some procedural rights for Americans. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would like to work with you on that. 

Five years ago, we were barely talking about location data or facial recognition and now we are talking about genetic information 

also. 

Ms. Richardson, should we be concerned about what personal information is out there and how the kinds of personal information 

available to collect change over time? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. The information that is collected by these 

devices is really unique. You only have to go back a few years before we widely collected things, like you mentioned, that reflect, 

let’s say, your heartbeat, your location, the food you eat, where you 

go, the people you know, and it can all be aggregated in ways that 

give a very rich picture about people in ways that they might be 

shocked to know. 

I think one of the things you saw at your hearing with Facebook 

is that the surprise factor is really what upsets people in many 

ways. 

So this is something we need to watch more closely and, hopefully, a universal privacy law would be able to protect that sort of 

really sensitive information right now. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So it’s clear that privacy legislation is absolutely necessary. I like the way you talk about it in a nonsiloed 

way. 

In fact, the Federal Trade Commission has recommended many 

times that Congress enact comprehensive privacy legislation. 

Ms. Richardson, again, the SMART IoT Act would examine how 

different industries are using and developing IoT. Could such a resource be helpful in the development of best practices for privacy 

and IoT devices? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. I think that would help us get a better 

view of where the industry is going. I think you’re going to find, 

though, that there are very few when it comes to privacy and for 

the most part the standards are about interoperability, technical 

standards, and cybersecurity, and you’re going to find a really big 

gap here. 

76 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So the FTC recommended in the past that privacy legislation should not be IoT specific. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Absolutely. We want a forward-looking techneutral law that will be able to cover all sorts of information regardless of the type of device or entity that’s creating it. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So Mr. Day said that one of the things that 

we need to worry about is too much regulation standing in the way. 

Don’t you think there’s a balance, though, of making sure that we 

set some rules of the road, some guidelines that industry needs to 

follow? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes, and in a way those can drive innovations 

themselves. You end up having requirements that inspire new solutions to protect privacy and security. 

And CDT does believe in a light touch but there are a few places 

that government intervention—or oversight is maybe a better 

word—is most urgent and that’s where you look at things like cars 

or pacemakers and devices that really have life or death consequences if something goes wrong, and I think we are seeing the 

consumer market is just an area where everyday people are not 

able to make informed decisions about the devices they’re buying, 

the information that’s collected and then how to secure the devices. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I want to sort of continue down that path of consumer-facing devices and speak a little bit more about being a small business 

owner or a startup, and approaching the infrastructure purchase 

questions from an adequate security measure perspective. 

In what direction do we need to head—and it may not be necessarily government, it may just be more industry—in what direction do we have to head in order to make sure that we are getting 

it right. 

A rather open-ended question, but why don’t I start with you, 

Ms. Richardson? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. As far as security standards go, we have endorsed tech-neutral cybersecurity controls. So these are really toplevel decisions that both the manufacturers and the operators can 

make. 

So, for example, when you’re building a device you should always 

have the capacity to update the software, right, and you could say 

that without getting a really prescriptive technology, description of 

how to do that and each company can decide how to do that. 

And there is a list of maybe a half dozen of these sorts of practices that I think are reasonably set as the baseline and they include other things like being able to have passwords or other authenticators that can be changed and things like that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Following through on that, steps or approaches 

that small and medium enterprises can utilize to overcome concerns or difficulties relating to the system integration side of IoT 

solutions, to—go ahead. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Can you repeat the question about system integration? 

77 

Mr. COSTELLO. Small and medium enterprises, overcoming their 

concerns or difficulties relating to system integration of IoT solutions. If you’re a really big company, integrating is very easy. If 

you’re a small—— 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Not actually. It’s actually difficult either way. 

Honestly, the number-one challenge for IoT right now is scale. 

Scale is very difficult, right, and even with a company as large as, 

you would say, Intel, if you look at our market-ready solutions, 

rarely do we have a solution that only involves Intel. There is others. There’s Dell involved—as I mentioned, many of our solutions— 

Bosch was involved. 

And so you’re talking about multiple companies coming together 

to include a complete solution and for a small or medium-sized 

company that gets even more difficult, right. And this is where the 

industry standards come into play because when we start to create 

standards that are interoperable and that we know work together 

that a small or medium-sized company can create a piece and we 

know that that piece will work with the rest of the system. 

And Intel and many other companies—we were here with 

Samsung—are working across the industry to help those standards 

get deployed and become more consistent interoperable. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So when you use the term scale there, what are 

you saying? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. What I mean by scale there is we are able to 

create—I will give you an example. We’ll create a proof of concept 

inside of the walls of Intel in our building and it will look beautiful 

and work perfectly. 

It’ll have the in system, the data center. It’ll have the store, let’s 

say. It’ll do inventory management. As soon as I take that out of 

my office inside of Intel and try to put into a Levi’s store or I try 

to put it inside of a mall, now it’s working with everything else 

around it and that’s when we struggle, because there’s other systems. There’s old data. There’s new data. Maybe the infrastructure 

is there. Maybe they have connectivity. Maybe they don’t. 

And so that becomes more difficult for us to deploy and then 

think about thousands and then add millions to that, right. And 

that’s where we struggle with being able to take that technology 

and deploy it into multiple instances across the world. 

Mr. COSTELLO. That’s helpful. You were speaking about industry 

standards, and depending upon what industry we are talking 

about—health care, manufacturing, whatever it may be—the place 

that you go for that industry standard to make its way into code 

or regulation or whatever the case may be is oftentimes different. 

Share with me challenges or frustrations in navigating Federal 

regulatory agencies to determine IoT industry standards and how 

we could go about improving that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, one, I would encourage—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. That’s a question for everyone. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. I can start. One, I would encourage you 

to look at the industry standards that are already available to us 

because the industry is starting to coalesce around a few standards 

that go across multiple industries. 

78 

Again, we are not saying this is just for industrial or environment or it’s just for retail. This is how we collect data across the 

board and that could be a standard. 

So I would encourage you to look, and I think that’s part of the 

recommendations here, is to look at what the industry is already 

doing and leverage that because we have come across together in 

this space, and I will allow you guys some time. 

Mr. LATTA. Yes. Since the gentleman’s time has expired, if you 

all could just real briefly answer that would be great. 

Mr. DAY. Well, I think what we are doing today in discussing is 

the right first step. I think between the DIGIT Act and what we 

are doing with the legislation in draft form today is that first step 

and it’s the right approach to some of these issues that we are discussing and bringing forward today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Would you like to comment? OK, thank you very 

much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman yields back. His time has expired. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta and 

Ranking Member Schakowsky, for having his important hearing 

and I would like to thank the witnesses for coming forward and enlightening us as to what’s going on out there in the real world. 

My background is in engineering. I got my electrical engineering 

degree from UCSB back in the days when we used punch cards in 

our programming, your technical you lack. 

So I think a lot has changed, but I think that many of us do welcome these changes, and having said that I think that public policy 

needs to make sure that we are mindful of this fast-moving effort 

of the Internet of Things and how it affects individuals’ privacy, 

how it affects industries, how it affects jobs, how it affects the jobs 

of today and tomorrow, and how do we get American workers ready 

and prepared to be the workers of today and tomorrow. 

These are the kinds of things that weigh on my mind. During my 

careers, I actually owned a small business at one time so I know 

what it’s like for a small business to be able to pull something off 

the shelf in a very efficient cost-effective manner and I think the 

Internet of Things is making that much more efficient every single 

day and making smaller businesses, especially mom and pops a 

heck of a lot more competitive. 

Wherein, the old days, maybe back in my days in the ’80s and 

’90s when I was a business owner, everything was in maybe fives 

and tens of thousands of dollars to get an innovative device. Now, 

it appears that we can actually get an innovative device that 

changes and allows us to be more efficient and hire more individuals and grow our business to the tune of hundreds of dollars. Is 

that correct? Do we have devices out there that maybe 20 years ago 

to innovate were in the thousands of dollars and today it might be 

only a few hundred? 

Can one of you give me an example of something that you can 

think of that actually touches on that? 

79 

Ms. VACHANI. Absolutely. If you think about, for example, the 

building management that was in New York, the deployment that 

we did, those were sensors that were not very expensive. 

We are talking sensors that are dollars on—as it is, and they can 

look into a room and save a small business on their costs—their 

infrastructure costs by looking at occupancy inside of a room and 

deciding that the AC needs to be turned on because no one’s in the 

room. This isn’t expensive technology from that standpoint but it’s 

changing the way we live and the way we operate within our businesses and saving us cost, right. 

One of the major ways that this building in New York was able 

to save money is we found a leak in one of their pipes. Again, we 

are talking about a sensor that’s able to determine that there’s a 

leak in a pipe and will waste, right, and they were able to reduce 

that cost. 

And so from that standpoint, innovation isn’t necessarily requiring extensive amount of investment but there are ways where we 

can start to make decisions very quick when this data comes together. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Ms. Richardson, I have a question for you about 

consumer applications and how do you think the Internet of Things 

devices are being used inside manufacturing workplaces? 

I happen to represent a community in Los Angeles that has a big 

corridor of manufacturing, tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs 

in my district. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes, and I think it’s still unknown how this is 

going to affect the workforce on balance, right. You’re going to create new jobs of the people who actually have to create the devices, 

and we hope that a strong privacy and security practice will create 

professionals to deal with that also. 

I think there are questions to ask about whether they will replace human beings on the job. But there will always be decisions 

that human beings have to make that we can’t let computers do. 

So I don’t think it will eradicate humans altogether. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Well, on that note, there are things such as 

smart helmets and smart glasses that now can be deployed in the 

workplace, and do you have any comments about how these devices 

might to affecting somebody’s privacy in the workplace? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes, and peoples’ privacy in the workplace is 

much more limited than in their home or out in public. This is long 

established that employers can really control the type of information that they’re collecting on their property and while they’re conducting their services. 

I think, though, when you see a lot of these sorts of applications 

they don’t have to necessarily collect a lot of personal information, 

right. 

This is where, again, the controls built into the products on the 

front end are important so that you can collect the information necessary for your work but not, let’s say, what they do on their 

breaks or the conversations they’re having or things that are really 

not core to doing the job. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you. Mr. Welch talked about the cow and 

I was thinking, wow, I hope that cow is not creeped out about the 

privacy about every time she walks into the barn. 

80 

[Laughter.] 

But, Ms. Vachani, I know Intel has been active on the connected 

worker’s front and arguing that they keep workers safe and productive. Can you give us an example of that? 

Ms. VACHANI. Absolutely. Actually, there’s a really good example 

with a fireman which resonates with me, right. By connecting a 

fireman that goes inside a building we now know—by the sensors 

we can tell what is the oxygen level around him, or her, if the firewoman—the fireman is laying down or standing up, what exact location they’re in within the building if they’re laying down. 

These are opportunities for us to save lives of some of our workers that are working in critical conditions. I think it’s essential. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

And I am sure they only have happy cows in Vermont. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Day, do you believe that a review of all regulations guidelines standards and other policy efforts undertaken by Federal 

agencies is important and do you think it will assist us in ensuring 

consistent policy of Internet of Things-related matters? 

Mr. DAY. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 

Yes, I do. I think the SMART IoT Act, by studying all sectors of 

the IoT and how they regulate technology and current policies will 

go a long way in cutting down overly burdensome regulations and 

duplicative regulation as well. 

I think when you’re looking at the broad spectrum of applications 

here it’s critical when you’re looking at the impact on self-driving 

cars to getting a patient through a hospital more efficiently, cost 

effectively. 

It’s all important, and I think the legislation before us today will 

streamline that process and benefit by, frankly, everyone. 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. Thank you. 

And Ms. Vachani, can you please discuss the benefits to a connected world both for business like Intel as well as consumers who 

use Internet of Things products? 

Ms. VACHANI. There’s multiple benefits through the Internet of 

Things. Whether it be more efficiency inside of a factory, so predictive maintenance is a very simple use case that we use in factories that allow us to determine if a machine is going down sooner 

than it actually does go down and that’ll prevent the down time for 

the factory, right. 

This is a fundamental analytics that has changed how efficient 

our factories can be. Let’s think of retail where one of the numberone determinations of success or how they lose customers is because the item you’re looking for isn’t there. 

So you go in for a pair of jeans, you don’t have your size, you 

leave, you forget. That’s important that we understand what people 

are looking for and that we have the inventory ready for them and 

that we understand what inventory you have. Inventory loss is a 

major loss for our retail businesses, especially brick and mortar 

businesses. 

81 

And then I would also look at cities and how cities are using 

technologies to do gunshot detection at intersections or monitoring 

the environment as far as air quality is concerned. And that data 

enables us to decide if the changes we are making—let’s say we 

have in India electric rickshaws. Are they actually having an impact on our air quality and to make wise decisions based on data 

rather than hypotheses that we are making things better? 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Day, as we continue to advance toward an increasingly connected world, some have expressed concerns with protecting consumer information. 

These are vitally important concerns, yet we also must acknowledge that Internet of Things devices in a connected world provide 

substantial societal benefits. 

Can you speak to how we can protect consumer information without losing the upside to a more connected world? 

Mr. DAY. I think it’s obvious that the Chamber believes that consumers deserve to have their personal data respected by the companies and it’s important that we are mindful of that, going forward. 

I think the other thing that I mentioned in my opening statement was that technology is not a single all-powerful industry and 

that I think it’s important that this is a part of every industry. 

And when we are looking at the Internet of Things, I think it’s 

something that we need to be mindful of but not directly linking 

the privacy issue to this legislation, as we go forward. But I think 

it is something, as we’ve all testified to, that it’s important and we 

need to be considering what data means now, because data is being 

created in massive amounts and how that is handles is truly important. 

And I think that’s one of the areas where the Chamber is doing 

a lot of work and you will be hearing more from us on some of the 

importance of privacy principles, going forward, as a result of some 

of the discussions that we’ve been hearing in Washington lately. 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. Vachani, as you may know, this committee is very focused 

on the advancement of self-driving cars. Your testimony discusses 

the enormous benefit of increased mobility that autonomous vehicles will provide for aging and disabled populations. 

Can you expand on this and discuss the role Internet of Things 

plays? 

Ms. VACHANI. Autonomous vehicles, what the connection back to 

an aging population is if you don’t have public transportation for 

someone to get to the hospital or someone to get to where they 

want to go for a social benefit, let’s say, and having more independence for our elderly population, a vehicle that is autonomous is 

safer for them to get from point A to point B and that enables them 

the flexibility and the independence that we want for our elderly 

population. 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. Thank you. 

And I am out of time. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan for 

5 minutes. 

82 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking Member Schakowsky for the leadership on this issue and to everybody 

for being here. 

I think that it’s safe to say that we do have agreement on both 

sides of the aisle about the significant and revolutionary things 

that the Internet of Things is bringing to industry and consumers, 

and you all have certainly talked today about examples where it’s 

already making a difference. 

But I continue to have a reservation that’s been expressed by a 

number of other of my colleagues. As we compare the rise of IoT 

to the development of the internet that the internet thrived because of the light regulatory touch used and I think we are not 

paying enough attention to security and privacy. 

So I have to already say to you, Mr. Day, before I even ask you 

my questions to say that we should deal with privacy is not something that I am going to be comfortable with because I think that 

the technology—that the Facebook hearings have showed people 

had no idea of the amount of data that was being tracked and 

there isn’t security on how that information is being used and we 

are not protecting even the privacy of an individual. 

So I won’t go off on that right now. But I had to respond to that 

comment. But I would like to ask a few questions. 

Ms. Richardson, in a market that’s rapidly evolving, how have 

you seen companies balancing getting to the market first with protecting security? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. We often see that privacy and security is 

what fall short here, and a lot of these controls that are considered 

to be best practices are not hard from a technical matter. 

For example, a couple of years ago the BitTag—the broadband 

internet technical advisory group—put out a report with a list of 

maybe 5 to 10 things that were of utmost priority like encryption, 

right, making sure that the data collected was protected in transit 

in storage, avoiding hard-coded passwords—this is one of the problems with the Mirai botnet, right. All of those cameras were accessible with the same password the hackers knew and they were able 

to get all these cameras. 

And if you meet some of these baseline best practices you’re 

going to lift all boats, right. It’s not going to solve every problem 

but it will certainly give us herd immunity as users of all these different devices. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Ms. Vachani, on the consumer side, have you seen privacy being 

designed into these products before they’re hitting the market? 

Ms. VACHANI. Yes. Actually, I will tell you and hope to give you 

confidence that the security and privacy is utmost imperative when 

we are designing a solution—where we store data, how that data 

is transmitted, and we look at that as a fundamental premise as 

we are integrating these solutions, and we make decisions that are 

different. 

We may store data locally because it makes it easier for us to be 

able to protect it. And so these criterias are absolutely in the solutions that we create and we—if you look at the solution that we 

had with regards to the health care monitoring, that’s FDA apVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:25 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-133 CHRIS
83 

proved and we follow all HIPAA laws, right. We enable our silicon 

so that our solution developers are able to follow HIPAA laws. 

Mrs. DINGELL. So not to be sarcastic, but as someone who has 

been hacked at least 15 times, every one of the major ones, and 

that’s one of the difficulties is once that hack occurs—once that 

data is obtained by somebody you can’t put the genie back into the 

bottle. 

Mr. Day, I know your organization is concerned and apprehensive about regulations, as you expressed it. But one of my concerns 

is going to build right on what I just said—that down the road 

there will be these massive data breaches that we keep seeing or 

an abuse of privacy. 

We’ll convene a hearing. The witnesses will be questioned. Everybody will express outrage and concern, but the damage will have 

already been done, which was one on Facebook, which I just talked 

about. 

Do you think it would be helpful to develop some clear rules of 

the road for companies now so we can try to mitigate this for the 

future? 

Mr. DAY. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. 

And to answer you directly, yes, I firmly believe that and I think 

I would like to suggest that the offer is extended to work with you 

and your office on these issues. 

In fact, the Chamber is currently going through a process right 

now on developing privacy principles that we will be working with 

Congress on. 

And so I think probably earlier than later, to be engaging with 

you and your staff would be a great opportunity. 

I will tell you, again, that I firmly believe consumers deserve to 

have their personal data respected by companies that they’re working with and I think that it’s critical though that we strike that 

proper regulatory balance that protects consumers while promoting 

the technology that we all use every day and appreciate. 

Mrs. DINGELL. That’s one of the biggest challenges in this committee. 

I know I am out of time, Mr. Chairman, but it would be interesting for the record to get what principles they are coalescing 

around that you mentioned earlier in your testimony. I think it 

would be useful for all of us. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. It’s great to be here. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having all the witnesses 

here. We’ve had some really interesting hearings in this space. The 

other day we did quantum computing, which I am still trying to 

figure out. 

The guy said, well, I will make it simple for you—it’s like flipping a coin and getting heads or tails is normal. In the quantum 

world you can flip a coin and get heads and tails at the same time. 

So that really made it simple for me. I’ve been thinking about that 

all weekend, trying to figure out what he actually meant. That’s 

how he explained it. 

84 

But it is good that we are getting to a work product out of this 

so it’s important. So that’s what I want to focus on today and hopefully things I can understand. 

So, Mr. Day, can you briefly explain while voluntary industryled, globally recognized, and consensus-based processes for Internet 

of Things standards are so critical and could you name some examples of industry-led efforts that are currently taking place? 

Mr. DAY. So with this legislation is, as I testified to, I think is 

an important first step and I think by having certain standards set 

and compiling information again by all industries and sectors will 

benefit all of us and that I think the benefits both to consumers, 

to industrial, and to government are very clear and, you know, it’s 

everything from keeping a global competitive lead on other countries and that this country needs to continue to be the leader in 

technology and, again, I think, it’s a great attribution to what the 

subcommittee and full committee has done on a bipartisan basis on 

self-driving cars to the health care applications that we’ve discussed. 

So there’s a whole host and wide variety of areas where this is 

a true benefit and, again, fully support the draft legislation and the 

DIGIT Act as well. We have come out in support of that early on 

and hope to work with the committee, going forward, on passing 

the legislation. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thanks. And so, Ms. Richardson, why do you believe compiling a list of industry standard-setting efforts under the 

SMART IoT Act will be a critical part of helping to inform future 

congressional action? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes, and we would go one step further to say 

the list should also come with an estimation of whether the standards are being estimated. We don’t want you to come back or get 

a report back that has a thousand standards listed because the 

next question is going to be well, are these being implemented, 

right—who’s using these and are they working. That’s the logical 

question and I think that’s what Congress, advocates, industry is 

dancing around at this moment—is that process working? 

So I would recommend to include that analysis top and that 

would help you figure out where you really want to focus your efforts, going forward. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. Thank you. 

And Ms. Vachani, we’ve heard in the past hearings about the 

critical need for security and good cyber hygiene both in production 

lines for IoT devices and within the Federal Government. 

What are you doing at Intel to safeguard IoT devices and networks from hacking vulnerabilities and what can small to mid-size 

businesses do to take meaningful steps to address data security 

concerns? 

Ms. VACHANI. So if I look at Intel’s contribution here, our security is fundamentally written into the silicon development. So it’s 

in hardware, its software. It’s in the connectivity. So we think of 

silicon across the board and we think of security across the board. 

One of the areas that you talked about was software defined, 

right. As security standards start to change or as we learn more 

can we reprogram our devices—can we update those? And so that’s 

included in our assumptions. 

85 

So we enable the industry through not only hardware but software security to be able to implement the best known security that 

we know at this point in our space. 

So absolutely paramount in what we do. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. Thank you. 

I know you mentioned earlier—and I had another hearing but I 

heard you mention earlier—scale. But could you name what you 

see as other potential impediments to deployment of IoT and what 

we should be aware of, going forward? 

Ms. VACHANI. Well, we’ve talked quite a bit about standards and 

one thing I want to make sure we make the point of is these standards are international, and so scale is just not within the United 

States. 

I would like for us to be competitive internationally and having 

these standards that were global allows us to provide technology to 

other countries and export our great experience that we have here. 

And so I believe the interoperability and enabling us to be competitive internationally and taking advantage of these international 

standards will be important for us to be successful. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. I 

appreciate it. It’s a little more understandable for someone like me. 

I asked the guy how could you flip a coin and get both. 

Ms. VACHANI. I have no idea. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. He says, it’s like putting it in a box and the box 

is continually spinning and that really is the clue. 

[Laughter.] 

This is coming from a guy who’s never solved the golf peg game 

at Cracker Barrel. So we’ll figure it out. 

Thanks a lot. I appreciate it, and I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and 

the ranking member for having this hearing today and I want to 

thank the witnesses very much for being here. 

I’ve discussed the potential block chain applications with the subcommittee before including its possibility to allow spectrum sharing 

as next-generation broadband networks are deployed. As you all 

know, block chain is a decentralized accounting technology that 

verifies transactions through a shared ledger system. When a 

transaction and a block chain is completed, that transaction is 

verified against a ledger stored on each computer in the network. 

The IoT and connected devices will facilitate a significant expansion of data transactions likely between multiple different networks 

and block chain could be used to verify and secure these transactions. 

Is there an opportunity for this legislation to more precisely explore how new technologies could facilitate the secure advancement 

of internet-connected devices? And anyone on the panel can answer 

that. 

Mr. DAY. I will take a first attempt at answering that question. 

And I agree with you—I think block chain is certainly an area 

where IoT will offer a lot of benefit. 

86 

At the Chamber we are just now beginning to work on our 

FinTech work and we are calling on members to help us understand the benefits. And so I think there are a number of ways that 

we should be looking at this. 

I think the legislation as drafted, though, is the correct step. It 

allows for technologies like block chain and others to progress. 

But as we are understanding the technology and the benefits 

thereof we can continue to work with you and other members of 

Congress on implementing certain regulations as appropriate facing the technology. 

Ms. MATSUI. Anyone else? 

Ms. VACHANI. Block chain is absolutely a technology that Intel 

is looking at and one that can be used in IoT applications, so a 

really good connection there. 

I think, though, one of the points that you made when you kicked 

off as you’re looking 5 to 10 years out and you have the benefit of 

doing so, and so today it’s block chain and tomorrow it could be 

something even more revolutionary and that’s why it’s important 

that we consider this not from a very technology-specific standpoint 

but you’re more holistically as to what’s necessary for us to be successful, regardless of the implementation technology. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Narrow band IoT networks are particularly 

useful for long-range low-power applications. Specifically, these 

networks improve capacity, spectrum efficiency, and power consumption levels of user devices. 

Narrow band IoT networks have potential both nationwide and 

particularly for rural and indoor coverage. These networks can coexist with commercial mobile networks and their propagation characteristics could provide better range and reduce coverage costs for 

consumers in both rural areas and across the country. 

Anyone on the panel—what role do narrow band networks have 

in the IoT ecosystem from a spectrum efficiency cost and deployment perspective? 

Ms. VACHANI. I think narrow band is going to help with—there 

are several elements in narrow band that makes IoT applications 

you have already referred to—it’s lower cost, lower power, and a 

longer—which enables longer battery life. 

So think about we currently have an application where we are 

sensing the environment for a case of strawberries, right. We want 

to make sure the humidity is right. We want to make sure the temperature is right. Narrow band allows for that connectivity—the 

continuous connectivity while extending the battery life and not increasing the cost of something that we’d want to do with a pack 

of strawberries. 

Also understand that when you move to the world of 5G, now all 

of this comes together. So now we have a narrow band spectrum. 

5G includes all of those spectrums—will enable us to be able to pull 

this together as a complete solution. 

It revolutionizes how we think of connectivity and our spectrums 

because narrow band is included as well as low latency as well as 

high bandwidth. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Great. 

Anyone else want to comment on that? 

87 

OK. Spectrum is the invisible infrastructure and Congressman 

Guthrie and I are working on this. It underpins our communications infrastructure and adequate supply is necessary to realize the 

potential on next-generation broadband networks and the IoT. Specifically, agencies should have access to funds made available for 

engineering research that could lead to the repurposing of spectrum for commercial use. 

What role will next-generation networks play in our IoT strategy 

and how would delivering more spectrum to commercial users help? 

Ms. VACHANI. I would summarize it into one word, which is 

interoperability. If you think about a wider spectrum analysis, so 

5G enables low spectrum as well as low latency high bandwidth, 

and now you have that on one network. 

And so you’re able to include all of those. Remember I said that 

it’s not very much a vertical solution. We have all kinds of pieces 

that are coming together into an IoT solution, which can vary in 

spectrum and once we have a solution that encompasses all those 

spectrums now it makes deployments easier for our customers, 

thus enabling scale, which we—— 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. I’ve run out of time, so thank you very much. 

Ms. VACHANI. Thank you. 

Ms. MATSUI. Yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady’s time has expired and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to the 

panel—that we’ve got a hearing going on downstairs so we are back 

and forth in between them, and perhaps I’ve missed some of your 

testimony that targeted what my questions were. 

But I want to begin with saying that I am going to start by assuming you have all read Case’s book, ‘‘The Third Wave.’’ Two out 

of three have. I was fascinated with that book—that the possibilities of where we might go long term, it was mentioned about the 

refrigerator that could speak to you, your clothing could tell you 

how your—whether your wellness. 

Those were all in the long terms. I am somewhat interested in 

the short term, however, and that is, is there anyone—can you tell 

me from the three experiences we have up here, is there something 

in the pipeline of the IoT that might indicate the propensity of an 

area to have a problem with opioid abuse? 

I know some people have—or they’ve talked about doing it, to be 

able to develop where that might be. But is there anyone that you 

know of that’s actually got something close to fruition that we 

could do this? Because we are getting, as we all know, nationally 

getting hit pretty hard with this and we don’t know where the next 

problem is going to crop up until after. We are reacting rather than 

being proactive. 

So I am curious to see with the Internet of Things in a short 

term is there someone developing software that might be able to 

identify where the next problem could crop up? 

Ms. VACHANI. Yes. Actually, Intel is working exactly on that 

problem, concerning the monitoring of medicine and the ability to 

know exactly where that medicine is going—is it going to the right 

person, monitoring how many tablets are there and knowing exVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:25 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-133 CHRIS
88 

actly who’s taking those—having some facial detection—who’s picking up those tablets. 

And so absolutely. I believe that you have made a very relevant 

connection, and thank you for that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. What’s the time—do you have a sense of—— 

Ms. VACHANI. We are seeing an implementation immediately, 

and it’s an evolution over time. We are not going to have facial detection immediately at all of our pharmacies but it’d be interesting. 

It’s an evolution over time but we are seeing implementations 

right away in which we can start to monitor medicine better. It’s 

just a matter of is it getting to the right person, how many, and 

are the right people taking it. 

So you think about in the opiate but you can also think about 

it with elderly patients as well, right, or making sure they are taking their medicines on time. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. That may be a worry but, again, the propensity, 

this community may be hit hard next. That’s what I am looking for 

as well. 

The fact that there could be some software that says the drugs— 

20 million pills are going to one pharmacy, that ought to trigger 

something. 

Ms. VACHANI. Right. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But in the meantime, are there socioeconomic 

barriers that we need to break down? 

So, Mr. Day, you look like you were going to contribute to this 

conversation. 

Mr. DAY. So yes, at the Chamber, Congressman, we have been 

looking at economic situations across the country and that impact 

of joblessness and how communities have been impacted by this 

plight and looking at ways that we can start to examine the linkage between the two. 

And I think to the point on monitoring pill bottles and knowing 

times of when they’re taken and monitoring who are getting their 

prescriptions, et cetera, those are things that are happening now 

but there is a lot more to be done. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Well, if I could on that, because you touched on 

something I am kind of sensitive to is the socioeconomic—household income, education level. 

Some will use that as the excuse for why West Virginia is leading the Nation in opioid overdose but number two, until last year, 

was New Hampshire, and New Hampshire has polar opposites on 

that. It has one of the highest household income. It has the highest 

education level, and on and on and on, with good socioeconomics. 

So I think there’s something separating the two between us. So 

I am just curious if someone’s developing something more sophisticated than just going on socioeconomics. 

Mr. DAY. I am not personally aware, to be honest with you. But 

I think it would be an opportunity for us to work together as we 

continue our work with the Chamber and working with our member companies on various technologies, and I would be happy to do 

that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I would like to pursue that. 

Ms. VACHANI. I would like to offer that we can follow up with the 

details of the solution I just. 

89 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If you could, back to my office, I would appreciate that. 

Ms. VACHANI. I would love to do that, if I could help. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. All of you. Thank you very much. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, and I 

want to thank him for all of his hard work not only in this Congress but in the last Congress, working on IoT issues with me. 

So thank you very much. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, and thank you as well, Mr. Latta. 

I want to focus a little bit on rural America—just to have each 

of you say what it is we need to do in rural America if we are going 

to have any opportunity to yield the benefits of IoT. 

I will start with you, Mr. Day. 

Mr. DAY. So I think one of the most important things, and you 

mentioned it earlier, Congressman, is the fact that broadband is 

not in every household in the country and that’s first and foremost, 

I think, for a lot of reasons, I think, for being able to compete globally, being able to be connected and be able to have a business 

based upon the internet is critical. 

And so I think for rural America—and I applaud your efforts. 

That’s first and foremost. 

Mr. WELCH. Thanks. 

Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I think the whole point of having standards and what your bill is discussing is to shift the responsibility 

for security to the people who can best address it, right—the manufacturers, the operators—and I think this is where low-tech users 

benefit most from this. 

And so to the extent that your rural users are rapidly deploying 

new technology that they’re not familiar with they will certainly 

benefit from better security standards. 

Mr. WELCH. Thanks. 

Ms. Vachani. 

Ms. VACHANI. Absolutely. I absolutely applaud the benefit to get 

broadband into rural America but understand that we can do to 

implement technology today whether it be a cellular signal, right. 

I will give you the example of my parents, who still live in the 

same house that I grew up in and won’t leave no matter what I 

do at this point. Having some type of monitoring, making sure 

they’re getting up in the morning and that they’re—oh, somebody’s 

opened the refrigerator, that she’s eating—there’s elements of that 

that I think is important that we can do today for rural America 

with the connectivity that we have and we don’t have to limit ourselves to that deployment. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Thank you. 

The other broad question—I just want to go down the panel—is 

about privacy and security. You have talked a little bit about that. 

But is there a role that you believe the Congress has to play in 

ensuring an individual’s personal data is protected and is it your 

view that an individual has to have the control over how his or her 

90 

data is being used—something we asked Mr. Zuckerberg when he 

was here a while ago? 

Mr. DAY. Well, again, I think to emphasize the point that consumers have and deserve the right to have their personal data respected by all. 

Mr. WELCH. Let’s go quickly because I have one more question. 

Mr. DAY. As we develop our principles at the Chamber, I look 

forward to working with you on those details. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. We eventually need legislation. That’s going to 

be the only way out of this mess we are in. 

Ms. VACHANI. I think working together between government and 

industry is essential to come up with the solutions. 

Mr. WELCH. But there has to be some role that Congress plays. 

We can’t be passive observers of what’s going on. 

Mr. DAY. Right. 

Mr. WELCH. Do you agree with that? Thanks. 

Let me ask you, Ms. Vachani—I know Intel has been a leader in 

IoT advancement and I know you have had a high position as a 

thought leader in that space for years. 

So I want to follow up your testimony and ask if you can expand 

your suggestions as to the definition that we should use in his bill 

and why it’s so important to get that definition right. 

Ms. VACHANI. One of the number-one challenges of scale, and it 

sounds very simple, is terminology. We talk past each other when 

we are having—and I see us doing it in the industry, and so we 

are in this space. We live it and breathe it. But we use different 

words to represent different things and we are talking past each 

other. 

So one of the fundamental things I’ve had to do within my organization, within my company as well as outside, is to start to get 

on the same language and that’s one of the things we are asking 

for this as well is just to get on the same language so we know 

when we are speaking to each other what we are referring to. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Thank you. 

I thank the panel. Very helpful. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, is recognizes for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank our panel for 

being here. 

I have just a few questions, and Ms. Vachani—is that how you 

pronounce it? I appreciate you being here and I just, for the help 

of myself and you might have already been asked this question, but 

as you have heard we were running back and forth between committees. 

Ms. VACHANI. No problem. 

Mr. MULLIN. Are there barriers or what are the barriers that’s 

keeping the U.S. from leading in the IoT? 

Ms. VACHANI. I answered this question of scale but I will answer 

this question slightly differently, to add to that. 

What I find is, if you look at the city level there’s quite a bit of 

innovation going on. I talked about San Diego and what San Diego 

91 

is doing within their lights in California. We talked about New 

York and the building management that’s happening in New York. 

At the city level, I believe that that implementation is taken seriously and there’s a lot of innovation happening. But where I think 

we can make a difference is scale across the city at a nationwide— 

right. 

So these pockets of innovation, how we can reuse, how can we 

learn, and how can we deploy it more worldwide, more United 

States wide. That’s slightly different than what I see in other countries where we are looking at it more nationally. India, China are 

looking at it more nationally, and so you’d get the benefit of the 

individual innovations that are happening at a national level. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, I will use my district, for example, even my 

personal house. We don’t even have slow dial up. The best we can 

do is 3G through our phone, and 50 percent of my district has little 

to no access to the internet. 

Ms. VACHANI. Yes. 

Mr. MULLIN. And so we talk about metropolitan areas. But you’re 

right, we are leaving out the rural pockets, which mileage-wise is 

the vast majority of our country. 

Are the other countries, as you alluded to, are they doing a better job at that and then—and if so, what are they doing that we 

are not? 

Ms. VACHANI. So large parts of India and large parts of China 

don’t have connectivity either, right, and so that isn’t an isolated 

and probably more of an issue there than it is even here. 

They are looking at how to deploy faster so that these rural 

areas do have connectivities—that’s one area we could look further 

at—as well as leveraging the technology that is available. 

So going into a factory in another country—they have 

connectivity, no broadband, but they have some level of 3G—we are 

able to leverage that to at least start to get some automation within the factory. So, again, taking advantage of the connectivity that 

we do have a maximizing that, at the same time deploying more 

robust connectivity. 

Mr. MULLIN. So what role can Congress play then? How can we 

encourage companies or industry to look out farther than just in 

metropolitan areas? 

We did this with electricity. We did this with phone service. This 

is a new technology that’s keeping us from connecting. So what is 

that we can do? What can Congress do, to put in place, to help encourage that? 

Ms. VACHANI. I think we can look at this not in the siloes that 

we do today. You have the benefit of a holistic view, not just in 

each department but as a holistic view how we deploy this. 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. 

Ms. VACHANI. That’s the benefit, and then, frankly speaking, how 

do we invest so that we start to deploy this technology more 

robustly—is there an investment strategy to that as well. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you so much. 

Switching gears, Ms. Richardson, how difficult is it to secure an 

IoT device? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I think that would depend on the device itself 

and how it’s connected to the internet. I think there are a handful 

92 

of best practices that we see across different sectors and industries, 

things like encryption, strong password and other authentication 

models, update ability. 

Mr. MULLIN. Have certain security measures been put in place 

since the 2014 Target breach, especially the Wanna Cry ransom? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. There’s nothing mandatory and I think these 

sorts of practices that—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Should there be? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. That’s a hard question and I am realistic about 

mandatory requirements on the private sector. I don’t think we are 

there. 

I think, though, the government should explore its own purchasing power. Right now, the Trump administration and some of 

the agencies are writing privacy and security guidelines in preparation for a big level up in purchase of IT modernization and that 

would be one way that you could influence the market without forcing anybody to do anything specific. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Clarke, is recognize for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our ranking member, Ms. Schakowsky. I would like to also thank our panel 

for their expert testimony here this morning. 

As you may be aware, earlier this year I launched the congressional Smart Cities Caucus and I would add Smart Communities 

with Rep. Darrell Issa. I was inspired to start the Smart Cities 

Caucus from my personal interactions with seeing the amazing 

build-out first hand in New York City. The Smart Cities Caucus 

serves as a bipartisan group of members dedicated to bringing 

American communities into the 21st century through innovation 

and technological change. Embracing smart technology will make 

our communities more sustainable, resilient, efficient, liveable, and 

competitive in a world in which technology is constantly advancing. 

So I would like to ask a couple of questions, first to you, Ms. 

Richardson. What are your recommendations for the SMART IoT 

Act considering the interplay of the Smart Cities and which Federal agencies should play an active role in sort of harnessing what 

we know already? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, you have some of the work horses of the 

cybersecurity world in Commerce, right, so that is a benefit that 

you have with NIST, NTIA, and other places. 

I think when you look at the smart cities you have a couple of 

different types of devices. You have really basic ones that don’t collect personal information, they’re low broadband information sharers, right, and they’re just water pressure, how many cars passed 

through here, things like that, that are going to be less risky from 

both a security and privacy standard. 

I hope that your report will highlight some of the more high-risk 

things that are either facial recognition, location tracking, right. 

That’s the result of many of these things like license plate readers 

or toll roads and how those are being deployed by the government. 

93 

Ms. CLARKE. Ms. Vachani, Intel IoT portfolio includes smart cities, smart buildings, and smart video. What are your recommendations and why are smart cities so important to Intel’s IoT portfolio? 

Ms. VACHANI. Essentially, the Smart Cities enables us to create 

an infrastructure for safer cities as well as enabling our cities to 

do better planning. 

If you look at the GE solution that we deployed on smart cities, 

it does stuff like gunshot detection, right. It’s determining if there 

was a shot and, if so, what we do about it. 

It looks at air quality, right, and so this enables us to take advantage of the technology we’ve built for many other industries. 

Smart Cities is a culmination of many other technologies we’ve 

built maybe for a factory or for a home but we are able to leverage 

that to improve not only our environment as well as our cities and 

its planning. 

So we see that there’s a leverage of our technology across the 

board and that Smart Cities can take advantage of it. 

Ms. CLARKE. And would you just envision for some of my colleagues who are in rural communities how we can look at that ecosystem that is being developed in more densely populated areas 

and what can be taken from that for more sprawling communities 

in terms of connecting them in smart ways? 

Ms. VACHANI. Yes, and I will go back to the GE solution. The GE 

solution takes advantage of a light pole. So that’s what we are 

building on top of. It already has electricity. It already has power. 

You take advantage of that power to connect up sensors and then 

it uses a 3G connection that goes back up into a data center. 

So, again, we are able to take advantage of infrastructure that’s 

already there and built in as best as possible. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. 

And, Mr. Day, anything that you’d like to add in this? 

Mr. DAY. Absolutely, and I want to applaud you on your efforts 

with Congressman Issa with co-chairing that caucus. It’s very important, and C–TEC has joined a couple of events and we look forward to continuing to work with you. 

But I think when you look at a city, for example, 20 percent of 

a given city in the United States is dedicated during the work day 

to parking, and I think one of the things that C 09TEC has been 

taking as a priority and working with you and others on is the fact 

that autonomous vehicles will impact both that issue as well as the 

environment and other issues and I think it, in the end, will prove 

to be very beneficial for a lot of reasons. 

And so smart city activities are critical and what we are trying 

to do and be creative in our thinking and our approach and how 

IoT plays in that is paramount and a top priority of ours, going forward. 

Ms. CLARKE. Well, thank you very much for your response today, 

and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Gentlewoman yields back. 

Seeing there are no further members wishing to ask questions, 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

Before we conclude, I would like to include the following documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent: a letVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:25 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-133 CHRIS
94 

ter from the Consumer Technology Association, a letter from CTIA, 

and a letter from EPIC. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that they have 

10 business days to submit additional questions for the record and 

I ask that witnesses submit their response within 10 business days 

upon receipt of the questions. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. Have a good 

day. 

[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

95 


33380.058
96 


33380.059
97 


33380.060
98 


33380.061
99 


33380.062
100 


33380.063
101 


33380.064
102 


33380.065
103 


33380.066
104 


33380.067
105 


33380.068
106 


33380.069
107 


33380.070
108 


33380.071
109 


33380.072
110 


33380.073
111 


33380.074
112 


33380.075
113 


33380.076
114 


33380.077
115 

Æ 


33380.078