Person:

Hessekiel, Kira

This report addresses a number of key considerations that those managing open source software de- velopment initiatives should take into account when thinking about structure, organization, and gov- ernance. The genesis of this project involved an investigation into anecdotal reports that companies and other institutions developing open source software were facing difficulties obtaining tax exempt nonprofit status under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code. Based on conversations with a number of constituents in the open source software development community, the authors have prepared this report to address specific questions about nonprofit status alongside questions about corporate formation and governance models more generally. Nothing in this report should be viewed as a substitute for specific legal advice on the narrow ques- tions facing particular organizations under particular sets of factual circumstances. But, the authors are hopeful the document provides a general overview of the complex issues that open source initia- tives face when balancing a need for structure and continuity with the innovative and experimental spirit at the heart of many open source development projects.

This case study documents the success of a municipally-owned electric utility in providing Internet access services. Massachusetts has 41 such “munis” –- serving more than 900,000 people and thousands of businesses -– but only 10 are in the Internet access business as allowed by state law. The Holyoke Gas & Electric Department’s telecom division competes with Comcast and Charter and serves 300 business customers and numerous public buildings. It has shown steady growth in revenues, and $500,000 in net earnings over the past decade. It also saves the city at least $300,000 a year on various Internet access and networking services. HG&E's telecom division is also now providing a variety of services to three other municipalities. Finally, the utility is considering a residential high-speed Internet access offering, something the muni in neighboring Westfield is piloting later this year. HG&E’s success in a competitive environment was achieved without any debt issuance, tax, or subsidy from electricity or gas ratepayers.

Key Findings:

HG&E Telecom saves city offices and HG&E itself more than $300,000 a year by providing Internet access and networking and telephone services to public agencies. The utility provides approximately 300 businesses and large institutions with telecom services and creates competition, which tends to improve service offerings from all market participants, aiding the local economy. HG&E Telecom forged inter-municipal agreements that extend services and accompanying benefits to the neighboring city of Chicopee and to the city of Greenfield, 30 miles north. While HG&E Telecom has focused on selling services to businesses, the utility is now considering a residential fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) offering, given the declining market pressure to provide television content. Demonstrating that a municipal light plant can diversify into the consultancy business, HG&E Telecom also recently became project and network manager for a FTTH project in the town of Leverett. HG&E Telecom has shown steady growth in the face of competition, never incurred debt, and has reaped a 10 percent profit in both 2013 and 2014.

For state and local officials, considering the development, procurement, implementation, and use of Risk Assessment (RA) tools can be a daunting endeavor.

This report provides context for those making these decisions, beginning with brief case studies of four states (Kentucky, Wisconsin, California, and Pennsylvania) that have adopted (or attempted to adopt) such tools early on and describes their experiences.

It then draws lessons from these case studies and suggests some questions that procurement officials should ask of themselves, their colleagues who call for the acquisition and implementation of tools, and the developers who create them.

This report concludes by examining existing frameworks for technological and algorithmic fairness.

The authors offer a framework of four questions that government procurers should be asking at the point of adopting RA tools. That framework draws from the experiences of the states we study and offers a way to think about accuracy (i.e., the RA tool’s ability to accurately predict recidivism), fairness (i.e., the extent to which an RA tool treats all defendants fairly, without exhibiting racial bias or discrimination), interpretability (the extent to which an RA tool can be interpreted by criminal justice officials and stakeholders, including judges, lawyers, and defendants), and operability (the extent to which an RA tool can be administered by officers within police, pretrial services, and corrections).

Zero rating, which allows users to access select Internet services and content without incurring mobile data charges, is not a new concept. But it has become an object of debate as mobile carriers and major app providers have used it in the developing world to attract customers, with the goal of increasing Internet access and adoption. While some feel these programs violate net neutrality and create the potential for a two-tiered Internet, others argue that zero rating programs bring the developing world online and could be modified to uphold, rather than violate, net neutrality principles. At the same time, little research evaluating zero rating programs exists, and many different program formulations are lumped under the term “zero rating,” some of which are more compatible with net neutrality than others. In March of 2016, the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society gathered a diverse group of stakeholders from academia, the media, the government sector, industry, and the open software community to discuss the use of zero rating as a means to improve Internet adoption in the developing world and how and when it could be an effective tool, if at all. This paper captures the resulting dialogue and recommendations. The workshop summary is followed by a collection of briefing papers representing the viewpoints of many of the workshop participants.

Key Findings: • Many different models of industry initiatives currently fall into the loose definition of zero rating. Creating a better defined taxonomy of program parameters, technical mechanisms, and impacts may allow for greater nuance and understanding in the field, as well as more targeted regulatory responses.
 • Universal Internet access and adoption is a common goal but one that requires significant investment in global infrastructure. Some assert that zero rating programs may serve as a helpful stopgap measures to increase access, while others argue that these programs contribute to the creation of a tiered Internet ecosystem without providing meaningful benefits to the targeted beneficiaries.
 • Zero rating initiatives may be employed in pursuit of goals other than Internet adoption, such as an emergency services messaging system or security updates. The goals of a particular zero rating program may make it more or less controversial.
 • More empirical research is required to fully assess the impact of specific zero rating initiatives, as well as zero rating generally, on Internet adoption in the developing world. This research will sometimes require access to usage information held by mobile carriers and zero rating service providers that should be handled with user privacy in mind.

Artificial intelligence is already starting to change our lives. Over the coming decades, these new technologies will shape many of our daily interactions and drive dramatic economic growth. As AI becomes a core element of our society and economy, its impact will be felt across many of the traditional spheres of AG jurisdiction. Members of AG offices will need an understanding of the AI tools and applications they will increasingly encounter in consumer devices, state-procured systems, the court system, criminal forensics, and others areas that touch on traditional AG issues like consumer privacy, criminal justice, and representing state governments.

The modest goal of this primer is to help state AGs orient their thinking by providing both a broad overview of the impact of AI on AG portfolios, and a selection of resources for further learning regarding specific topics. As with any next technology, it is impossible to predict exactly where AI will have its most significant on matters of AG jurisdiction. Yet AGs can better prepare themselves for this future by maintaining a broad understanding of how AI works, how it can be used, and how it can impact our economy and society. In success, AGs can play a key constructive role in preventing misconduct, shaping guidelines, and ultimately maximizing the positive impact of these exciting new technologies. We intend for this briefing book to serve as a jumping-off point in that preparation, setting a baseline of understanding for the AGTech Forum and providing resources for specific learning beyond our workshop.

We collected advertised prices for residential data plans offered by 40 community-owned (typically municipally owned) Internet service providers (ISPs) that offer fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) service. We then identified the least-expensive service that meets the federal definition of broadband—at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload—and compared advertised prices to those of private competitors in the same markets. We found that most community-owned FTTH networks charged less and offered prices that were clear and unchanging, whereas private ISPs typically charged initial low promotional or “teaser” rates that later sharply rose, usually after 12 months. We were able to make comparisons in 27 communities. We found that in 23 cases, the community-owned FTTH providers’ pricing was lower when averaged over four years. (Using a three year-average changed this fraction to 22 out of 27.) In the other 13 communities, comparisons were not possible, either because the private providers’ website terms of service deterred or prohibited data collection or because no competitor offered service that qualified as broadband. We also made the incidental finding that Comcast offered different prices and terms for the same service in different regions.