|
Testimony before
the Consumer Affairs Committee of the
Pennsylvania
House of Representatives on
Friday, May 21, 2004
.
Good morning Mr.
Chairman and members of the Committee. I want to thank you for giving me
the opportunity to speak on this important topic. My name is Linda Klose.
I am the executive director of the New Jersey-Pennsylvania Council of AeA,
Advancing the Business of Technology. AeA, formerly called the American
Electronics Association, is the world’s largest industry association
representing the high technology community. With more than 3,000 members
worldwide, our unique international grassroots structure and overseas
presence is not duplicated in any other high technology industry
association. The New Jersey-Pennsylvania Council of AeA serves member
companies in its two-state area through educational programs, network
opportunities, and public policy advocacy. We are committed to ensuring a
strong and healthy business climate in which high technology companies can
grow and thrive.
Providing service to
our members is our primary focus. But as the leading industry association
for high technology companies, we also have access to a great deal of
information about the growth of technology industries and what that means
to the economic vitality of a given region. We also spend a great deal of
time soliciting our members’ opinions of current business issues. We do
this through an ongoing process of town hall meetings, committee meetings,
and individual interviews that are conducted across the entire nation.
Here in
Pennsylvania
, I represent members who have high technology businesses from few
employees up to multi-billion dollar, global corporations. These business
people are happy and proud to call
Pennsylvania
home for their families and their businesses.
Technology, and the
manufacturing associated with it, remains an important part of
Pennsylvania
’s economy. In 2002, based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there
were 219,000 citizens employed in high-tech sectors by 13,600 firms. In
fact, that meant that
Pennsylvania
was eighth in high technology employment in the
US
and had bypassed
New Jersey
. Also,
Pennsylvania
was sixth in the number of technology firms. There was also $2.6 Billion
in goods exported from
Pennsylvania
to other countries. That’s 17% of all of
Pennsylvania
’s exports. Clearly, technology is not just something bought and sold in
Pennsylvania
but something that actually is produced here which means jobs and revenue
for the state.
In addition, there is
a great deal of high technology retail activity in this state that
stretches far beyond our technology companies. Rare is the business of any
kind that manages without a computer. Still rarer is the school or
government agency that has none. Generously sprinkled in our homes are
still more. With these computers, we do research on the Internet, shop,
check government regulations, pay taxes, balance our checkbook, write
letters, or anything else that we desire. It is our choice.
It is that choice that
this House Bill 2284 opposes.
When you shop for a
computer, or other related equipment, today, whether in a retail store or
online, as a consumer we make choices. How much memory, which processor,
what size of monitor, and which warranty coverage do we want. People who
are more confident in their abilities may opt for minimal coverage or a
longer wait for repairs. Others who may not be able to afford any downtime
or because they don’t want to personally worry about it, take a more
comprehensive coverage. It is a very similar situation when you buy any
other consumer product, such as your refrigerator or your automobile.
Of course, those who
want the greater coverage know they will have to pay more. Under this
bill, you are telling all consumers in this state that they must pay more
whether they want or need this coverage. And because this is only in
Pennsylvania
, it is obvious what any savvy shopper will do – go out of state to shop
and deceive the retailer in the neighboring state. Because to admit being
a
Pennsylvania
would cost the consumer an extra substantial fee.
Meanwhile, what about
donations? Who is going to want the added cost of donating equipment in
Pennsylvania
?
As for the
Pennsylvanians who decide to purchase online, despite the extra charges,
there is a delay while their signature is collected. Currently, ordering
online is quick and efficient. But with this bill, all online retailers
for computers, or other related equipment, will need an entire new
routine. Unless, or course, they just decide to forgo sales to
Pennsylvanians. For some smaller companies, that may be the only viable
choice. They can add the line “Not available for sale in
Pennsylvania
” to their website.
And for the really
thrifty, one option will be eliminated. The sale of refurbished computers
for many families or cash-strapped small businesses is a great way to get
a fully functional computer at a substantially reduced price. Given the
difficulties of tracking returned computers and, even more so, the
software and peripherals received back from just Pennsylvania, I can’t
see anyone bothering. Besides is a computer returned from a New York
consumer a better computer than the banned Pennsylvania one?
Another freedom of
choice that is eliminated in this bill is the way that the computer, or
other related equipment, will be repaired. Currently, before a seller has
you return your computer for repairs, there is usually a process where a
technician walks the consumer through some basic debugging steps.
Amazingly, many issues are easily resolved this way. Since this would now
count as one of the attempted manufactures’ repair attempts, they will
probably have the equipment shipped to them. The extra cost has already
been added at purchase time for this service. But now, what might have
involved a few minutes on the telephone becomes a week or more without
this vital equipment. In fact, at this point, small problems may be
ignored by the consumer rather than set into motion an elaborate, but
legally required, series of procedures.
This all assumes there
was anything wrong with the equipment in the first place.
As difficult as all of
this is, there is one clause in the proposed bill that is totally
impossible. I refer to Section 3b. “At the time of sale of a computer
device, the manufacturer must conspicuously disclose the name and version
number of all software programs or combinations of programs that will or
may be likely to cause operating problems with the computer device.”
There are currently millions of software programs available. There is no
way to test every combination. Certainly, manufacturers try to warn you
about system requirements, but it is totally impossible to keep a fully
comprehensive list up to date.
Almost as impossible
is the requirement in Section 4c that the second attempt at repairs must
be made at the physical location of the consumer within three business
days and that the manufacturer cannot ask that the computer be shipped for
repairs. Given the shortage of qualified technicians and the number of
rural locations in Pennsylvania, this is a huge burden.
I know that your
intention is to protect your constituents from seriously defective
equipment. However, when the regulations are the same for a piece of
software that may cost less than $5.00 but requires a full disclosure
statement and repair procedure if it malfunctions, there is a problem.
Keeping up the paper trail alone in the service department will negate any
possible profit for the producers. It will mean the elimination of whole
classes of software programs and inexpensive equipment.
If this bill is
intended to protect consumers, I fear that you may find that has an
entirely different effect. It will give Pennsylvania consumers fewer
choices and higher costs.
Thank you again for
inviting me to testify on this important issue.
Linda K. Klose,
Executive Director
New Jersey-Pennsylvania Council
AeA, Advancing the Business of Technology
908-561-351
linda_klose@aeanet.org
This page was last updated on 06/01/04.
Copyright © 2004 American Electronics Association. All rights reserved.
|