i did my best with the ol' search but couldn't find a thread about this:
http://news.com.com/Defense+bill+could+stifle+computer+trade/2100-7341_3-5253873.html?tag=nefd.lede
"In a move that has re-energized the debate over export controls on high-performance computers, the latest version of a defense-spending bill would require companies to seek licenses to export even underpowered desktop computers.
The dramatic tightening of export regulations is included in the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual military funding bill that has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Though the proposed rules are only a tiny portion of the 630-page bill, they could have a devastating impact on the computer industry.
"It would bring exports to a grinding halt," said Dan Hoydish, director of trade, public policy and government affairs for Unisys and chairman of the Computer Coalition for Responsible Exports, a trade group that counts many major technology companies as members. "We wouldn't be asking for 20 export licenses in a year, we would be asking for 20,000 in a day."
Today, computer sellers are required to get a license to export any computer with performance equal to or greater than a system with 32 Intel Itanium processors. The current version of the defense authorization act would lower that limit to systems deemed "militarily critical" by the Department of Defense. That level is currently set to the equivalent of a computer using a Pentium 3 processor running at 650MHz, state of the art in 1999 but considered feeble today.
Moreover, the proposed rules would apply to exports destined for any country, including U.S. allies.
The controversial section is not included in a U.S. Senate version of the bill that passed last week. That means the fate of the proposed rules, known as Section 1404, will be determined by negotiations between the House and the Senate, currently slated for later this month.
A congressional staff member familiar with the House and Senate bills said it's likely Section 1404 will be changed or dropped. Still, just the specter of passage has rekindled the debate over whether to control the export of computer technologies to other countries. The issue pits the interests of a key U.S. industry against the needs of national security. Though relatively high-performance computers are widespread, lawmakers concerned with national security would still like to block certain countries and terrorist organizations from obtaining them.
A representative of the House Armed Services Committee, which drafted the amendment to the original House bill, said the legislation would reverse a trend that has weakened U.S. national security and made the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction much more likely. Supercomputers can be used in nuclear-weapons research, as well as in cryptography, antisubmarine warfare and intelligence activities.
"There shouldn't be much daylight between the Department of Defense and Commerce about what requires a license," said Harald Stavenas, spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who chairs the House Armed Services Committee. "The problem is that there is. Commerce (isn't controlling) things that have critical military applications...."
http://news.com.com/Defense+bill+could+stifle+computer+trade/2100-7341_3-5253873.html?tag=nefd.lede
"In a move that has re-energized the debate over export controls on high-performance computers, the latest version of a defense-spending bill would require companies to seek licenses to export even underpowered desktop computers.
The dramatic tightening of export regulations is included in the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual military funding bill that has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Though the proposed rules are only a tiny portion of the 630-page bill, they could have a devastating impact on the computer industry.
"It would bring exports to a grinding halt," said Dan Hoydish, director of trade, public policy and government affairs for Unisys and chairman of the Computer Coalition for Responsible Exports, a trade group that counts many major technology companies as members. "We wouldn't be asking for 20 export licenses in a year, we would be asking for 20,000 in a day."
Today, computer sellers are required to get a license to export any computer with performance equal to or greater than a system with 32 Intel Itanium processors. The current version of the defense authorization act would lower that limit to systems deemed "militarily critical" by the Department of Defense. That level is currently set to the equivalent of a computer using a Pentium 3 processor running at 650MHz, state of the art in 1999 but considered feeble today.
Moreover, the proposed rules would apply to exports destined for any country, including U.S. allies.
The controversial section is not included in a U.S. Senate version of the bill that passed last week. That means the fate of the proposed rules, known as Section 1404, will be determined by negotiations between the House and the Senate, currently slated for later this month.
A congressional staff member familiar with the House and Senate bills said it's likely Section 1404 will be changed or dropped. Still, just the specter of passage has rekindled the debate over whether to control the export of computer technologies to other countries. The issue pits the interests of a key U.S. industry against the needs of national security. Though relatively high-performance computers are widespread, lawmakers concerned with national security would still like to block certain countries and terrorist organizations from obtaining them.
A representative of the House Armed Services Committee, which drafted the amendment to the original House bill, said the legislation would reverse a trend that has weakened U.S. national security and made the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction much more likely. Supercomputers can be used in nuclear-weapons research, as well as in cryptography, antisubmarine warfare and intelligence activities.
"There shouldn't be much daylight between the Department of Defense and Commerce about what requires a license," said Harald Stavenas, spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who chairs the House Armed Services Committee. "The problem is that there is. Commerce (isn't controlling) things that have critical military applications...."