Many today were let down as Congress came to a close early. Among those bills that not addressed was the Economic Investment and Job Recovery Act, drafted by the committee of Science and Technology.
The Economic Investment and Job Recovery Act aimed to provide stability and incentive for venture capital start-up businesses. The bill claims that it will do this by “creating greater financial flexibility and security in critical early years” by “maximiz[ing] potential profit during the first five years of business”, and by “creat[ing] jobs for small business entrepreneurs, and increase[ing] the likelihood for the continuation of their operations”.
The Committee then says that technological innovation will increase by up to 22% and that it will create stability for up to 14.5 million new jobs over the next 15 years.
This seems exciting and promising until on the very next line the bill specifically says, “The Economic Investment and Job Recovery Act eliminates financial challenges for start-up ISP businesses.”
The way that it was going to do this was by providing the new hardware and resource access that would have otherwise been unavailable and by insuring equal access to existing Local-Loop infrastructure by reducing start-up costs for new ISPs.
It also promises that larger companies will not be able to buy ‘faster speeds’ to improve its own competitiveness above the new businesses.
Huge tax breaks and deductibles are offered to these new ISPs and there is even additional funding as a function of every American citizen hired by the business so long as they are paid over the poverty line.
The further I read the more this seems to benefit only a small population of people. The bill is unclear in its language regarding who will be receiving these benefits, small businesses in general or only Internet Service Providers? Small businesses (such as the type that usually pop up) only need to be able to access the Internet.
I find it hard to believe that there would be so many new ISPs popping up that it would make such a difference in jobs, or a difference in anything for that matter. For Internet Service Providers people tend to choose companies and businesses that have been in business for a while, companies that their friends recommend, companies that are going to last. You try a new restaurant or store that opens, not a new Internet provider.
In a day where just about everyone has Internet, it is not a contract that you change lightly.
I believe that had this bill gone to congress other pressing issues would have come up. Such as, ‘What if people begin to start up these businesses as a way to get money for the government, and then close them after 5 years?’ There could potentially be some serious consequences for people who buy in to these businesses.
If they get so many tax breaks, and deductibles, and low cost (sometimes free) services for starting up an ISP, what sort of crooked person wouldn’t want to start one? Charge a competitive price, make money from innocent people just trying to get Internet, and then duck out after 5 years. These people are potentially low income households who are trying to save money and think that by getting with one of these companies they can get a better deal. The people who will be working for these companies must also be considered. “Over the poverty line” could mean just barely.
In an ideal World filled with good, honest people, this bill has many great ideas to help out start up businesses. Sadly, however, ours is no one of those Worlds.
Overall, the committee needs to look over some of the provisions they are suggesting and some amendments would probably need to be made before this bill could have been passed.
Business does need to be created in order to stir the economy, but this bill is too vague to really understand how it intends to do that by only providing for ISPs.
-Lauren Bowers, Political Analyst, The Bellringer
No comments:
Post a Comment