|
Does Google Harm Minority-Owned Businesses?
The impact of federal telecommunications policies on minority enterprises is at issue before the FCC. There are concerns that the Commission's net neutrality proceeding may harm civil rights. A leading watchdog organization explained that "if not carefully drafted, net neutrality rules could have the unintended effect of locking current disparities in place for years to come, thereby consigning minorities to a permanent digital underclass."
The Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, representing 16 national organizations, also raises the provocative issue of whether net neutrality requirements should be applied to search engines. The NGO states that they "are concerned about reports that Google is 'heavily biased towards established brands' and erects 'significant barrier[s] to new entrants and inevitably suppress[es] innovation.'"
MMTC warns that this "trend could have a particularly harmful impact on minority-owned businesses.... Search engine practices that assign visibility to businesses based on wealth rather than merit would impose a classic cycle of invisibility to minority enterprises: without access to capital they cannot secure visibility; but without visibility they cannot secure access to capital. Thus, the National Organizations fear repetition... of the...early days of radio and television when the Commission...did nothing to ensure that minorities would have a fair shot to secure an opportunity to participate in these industries."
The watchdog states that, irrespective of the decision on imposing new net neutrality regulations, "the Commission should open a proceeding to consider the impact of search engine practices on small and minority businesses."
MMTC's concerns deserve study. The FCC, in conjunction with SBA and the Minority Business Development Agency, should undertake an inquiry - in adherence with the principles in President Obama's Open Government Directive and the standards set by the Data Quality Act, to assess whether search engine company practices inadvertently harm small and minority-owned businesses.
See MMTC comments
|
The Anti-Stimulus Plan
The Obama Administration says the air needs to be further cleaned up. Winston says, first consider the consequences.
EPA estimates the cost of tightening the ground-level ozone standard at between $19-$90 billion, depending on where the permissible level is set. Benefits are estimated by the agency to be somewhere in the range of $13-$100 billion.
Before any rule is finalized, there needs to be a thorough understanding of its costs, including job losses and impacts on state and municipal budgets. EPA should identify, on a state-by-state basis, how many jobs of what types are likely to be lost. For example, EPA should estimate how many manufacturing jobs the rule would cost in Ohio.
The estimated costs and potential benefits of the rule, and the validity of the underlying studies, need to be subjected to strict scrutiny under the Data Quality Act. Key studies relied on by the agency will have to meet the DQA's reproducibility requirement for "influential" information and the agency must adhere to the OMB's Peer Review Bulletin and Updated Principles for Risk Assessment.
Studies relied on by EPA, and the agency's interpretations and conclusions, are subject to challenge and correction under the DQA.
NGOs such as the Environmental Defense Fund, Clean Air Watch and NRDC are pleased with EPA's proposal. Even environmental watchdogs, however, are hinting at some of the consequences of a final regulation. An NRDC official said that "counties that would be in violation would have to impose pollution curbs on businesses" while an EDF scientist described compliance as "not impossible."
With unemployment at 10% and many families and states in economic crisis, the Administration needs to decide how many billions they want spent to kill American jobs.
disclaimer
Copyright
Notice The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness [Copyright ©
2007]. All right reserved.
|
|
