SEC Decides Telcos Must Give Shareholders a Vote On Net Neutrality 107
suraj.sun writes with a link about a SEC decision that telecommunications companies must give shareholders an annual vote on wireless net-neutrality resolutions. "The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has told AT&T and other telecommunications companies they must include a resolution supporting wireless net-neutrality in annual shareholder votes. In a letter posted on the SEC website, the agency asserted that net neutrality — the idea that Internet service providers must treat traffic equally — has become a significant policy consideration and can no longer be excluded from shareholder ballots. AT&T, Verizon and Sprint Nextel must now grant shareholder requests for votes this year on resolutions that would support net neutrality. In view of the sustained public debate over the last several years concerning net neutrality and the Internet and the increasing recognition that the issue raises significant policy considerations, we do not believe that AT&T may omit the proposal from its proxy materials, the SEC said in the Feb. 10 letter."
Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that is one out of the top 500 shareholders. Good luck convincing the other 499 Chauvinist pigs of what is the correct way. Almost every single one shareholder in history has voted for short time profits when given the option. That won't change soon; or at all...
This is a TERRIBLE idea (Score:5, Insightful)
In a democracy, the government should work to ensure that the interests of the people are served. Net neutrality should be enforced by legislation.
Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr (Score:5, Insightful)
You're adorable!
If every man, woman, and child in the United States, and Canada, and the UK, and Germany, and France, and Italy, and Spain, and Poland, and Switzerland, and Norway, and Sweden, and Denmark, and Japan, and South Korea, and Australia, and New Zealand (sorry if I left your country out!), we'd have about a billion shares.
AKA 30% ownership.
AKA less than the combined shares of just the top twenty shareholders. The #1 shareholder alone holds more shares than the adult population of the United States.
Sorry to disillusion you, but people really need to understand just how little power the 99% has.
Representative democracy and corporate democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Regular old representative democracy has had a hard time enshrining network neutrality in law. It will be telling if shareholders manage to secure it through "corporate democracy".
Whether a push for network neutrality through shareholder activism succeeds or fails, however, this appeal to shareholders on such a basic social issue is just a symptom of the creeping corporatization of American politics. The surrender to corporations of the right to make decisions on matters of fundamental social importance is frightening, but hey - corporations are people, right, and AT&T's just this guy who means well, you know?
Re:This is a TERRIBLE idea (Score:1, Insightful)
In a democracy, the government should...
Good thing the US is a constitutional republic.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr (Score:5, Insightful)
the government can pull out the standard anti-business talking points
Only in right-wing-nutball-land can a policy designed to ensure that all players have equal access to the information infrastructure be called "anti-business." For that matter, the idea that the US government is in any way, shape, or form "anti-business" is also strictly in wingnut territory.
Why can't they get net neutrality right? (Score:3, Insightful)
the idea that Internet service providers must treat traffic equally
The trouble is that when people treat QoS the sme as Net Neutrality they then believe invalid arguments like bittorrent will swamp VOIP or somesuch nonsense.
Net neutrality is not about treating all traffic equally.
Net neutrality is about not discriminating based on source/destination.
Entirely different. In fact, being all IP, 4G networks will make heavy use of QoS ( http://4gwirelessjobs.com/articles/article-detail.php?QOS-over-4G-networks&Arid=MTU2&Auid=MTIy [4gwirelessjobs.com]) to prioritise voice. That doesn't mean that htey nobble google because they haven't been given a huge kickback.
If it's done properly, you could do P2P transfers over VOIP QoS, though it would be eye-wateringly expensive.
Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody's stopping you from opening your new factory. Many localities would welcome it.
Oh wait, you want to pay the people next to nothing, not give a damn about their safety inside the factory, and be free to belch your toxic shit all over the environment. Yeah, no. You can't do that. But to have the laughable notion that these things are somehow "anti-business" shows that you shouldn't even be managing the night shift at a Denny's.