Slashdot Mirror
SEC Decides Telcos Must Give Shareholders a Vote On Net Neutrality
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."
Shareholders will vote for what the company tells them will make the most money. This decision should not be left up to them or the telcos.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Not necessarily. A lot of this hubbub surrounds Mike D of Beastie Boys fame, who's an AT&T shareholder.
http://boingboing.net/2012/02/15/mike-d-for-net-neutrality.html
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...
-- no sig today
Yes, shareholders should have a say in the policy of companies they own, but net neutrality should most certainly not be left to shareholders. If shareholders were allowed to set the minimum wage a company will pay, they have a financial interest in voting for $0.
In a democracy, the government should work to ensure that the interests of the people are served. Net neutrality should be enforced by legislation.
Facts have a liberal bias.
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.
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
well, then we all need to buy 2 shares. Then we'd have 60% ownership.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
>Shareholders will vote for what the company tells them will make the most money. This decision should not be left up to them or the telcos
My first thought is: Just change ISPs once this happens.
My second thought is: Most of us don't have another option than one broadband provider.
God spoke to me
Oh please. You're watch too many indie "documentaries".
If all the shareholders in public companies were willing to sink the company for short term gains, companies wouldn't stay listed for more than a year. I think you'll find that generally isn't the case.
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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
It's a trial balloon. If the shareholders say "yes" then the government can point to shareholder support for their talking points. If the shareholders say "no" then the government can pull out the standard anti-business talking points.
Either way, it polarizes the issue and gives the politicians another opportunity for a self-serving speech.
Its pretty clear that the Telco's can word it in such a way that Tim Berners-Lee would vote the wrong way 8 times out of ten. I've seen many such proposals forced onto shareholders ballots which were worded in such a way that the reader was certain only Satan himself would vote for the proposal.
Besides that, given the hijacking of the term "net neutrality" over the last couple years its not safe to say you support Net Neutrality without a clarifying definition, because some companies have managed to twist the definition to the point that it means exactly the opposite of what you think.
Even Google fell off the bandwagon when they said this in the space of two sentences:
There is widespread agreement among all parties that outright blocking, impairing, or degrading Internet traffic should not be tolerated. Beyond that, we also believe that broadband carriers should have the flexibility to engage in a whole host of activities, including:
...
Prioritizing all applications of a certain general type, such as streaming video;
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
If I rely on smtp, I want higher priority than your voip.
You really can't have it both ways.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I think you're on to something there! If we each buy 4 shares, we'll have 120% ownership. That way, even if half of us don't support net neutrality, we'll still have a 60% majority in favor!
One definition of madness is doing again and again and again what failed first and hoping that the results will be different "this time"
One definition of evil is doing something, seeing that it is bad for people, and doing it again and again and again...
Having a "public authority" asking the shareholder to vote on what would be in effect an element of "self regulation" is either mad or evil, probably both.
It is worth while to read: ( http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/reviews/2010/12/ars-book-review-the-master-switch-by-tim-wu.ars ) The master switch
to learn about how again, and again the government supported the creation of private monopolies, and stronger business control on public expression and opinion.
The only justification for this would be if there would be some way to make the shareholder liable for the crimes of the management.
If the SEC would seriously think that the FCC might for a nationalisation or a breakup of the operators if they do not garanty network neutrality, then asking the Shareholder about their opinion would be somehow justified.
By the way this should not be an issue since the operators are supposedly liable for defaulting on their "common carrier" responsibilities, so asking the shareholder is basically: do you want us to comit a crime to make a lot of cash for you ? or would you prefer us to be honest.
(not that the PR agency would let them ask the question that way of course...)
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) 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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh please. You're watch too many indie "documentaries".
If all the shareholders in public companies were willing to sink the company for short term gains, companies wouldn't stay listed for more than a year. I think you'll find that generally isn't the case.
That's naive. And something went wrong with your short term memory (hint: banking crisis). Shareholder often keep their shares for only (fractions of) seconds - so what's preventing someone from buying lots of them, voting then selling off? Some shareholders even bet against themselves to limit their own risk...
Who owns those shares? Penson plans, 401(ks), Endowments, IRAs, etc. It's not all just Scrooge McDuck. I swear, the level of knowledge of some Slashdotters when it comes to dealings in the financial markets is laughable. Stick to flogging Linux.
Have Individual Taxpayers instruct government as to where their taxes are to be spent?
Of course if you don't trust the tax payers then rig the elections... Right!?
Maybe the same can apply to the telcos and with reduced traffic.... how will the investors respond.... Oh I know, raise prices and drive more away... yeah that will work.
There is also another telcos issue of the past.... they participated in violating the privacy rights of americans and were taken t0 cort byt those who hired them to do so (the government) let them off. Perhaps the share holders can vote on spying issues too?
Since when should foreign stakeholders get a vote as to how laws are built in the U.S.? Another problem with the SEC overstepping their bounds.
As soon as you guys force your government to stop interfering with the passing of laws in the rest of the world then I will cede you the moral high ground.
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.