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."

Comments

Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wrong

[Kenja]

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.

Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr

[justforgetme]

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

[grahamsaa]

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.

Re:This is a TERRIBLE idea

[TubeSteak]

If shareholders were allowed to set the minimum wage a company will pay, they have a financial interest in voting for $0.

Your faith in the American people is seriously lacking.
Companies frequently fight off shareholder initiatives that are socially responsible and would slightly lower profits.

The first organization I recall is The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility.
It is comprised of churchs and religious organizations that use their investments to push socially responsible corporate governance.
I only know of them because it grew out of an (eventually successful) effort to force American companies to stop doing business with/in apartheid South Africa.

Of course, these days socially responsible shareholders have to go up against hedgefunds and other Wal Street financial firms that are managing deep pools of money and chasing short term profits instead of social and corporate responsibility.

Re:This is a TERRIBLE idea

[rtb61]

Here's a little share holder game. Company A has very socially responsible share holders, the require the company to pay top wages and only charge 10% profits. The income generated by the company defines it share price. Now along come a bunch of dicks led by Ritt Momney and the company he runs Cain Bapital. Now they see how well the company is run and how great it's reputation is and, they know they can really capitalise on this.

So they offer say 50% more per share than the company is worth and naturally enough buy the company. They now shift the debt, the money the borrowed to buy the company on to the company, fire all the workers and only rehire say 75% of the ones who will accept a 75% pay and demand they increase their productivity by 25%, otherwise the company will go broke trying to repay the debt Ritt Momney and Cain Bapital dumped on the company.

They also decide to screw the customers, basically running down service, support and quality of product to practically nothing. They then on sell the company to gullible investors highlighting the low labour costs and high profit margins (based on about to disappear customers due to appalling service, support and quality) and obfuscating the debt by focusing on return on capital (value of all the assets of the company less debt, you might think that is crazy but that is the way finances work). They sell the company at a huge profit and run away before it all blows up due to, appalling service, support and quality, disappearing customers as the companies reputation goes up in flames, an unhappy experienced labour force all looking to get another job and quit, and massive debt with reduced sales coming home to roost.

Basically if it ain't legislated psychopath executives will screw it up every single time (consider the about tactic would be executed with full and complete foreknowledge of the outcome, company bankrupt, all the workers fired and the gullible investors loose pretty much everything, hell, Ritt and Bain will even make financial bets that the company will go belly up, they did after all set it up that way).

Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr

[artor3]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr

[king neckbeard]

well, then we all need to buy 2 shares. Then we'd have 60% ownership.

Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:Shareholder interest is in profits not right/wr

[artor3]

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!