Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday December 08 2016, @02:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the almost-time-for-another-antitrust-breakup dept.

AT&T and Time Warner were called before Congress today to defend their upcoming $85 billion merger and they played all of the antitrust bingo words in the book. We heard a lot about "investment," "competition," and "innovation" in the two-hour session — but no reasons to believe that this merger is a necessary path to producing any of those things. And bizarrely, AT&T and Time Warner seem to have unwittingly argued against their need to merge.

The testimony was an unexpected vote for the value of an open internet and higher-quality services from ISPs across the board. Their arguments hinged on the idea that offering more innovative services over the internet is a way to better compete with cable companies. But that has nothing to do with a content company becoming part of the network company, and everything to do with the fundamental nature of the internet as an open platform.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/7/13874118/att-time-warner-merger


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by KiloByte on Thursday December 08 2016, @03:35PM

    by KiloByte (375) on Thursday December 08 2016, @03:35PM (#438748)

    I especially don't get how one can argue that bribing^Wdonating to both sides can be anything but corruption. The whole stated reason is that the company would benefit if party X over Y wins because its policies are a gain for the company. Yet here they donate both to X and Y.

    --
    Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @03:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @03:57PM (#438752)

    Because freedom of speech! Yeah, something like that.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @04:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @04:41PM (#438759)

    That's not how corruption in DC works.

    They don't donate for quid pro quo because not only is that explicitly illegal, it's relatively easy to prosecute.

    They donate for access. Members of congress only have a limited amount of time, donations pay for some of that time. The donors gets to talk to the politician (and inversely that time isn't available for anyone else to talk to the politician). The net result is that politicians tend to only hear one side of the story. Its like corporate propaganda directed at the government rather than government propaganda directed at the citizens.

    If someone with an alternate viewpoint can make themselves heard, there is a good chance the politicians will listen. That's one of the functions of these hearings. But even going before a hearing requires resources, so you need organizations that work in the public interest.

    It also doesn't help that the typical congressperson spends 30 hours per week fundraising. [thehill.com] That's 30 hours each week listening to the opinions of people with money which is also 30 hours a week not listening to anyone else.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday December 08 2016, @05:33PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday December 08 2016, @05:33PM (#438772)

      That story is only part of it, although I agree that's certainly true as far as it goes.

      But there are other forms of corruption, too, that are both legal and common right now:
      - "Congressman, we've taken notice of the fact that you own 1500 shares of our company. It just so happens that the measure you are now considering would help the price of that significantly. Please remember that in the upcoming vote."
      - "Congressman, don't worry about whether this might cost you the upcoming election. Our industry association regularly employs former congressmen who took good care of us, and you might even get a raise out of it."
      - "Congressman, you know we like you, but if you make the wrong decision about this upcoming bill we just might have to support Jones back in your home district against you in the primary that's just a few months away."

      Basically, if somebody wants to create a financial incentive for somebody in government to do their bidding, they'll find a way to do it. And conversely, if people in government are willing to be bought, they will be.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @05:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @05:56PM (#438779)

        Sure, there are a ton of other ways to push congress around.
        But you cited campaign donations as proof that the fix was in.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @04:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @04:08AM (#439009)

      They don't donate for quid pro quo because not only is that explicitly illegal

      Oh, please. While they're not foolish enough to explicitly say they want quid pro quo, that is an implicit reason for their actions, and the politicians understand this well. Don't pretend that the politicians are just some clueless, helpless saps being taken advantage of.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:39PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:39PM (#438800) Journal

    I especially don't get how one can argue that bribing^Wdonating to both sides can be anything but corruption.

    Just like protestors are only allowed to protest when their guy is in office? The First Amendment doesn't make that distinction. I find it a bit ironic that one of the other repliers tried to be sarcastic by saying "Because freedom of speech!" But the First Amendment grants in addition to the right of freedom of speech, the right to petition for redress of grievances and it doesn't constrain that right in any way.

    And at least now, most of this is above board and public record. Make it illegal and they simply won't tell you about it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:27PM (#438851)

      > And at least now, most of this is above board and public record. Make it illegal and they simply won't tell you about it.

      That's bullshit.
      Make it illegal and they will try to conceal it.
      But at the very least making it illegal makes it more expensive, conspiracies are hard to enforce.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday December 09 2016, @12:01AM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday December 09 2016, @12:01AM (#438933)

      The First Amendment doesn't make that distinction. I find it a bit ironic that one of the other repliers tried to be sarcastic by saying "Because freedom of speech!" But the First Amendment grants in addition to the right of freedom of speech, the right to petition for redress of grievances and it doesn't constrain that right in any way.

      Why is it that the gift of money to a campaign is considered "speech"? That's the part that always confused me: Freedom of speech and the press says that government stop you from speaking. They don't say that you have the right to pay somebody else to do your speaking for you.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @04:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @04:15AM (#439013)

        So you think this issue is just about directly giving someone money and nothing else? Look at Citizens United again, because there was a speech element involved. There are things like campaign advertisements paid for by corporations, which is definitely speech.

        They don't say that you have the right to pay somebody else to do your speaking for you.

        So can the government censor video games because there was money involved in their production? What about other things that are clearly speech but require money to produce? I realize you're talking about politics here, but if we applied your logic consistently, it would have far-reaching consequences for freedom of speech.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 09 2016, @08:15AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 09 2016, @08:15AM (#439065) Journal

        Why is it that the gift of money to a campaign is considered "speech"?

        Why shouldn't it be? Betting is another example where speech and money are intimately entwined. For example, betting more money that something will happen, communicates that you have a higher confidence in the outcome.

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday December 09 2016, @10:02PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Friday December 09 2016, @10:02PM (#439423) Journal

          Why shouldn't it be? Betting is another example where speech and money are intimately entwined. For example, betting more money that something will happen, communicates that you have a higher confidence in the outcome.

          And yet, gambling is a HIGHLY regulated industry. Clearly the courts don't agree with you about *that* kind of money being speech...

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 10 2016, @07:54PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 10 2016, @07:54PM (#439780) Journal

            Clearly the courts don't agree with you about *that* kind of money being speech...

            That is quite true. I do disagree with the courts on this. But my point remains no matter how courts choose to interpret it.