SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @04:41PM
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
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
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
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.