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: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:39PM
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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.