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 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.