dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
728
share rss forum feed


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

Shareholders won't vote for wireless net neutrality

Shareholders won't vote for wireless net neutrality no matter what the Beastie Boys want. All this did is get it on the ballot. With all of AT&T proxies controlled by the company, a vote FOR wireless neutrality will not happen by a very wide margin of votes.

P.S.>> AT&T, Verizon, & Sprint can challenge this SEC ruling in court:
»www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0···ays.html

Companies whose requests are declined by the SEC can challenge the regulator’s findings in court.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
I'm curious as to the politics behind this "requirement" by the SEC. It seems a little out of the SEC's lane IMO.

You are correct, net neutrality will not be voted in by shareholders.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
what ever happened to what consumers want?


industryshil

@verizon.net
you are free to vote with your wallet

fortunately, collusion solves that little problem

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to ArrayList
Why does the consumer matter in this context? This is business and a matter amongst the owners and managers. And as the shill that responded to you suggests, the consumer has a voice.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

1 edit
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

I'm curious as to the politics behind this "requirement" by the SEC. It seems a little out of the SEC's lane IMO.

SEC hasn't required telcos to vote on net neutrality specifically because it's net neutrality. Federal regulations has a procedure for allowing shareholders to present a proposal in a proxy statement if they have a $2000 or 1% interest in the company. The company can request the Commission to exclude the proposal on various grounds outlined in the link above. Most recently, multiple telcos have argued that network neutrality is not significant enough to the business to include it. The SEC has basically just said that it is a large enough of an issue in recent years to force a vote. The SEC isn't taking a position one way or another on how voters or a company should go, only that they need to put it to a vote.

In a way, it's not that different then collecting signatures to put an issue to a vote with the entire voting body (e.g. a referendum).

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
said by cdru:

Federal regulations has a procedure for allowing shareholders to present a proposal in a proxy statement if they have a $2000 or 1% interest in the company.

I'm aware of that. I guess I'm scratching my head as to why the SEC has changed its view now.
said by Bloomberg :

The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance had found in past years that similar net-neutrality proposals fell under the category of day-to-day business operations and that companies could exclude them from shareholder voting.

Network management is an operating aspect of the business. I would not expect, nor do I want, shareholders making business decisions that are technical issues. Perhaps shareholders should vote on which model of router the company's network engineers should employ?

Oh well, once again I doubt this will be an issue as shareholders likely won't vote for net neutrality.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
said by openbox9:

I'm aware of that. I guess I'm scratching my head as to why the SEC has changed its view now.

said by Bloomberg :

The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance had found in past years that similar net-neutrality proposals fell under the category of day-to-day business operations and that companies could exclude them from shareholder voting.

Network management is an operating aspect of the business. I would not expect, nor do I want, shareholders making business decisions that are technical issues. Perhaps shareholders should vote on which model of router the company's network engineers should employ?

In the actual SEC letter, it addresses this at the bottom of page 2:
quote:
We are unable to concur in your view that AT&T may exclude the proposal under rule 14a-8(i)(7). That provision allows the omission of a proposal that "deals with a matter relating to the company's ordinary business operations." 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 in reliance on rule 14a-8(i)(7).
Basically, they say that in the past they thought it wasn't that big of an issue, but now after it's been in the news much more, it's a significant policy decision of the company.

said by openbox9:

Oh well, once again I doubt this will be an issue as shareholders likely won't vote for net neutrality.

Probably, as shareholders are often looking at what is best for the bottom line, not other considerations. But by getting it onto the proxy statement officially, it also forces the telcos to comment officially and on the record for the matter. It was partially AT&T's official comments regarding the TMobile merger that caused people to rip through their merger proposal and ultimately led to it's demise. That merger was initially thought to get a rubber stamp approval when it was first announced...

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
Yes, I've read the letter. A policy issue rather than an operating issue. If this issue is of such public debate, then it should be resolved there, not in a board meeting by shareholders (that aren't the public).

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
said by openbox9:

Yes, I've read the letter. A policy issue rather than an operating issue. If this issue is of such public debate, then it should be resolved there, not in a board meeting by shareholders (that aren't the public).

The telcos don't operate in a vibrant, competitive market with low barriers of entry. Their actions influence the general well-being of the nation's telecommunications. Thus they need to have some accountability with regards to their stance on Net Neutrality.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
And it's appropriate to do this through the shareholders? You are one of the last people I thought I'd see that suggestion from.


ashrc4
Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

Why does the consumer matter in this context? This is business and a matter amongst the owners and managers. And as the shill that responded to you suggests, the consumer has a voice.

We just should be thankful we have any bandwidth.
Shareholder Providers not Service Providers.
--
Paradigm Shift beta test pilot. "Now is the not right time to stop folding."