Secrets of the City

Congress is way behind the curve on these kind of issues. Our current laws re teevee are just a warmed-over version of the Radio Act of 1927!

I’m no Libertarian, but in the the case of the Internet, the less government regulation and control, the better. What we need, are some basic rights that spell out what the government can’t do.

I think Sotomayor was right, it is the job of Congress to legislate. However, they could use some hints from the Court just what direction they should take…

I agree with Bob, but I also think net neutrality would be bad. I am currently unable to reconcile those two positions.

Why do people worry so much about what the government might do and so little about what corporations DO do?

I think it’s because you can always start a competing corporation if you don’t like what one corporation is doing, and you think you can do it better. You can’t start a competing government.

You obviously haven’t spoken to the Palins.

But I would be more supportive of government regulation because the process is more transparent, and the ability to air a grievance more public, than what happens in corporate board rooms.

I think it’s because you can always start a competing corporation if you don’t like what one corporation is doing, and you think you can do it better. You can’t start a competing government.

In a lot of cases, that’s not a realistic proposition either (starting a new company). The start up costs to launch an entirely brndn new internet are prohibitive.

So when there’s a natural monopoly/oligolopy (especially something that’s becaome so critical to society’s functioning), it’s entirely appropriate forthe government to step in with regulations.

It’s also much easier to avoid dealing with a corporation. Government, eh not so much.

It depends on what you mean by “avoid” and what you mean by “dealing with.” It is nearly impossible to have a life unaffected by corporate decision making.

The only way I get a say in the decisions corporations make is by being a stockholder or boycott; at least with government I get to vote against people I think make idiotic decisions.

If it were so easy to avoid horrible companies, Comcast wouldn’t be in business.

Max, being an individual stockholder only gets you anywhere if you are a member of a mutual fund or are an executive of another corporation that owns millions in stock. Proxy voting is the silencer of the individual stockholder.

Not to mention the nomination and voting methods of the board of directors.

One more thing, I guess the best chance us plebes have with dealing with large corporations is the government…granted, it doesn’t work very well…

How about that unless you have money invested in a company, you have no “right” to influence its decision making. With government, you have that right invariably.

That’s the whole crux of the argument, kwatt. Corporations owe us nothing, are not accountable to us. Yet they control and affect our lives in various ways.

I disagree kevin. I believe as a customer you have a right to influence at least some of their decisions.

Even more, I think a community has a right to influence their decision making. We have a right to influence that they not dump toxic wastes into our community. We have a right to influence that they not use a public safety net to subsidize the non-livable wages they pay their employees.

I also disagree with Kevs, especially when you look at towns and counties where one corporation effects their economic well being. Even if those people don’t invest or work at the company, the town depends on the revenue it brings in from taxes and employment. Whole towns can die or be irreparably damaged from the actions or demise of that corporation, yet often have very little say over its actions.

All of those things are true to a degree.

I was impressed with his questions, at least compared to the rest of them – this in particular was a good issue to bring up.