[Net Neutrality is] not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked,' writes AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of Legislative Affairs, James Cicconi.
Last I checked, Netflix has never paid such fees before, nor has anybody else. I.e. net neutrality has being how it has always worked. This latest racket targetting Netflix happened just months after an FCC Net Neutrality rule was over-turned by courts on a technicality. I.e. said rule was in force previously, and ISPs were following said rule. Fuck these rent-sucking vampires. Does this sort of thing happen in non-US jurisiction at all? Or is this just the US' latest gift to the world after software patents?
The listing terms that the HKEx finds objectionable are centered around the proposed structure of the company, which would allow their 28 partners to control a majority of the board [reuters.com] - even though they only own around 13 percent of the company. Apparently, the HKEx regulators still cling to the quaint notion that small investors are important. I guess those HK guys have a thing or two left to learn about how real capitalism works.
Non-voting shares are pretty standard in public stock corporations world-wide. Indeed HKEx itself runs such schemes, namely it's OTC Clearing subsidiary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Exchanges_and_Clearing#History
OTC Clearing Hong Kong Limited (OTC Clear) was incorporated as a subsidiary of HKEx in May 2012 for the purpose of acting as the clearing house for OTC derivatives in Hong Kong. Subsequently, HKEx, under the founding member programme, invited 12 financial institutions as founding members of OTC Clear, who in total hold 25 per cent of issued share capital in OTC Clear (in the form of non-voting ordinary shares) whilst HKEx holds the remaining 75 per cent. HKEx continues to hold 100 per cent of the voting ordinary shares of OTC Clear.
Many publicly traded companies listed in HK in fact have 75%+ of shares owned or controlled by one entity, which has the same net effect as non-voting shares, since such an ownership majority can impose it's will regardless. HKEx has intimated that their true concerns revolve around mainland Chinese court procedures not being amenable to minority shareholders, although if they want to push that, that kind of calls into question HKEx's entire raison d'etre. AFAIK, HK courts can still enforce transfers of shares themselves as judgements, and if HKEx is worried about things that go on outside of HK jurisdiction then most companies traded on HKEx shouldn't be listed there. Realistically, HKEx is known for allowing plenty of shady practices that make it a bourse of last resort, and maybe they decided to stand up here just so they have some pretense of respectability.