Fibertel protest demonstration
- Thread starter SaraSara
- Start date
SaraSara said:
Sorry Sara but 'es lo que hay' it was taken 'as it is' from the net I didn't make it maybe is from some Mexican blog guy, who knows, check the address on the image and you will find out....
BTW, don't forget to take with you the Cacerola de Teflon.
Cheers
SaraSara said:Sorry, I have no no Teflon cacerolas, only French copper-bottom cookware. My kitchen staff demands the best.
BTW, how come you could add my glorious name to the picture but were not able to edit out the Spanish error?
It was written already 'as it is' Sara so I thought this banner is a perfect fit for Sarita and obviously it did the trick to focus your attention.
On the topic regarding Fibertel, you know, I know and everyone knows that Cablevision went over the line with this, but because of the 'no pasa nada' they went ahead with it regardless of what the law demands and now they do not want to face their own bad decisions...but hey! what for are the rest of the multimedia group and associates if not to deny and smear the truth of the facts, that is for what they are for, isn't?.
Hostile media monopoly struggling to operate in a country where business is dependent on political patronage?
Who'd a thunk it.
Worth bearing in mind that Clarin grew to their size and stature through being granted licences and concessions from none other than Nestor Kirchner, back when they were supportive of him.
They should never have been granted the concessions in the first place.
Who'd a thunk it.
Worth bearing in mind that Clarin grew to their size and stature through being granted licences and concessions from none other than Nestor Kirchner, back when they were supportive of him.
They should never have been granted the concessions in the first place.
French jurist
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 4,250
- Likes
- 3,391
SaraSara said:Sorry, I have no no Teflon cacerolas, only French copper-bottom cookware. My kitchen staff demands the best.
BTW, how come you could add my glorious name to the picture but were not able to edit out the Spanish error?
You are famous up to Mexico ! Don't
blushEternalnewbie
Registered
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2010
- Messages
- 114
- Likes
- 46
If anyone's interested in other opinions, here are two translations on the subject.
Clarin
August 21, 2010
Op-ed by Ricardo Roa
“Against Clarin or against the people?”
There is no doubt that the intent to make Fibertel disappear is a part of a war: one which the Government wages against Clarin. Nor is there any doubt that the Kirchners use whatever means to do so, not caring if they are legal or not. And without worrying about the consequences.
Fibertel has more than a million customers and many more users that access the Internet by a single connection and who are now under the threat of being without Internet. If one counts the hours at work, people spend more time on the Internet than in front of the television.
One can only understand this through the logic of wanting to harm Clarin that the Government did not predict what any specialist knows: some 3.2 million people will be without Internet because the telephone companies will not be able to absorb Fibertel’s clients in the 90 day period that the Government itself has imposed. Via Twitter, thousands sent an average of a message a minute against the official decision. And on Facebook, the major social network, groups were created against the closure that in just a few hours had more than 23,000 followers.
Such havoc was wrought that there are already complaints filed with the consumer protection agencies because the Government will leave consumers without options and they will have only one company with whom to contact Internet use.
The justification for this measure is just as clumsy as the measure itself: they say that Fibertel had dissolved as a company. The fact is that it has been absorbed for some seven years by Cablevision. It is not by chance that just until recently they remember this fact. Nor have there been any indications or summary proceedings as would correspond in this situation.
In the everything matters of “el kirchnerismo,” the only thing that matters is the accumulation of power. Today the target is Clarin. Tomorrow it can be any other medium and whoever stands up to arbitrariness.
Clarin
August 22, 2010
Editorial
“The Government advances against Papel Prensa to control the printed word”
After their defeat in the legislative elections last year, the national government rejected all channels of self-criticism. On the contrary, they defended themselves with the erratic conviction that their being discredited before the citizenry, expressed with eloquence at the voting booths, was based on the presumed negative influence of the media outlets. And as a result of this conclusion for which there is scarce liberal precedent, affiliated with the methods and actions characteristic of the most intensely oppressive regimes, was developed a strategy of hostility and persecution toward those journalistic voices critical of the government’s actions. The mentor of this plan was and is Nestor Kirchner, along with his highest counselors, among them the secretary of legal and technical, Carlos Zannini. And the objective, never as appropriately applied to bellicose or militant reminiscence, has and is, primarily, the Clarin Group and its media outlets.
And so it is, through a combination of actions, in an unedited and incessant forceps operation, of which were central points of the Media Law, now impugned before the Court; the persecution and cruelty against Marcela and Felipe Noble Herrera, children of Clarin’s owner; the planned and gradual hostility toward the fusion of the Multicanal and Cablevision, contrary to the decisions of the first government of Nestor Kirchner, until arriving at the recent and clumsy maneuver to remove from the company the provision to provide Internet service through Fibertel. On top of that the major trophy: to assume control, by whatever means and against any legal constitutional principle, of the assets of Papel Prensa through the fabrication of a totally false story, hostile and typical of a quasi-governmental organization. With the aggravating factor that in order to do so they put all the power of the State behind it, marrow of the society.
The absolute control of Papel Prensa, for which they have been announcing a “final report,” is a decision already taken: the Government seeks to take over the assets and control the company, to manage the production of local paper for the printing of newspapers and subject in this manner the independent press until it arrives at a docile cohabitation with power. A scheme which hides its roots in the most arcane forms of politics.
Why is Papel Prensa so coveted by the Government that it makes power a continuous and unlimited ostentation of mere force against the unadorned Law. Let’s make a quick review. Papel Prensa was born as an answer to the necessity of the country to rely on a national industry of paper production for the newspapers, the basic material of the written press. The principal shareholders of the company are Clarin (49%), La Nacion (22.49%), and the GOA (27.46% direct and 0.62% of the official news agency, Telam) Papel Prensa is the principal provider of newspaper for the country and supplies 75 percent of the national consumption. The remaining 25 percent of the paper is imported without any type of tariff or tax, which puts the company in a competitive situation that no other industry in the country faces: competition with imported products without any type of protection.
Up until the creation of the company, the paper on which newspapers were printed in Argentina was imported. The newspaper editors depended on the paper importers, the fluctuation of the dollar, and in particular, the import restrictions that the governments at the time applied to control, pressure, and in some cases forced to yield to the written mediums.
With this perception of control over independent editorial judgments of the written press, is that with which the Government seeks to take control of the assets and control at its whim the company, as a part of its obsession over the domestication of journalistic voices that it has not yet managed to subdue or at least standardize in line with its interests and necessities.
These, and not others, are the reasons for which the company has been a target for quite some time now in the escalation of violence and intimidation against its directors, to an equal or greater degree and intensity to the threats and harassment that the media outlets suffer in the country and the journalists in general. It is necessary to underscore that the true ambition of the Government is to control the local supply of paper to newspapers, that combined with the control of imports, would put in its hands a decisive power of pressure over newspaper outlets.
This explains the escalation against Papel Prensa and its private shareholders, subjected to arbitrariness, insults, arrogant rampages of a minor ranking official like Commerce Secretary Guillermo Moreno, hardly just an obedient and objective spokesperson, the most grotesque face of political power. His well-known and pathetic shows of bravado do little favor to the democratic culture of Argentina and only feed a climate of excess and undervaluing systematically the function of media outlets and journalists, in a strange official interpretation of freedom of the press only understood when one thinks just as the transitory inhabitants of the Casa Rosada [equivalent to the White House] want and are disposed to.
And so it is, the first charge against Papel Prensa was sustained by the first accusation of administrative irregularities, that they were never able to demonstrate. Simply because none existed nor do they exist. Today, the line of argument most advanced by the government seeks to connect Papel Prensa to crimes against humanity. This false argument, reinforced by an unusual campaign of insults and falsehoods, affirms that the shares were purchased from the Graiver family, the original owners, when they were kidnapped and tortured by the then military dictatorship.
To construct their own “story,” accompanied by the incessant propagandistic onslaught vis-à-vis various outlets and allied journalists, as much in public as in private, the Government twists the facts, alters its timeline and never doubts in cheapening a noble cause and universal ethical principles like human rights, emblazoned without a doubt in the popular conscience of the Argentines, and not as a result of the work of this Government, but rather as a result of a long process of political construction that includes the immense civil tragedy of the dictatorship.
The historic truth is that the shares were bought from the Graiver Group in November 1976 by the newspapers Clarin, La Nacion, and la Razon, when this Group encountered financial and society problems, with the bankruptcy of two banks overseas, and when the group could not continue with the construction project of the plant. In this moment all members of the Group were free and none of them were under threat from the dictatorship. Moreover, at the time the shares were transferred, it was unknown that the Graiver Group had a connection to the armed organization, the Montoneros, a connection that in 1977 would lead to the reprehensible kidnapping of various members of the Graiver Group by the military government.
That is what happened. The members of the Graiver family were illegally detained five months after the sale of the Papel Prensa shares, when it came to light David Graiver’s financial relationship with the Montoneros. David Graiver is also accused of having received a sum of one million dollars from the Montoneros to administer and invest.
Prior to this share transaction, the newspapers Clarin, La Nacion, and La Razon had already elaborated on a project that they considered strategic for the Argentine press. At the time the three newspapers managed this project to construct their own paper plant, a project they put aside to buy Papel Prensa.
Once democracy was established with the government of Raul Alfonsin, the members of the Graiver family knew to honor the truth, the same way that the Papaleo brothers, who never had any shares of Papel Prensa degrade it, with a conceptual bend that is difficult to explain. When Lidia Papaleo testified before the Court about the facts that surrounded that sale, she never made reference to the fact that that it took place while she was illegally detained or under threat from the military dictatorship.
From a reading of her judicial statements it is clear that when the Papel Prensa shares were sold, the members of the Graiver Group were free. The Court established the dates of their illegal detentions from their own testimonies, and ruled that the cause of the kidnappings was the connection of David Gravier to the Montoneros.
That financial connection of Graiver with the Montoneros was investigated twice by the Court after the return to democracy, over the course of ten years. In 1986, Congress determined it to be the case that David Graiver had received this money from the Montoneros.
Lidia Papaleo and her brother, Osvaldo, with an orthodox peronist militancy, have come to contradict themselves in recent months, openly, unexpectedly, and with the consistency suggestive of Kirchnerismo, a position that is not the same one they testified to before the Court during the times when democracy had returned. In their consciences, more than in the historic truth, one would have to drudge up some footprint to justify such an abrupt turnaround.
The expropriation of Papel Prensa, although dressed up in the clothing of human rights, only looks to the unconditional subjugation of the written word, as part of a central process of improper social domination over the democratic systems. Nestor Kirchner and his wife, the President, after guaranteeing a law that regulates with notable influence the state of the media and after arbitrarily advancing against the freedom to choose of Internet users, now clear the path to control the flow of information by written word. For this reason they target the basic material of the same: paper. Without paper there are no newspapers. And without newspapers, even in times of the increase of Internet and its social networks, the written word, that continues to summarize the most long-lasting sense of freedom and of criticism, becomes poorer and void of meaning. Until it weakens. Or until it resists and honors its worthy history.
Clarin
August 21, 2010
Op-ed by Ricardo Roa
“Against Clarin or against the people?”
There is no doubt that the intent to make Fibertel disappear is a part of a war: one which the Government wages against Clarin. Nor is there any doubt that the Kirchners use whatever means to do so, not caring if they are legal or not. And without worrying about the consequences.
Fibertel has more than a million customers and many more users that access the Internet by a single connection and who are now under the threat of being without Internet. If one counts the hours at work, people spend more time on the Internet than in front of the television.
One can only understand this through the logic of wanting to harm Clarin that the Government did not predict what any specialist knows: some 3.2 million people will be without Internet because the telephone companies will not be able to absorb Fibertel’s clients in the 90 day period that the Government itself has imposed. Via Twitter, thousands sent an average of a message a minute against the official decision. And on Facebook, the major social network, groups were created against the closure that in just a few hours had more than 23,000 followers.
Such havoc was wrought that there are already complaints filed with the consumer protection agencies because the Government will leave consumers without options and they will have only one company with whom to contact Internet use.
The justification for this measure is just as clumsy as the measure itself: they say that Fibertel had dissolved as a company. The fact is that it has been absorbed for some seven years by Cablevision. It is not by chance that just until recently they remember this fact. Nor have there been any indications or summary proceedings as would correspond in this situation.
In the everything matters of “el kirchnerismo,” the only thing that matters is the accumulation of power. Today the target is Clarin. Tomorrow it can be any other medium and whoever stands up to arbitrariness.
Clarin
August 22, 2010
Editorial
“The Government advances against Papel Prensa to control the printed word”
After their defeat in the legislative elections last year, the national government rejected all channels of self-criticism. On the contrary, they defended themselves with the erratic conviction that their being discredited before the citizenry, expressed with eloquence at the voting booths, was based on the presumed negative influence of the media outlets. And as a result of this conclusion for which there is scarce liberal precedent, affiliated with the methods and actions characteristic of the most intensely oppressive regimes, was developed a strategy of hostility and persecution toward those journalistic voices critical of the government’s actions. The mentor of this plan was and is Nestor Kirchner, along with his highest counselors, among them the secretary of legal and technical, Carlos Zannini. And the objective, never as appropriately applied to bellicose or militant reminiscence, has and is, primarily, the Clarin Group and its media outlets.
And so it is, through a combination of actions, in an unedited and incessant forceps operation, of which were central points of the Media Law, now impugned before the Court; the persecution and cruelty against Marcela and Felipe Noble Herrera, children of Clarin’s owner; the planned and gradual hostility toward the fusion of the Multicanal and Cablevision, contrary to the decisions of the first government of Nestor Kirchner, until arriving at the recent and clumsy maneuver to remove from the company the provision to provide Internet service through Fibertel. On top of that the major trophy: to assume control, by whatever means and against any legal constitutional principle, of the assets of Papel Prensa through the fabrication of a totally false story, hostile and typical of a quasi-governmental organization. With the aggravating factor that in order to do so they put all the power of the State behind it, marrow of the society.
The absolute control of Papel Prensa, for which they have been announcing a “final report,” is a decision already taken: the Government seeks to take over the assets and control the company, to manage the production of local paper for the printing of newspapers and subject in this manner the independent press until it arrives at a docile cohabitation with power. A scheme which hides its roots in the most arcane forms of politics.
Why is Papel Prensa so coveted by the Government that it makes power a continuous and unlimited ostentation of mere force against the unadorned Law. Let’s make a quick review. Papel Prensa was born as an answer to the necessity of the country to rely on a national industry of paper production for the newspapers, the basic material of the written press. The principal shareholders of the company are Clarin (49%), La Nacion (22.49%), and the GOA (27.46% direct and 0.62% of the official news agency, Telam) Papel Prensa is the principal provider of newspaper for the country and supplies 75 percent of the national consumption. The remaining 25 percent of the paper is imported without any type of tariff or tax, which puts the company in a competitive situation that no other industry in the country faces: competition with imported products without any type of protection.
Up until the creation of the company, the paper on which newspapers were printed in Argentina was imported. The newspaper editors depended on the paper importers, the fluctuation of the dollar, and in particular, the import restrictions that the governments at the time applied to control, pressure, and in some cases forced to yield to the written mediums.
With this perception of control over independent editorial judgments of the written press, is that with which the Government seeks to take control of the assets and control at its whim the company, as a part of its obsession over the domestication of journalistic voices that it has not yet managed to subdue or at least standardize in line with its interests and necessities.
These, and not others, are the reasons for which the company has been a target for quite some time now in the escalation of violence and intimidation against its directors, to an equal or greater degree and intensity to the threats and harassment that the media outlets suffer in the country and the journalists in general. It is necessary to underscore that the true ambition of the Government is to control the local supply of paper to newspapers, that combined with the control of imports, would put in its hands a decisive power of pressure over newspaper outlets.
This explains the escalation against Papel Prensa and its private shareholders, subjected to arbitrariness, insults, arrogant rampages of a minor ranking official like Commerce Secretary Guillermo Moreno, hardly just an obedient and objective spokesperson, the most grotesque face of political power. His well-known and pathetic shows of bravado do little favor to the democratic culture of Argentina and only feed a climate of excess and undervaluing systematically the function of media outlets and journalists, in a strange official interpretation of freedom of the press only understood when one thinks just as the transitory inhabitants of the Casa Rosada [equivalent to the White House] want and are disposed to.
And so it is, the first charge against Papel Prensa was sustained by the first accusation of administrative irregularities, that they were never able to demonstrate. Simply because none existed nor do they exist. Today, the line of argument most advanced by the government seeks to connect Papel Prensa to crimes against humanity. This false argument, reinforced by an unusual campaign of insults and falsehoods, affirms that the shares were purchased from the Graiver family, the original owners, when they were kidnapped and tortured by the then military dictatorship.
To construct their own “story,” accompanied by the incessant propagandistic onslaught vis-à-vis various outlets and allied journalists, as much in public as in private, the Government twists the facts, alters its timeline and never doubts in cheapening a noble cause and universal ethical principles like human rights, emblazoned without a doubt in the popular conscience of the Argentines, and not as a result of the work of this Government, but rather as a result of a long process of political construction that includes the immense civil tragedy of the dictatorship.
The historic truth is that the shares were bought from the Graiver Group in November 1976 by the newspapers Clarin, La Nacion, and la Razon, when this Group encountered financial and society problems, with the bankruptcy of two banks overseas, and when the group could not continue with the construction project of the plant. In this moment all members of the Group were free and none of them were under threat from the dictatorship. Moreover, at the time the shares were transferred, it was unknown that the Graiver Group had a connection to the armed organization, the Montoneros, a connection that in 1977 would lead to the reprehensible kidnapping of various members of the Graiver Group by the military government.
That is what happened. The members of the Graiver family were illegally detained five months after the sale of the Papel Prensa shares, when it came to light David Graiver’s financial relationship with the Montoneros. David Graiver is also accused of having received a sum of one million dollars from the Montoneros to administer and invest.
Prior to this share transaction, the newspapers Clarin, La Nacion, and La Razon had already elaborated on a project that they considered strategic for the Argentine press. At the time the three newspapers managed this project to construct their own paper plant, a project they put aside to buy Papel Prensa.
Once democracy was established with the government of Raul Alfonsin, the members of the Graiver family knew to honor the truth, the same way that the Papaleo brothers, who never had any shares of Papel Prensa degrade it, with a conceptual bend that is difficult to explain. When Lidia Papaleo testified before the Court about the facts that surrounded that sale, she never made reference to the fact that that it took place while she was illegally detained or under threat from the military dictatorship.
From a reading of her judicial statements it is clear that when the Papel Prensa shares were sold, the members of the Graiver Group were free. The Court established the dates of their illegal detentions from their own testimonies, and ruled that the cause of the kidnappings was the connection of David Gravier to the Montoneros.
That financial connection of Graiver with the Montoneros was investigated twice by the Court after the return to democracy, over the course of ten years. In 1986, Congress determined it to be the case that David Graiver had received this money from the Montoneros.
Lidia Papaleo and her brother, Osvaldo, with an orthodox peronist militancy, have come to contradict themselves in recent months, openly, unexpectedly, and with the consistency suggestive of Kirchnerismo, a position that is not the same one they testified to before the Court during the times when democracy had returned. In their consciences, more than in the historic truth, one would have to drudge up some footprint to justify such an abrupt turnaround.
The expropriation of Papel Prensa, although dressed up in the clothing of human rights, only looks to the unconditional subjugation of the written word, as part of a central process of improper social domination over the democratic systems. Nestor Kirchner and his wife, the President, after guaranteeing a law that regulates with notable influence the state of the media and after arbitrarily advancing against the freedom to choose of Internet users, now clear the path to control the flow of information by written word. For this reason they target the basic material of the same: paper. Without paper there are no newspapers. And without newspapers, even in times of the increase of Internet and its social networks, the written word, that continues to summarize the most long-lasting sense of freedom and of criticism, becomes poorer and void of meaning. Until it weakens. Or until it resists and honors its worthy history.
French jurist
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 4,250
- Likes
- 3,391
Apart of the fibertel debate (anyway, I don't see the fibertel connection just disappear, at worse it would be absorbed by a new structure), the Ley de Medios has been quite approved internationally, for example by "Reporters sans frontières" (reporters without frontiers), see http://es.rsf.org/argentina-la-pequena-revolucion-mediatica-de-14-10-2009,34709.html
Eternalnewbie said:
That is a very, very well balanced couple of opinions Eternalnewbie, the only problem is that they belong to the same monopolistic group, so I think they are a little biased in favor to themselves...don't you think?
The other side of the case Fibertel
by Mr. Google Crappy Translator
What the opposition does not mention, nor does K administration, is that if the opposition Grupo Clarín has a monopoly in that market is because three years ago, the government approved the merger of Cablevision and Multichannel. And it was also merged the two companies internet service that relied on these firms: Flash and Fibertel. At that time, much of the opposition maintained a complicit silence.
Thus, the favors granted by the national government made that a group like Clarín acquire a dominant position in that market, an owner of Digital Media Company (CMD), Fibertel (60%), Clarín.com, Internet City, Fullzero , Flash broadband Vontel (Broadband Telephony), International CMD, CMD Do Brasil, Clarin.com (Spain), Másoportunidades.com Guide Clarin.com, deAutos.com, Ubbi.com, DePagos.com, Confronte.com and Datamarkets.
This adds to the hegemonic control of cable TV, which makes a city such as La Plata, citizens have no choice: if you are unhappy with the service that Cablevision can not choose another company because Multichannel, formerly competition, is now part of the same group.
"While the revocation is a political decision, the license was irregular Fibertel from all points of view and Grupo Clarin himself knew this could happen," he told a government official today. The danger of this situation is that, after the dissolution of Fibertel, the Government launched a new monopoly, which serves the political interests of Kirchnerism. The Phantom of the phone to take absolute power of the Internet market is dormant.
In this context, the Planning Minister Julio De Vido, said yesterday that "the company Fibertel no longer exists, by choice of the same, which dissolved in 2009, when he delivered his concession and that concession Cablevision never had been approved. "
De Vido said that "this provision has never had the approval of the national government through the National Communications Commission, which is the regulatory body, or the Ministry of Communications which is the application entity."
"This is a serious irregularity, we became friends for 20 days to stop selling the service and we responded with a sales promotion campaign the next day, even they acknowledged in late 2009, the London Stock Exchange, the risk Cablevision meant having a license to operate without the authorization of the national state, "concluded the minister.
Move by the opposition: they want to rescind the resolution
The opposition will present today a bill in the House of Representatives to overturn the decision announced Thursday by the government to decline the license of the company Fibertel as Internet service provider.
Source: Diario Hoy
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| O | Best WIFI: Arnet or Fibertel? | Expat Life | 11 | |
|
Fibertel poor service...how about yours? | Expat Life | 6 | |
|
Re: Cablevision/Fibertel....rate reduction for users of their service(s) | Expat Life | 22 | |
|
Internet service IPlan vs Fibertel | Expat Life | 5 | |
| C | No Fibertel internet in 3 days | Expat Life | 6 |